DUST Search - Tank Spam vs Protostomping

All Channels

General Discussions

Tank Spam vs Protostomping

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2817	Posted - 2014.02.13 03:07:00 - [61] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Where are all the lists of people who call in 4 or 5 tanks and ruin matches? There hasn't been a time I've played in two or three weeks when I didn't just end up turning Dust off because of tanks. It really bothers me because there are more factors than just the tanks here. 1) I may not be fortunate enough to have tanks on my side 2) I may not have any FGers on my side When the tanks get called in and one side dominates the field with vehicles the blueberries on their side get this boost of confidence and the are running around cleaning up the few people trying to layout mines (which seems to be the best light infantry tactic) or land swarm volleys. The last few weeks is the lowest my KDR has been in over a year. I'm not that worried about that, but it means it's gotten expensive. I just don't see why these win buttons are allowed in pub matches. They are ruining them. They are 1000x worse than the Calogi, the TAC rifle, the laser rifle of Chrome, all combined. The ONLY reason I don't back out of matches when tanks are called in is because I don't want to leave my corp mates hanging. Does calling in a Tank to counter those 4-5 HAV count as ruining the match? Frankly speaking I'm cool with 3 HAV per side in a match....would be better if there were objectives and or control points HAV and vehicle users could work on outside of the infantry combat zone. Totally agree with all that, the way it is now is not cool. Maps designed for tanks and no man's land for infantry (have to use a vehicle to get from point A to point B) would be cool, but we don't have that. In the meantime, AV needs to kill tanks. Infantry needs to stop insisting on soloing tanks, then subsequently having CCP nerf tanks so they can continue to solo them. There should be a range that tanks can't dominate. Keep swarms like they are and give us webifiers. 2 Lavs with 6 guys could tackle a tank and take him down. It would be better than Jihad Jeeps. There's no real way to counter tanks consistently for a squad with no tankers. In PC you'd fit your team accordingly to deal with tanks and it's easier to team up on a tank with more than 6 guys on comms. ML Director Eve Toon - Raylan Scott
Aramis Madrigal SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 133	Posted - 2014.02.13 03:12:00 - [62] - Quote I think the root causes of the tank problem are too few players per side and lack of incentive (and large disincentives) of spending SP and ISK on quality AV. If the maximum number of vehicles remained the same and the player count per side was 32 I don't think it would be as much of an issue. With more players, each side would be able to field a small 2-4 man AV squad that would absolutely murder bad tanks. Maybe add in additional WP and ISK incentives for damaging and killing vehicles to make it a viable primary role worth specializing in. Right now, taking the number of infantry needed to counter HAVs and converting them into AV really eats into your ability to fight other infantry. Light AV could use a bit of a buff, but I think it is the lack of flexibility afforded by the number of players per side and the fact that AV isn't "sexy" that exacerbates the HAV issue.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1816	Posted - 2014.02.13 03:13:00 - [63] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Where are all the lists of people who call in 4 or 5 tanks and ruin matches? There hasn't been a time I've played in two or three weeks when I didn't just end up turning Dust off because of tanks. It really bothers me because there are more factors than just the tanks here. 1) I may not be fortunate enough to have tanks on my side 2) I may not have any FGers on my side When the tanks get called in and one side dominates the field with vehicles the blueberries on their side get this boost of confidence and the are running around cleaning up the few people trying to layout mines (which seems to be the best light infantry tactic) or land swarm volleys. The last few weeks is the lowest my KDR has been in over a year. I'm not that worried about that, but it means it's gotten expensive. I just don't see why these win buttons are allowed in pub matches. They are ruining them. They are 1000x worse than the Calogi, the TAC rifle, the laser rifle of Chrome, all combined. The ONLY reason I don't back out of matches when tanks are called in is because I don't want to leave my corp mates hanging. Does calling in a Tank to counter those 4-5 HAV count as ruining the match? Frankly speaking I'm cool with 3 HAV per side in a match....would be better if there were objectives and or control points HAV and vehicle users could work on outside of the infantry combat zone. Totally agree with all that, the way it is now is not cool. Maps designed for tanks and no man's land for infantry (have to use a vehicle to get from point A to point B) would be cool, but we don't have that. In the meantime, AV needs to kill tanks. Infantry needs to stop insisting on soloing tanks, then subsequently having CCP nerf tanks so they can continue to solo them. There should be a range that tanks can't dominate. Keep swarms like they are and give us webifiers. 2 Lavs with 6 guys could tackle a tank and take him down. It would be better than Jihad Jeeps. There's no real way to counter tanks consistently for a squad with no tankers. In PC you'd fit your team accordingly to deal with tanks and it's easier to team up on a tank with more than 6 guys on comms. You think it takes 6 guys to destroy one tank? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Thor Odinson42 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 2817	Posted - 2014.02.13 03:15:00 - [64] - Quote How about 4? ML Director Eve Toon - Raylan Scott
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7037	Posted - 2014.02.13 03:26:00 - [65] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: How about 4? Even then you are doing it wrong. 2 at most is required to effectively drop a tank. Hard to solo one, really hard. 2 People should drop one easy. If I get away from 3x people shooting at me, they are just bad AV players. I however armour tank, if a breach forge catches me in the open with a swarmer for DPS....so help me I am a goner, unless I can get out of range or break the missile lock. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Beck Weathers Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 448	Posted - 2014.02.13 03:34:00 - [66] - Quote I have picked up forge gunning, while I had a fairly hard time killing none malita tanks solo, if I find a buddy to hunt them with we can take almost any tank out there. Today we killed on average about 4-6 tansk a match tons of drop ships and plenty of jeeps.
TYCHUS MAXWELL Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 32	Posted - 2014.02.13 03:40:00 - [67] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: I'm aware of jihad jeeps and I don't disagree with their use. I guess I just can't believe there isn't absolute outrage that AV weapons with millions of SP have been nerfed to the ground while vehicles have become win buttons. And the answer is a BPO LAV and REs. Really? Our voices got hoarse. I myself said screw it and dumped lots of sp into heavies and forges so I can be allowed to enjoy the game again. Right now i'll clue you in, most the people shooting you down in this thread are tankers or they run with tankers. I'm one of the few people that do not have their heads shoved so far up their ass that they can't acknowledge a broken mechanic that is killing a game that we all seem to like by driving away any new players. Kind of hard to kill tanks when you don't have the prerequisite sp. And although newberries can just embrace the spam not everyone wants to play a combined arms game where the only real option given to them is to tank. WoT is a better tank RPG, new players have no reason to stick out 1.7 and we honestly can't promise them things will get better as we all know CCP doesn't test their **** first.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7038	Posted - 2014.02.13 03:48:00 - [68] - Quote TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: I'm aware of jihad jeeps and I don't disagree with their use. I guess I just can't believe there isn't absolute outrage that AV weapons with millions of SP have been nerfed to the ground while vehicles have become win buttons. And the answer is a BPO LAV and REs. Really? Our voices got hoarse. I myself said screw it and dumped lots of sp into heavies and forges so I can be allowed to enjoy the game again. Right now i'll clue you in, most the people shooting you down in this thread are tankers or they run with tankers. I'm one of the few people that do not have their heads shoved so far up their ass that they can't acknowledge a broken mechanic that is killing a game that we all seem to like by driving away any new players. Kind of hard to kill tanks when you don't have the prerequisite sp. And although newberries can just embrace the spam not everyone wants to play a combined arms game where the only real option given to them is to tank. WoT is a better tank RPG, new players have no reason to stick out 1.7 and we honestly can't promise them things will get better as we all know CCP doesn't test their **** first. I am a Tanker yeah. But for weeks now I have been pointing out how broken Tanks are, and its not because of its current module lay outs. It comes down to cost, base stats, and lack of a specific role. 2 AVers should me more than sufficient enough to drop any tank on the map. Still the current HAV needs work. My suggestion is removed Anti Infantry Large turrets and make HAV Anti Vehicle units, with their current resilience, and racial variants of the Railgun. BUff AV slight, very slightly, Increase cost significantly, and reduce the Large Turrets vertical barrel movement. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 479	Posted - 2014.02.13 03:58:00 - [69] - Quote True Adamance wrote: TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: I'm aware of jihad jeeps and I don't disagree with their use. I guess I just can't believe there isn't absolute outrage that AV weapons with millions of SP have been nerfed to the ground while vehicles have become win buttons. And the answer is a BPO LAV and REs. Really? Our voices got hoarse. I myself said screw it and dumped lots of sp into heavies and forges so I can be allowed to enjoy the game again. Right now i'll clue you in, most the people shooting you down in this thread are tankers or they run with tankers. I'm one of the few people that do not have their heads shoved so far up their ass that they can't acknowledge a broken mechanic that is killing a game that we all seem to like by driving away any new players. Kind of hard to kill tanks when you don't have the prerequisite sp. And although newberries can just embrace the spam not everyone wants to play a combined arms game where the only real option given to them is to tank. WoT is a better tank RPG, new players have no reason to stick out 1.7 and we honestly can't promise them things will get better as we all know CCP doesn't test their **** first. I am a Tanker yeah. But for weeks now I have been pointing out how broken Tanks are, and its not because of its current module lay outs. It comes down to cost, base stats, and lack of a specific role. 2 AVers should me more than sufficient enough to drop any tank on the map. Still the current HAV needs work. My suggestion is removed Anti Infantry Large turrets and make HAV Anti Vehicle units, with their current resilience, and racial variants of the Railgun. BUff AV slight, very slightly, Increase cost significantly, and reduce the Large Turrets vertical barrel movement. Well, I agree with everything besides the modules. HAV's should only be allowed a single Hardener, or at the very least somehow add in a stacking penalty (would probably be troublesome to code however). Until MAV's come into the picture, HAV's simply HAVE to be equivalent to the current weapons and playstyles available. Changing their turret to be Anti-Vehicle only would do absolute wonders in the current environment, as well as make an easy transition when MAV's are finally released. MAV's should be the infantry killer, and be as easily soloable from the infantry perspective. But until then, HAV's imo need to be able to be solo'd by a pro(skillfull) AVer for cohesive game balance. I'm not saying a MLT Forge Gun should tear through an HAV with ease, but having a Proto Forge gun with prof 5 and 2 complex damage mods need to dominate as much as a STD HAV hull with proto Mods fitted onto it. This is a rock/paper/scissors, not rock/rock/rock.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7038	Posted - 2014.02.13 04:02:00 - [70] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: True Adamance wrote: TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: I'm aware of jihad jeeps and I don't disagree with their use. I guess I just can't believe there isn't absolute outrage that AV weapons with millions of SP have been nerfed to the ground while vehicles have become win buttons. And the answer is a BPO LAV and REs. Really? Our voices got hoarse. I myself said screw it and dumped lots of sp into heavies and forges so I can be allowed to enjoy the game again. Right now i'll clue you in, most the people shooting you down in this thread are tankers or they run with tankers. I'm one of the few people that do not have their heads shoved so far up their ass that they can't acknowledge a broken mechanic that is killing a game that we all seem to like by driving away any new players. Kind of hard to kill tanks when you don't have the prerequisite sp. And although newberries can just embrace the spam not everyone wants to play a combined arms game where the only real option given to them is to tank. WoT is a better tank RPG, new players have no reason to stick out 1.7 and we honestly can't promise them things will get better as we all know CCP doesn't test their **** first. I am a Tanker yeah. But for weeks now I have been pointing out how broken Tanks are, and its not because of its current module lay outs. It comes down to cost, base stats, and lack of a specific role. 2 AVers should me more than sufficient enough to drop any tank on the map. Still the current HAV needs work. My suggestion is removed Anti Infantry Large turrets and make HAV Anti Vehicle units, with their current resilience, and racial variants of the Railgun. BUff AV slight, very slightly, Increase cost significantly, and reduce the Large Turrets vertical barrel movement. Well, I agree with everything besides the modules. HAV's should only be allowed a single Hardener, or at the very least somehow add in a stacking penalty (would probably be troublesome to code however). Until MAV's come into the picture, HAV's simply HAVE to be equivalent to the current weapons and playstyles available. Changing their turret to be Anti-Vehicle only would do absolute wonders in the current environment, as well as make an easy transition when MAV's are finally released. MAV's should be the infantry killer, and be as easily soloable from the infantry perspective. But until then, HAV's imo need to be able to be solo'd by a pro(skillfull) AVer for cohesive game balance. I'm not saying a MLT Forge Gun should tear through an HAV with ease, but having a Proto Forge gun with prof 5 and 2 complex damage mods need to dominate as much as a STD HAV hull with proto Mods fitted onto it. This is a rock/paper/scissors, not rock/rock/rock. I liked the old model for Hardeners. Where you could mix and match, have high res for X seconds or a more even % across a minute. Indeed but then you need to consider that MAV and MTAC need a place on the battlefield proportionate to what they are. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha

Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 479	Posted - 2014.02.13 04:19:00 - [71] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I liked the old model for Hardeners. Where you could mix and match, have high res for X seconds or a more even % across a minute. Indeed but then you need to consider that MAV and MTAC need a place on the battlefield proportionate to what they are. CCP as usual forced themselves into a rock and a hard place with their view of "the big picture". I'm sure when all the many AV weapons and variations of HAV's and MAV's come into the picture things might make sense in the world of balance. Sadly that is a part of their "10 year plan" and we are unable to perceive the possible future it might hold. I feel MAV's should belong to two roles : Infantry dominance and transport dominance. An MAV who's sole purpose is to roll around making infantry hate life. And an MAV that is able to transport a full squad around the battlefield effectively. Support vehicles such as the ability to repair other vehicles i think should stay in the realm of LAVs. I feel entirely ignorant ; MTAC's?
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7039	Posted - 2014.02.13 04:23:00 - [72] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: True Adamance wrote: I liked the old model for Hardeners. Where you could mix and match, have high res for X seconds or a more even % across a minute. Indeed but then you need to consider that MAV and MTAC need a place on the battlefield proportionate to what they are. CCP as usual forced themselves into a rock and a hard place with their view of "the big picture". I'm sure when all the many AV weapons and variations of HAV's and MAV's come into the picture things might make sense in the world of balance. Sadly that is a part of their "10 year plan" and we are unable to perceive the possible future it might hold. I feel MAV's should belong to two roles : Infantry dominance and transport dominance. An MAV who's sole purpose is to roll around making infantry hate life. And an MAV that is able to transport a full squad around the battlefield effectively. Support vehicles such as the ability to repair other vehicles i think should stay in the realm of LAVs. I feel entirely ignorant ; MTAC's? MAV to me represent the bridgeing between vehicles and infantry. They would e APC, designed to support any infantry squad either in terms of utility with repers and MCRU, or with medium turrets. MTACS are large industrial mech units capable of fitting military grade weapons. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p TRA1LBLAZERS 535	Posted - 2014.02.13 04:28:00 - [73] - Quote Tankers need to stop insisting that they can solo AV, and subsequently have CCP nerf AV so that they can continue to solo them. Anyone see what I did there? Kills- Archduke Ferdinand Balance!
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 479	Posted - 2014.02.13 04:35:00 - [74] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Duran Lex wrote: True Adamance wrote: I liked the old model for Hardeners. Where you could mix and match, have high res for X seconds or a more even % across a minute. Indeed but then you need to consider that MAV and MTAC need a place on the battlefield proportionate to what they are. CCP as usual forced themselves into a rock and a hard place with their view of "the big picture". I'm sure when all the many AV weapons and variations of HAV's and MAV's come into the picture things might make sense in the world of balance. Sadly that is a part of their "10 year plan" and we are unable to perceive the possible future it might hold. I feel MAV's should belong to two roles : Infantry dominance and transport dominance. An MAV who's sole purpose is to roll around making infantry hate life. And an MAV that is able to transport a full squad around the battlefield effectively. Support vehicles such as the ability to repair other vehicles i think should stay in the realm of LAVs. I feel entirely ignorant ; MTAC's? MAV to me represent the bridgeing between vehicles and infantry. They would e APC, designed to support any infantry squad either in terms of utility with repers and MCRU, or with medium turrets. MTACS are large industrial mech units capable of fitting military grade weapons. Well, basically on par with my thoughts on MAV minus the reppers and MCRU, clouded by my silly perception of "LAV vs MAV" in terms of vehicle statistics. Such wonders should come at a cost of being extremely fragile, but an MAV can just as easily be fragile regardless of its vehicle classification, so that would work fine. Ah, i thought the "gundam" idea from CCP was a joke. i guess not! MTAC's have got to be a couple years off at the least.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7040	Posted - 2014.02.13 04:49:00 - [75] - Quote Face palm when four scrubs in Sicas think they are hot **** cause they can all shoot at the same enemy target...... "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
TYCHUS MAXWELL Ghosts of Dawn General Tso's Alliance 34	Posted - 2014.02.13 06:59:00 - [76] - Quote True Adamance wrote: TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: I'm aware of jihad jeeps and I don't disagree with their use. I guess I just can't believe there isn't absolute outrage that AV weapons with millions of SP have been nerfed to the ground while vehicles have become win buttons. And the answer is a BPO LAV and REs. Really? Our voices got hoarse. I myself said screw it and dumped lots of sp into heavies and forges so I can be allowed to enjoy the game again. Right now i'll clue you in, most the people shooting you down in this thread are tankers or they run with tankers. I'm one of the few people that do not have their heads shoved so far up their ass that they can't acknowledge a broken mechanic that is killing a game that we all seem to like by driving away any new players. Kind of hard to kill tanks when you don't have the prerequisite sp. And although newberries can just embrace the spam not everyone wants to play a combined arms game where the only real option given to them is to tank. WoT is a better tank RPG, new players have no reason to stick out 1.7 and we honestly can't promise them things will get better as we all know CCP doesn't test their **** first. I am a Tanker yeah. But for weeks now I have been pointing out how broken Tanks are, and its not because of its current module lay outs. It comes down to cost, base stats, and lack of a specific role. 2 AVers should me more than sufficient enough to drop any tank on the map. Still the current HAV needs work. My suggestion is removed Anti Infantry Large turrets and make HAV Anti Vehicle units, with their current resilience, and racial variants of the Railgun. BUff AV slight, very slightly, Increase cost significantly, and reduce the Large Turrets vertical barrel movement. Not if they don't have the prerequisite AV, takes 2 adv/proto forge gunners sure but that takes a lot of sp and isn't something all new players should/would skill into. And keep in mind, we are talking MILITIA tanks. Militia and standard AV is garbage and takes half the team to down one militia tank which is imbalanced when the tank can spin its blaster and mow down the entire enemy team.
Rusty Shallows 958	Posted - 2014.02.13 07:58:00 - [77] - Quote TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: I'm aware of jihad jeeps and I don't disagree with their use. I guess I just can't believe there isn't absolute outrage that AV weapons with millions of SP have been nerfed to the ground while vehicles have become win buttons. And the answer is a BPO LAV and REs. Really? Our voices got hoarse. I myself said screw it and dumped lots of sp into heavies and forges so I can be allowed to enjoy the game again. Right now i'll clue you in, most the people shooting you down in this thread are tankers or they run with tankers. I'm one of the few people that do not have their heads shoved so far up their ass that they can't acknowledge a broken mechanic that is killing a game that we all seem to like by driving away any new players. Kind of hard to kill tanks when you don't have the prerequisite sp. And although newberries can just embrace the spam not everyone wants to play a combined arms game where the only real option given to them is to tank. WoT is a better tank RPG, new players have no reason to stick out 1.7 and we honestly can't promise them things will get better as we all know CCP doesn't test their **** first. It didn't hurt that CCP broke the nerfing announcements into three waves. Besides continually posting that thread theme would get old fast. It's better to just take jabs at CCP over the nerfing and poor design method inside other threads. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution 662	Posted - 2014.02.13 08:32:00 - [78] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Where are all the lists of people who call in 4 or 5 tanks and ruin matches? There hasn't been a time I've played in two or three weeks when I didn't just end up turning Dust off because of tanks. It really bothers me because there are more factors than just the tanks here. 1) I may not be fortunate enough to have tanks on my side 2) I may not have any FGers on my side When the tanks get called in and one side dominates the field with vehicles the blueberries on their side get this boost of confidence and the are running around cleaning up the few people trying to layout mines (which seems to be the best light infantry tactic) or land swarm volleys. The last few weeks is the lowest my KDR has been in over a year. I'm not that worried about that, but it means it's gotten expensive. I just don't see why these win buttons are allowed in pub matches. They are ruining them. They are 1000x worse than the Calogi, the TAC rifle, the laser rifle of Chrome, all combined. The ONLY reason I don't back out of matches when tanks are called in is because I don't want to leave my corp mates hanging. +1 I don't do badly (near 6 KDR as infantry in 1.7) but tanks ruin games, plain and simple. In fact I stopped playing for 6 weeks and let my boosters expire. I don't even think of tanks as other players, more as the game trolling me with invincible bots. So you haven't tried countering those tanks with any of the tools available to you? I use the best counter to tanks, which is to hide indoors. That's what infantry, even good infantry, has been reduced to.
CommanderBolt ACME SPECIAL FORCES Legacy Rising 620	Posted - 2014.02.13 09:31:00 - [79] - Quote I cant believe people dont want to face facts and say that "Yes AV is weak VS tanks". I have a tanker alt and to be honest the only AV that seems to even be scary to me is proto forges, jihad jeeps and occasionally a wrykomi swarm when it is timed right. Now I say leave tanks as they are an incrementally BUFF AV until things are balanced. No HUGE changes overnight, just week by week, month by month CCP need to increase AV power to an acceptable level. I think especially the standard and advanced grade AV needs a larger buff than proto. I play on Commander who has 24+m SP and I always just wish I was back on my tank alt because it is so much more effective. Not only that, when I come up against tanks, I cant do much. With my tanker I can get out my sweet proto rail fit and go to town clearing up noob tanks. I have lots of SP saved up and I am so tempted to spec into tanks on this character as well. I only fear that if I did, tanks would get nerfed into the ground or CCP will do something stupid and make AV WAY too powerful. Balance is a long way from being achieved in this game. I am glad to hear CCP is working on weapons and damage mods for 1.8 to try and balance that more. That's great. I just hope they give the same consideration to AV without making tanks useless again.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 1946	Posted - 2014.02.13 09:43:00 - [80] - Quote LAV Bombs works well, as does your own tank. Always put the RE on the front wheels and ALWAYS fit a hardner to your tank. Tanks 514 I told you, I bloody well told you. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1

Piraten Hovnoret Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 294	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:06:00 - [81] - Quote PO0KY wrote: Railgun+damage mods+ redline= success. It doesn't always kill them, but it at least beats them back enough for your team to put in work. So using one broke game mechanic to counter a other broke game mechanic solves it ? Is it just me that belive that 2 wrong don't make 1 right ? War never changes
Piraten Hovnoret Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 294	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:11:00 - [82] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Where are all the lists of people who call in 4 or 5 tanks and ruin matches? There hasn't been a time I've played in two or three weeks when I didn't just end up turning Dust off because of tanks. It really bothers me because there are more factors than just the tanks here. 1) I may not be fortunate enough to have tanks on my side 2) I may not have any FGers on my side When the tanks get called in and one side dominates the field with vehicles the blueberries on their side get this boost of confidence and the are running around cleaning up the few people trying to layout mines (which seems to be the best light infantry tactic) or land swarm volleys. The last few weeks is the lowest my KDR has been in over a year. I'm not that worried about that, but it means it's gotten expensive. I just don't see why these win buttons are allowed in pub matches. They are ruining them. They are 1000x worse than the Calogi, the TAC rifle, the laser rifle of Chrome, all combined. The ONLY reason I don't back out of matches when tanks are called in is because I don't want to leave my corp mates hanging. Does calling in a Tank to counter those 4-5 HAV count as ruining the match? Frankly speaking I'm cool with 3 HAV per side in a match....would be better if there were objectives and or control points HAV and vehicle users could work on outside of the infantry combat zone. Totally agree with all that, the way it is now is not cool. Maps designed for tanks and no man's land for infantry (have to use a vehicle to get from point A to point B) would be cool, but we don't have that. In the meantime, AV needs to kill tanks. Infantry needs to stop insisting on soloing tanks, then subsequently having CCP nerf tanks so they can continue to solo them. There should be a range that tanks can't dominate. Keep swarms like they are and give us webifiers. 2 Lavs with 6 guys could tackle a tank and take him down. It would be better than Jihad Jeeps. There's no real way to counter tanks consistently for a squad with no tankers. In PC you'd fit your team accordingly to deal with tanks and it's easier to team up on a tank with more than 6 guys on comms. Okey it may be my English or my bad mathematical skills, I just don't understand the last post! So 6 guys hunting down one tank! What if there is more then 2 tanks on the field and what about the rest of the reds? Are they having a tea party in the mcc while we hunt down tanks? Plz clarify I just don't understand War never changes
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 156	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:34:00 - [83] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: The last few weeks is the lowest my KDR has been in over a year. I'm not that worried about that, but it means it's gotten expensive. I am mainly a tanker and a dropship pilot and ever since 1.7 my kdr has been half of what it used to be pre-1.7, I genuinely miss the pre-1.7 tanks, they were so much better and so much more OP. Yes, they were fragile but they were better in every other way. And most likely the reason you see tanks being spammed now is because they are way too cheap now and it requires no real skill to operate or fit them now. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1817	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:45:00 - [84] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: and it requires no real skill to operate or fit them now. You cannot be serious. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1817	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:46:00 - [85] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: PO0KY wrote: Railgun+damage mods+ redline= success. It doesn't always kill them, but it at least beats them back enough for your team to put in work. So using one broke game mechanic to counter a other broke game mechanic solves it ? Is it just me that belive that 2 wrong don't make 1 right ? What wrongs? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 156	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:49:00 - [86] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: and it requires no real skill to operate or fit them now. You cannot be serious. And why not? R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 682	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:52:00 - [87] - Quote I feel your pain and many threads have been devoted to this subject... my own included. :) CCP , the CPM and most of the community have confirmed and acknowledged the issue - all we can do is wait for 1.8 for their potential fixes. It may be in the form of improving infantry AV or limiting the stats on militia HAV's, or a combination of both. I'm surprised it has been allowed to run on for so long... it reminds me of the murder taxi sagas where they were left to run riot for 2-3 patch cycles (about 3 monthss if I recall)....
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution 662	Posted - 2014.02.13 10:59:00 - [88] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Thor Odinson42 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Does calling in a Tank to counter those 4-5 HAV count as ruining the match? Frankly speaking I'm cool with 3 HAV per side in a match....would be better if there were objectives and or control points HAV and vehicle users could work on outside of the infantry combat zone. Totally agree with all that, the way it is now is not cool. Maps designed for tanks and no man's land for infantry (have to use a vehicle to get from point A to point B) would be cool, but we don't have that. In the meantime, AV needs to kill tanks. Infantry needs to stop insisting on soloing tanks, then subsequently having CCP nerf tanks so they can continue to solo them. There should be a range that tanks can't dominate. Keep swarms like they are and give us webifiers. 2 Lavs with 6 guys could tackle a tank and take him down. It would be better than Jihad Jeeps. There's no real way to counter tanks consistently for a squad with no tankers. In PC you'd fit your team accordingly to deal with tanks and it's easier to team up on a tank with more than 6 guys on comms. Okey it may be my English or my bad mathematical skills, I just don't understand the last post! So 6 guys hunting down one tank! What if there is more then 2 tanks on the field and what about the rest of the reds? Are they having a tea party in the mcc while we hunt down tanks? Plz clarify I just don't understand Totally agree. Even 2 AVers to take out a tanker means AV is totally pointless. It means you would need 8 AV to take out 4 tanks, so the sides are 8 AVers and 8 riflemen versus 4 tankers and 12 riflemen, i.e. the side with tanks effectively has a massive numerical advantage. There is no point in conventional AV even being in the game at present. PS - Just been killing your scout with my OP RR. I feel a bit bad
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1817	Posted - 2014.02.13 11:06:00 - [89] - Quote Thor Odinson42 wrote: How about 4? How about I can destroy every enemy tank that's on the battlefield if I have 2 people doing recon? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Piraten Hovnoret Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 295	Posted - 2014.02.13 11:08:00 - [90] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Piraten Hovnoret wrote: PO0KY wrote: Railgun+damage mods+ redline= success. It doesn't always kill them, but it at least beats them back enough for your team to put in work. So using one broke game mechanic to counter a other broke game mechanic solves it ? Is it just me that belive that 2 wrong don't make 1 right ? What wrongs? Are you stupid or just a troll? War never changes



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.