DUST Search - So CCP, You know there is a problem with tanks. What are you doing ...

All Channels

General Discussions

So CCP, You know there is a problem with tanks. What are you doing ...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
abarkrishna WarRavens 294	Posted - 2014.02.13 11:34:00 - [1] - Quote It is getting pretty effing ridiculous. 1.7 has been out for 2 months and not a word has been uttered about what your doing to fix tanks. How about some input. P.s A great start would be getting rid of large blasters. No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1632	Posted - 2014.02.13 11:42:00 - [2] - Quote That would not be a great start. Nerfing them, for sure. But "Hey guys I have a great idea lets remove some of the already limited content in the game because I can't think of a better way of working it!" is stupid. Nerf them so they're either capable only of AI, and change them to AV when we get a medium vehicle class (so HAVs are heavy breaching and AV weapons) or just make them CQC AV par excellence. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 1948	Posted - 2014.02.13 11:49:00 - [3] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: That would not be a great start. Nerfing them, for sure. But "Hey guys I have a great idea lets remove some of the already limited content in the game because I can't think of a better way of working it!" is stupid. Nerf them so they're either capable only of AI, and change them to AV when we get a medium vehicle class (so HAVs are heavy breaching and AV weapons) or just make them CQC AV par excellence. This is the way to do it. Im not a tank advocate, that much is probably well know. But even I disagree with removing blaster turrets, we want a full battlfiled, not 2 seperate ones. Nerf the Blaster by giving it dispersion, REAL dispersion. Then reduce tne DPS to approx 400 DPS and reduce optimal ramge to 80m and effective to 200m. It is now a CLOSE RANGE anti infantry turret. By reducing the DPS sentinels can now go toe to toe as expected. Buff Swarms, FG, Plc by 25% direct damage. Then increase charge time on hardners by 50% Sorted. Spkr4thedead: Me > AV This is why tanks are unbalanced Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.
abarkrishna WarRavens 294	Posted - 2014.02.13 11:50:00 - [4] - Quote There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
straya fox Sad Panda Solutions 209	Posted - 2014.02.13 11:55:00 - [5] - Quote I think stacking hardeners lies at the heart of a lot of issues with tanks, there are no 'windows of opportunity' with a triple or double hardened tank.
abarkrishna WarRavens 294	Posted - 2014.02.13 11:56:00 - [6] - Quote We all know the problems with tanks. I am just looking for Dev input. I want to know what their plans are. Do they even have plans? No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
bamboo x Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 87	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:00:00 - [7] - Quote I don't think turrets are the problem as much as AV is the problem. You know there's something wrong when a proto swarm or AV grenade can't even take down a Militia tank. What really needs a fix are the Rail tanks that sit up in the mountains and virtually eliminate enemy vehicles from spawning for the rest of the match. Dropship pilots are really getting the shaft in 1.7 Please sign my 1.8 respec petition
Piraten Hovnoret Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 296	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:03:00 - [8] - Quote As Sherlock Holmes said "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." CCP just don't care that's the truth War never changes
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4451	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:08:00 - [9] - Quote abarkrishna wrote: If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. ...and the problem with having an anti-infantry that's useless against tanks is... what, exactly?
CommanderBolt ACME SPECIAL FORCES Legacy Rising 627	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:16:00 - [10] - Quote Guys the simple and by far best solution is to improve the performance of AV. Tanks are balanced in a lot of respects TOWARDS OTHER TANKS. Don't screw them up as tank game play is fun and interesting. AV needs to be buffed. That way tanks can still be fun. I dont know exact figures but I do know PROTO forges and swarms need less of a buff than standard and advanced gear - they need much more of a buff. I dont want tanks to be useless again, but I do think an increase of price is certainly something that needs to happen. As well as buffing AV, especially swarms and also forges.

Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1204	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:19:00 - [11] - Quote Problem? With tanks? [looks in tank, sees seat, checks turret, turret fine] No, no problwm here. I'm good! Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4883	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:21:00 - [12] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Guys the simple and by far best solution is to improve the performance of AV. Tanks are balanced in a lot of respects TOWARDS OTHER TANKS. Don't screw them up as tank game play is fun and interesting. AV needs to be buffed. That way tanks can still be fun. I dont know exact figures but I do know PROTO forges and swarms need less of a buff than standard and advanced gear - they need much more of a buff. I dont want tanks to be useless again, but I do think an increase of price is certainly something that needs to happen. As well as buffing AV, especially swarms and also forges. I dunno about Tank vs Tank being fun and interesting. There are a lot of bugs with it. You've never been frustrated with the game until you've tried to turn on an armor hardener and realize it jams your blaster turret. Or if the enemy rolls ontop of your tank, that jams your turret. And while it's not a "bug" it's certainly not a good design in my book but a shield tanker throwing on a hardener shouldn't recharge through a Large Blaster damage, regardless of it's tier. It's sort of an 'I win' button when any damage applied is not only negated but completely regenerated. But... Yes. AV needs a boost. I remember running the numbers in a skype channel about vehicle rebalance and we discussed the 1.7 changes to tanks under the stipulation that AV wasn't being nerfed and it looked well balanced. Then they announced the AV nerf and there was a mutual feeling of "oh ****". Useful Links //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588 //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
abarkrishna WarRavens 294	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:29:00 - [13] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: abarkrishna wrote: If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. ...and the problem with having an anti-infantry weapon that's useless against tanks is... what, exactly? I personally do not have an issue with them being anti infantry. In fact i would like to see that however I can already hear all the scrubs whining about it. No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
Nikoli Gleimer Nex Miles Militis 5	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:32:00 - [14] - Quote Im going to talk from my dropship point of view. I have commented on this on alot of other posts too, but i will again if i have too. I think its absolutely ridiculous that a rail gun tank in the redline is so powerfull against things like dropships. I dont mind getting shot down by them, but what i do get mad at is when i get shot down by someone thats on basically on another map. I also dont get why tanks can be so powerfull and so cheap at the same time. IM also a proto gallente logi and they can get very pricy very quick. My suit is over 95k. I dont want them to make tanks Under powered like they were, but i also dont want them overpowered like they are right now. Another thing that i dont want is AV to get too powerfull. I think AV is fine right now, and the reason being, you have to have a few people to take a tank, down. You need to organise and plan your atacks which i like a lot. I dont think it would be fair, if a tank could get destroyed from one swarm launcher guy that was too lazy to actually squad with people to take him down. One of the biggest problems regarding tanks and dropships are the price. I think its absolutely hilarious that my dropship (assault) can get gunned down by a miltia tank in 2 hits if he has damage mods, let alone the jostling affect when you get hit, so you have to straighten yourself so you dont hit a wall or something. But say he kills me, i call in another assault dropship to take him out. I kill him, but only because he was an inexperienced tanker. He calls in another one. How is this fair that i lost all my profit in an entire match because of a guy who cant actually fight, and i kill him but he still make s a huge profit. tell me if im wrong, but i think tanks should go up in price about 50k for miltia tanks (without equiping it with stuff) and standard tanks should go up around 50k as well
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 683	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:32:00 - [15] - Quote abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. I agree, you have to be careful. I'd say without touching damage the only other things you can touch are: 1) dispersion (already mentioned 2) ammo counts - currently very high... if you've ever run a tank you quickly understand how ammo expansion packs are never used. 3) heat buildup
CommanderBolt ACME SPECIAL FORCES Legacy Rising 627	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:33:00 - [16] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: CommanderBolt wrote: Guys the simple and by far best solution is to improve the performance of AV. Tanks are balanced in a lot of respects TOWARDS OTHER TANKS. Don't screw them up as tank game play is fun and interesting. AV needs to be buffed. That way tanks can still be fun. I dont know exact figures but I do know PROTO forges and swarms need less of a buff than standard and advanced gear - they need much more of a buff. I dont want tanks to be useless again, but I do think an increase of price is certainly something that needs to happen. As well as buffing AV, especially swarms and also forges. I dunno about Tank vs Tank being fun and interesting. There are a lot of bugs with it. You've never been frustrated with the game until you've tried to turn on an armor hardener and realize it jams your blaster turret. Or if the enemy rolls ontop of your tank, that jams your turret. And while it's not a "bug" it's certainly not a good design in my book but a shield tanker throwing on a hardener shouldn't recharge through a Large Blaster damage, regardless of it's tier. It's sort of an 'I win' button when any damage applied is not only negated but completely regenerated. But... Yes. AV needs a boost. I remember running the numbers in a skype channel about vehicle rebalance and we discussed the 1.7 changes to tanks under the stipulation that AV wasn't being nerfed and it looked well balanced. Then they announced the AV nerf and there was a mutual feeling of "oh **". Well I did severely over simplify the case. I just mean to say dont make tanks st. The rail gun bugs out and 'fires' but deals no damage. There are invisible walls, places where you 'crash' into nothing and die. Sometimes the turret does not reload, sometimes you deal 0 damage even though you seem to be firing. I guess you are right man tanks still need work. Its CCP we are dealing with. The more time that passes the less seems to be being done. They cannot even release event rewards on time. They dont tell us much of anything. I think the only reason people play this game is for the occasional GREAT battle and more so, the vision of what this game could be. If 1.8 isn't great then I can foresee this game dying off. I am losing faith and I love the IP of the EVE universe. Even the hardcore members are starting to log in less and less. New players don't stick around. Every one of my friends that have tried this game in the past wont even come back to give it another try and I find myself with less and less to convince them otherwise. Tank spam ruins matches, especially ambush where the spawn system is terrible. (I have a picture I will upload to show this). Basically CCP needs to pull the proverbial finger out of its backside and work really hard for the next few months.
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1223	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:34:00 - [17] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: That would not be a great start. Nerfing them, for sure. But "Hey guys I have a great idea lets remove some of the already limited content in the game because I can't think of a better way of working it!" is stupid. Nerf them so they're either capable only of AI, and change them to AV when we get a medium vehicle class (so HAVs are heavy breaching and AV weapons) or just make them CQC AV par excellence. This is the way to do it. Im not a tank advocate, that much is probably well know. But even I disagree with removing blaster turrets, we want a full battlfiled, not 2 seperate ones. Nerf the Blaster by giving it dispersion, REAL dispersion. Then reduce tne DPS to approx 400 DPS and reduce optimal ramge to 80m and effective to 200m. It is now a CLOSE RANGE anti infantry turret. By reducing the DPS sentinels can now go toe to toe as expected. Buff Swarms, FG, Plc by 25% direct damage. Then increase charge time on hardners by 50% Sorted. AGREED. And one more thing: SLOW the tanks down!!! This is not Fast and Furious Tank 514 Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.
Rynoceros Rise Of Old Dudes 2411	Posted - 2014.02.13 12:54:00 - [18] - Quote Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: SLOW the tanks down!!! This is not Fast and Furious Tank 514 Who asked for that anyways? What was the point? Their precious, well thought out, AV balance pass that they spent months on has been hilarious. I'm pretty sure Blam was fired for lesser offenses. I GÖú Kittens.
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 137	Posted - 2014.02.13 13:08:00 - [19] - Quote Buff AV weapons - C'mon tankdrivers an shoot you from reeeeaaaaalyyyyyyyy looooong diiistaaaance like sharpshoter, give us real caldari SWARM like in lore - LONG DISTANCE/GREAT DAMAGE. Limit of vehicles on group - depending on type of game, through filter of most speced drivers Slow them/Tanks HELL down - I know its future and i know its "ZUPACYBERTECH", but tanks faster than rockets, like really..i saw RPGs..i run RPGs in my army times..i know how RPGs work normaly..DUST dont know how rocket propeled grenade working now for sure XD what else..hmm..got it Inoperable weapons - Behind enemy line, i know there is sometimes problem with redlinining, but what about implement something like two stage field behind redline, what i mean is basicaly filter where is weapons operable. Tank long way in red fiield of peace is really "Pain somewhere" sometimes. I dont know, if someone have more ideas or better implements just tell. Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2511	Posted - 2014.02.13 13:17:00 - [20] - Quote looks down in dropship No i see no problem here Hang on Why is that infantry group firing there RR at it? Is that a locus nade? Intelligence is OP

The Attorney General 1940	Posted - 2014.02.13 14:01:00 - [21] - Quote This is just a thread of bads having a pity party. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4627	Posted - 2014.02.13 14:03:00 - [22] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: This is just a thread of bads having a pity party. Kinda reminds me of your pre 1.7 posts. Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
The Attorney General 1940	Posted - 2014.02.13 14:08:00 - [23] - Quote Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: This is just a thread of bads having a pity party. Kinda reminds me of your pre 1.7 posts. Nice try, but you can go back to the start of uprising, where I am saying that tanks are fine, and that the only major change needs to be rendering fixes. Unlike you, I actually adapted, learned to thrive and then made posts. Also, I didn't have the experience of using a crutch like all the pre-uprising tankers did, so I was not spoiled by being OP. You were, and you can't help but long for the days when your OP weapon that did the work for you made you feel strong. Poor baby. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4627	Posted - 2014.02.13 14:14:00 - [24] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: This is just a thread of bads having a pity party. Kinda reminds me of your pre 1.7 posts. Nice try, but you can go back to the start of uprising, where I am saying that tanks are fine, and that the only major change needs to be rendering fixes. Unlike you, I actually adapted, learned to thrive and then made posts. Also, I didn't have the experience of using a crutch like all the pre-uprising tankers did, so I was not spoiled by being OP. You were, and you can't help but long for the days when your OP weapon that did the work for you made you feel strong. Poor baby. I have also adapted. That's why I specced back into Particle Cannons. Your using a crutch right now, and your tank pretty much does all the work for you. What are you talking about? I think you should get some rest dude. Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
The Attorney General 1940	Posted - 2014.02.13 14:20:00 - [25] - Quote Atiim wrote: I have also adapted. That's why I specced back into Particle Cannons. Your using a crutch right now, and your tank pretty much does all the work for you. What are you talking about? I think you should get some rest dude. So you went from one OP thing to another? Wow you are a shameless scrub. I was tanking before the changes, and I will be tanking after they get nerfed. Because I am a tanker. You on the other hand are just chasing whatever can make up for your lack of skill. BTW, there is still workable AV, you just refuse to spec into it. I guess you really are not an AV player like you want to pretend you are. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Sir Snugglz Red Star. EoN. 388	Posted - 2014.02.13 14:22:00 - [26] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: looks down in dropship No i see no problem here Hang on Why is that infantry group firing there RR at it? Is that a locus nade? Took the words out of my mouth brah. Tanks pop just fine in my opinion. Most kills are not easy, yet not impossible either. I love popping tanks. More WP. -Luck is just one of my skills Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 380	Posted - 2014.02.13 14:23:00 - [27] - Quote straya fox wrote: I think stacking hardeners lies at the heart of a lot of issues with tanks, there are no 'windows of opportunity' with a triple or double hardened tank. They can still be destroyed ... it depends on the experience of the driver v.s the experience of the attacker .. basic. Future Caldari Heavy so watch out for this Sumo Shinobi with a Caldari HMG .
Alternate Insano SUICIDE SPITE SQUAD 33	Posted - 2014.02.13 14:25:00 - [28] - Quote I hate tanks. When I actually try to do well with my sentinel (as opposed to when I'm bored and just sit on obj A) a tank is pretty much the only thing that makes me duck for cover. Are tanks broken? Yes. Can you call in way too many in a match? Yes. Should something be done to stop it? No. Everyone tells me I'm wrong, but AUR sales drive this game. CCP is not some 'write off' company as such is a violation of every tax law in existence. The AUR vehicles and gear that sell let the rest of us play a semi crappy fps game for free rather than waste 40 bucks on it at Walmart. And stop comparing DUST to EVE. When EVE came out it had no competition and has never been a console game. The fps market is a console industry staple, is over saturated with titles, and is harsh to say the least. New Eden, welcome to PSN.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 380	Posted - 2014.02.13 14:50:00 - [29] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: This is just a thread of bads having a pity party. This guy is a beast. That is all .. just call it like I see it. Future Caldari Heavy so watch out for this Sumo Shinobi with a Caldari HMG .
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4627	Posted - 2014.02.13 14:57:00 - [30] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: So you went from one OP thing to another? Wow you are a shameless scrub. I was tanking before the changes, and I will be tanking after they get nerfed. Because I am a tanker. You on the other hand are just chasing whatever can make up for your lack of skill. BTW, there is still workable AV, you just refuse to spec into it. I guess you really are not an AV player like you want to pretend you are. I've got both Missiles and Blasters too. But wasn't it tankers who said that the best AV should be another HAV? I was also tanking before the changes, and I will still tank after the changes. I'm not an AV player? Swarm Launchers & Plasma Cannons are specifically classified as AV weapons, so yes I am an AV player. Along with that, Gunnlogies are HAVs, and Particle Cannons and Neuron Blasters are also turrets, so yes I am also a tanker as well. It's rather hilarious. A tanker tells me to adapt, and I do. Then they come tell me about how they don't like the way I adapted. Could you please make up your mind already? Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!

abarkrishna WarRavens 295	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:04:00 - [31] - Quote Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: So you went from one OP thing to another? Wow you are a shameless scrub. I was tanking before the changes, and I will be tanking after they get nerfed. Because I am a tanker. You on the other hand are just chasing whatever can make up for your lack of skill. BTW, there is still workable AV, you just refuse to spec into it. I guess you really are not an AV player like you want to pretend you are. I've got both Missiles and Blasters too. But wasn't it tankers who said that the best AV should be another HAV? I was also tanking before the changes, and I will still tank after the changes. I'm not an AV player? Swarm Launchers & Plasma Cannons are specifically classified as AV weapons, so yes I am an AV player. Along with that, Gunnlogies are HAVs, and Particle Cannons and Neuron Blasters are also turrets, so yes I am also a tanker as well. It's rather hilarious. A tanker tells me to adapt, and I do. Then they come tell me about how they don't like the way I adapted. Could you please make up your mind already? Why are you even listening to tankers? No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 64	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:06:00 - [32] - Quote abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. Blaster is meant for anti infantry. Get over it. It wouldn't have 200 rounds and a heat up if it wasn't for anti infantry. Rails and missiles are your AV. Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :) Chromosome Veteran *Subsonic.*
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 64	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:08:00 - [33] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: This is just a thread of bads having a pity party. Kinda reminds me of your pre 1.7 posts. Nice try, but you can go back to the start of uprising, where I am saying that tanks are fine, and that the only major change needs to be rendering fixes. Unlike you, I actually adapted, learned to thrive and then made posts. Also, I didn't have the experience of using a crutch like all the pre-uprising tankers did, so I was not spoiled by being OP. You were, and you can't help but long for the days when your OP weapon that did the work for you made you feel strong. Poor baby. Lol dude I used tanks pre 1.7. You pretty much had to be a little hiding tank or a guerilla tank. There was no ability to stay and fight. Every good tanker pre 1.7 was a proto tanker. Anything else, and you were easily annihilated. Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :) Chromosome Veteran *Subsonic.*
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4627	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:09:00 - [34] - Quote Soldier Sorajord wrote: abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. Blaster is meant for anti infantry. Get over it. It wouldn't have 200 rounds and a heat up if it wasn't for anti infantry. Rails and missiles are your AV. AV was meant for Anti-Vehicle, but you didn't get over it? So why should we? Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
abarkrishna WarRavens 296	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:10:00 - [35] - Quote Soldier Sorajord wrote: abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. Blaster is meant for anti infantry. Get over it. It wouldn't have 200 rounds and a heat up if it wasn't for anti infantry. Rails and missiles are your AV. Wrong currently the large blaster is just as effective at killing tanks as any other large turret. If it is meant to be anti-infantry then it's damage should not be as high as it currently is. Large blasters are not balanced. Railguns can not kill people easily. Missiles can not kill infantry easily. Blasters can kill tanks and infantry with very litte effort. Sure blasters have a slight disadvantage when fighting vehicles but not enough to actually make a difference. No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
Altina McAlterson Pure Innocence. EoN. 852	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:20:00 - [36] - Quote There's only 2 problems with tanks: 1. They are way too cheap, especially the militia tanks. 2. Rail tanks in the redline. That's it. Everything else might not be fine, but it is at least tolerable. Good Advice Grey 17 should have stayed missing.
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 64	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:23:00 - [37] - Quote abarkrishna wrote: Soldier Sorajord wrote: abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. Blaster is meant for anti infantry. Get over it. It wouldn't have 200 rounds and a heat up if it wasn't for anti infantry. Rails and missiles are your AV. Wrong currently the large blaster is just as effective at killing tanks as any other large turret. If it is meant to be anti-infantry then it's damage should not be as high as it currently is. Large blasters are not balanced. Railguns can not kill people easily. Missiles can not kill infantry easily. Blasters can kill tanks and infantry with very litte effort. Sure blasters have a slight disadvantage when fighting vehicles but not enough to actually make a difference. Do you even run blasters? They aren't unbalanced. If you wanna keep QQ then go somewhere else, LOL. They're a CLOSE RANGE WEAPON. They can kill both Infantry and Vehicles. AT CLOSE RANGE. Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :) Chromosome Veteran *Subsonic.*
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 64	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:24:00 - [38] - Quote Altina McAlterson wrote: There's only 2 problems with tanks: 1. They are way too cheap, especially the militia tanks. 2. Rail tanks in the redline. That's it. Everything else might not be fine, but it is at least tolerable. EXACTLY. I don't understand all the QQ about tank specifics. They were garbage pre 1.7. You had to be full proto to really have any effect pre 1.7. People who tanked before 1.7 know what I mean. Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :) Chromosome Veteran *Subsonic.*
The Attorney General 1941	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:30:00 - [39] - Quote Atiim wrote: I've got both Missiles and Blasters too. But wasn't it tankers who said that the best AV should be another HAV? I was also tanking before the changes, and I will still tank after the changes. I'm not an AV player? Swarm Launchers & Plasma Cannons are specifically classified as AV weapons, so yes I am an AV player. Along with that, Gunnlogies are HAVs, and Particle Cannons and Neuron Blasters are also turrets, so yes I am also a tanker as well. It's rather hilarious. A tanker tells me to adapt, and I do. Then they come tell me about how they don't like the way I adapted. Could you please make up your mind already? I am known as a tanker. Why is that? Because you will always find The Attorney General in a tank. There are limited exceptions, like speccing Sniper Rifles to counter forges and swarms from before 1.6, but beyond that, it is 100% tanking. Lots of AV? I tank. Endless enemy tanks? I keep tanking. PC? I tank. If you see me on the other team, you know I am going to tank. It is not even a question. You say you tanked before, but no one ever witnessed it. Regardless, it wasn't your main activity, the focus of your SP. By your own admission, you had 10m into swarms and support skills. So unless you were running Omega boosters since they first went on sale, it is likely that a majority of your SP went into infantry skills. This mitigates any claim of calling yourself a tanker. I am not a logi because I drive my tank in a logistics suit. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 64	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:32:00 - [40] - Quote Do you all believe that one guy should be able to two shot a Tank? LOL. Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :) Chromosome Veteran *Subsonic.*

Stinker Butt Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 358	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:34:00 - [41] - Quote Altina McAlterson wrote: There's only 2 problems with tanks: 1. They are way too cheap, especially the militia tanks. 2. Rail tanks in the redline. That's it. Everything else might not be fine, but it is at least tolerable. I agree with that. There are also way too many. Limit of 2 per side per match - 4 total. There shouldn't be more tanks than objectives. Slow them down. It's a tank, it's not supposed to run away. Nerf red line rail tanks hard. Please give tanks some balance
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 64	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:35:00 - [42] - Quote I always wanted to tank, but it was extremely time consuming pre 1.7, because you had to build a really nice tank. Now though, I have a character dedicated to tanking in addition to this one. Why? I love tanking. I just hated getting blown up when I ran STD gear. I played smart, but still got blown up. But now, The passive armor repairer actually gives me a chance to do something. Solution to tank issue: Make them expensive. People won't be calling in tanks every match if they're over 200k per tank. Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :) Chromosome Veteran *Subsonic.*
abarkrishna WarRavens 296	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:35:00 - [43] - Quote Soldier Sorajord wrote: Do you all believe that one guy should be able to two shot a Tank? LOL. Do you think tanks should be cheaper than proto suits with 5 times the effectiveness in every sense? Do you think one weapon should be both AV and AI? Why should I run my logi when I can just run tanks and actually profit? No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 64	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:38:00 - [44] - Quote abarkrishna wrote: Soldier Sorajord wrote: Do you all believe that one guy should be able to two shot a Tank? LOL. Do you think tanks should be cheaper than proto suits with 5 times the effectiveness in every sense? Do you think one weapon should be both AV and AI? No. Yes. If it's still an issue. I'm sure CCP could really just change the Effectiveness against Infantry Vs Effectiveness vs Vehicles. Just like how a rifle does only about 11% dmg to installations/Vehicles. Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :) Chromosome Veteran *Subsonic.*
The Attorney General 1941	Posted - 2014.02.13 15:54:00 - [45] - Quote abarkrishna wrote: Soldier Sorajord wrote: Do you all believe that one guy should be able to two shot a Tank? LOL. Do you think tanks should be cheaper than proto suits with 5 times the effectiveness in every sense? Do you think one weapon should be both AV and AI? Why should I run my logi when I can just run tanks and actually profit? 1. An all around basic tank, which is the limit for keeping the cost down under a proto suit is not 5 times more effective. If it is a blaster tank, it is more effective at killing infantry than a dropsuit, but it will be very vulnerable to either a cheap MLT rail, or pretty much any combo of AV once the hardeners are off. So if a cheap tank can be wiped out by an equally cheap railgun, how effective is it? Further, while in the tank, you cannot perform any of those wonderful squad actions like ammo, uplinks, hacking etc. With that said, tanks could use a price increase. Just not for the reason you think. If someone wants to use a tank for a short joyride to kill some dumb reds who didn't think about AV out of the gate, they should be able to. When they get destroyed it should cost them though. 2. PLC is dual use. So is the FG. The FG was so good at AI that it had to be nerfed. Blasters give up efficiency versus vehicles in order to be anti infantry focused. Missiles make trades in both departments, and Railguns are vehicle focused. 3. If you are motivated solely by profit, just grab a starter fit and STFU. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
pdiddy anfama KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 115	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:02:00 - [46] - Quote How about get good. The tank QQ is hilarious they can be killed in one instant with a jihad taxi CCP fix PC your core game mode Blah blah blah about locking districts as long as there is frame rate drops
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 157	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:04:00 - [47] - Quote I'll gladly give up my large blasters. IF I get this in return, or at least this. On a more serious note, blasters should not be nerfed against infantry, but instead slightly against HAVs, and I mean HAVs alone, not LAVs or Dropships. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
TechMechMeds Swamp Tempo Canis Eliminatus Operatives 2696	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:06:00 - [48] - Quote Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: That would not be a great start. Nerfing them, for sure. But "Hey guys I have a great idea lets remove some of the already limited content in the game because I can't think of a better way of working it!" is stupid. Nerf them so they're either capable only of AI, and change them to AV when we get a medium vehicle class (so HAVs are heavy breaching and AV weapons) or just make them CQC AV par excellence. This is the way to do it. Im not a tank advocate, that much is probably well know. But even I disagree with removing blaster turrets, we want a full battlfiled, not 2 seperate ones. Nerf the Blaster by giving it dispersion, REAL dispersion. Then reduce tne DPS to approx 400 DPS and reduce optimal ramge to 80m and effective to 200m. It is now a CLOSE RANGE anti infantry turret. By reducing the DPS sentinels can now go toe to toe as expected. Buff Swarms, FG, Plc by 25% direct damage. Then increase charge time on hardners by 50% Sorted. AGREED. And one more thing: SLOW the tanks down!!! This is not Fast and Furious Tank 514 But I haz nos and eye stol the tank boss. Level 2 forum warrior. Swamp iz on dat welevant flex fam I sold my family to the Amarr for isk, its a valid tactic
abarkrishna WarRavens 296	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:10:00 - [49] - Quote It's not about profit. I have plenty of isk. My issue is when 7 enemy tanks come out and my entire squad goes av gets one tank almost dead and he runs away like a rocket o nly to have another tank roll up with full Hp and hardeners. I find it stupid that I spent 18 million Sp to be a logi that I can no longer use due to tank spam. The point is tanks are not balanced and there needs to be something put in place. I did not claim to have the answers I was merely posting some suggestions made by the community. Just because I feel blasters are Op does not mean ****. You have your opinion I have mine. Regardless of that something needs to happen. Obviously CCP is aware of the problems and I am asking what their plans are. This debate has been going on since 1.7 came out and I really do not care to continue it again. All I want to know is what CCP intends to do to resolve this issue. No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
002155 Ametat Security Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:15:00 - [50] - Quote Create a balance between AV and tanks. Right now it is in favor of vehicles. Or lower the skill costs of AV. It really is a fundamental basic of combat. It should not take as long to skill into a forge gun and heavy frame. Grenades skill multiplier should also come down.

Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4456	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:16:00 - [51] - Quote Soldier Sorajord wrote: Do you even run blasters? They aren't unbalanced. If you wanna keep QQ then go somewhere else, LOL. They're a CLOSE RANGE WEAPON. They can kill both Infantry and Vehicles. AT CLOSE RANGE. Totally. Because "close range" is defined as being further than a standard Assault Rifle can fire... If they were ACTUALLY limited in range, AND if tanks didn't move FASTER THAN LAVS, maybe you'd have a valid argument there.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 380	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:18:00 - [52] - Quote Soldier Sorajord wrote: I always wanted to tank, but it was extremely time consuming pre 1.7, because you had to build a really nice tank. Now though, I have a character dedicated to tanking in addition to this one. Why? I love tanking. I just hated getting blown up when I ran STD gear. I played smart, but still got blown up. But now, The passive armor repairer actually gives me a chance to do something. Solution to tank issue: Make them expensive. People won't be calling in tanks every match if they're over 200k per tank. I can tell by how you speak that you have experience but on the price side just beware of what you ask for and who's corner your in because enforcers are next and do you really want to pay 1.7 prices for them ..??.. and pro tanks .. just think about the prices .. I would just wait and see what CCP will do with both of those classes first before I back a price increase .. it might just balance its self out in the end without asking for added taxes. Future Caldari Heavy so watch out for this Sumo Shinobi with a Caldari HMG .
Altina McAlterson Pure Innocence. EoN. 853	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:20:00 - [53] - Quote Also worth pointing out that the problem goes way beyond tanks or AV. I run Ambush exclusively and always solo. Around 50% of the matches where the enemy team drops five tanks my team would drop zero. Eventually someone would try to call one in halfway through the match bit it was toast before it hit the ground. A Sica with a solid fit of all militia gear costs ~75K and requires O SP. Why is it that out of sixteen players on my team none of them call in a tank at the start of the match? And 100% of the time when I pull out a forge gun I get no support from the rest of my team. No one stays by me to rep me or defend the position so I can shoot. I can' t tell you how many times I've died while charging the shot that would take out that tank because my team vanished like a fart in the wind. There's nothing CCP can do about that so I wish they would fix the redline rail tanks and cost of the vehicles first and see what happens. Unfortunately they probably won't do that and will instead do something completely off the wall that will **** everyone off or make flat out make the situation worse. Good Advice Grey 17 should have stayed missing.
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution 664	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:21:00 - [54] - Quote abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. I don't think blasters themselves are a problem. They only seem like a problem now because you can ALWAYS get them in range, as there is no effective AV threat. Easy solution: buff AV. Maybe +30% damage for forges and +50% damage plus a range increase for swarms. That way blasters will remain devastating but the challenge will be to get them in range.
abarkrishna WarRavens 296	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:23:00 - [55] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. I don't think blasters themselves are a problem. They only seem like a problem now because you can ALWAYS get them in range, as there is no effective AV threat. Easy solution: buff AV. Maybe +30% damage for forges and +50% damage plus a range increase for swarms. That way blasters will remain devastating but the challenge will be to get them in range. This is the first valid counter point I have heard yet. No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
Spectral Clone Dust2Dust. Top Men. 1226	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:27:00 - [56] - Quote Implement specific AV slot, or make the grenade slot a bomb launcher/launcher hardpoint, so that anyone with a grenade slot can carry AV. This is weapon layout for pilots in titanfall: Rifle, sidearm, Av weapon, grenade. Why do we have so few weapon slots? If tanks are beastly and easily available, why shouldnt AV be available for everyone? Or just buff AV grenades back to previous damage levels. Drop it like its hat.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 380	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:30:00 - [57] - Quote All I have to say is no one but me .. and yes I admit it .. complained when before it was 4 or 5 dropships flying around doing just that and nothing else .. not transport .. not tactical support .. just flying around and I would sit and wonder , what the hell is going on? Actually played a game like that yesterday or when there were 5 or 6 LAV's just driving around trying to get road kills. When I play and it's more than 4 tanks on the field for one team .. they do not win and if so it is because the opposition allows such by their complacency to counter. Future Caldari Heavy so watch out for this Sumo Shinobi with a Caldari HMG .
The Attorney General 1941	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:31:00 - [58] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: I don't think blasters themselves are a problem. They only seem like a problem now because you can ALWAYS get them in range, as there is no effective AV threat. Easy solution: buff AV. Maybe +30% damage for forges and +50% damage plus a range increase for swarms. That way blasters will remain devastating but the challenge will be to get them in range. That is just overkill. The FG needs no more damage. If you want to increase its DPS you do it by ROF. Otherwise there is no point having LAVs and dropships. Swarms do not need a buff to stronger than 1.6 levels. Are you drunk? Swarms should get EITHER a damage buff to make them a keep away weapon, or range to make them a harassing killer. You don't give them both and reward scrubs for letting a weapon do the work for them. Or, instead of all that, and really making things awkard for every other class, how about you just chop 30% off the range of the blaster tank? No one can really explain why the blaster got such a range buff in 1.7, it did not need it. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
abarkrishna WarRavens 297	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:34:00 - [59] - Quote FG does not need a damage buff. Swarms however do. They should never have touched the damage on swarms. The range nerf I understand. No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 380	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:37:00 - [60] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. I don't think blasters themselves are a problem. They only seem like a problem now because you can ALWAYS get them in range, as there is no effective AV threat. Easy solution: buff AV. Maybe +30% damage for forges and +50% damage plus a range increase for swarms. That way blasters will remain devastating but the challenge will be to get them in range. 1.7 all over again but the range increase I can back but this just shows that the REAL problem is that you are mad community or rather those who feel so , that you just can't instasolo a tank anymore without having to work for it .. I just played a game where I almost solo'd a tank basic FG. Future Caldari Heavy so watch out for this Sumo Shinobi with a Caldari HMG .

abarkrishna WarRavens 298	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:42:00 - [61] - Quote They nerfed the range because of the invisible swarms pre 1.7 The draw distance still exists so they can not buff range. Thats why a damage buff is needed for swarms. Besides to get as close as you currently have to to use swarms your easily gunned down by blasters. Oh hey there is a swarmer let me just drive towards him and not activate my hardener because my passive repps will heal me before he gets another shot off. No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2. When will they learn!
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 380	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:43:00 - [62] - Quote If you kill the range of blasters then you have to do the same for railguns .. it's already getting to the point where they dominate the playing field. Future Caldari Heavy so watch out for this Sumo Shinobi with a Caldari HMG .
Smooth Assassin Stardust Incorporation IMMORTAL REGIME 836	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:43:00 - [63] - Quote abarkrishna wrote: It is getting pretty effing ridiculous. 1.7 has been out for 2 months and not a word has been uttered about what your doing to fix tanks. How about some input? Suggestions: Increase the cost. It is not balanced when a tank is cheaper than a proto suit with 5 times the HP, Movement speed, armor regen,and overall effectiveness Make armor reppers an active module again instead of passive. Nerf/ get rid of large blasters Limitations on how many active tanks are on one team. 8 tanks in a round on one team is way to many. They don't know... they're game testers leave this game cos it's stupid and they don't even play it so they don't know... *Assassination is my thing.*
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution 665	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:46:00 - [64] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: I don't think blasters themselves are a problem. They only seem like a problem now because you can ALWAYS get them in range, as there is no effective AV threat. Easy solution: buff AV. Maybe +30% damage for forges and +50% damage plus a range increase for swarms. That way blasters will remain devastating but the challenge will be to get them in range. That is just overkill. The FG needs no more damage. If you want to increase its DPS you do it by ROF. Otherwise there is no point having LAVs and dropships. Swarms do not need a buff to stronger than 1.6 levels. Are you drunk? Swarms should get EITHER a damage buff to make them a keep away weapon, or range to make them a harassing killer. You don't give them both and reward scrubs for letting a weapon do the work for them. Or, instead of all that, and really making things awkard for every other class, how about you just chop 30% off the range of the blaster tank? No one can really explain why the blaster got such a range buff in 1.7, it did not need it. A RoF increase for forge would be okay I guess, provided it was big enough. I don't have any SP in swarms, but anyone can see that they need a major buff. They lost >50% of both range and damage, I don't think it's unreasonable to get some of that back. The basic point is that AV needs to be better at AV than a rail tank is. AV is vulnerable to everything - every tank and every infantry unit. A rail tank is only vulnerable to a small minority of units on the field. For AV to be at all viable, it needs to do the one thing it does well (AV) better than anything else.
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution 665	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:55:00 - [65] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. I don't think blasters themselves are a problem. They only seem like a problem now because you can ALWAYS get them in range, as there is no effective AV threat. Easy solution: buff AV. Maybe +30% damage for forges and +50% damage plus a range increase for swarms. That way blasters will remain devastating but the challenge will be to get them in range. 1.7 all over again but the range increase I can back but this just shows that the REAL problem is that you are mad community or rather those who feel so , that you just can't instasolo a tank anymore without having to work for it .. I just played a game where I almost solo'd a tank basic FG. The very fact you tell a story about ALMOST killing a tank with a forge is telling. I just played a game where I ACTUALLY soloed 40 infantry, and no one thinks that's a story worth telling, nor should they. Why should a tanker, who is after all only one player, the same as an infantryman is, get accorded such exalted status that almost killing them is considered a feat? Especially when their tank costs less than a proto infantry fit, and a small fraction of the SP?
KenKaniff69 Fatal Absolution 2089	Posted - 2014.02.13 16:57:00 - [66] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: The basic point is that AV needs to be better at AV than a rail tank is. AV is vulnerable to everything - every tank and every infantry unit. A rail tank is only vulnerable to a small minority of units on the field. For AV to be at all viable, it needs to do the one thing it does well (AV) better than anything else. That's wrong. AV should not be soloing tanks like it did in 1.6. One guy on a tower could deny vehicles access to half the map. Right now a forge is perfectly balanced in that regard. 300m range, decent damage, reasonable clip size. I refuse to comment on swarms because they are for scrubs. Learn to aim. So about those vehicle locks...
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution 667	Posted - 2014.02.13 17:05:00 - [67] - Quote KenKaniff69 wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: The basic point is that AV needs to be better at AV than a rail tank is. AV is vulnerable to everything - every tank and every infantry unit. A rail tank is only vulnerable to a small minority of units on the field. For AV to be at all viable, it needs to do the one thing it does well (AV) better than anything else. That's wrong. AV should not be soloing tanks like it did in 1.6. One guy on a tower could deny vehicles access to half the map. Right now a forge is perfectly balanced in that regard. 300m range, decent damage, reasonable clip size. I refuse to comment on swarms because they are for scrubs. Learn to aim. That's a problem with towers, not AV. Fences are the solution. I've never used swarms, but if they're going to be in the game, they need to be a viable threat, which they really are not now. Look at it like this. ANY role should have risk and reward. The problem with 1.6 tower forging is the same as the problem with 1.7 tanks - it's all reward and no risk. And before anyone says '1.7 tanking IS HARD!!!!111', explain to me Duna's thousands of monthly kills at 88 KDR.
The Attorney General 1945	Posted - 2014.02.13 17:08:00 - [68] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: And before anyone says '1.7 tanking IS HARD!!!!111', explain to me Duna's thousands of monthly kills at 88 KDR. Ambush stomping. Plus, he runs away when the tank gets popped. If they just removed vehicles from Ambush Duna would quit the game and many noobs would still be playing. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution 668	Posted - 2014.02.13 17:15:00 - [69] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: And before anyone says '1.7 tanking IS HARD!!!!111', explain to me Duna's thousands of monthly kills at 88 KDR. Ambush stomping. Plus, he runs away when the tank gets popped. If they just removed vehicles from Ambush Duna would quit the game and many noobs would still be playing. That's true, but even so, the best ambush stomping infantry can't get above about 8 or 9 KDR. What's more likely: 1. Duna is ten times better than the best pubstomping infantryman. or 2. Tanks are OP. I know where my money is.
Altina McAlterson Pure Innocence. EoN. 853	Posted - 2014.02.13 17:20:00 - [70] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: And before anyone says '1.7 tanking IS HARD!!!!111', explain to me Duna's thousands of monthly kills at 88 KDR. Using scrubby tactics to kill scrubby players in a scrubby fashion that relies purely on scrubbery. I care about Duna and his corp about as mush as I care about the person at the top of the all time KDR board. Good Advice Grey 17 should have stayed missing.

Neo Rinzler Commando Perkone Caldari State 32	Posted - 2014.02.13 18:13:00 - [71] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: straya fox wrote: I think stacking hardeners lies at the heart of a lot of issues with tanks, there are no 'windows of opportunity' with a triple or double hardened tank. They can still be destroyed ... it depends on the experience of the driver v.s the experience of the attacker .. basic. No one should be able to solo a tank unless the driver is a glutton for punishment or is just inexperienced and that's where the problem lies at for most and I would even go as far as saying that jihad jeeps shouldn't work either with basic RE's .. check the stats and the math doesn't equate the outcome if it's less than 5 on a jeep and evenmoreso if hardners are active. I'm suprised more tankers are not bringing that to attention but they sure do get alot of slack from the community and there constant nerf quest. Why not ? In that case Tanks shouldn't be able to Kill Infantry solo either then ! It should take teamwork from Tankers to kill 1 infantryman .... Sound familiar ? Yep .. it's the Tanker argument switched around
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4459	Posted - 2014.02.13 18:20:00 - [72] - Quote Ryme Intrinseca wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: And before anyone says '1.7 tanking IS HARD!!!!111', explain to me Duna's thousands of monthly kills at 88 KDR. Ambush stomping. Plus, he runs away when the tank gets popped. If they just removed vehicles from Ambush Duna would quit the game and many noobs would still be playing. That's true, but even so, the best ambush stomping infantry can't get above about 8 or 9 KDR. What's more likely: 1. Duna is ten times better than the best pubstomping infantryman. or 2. Tanks are OP. I know where my money is. You forgot option 3. Tanks aren't OP in a fair and balanced setting, but random pub players suck at countering them, so they look far more OP than any infantry options because those can be more effectively countered 1 vs. 1. Forge Guns are viable AV weapons. Plasma Cannons are bordering on almost viable. Swarm Launchers can barely scratch armour tanks when they're meant to be a viable threat to them, and can do literally nothing of value against shield tanks which should at least suffer some negative repercussions from being fired on by an ANTI-VEHICLE WEAPON. Tanks aren't OP, but most AV needs a buff.
Altina McAlterson Pure Innocence. EoN. 853	Posted - 2014.02.13 18:43:00 - [73] - Quote Tanks are not OP at all. Like the poster above said people just suck at countering tanks. Run some spambush with 3 proto forges in a squad and then come back and tell me tanks are OP. Although swarms are another story entirely. They need major work. Good Advice Grey 17 should have stayed missing.
Debacle Nano BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 656	Posted - 2014.02.13 18:48:00 - [74] - Quote You know what would solve the tank problem? Webifiers. Closed beta anyone?
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 1954	Posted - 2014.02.13 20:22:00 - [75] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Ryme Intrinseca wrote: And before anyone says '1.7 tanking IS HARD!!!!111', explain to me Duna's thousands of monthly kills at 88 KDR. Ambush stomping. Plus, he runs away when the tank gets popped. If they just removed vehicles from Ambush Duna would quit the game and many noobs would still be playing. That's true, but even so, the best ambush stomping infantry can't get above about 8 or 9 KDR. What's more likely: 1. Duna is ten times better than the best pubstomping infantryman. or 2. Tanks are OP. I know where my money is. You forgot option 3. Tanks aren't OP in a fair and balanced setting, but random pub players suck at countering them, so they look far more OP than any infantry options because those can be more effectively countered 1 vs. 1. Forge Guns are viable AV weapons. Plasma Cannons are bordering on almost viable. Swarm Launchers can barely scratch armour tanks when they're meant to be a viable threat to them, and can do literally nothing of value against shield tanks which should at least suffer some negative repercussions from being fired on by an ANTI-VEHICLE WEAPON. Tanks aren't OP, but most AV needs a buff. Whats fair amd balanced setting? Where one MLT tank requires 2-3proto forges in a high up position, with infantry protection? Spkr4thedead: Me > AV This is why tanks are unbalanced Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.
The Attorney General 1949	Posted - 2014.02.13 20:49:00 - [76] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Whats fair amd balanced setting? Where one MLT tank requires 2-3proto forges in a high up position, with infantry protection? They don't need infantry protection up high, and 3 forges will keep ALL vehicles away, not just one tank. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4632	Posted - 2014.02.13 20:51:00 - [77] - Quote Altina McAlterson wrote: Tanks are not OP at all. Like the poster above said people just suck at countering tanks. Run some spambush with 3 proto forges in a squad and then come back and tell me tanks are OP. Although swarms are another story entirely. They need major work. 3 Peple just to destroy my tank? That's a problem. And why are you so intent on giving out bad advice? If you run an AV squad, you'll get rinsed by the hostile infantry. Run a Particle Cannon, and you won't need to worry about them. That's what you should be telling players. If this is going to be a tank-centric game, then at least tell people to play properly. Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4632	Posted - 2014.02.13 20:59:00 - [78] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: You forgot option 3. Tanks aren't OP in a fair and balanced setting, but random pub players suck at countering them, so they look far more OP than any infantry options because those can be more effectively countered 1 vs. 1. Forge Guns are viable AV weapons. Plasma Cannons are bordering on almost viable. Swarm Launchers can barely scratch armour tanks when they're meant to be a viable threat to them, and can do literally nothing of value against shield tanks which should at least suffer some negative repercussions from being fired on by an ANTI-VEHICLE WEAPON. Tanks aren't OP, but most AV needs a buff. You do realize that this is circular right? X isn't OP, the thing that allows X to be balanced is simply UP, which makes X OP in the first place. So it's either "The user suck" or "The user's gear sucks." Saying both is a double negative. Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4634	Posted - 2014.02.13 21:02:00 - [79] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Whats fair amd balanced setting? Where one MLT tank requires 2-3proto forges in a high up position, with infantry protection? They don't need infantry protection up high, and 3 forges will keep ALL vehicles away, not just one tank. They'll still need other infantry for resupplying and reps when the enemy team fields a Sniper. Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
Alternate Insano SUICIDE SPITE SQUAD 39	Posted - 2014.02.13 21:22:00 - [80] - Quote Tanks should be the kings of a battlefield. That's why the US Army has the Javelin AV launcher. It can one shot a T72. But none of the imaginary companies of DUST, while capable of building interstellar space craft, can make a decent anti tank rocket?

Altina McAlterson Pure Innocence. EoN. 853	Posted - 2014.02.13 21:34:00 - [81] - Quote Atiim wrote: Altina McAlterson wrote: Tanks are not OP at all. Like the poster above said people just suck at countering tanks. Run some spambush with 3 proto forges in a squad and then come back and tell me tanks are OP. Although swarms are another story entirely. They need major work. 3 Peple just to destroy my tank? That's a problem. And why are you so intent on giving out bad advice? If you run an AV squad, you'll get rinsed by the hostile infantry. Run a Particle Cannon, and you won't need to worry about them. That's what you should be telling players. If this is going to be a tank-centric game, then at least tell people to play properly. I have to admit you almost got me with this one. I had already started typing a point by point rebuttal when I realized your intention is to generally spew nonsense at every chance and your comments were not intended for serious discussion. Well played. Good Advice Grey 17 should have stayed missing.
The Attorney General 1951	Posted - 2014.02.13 22:07:00 - [82] - Quote Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Whats fair amd balanced setting? Where one MLT tank requires 2-3proto forges in a high up position, with infantry protection? They don't need infantry protection up high, and 3 forges will keep ALL vehicles away, not just one tank. They'll still need other infantry for resupplying and reps when the enemy team fields a Sniper. LOL, Atiim wants to pretend that he spent SP on multiple things, but that no one else does. Spawn in as a logi, bring links and hives, throw your useless corpse off the rooftop and spawn with the forge. One man in a fat suit with lots of reps and resupply for all his friends. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4646	Posted - 2014.02.13 22:11:00 - [83] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: LOL, Atiim wants to pretend that he spent SP on multiple things, but that no one else does. Spawn in as a logi, bring links and hives, throw your useless corpse off the rooftop and spawn with the forge. One man in a fat suit with lots of reps and resupply for all his friends. An even match can last a very long time, and your hives might run out; and according to you it's not just one man in a fat suit. It's 3. Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
The Attorney General 1951	Posted - 2014.02.13 22:13:00 - [84] - Quote Atiim wrote: An even match can last a very long time, and your hives might run out; and according to you it's not just one man in a fat suit. It's 3. And one of them can do the hives next time, or one guy can be greedy for WP. You still haven't made a point. Oh thats right, you just troll because you can't AV or tank. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect Negative-Feedback 1011	Posted - 2014.02.13 22:24:00 - [85] - Quote abarkrishna wrote: It is getting pretty effing ridiculous. 1.7 has been out for 2 months and not a word has been uttered about what your doing to fix tanks. How about some input? Suggestions: Increase the cost. It is not balanced when a tank is cheaper than a proto suit with 5 times the HP, Movement speed, armor regen,and overall effectiveness Make armor reppers an active module again instead of passive. Nerf/ get rid of large blasters Limitations on how many active tanks are on one team. 8 tanks in a round on one team is way to many. Isk balancing is still the worst balancing. Sure, it would alleviate the worst tank spam slightly (currently it is completely trivial to call in tanks - but so will it be in the future for some even with higher prices) You have to be careful with hard limits on tanks. Better suggestiion is to make calling in Nth tank a loooong time - like 1-2mins. That'll deal with that issue the soft way. Thread about it here. Masochism L5.
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1211	Posted - 2014.02.14 00:14:00 - [86] - Quote Justicar Karnellia wrote: abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. I agree, you have to be careful. I'd say without touching damage the only other things you can touch are: 1) dispersion (already mentioned 2) ammo counts - currently very high... if you've ever run a tank you quickly understand how ammo expansion packs are never used. 3) heat buildup RoF. That is all that would make a difference. RoF. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Rusty Shallows 961	Posted - 2014.02.14 00:24:00 - [87] - Quote Altina McAlterson wrote: Atiim wrote: Altina McAlterson wrote: Tanks are not OP at all. Like the poster above said people just suck at countering tanks. Run some spambush with 3 proto forges in a squad and then come back and tell me tanks are OP. Although swarms are another story entirely. They need major work. 3 Peple just to destroy my tank? That's a problem. And why are you so intent on giving out bad advice? If you run an AV squad, you'll get rinsed by the hostile infantry. Run a Particle Cannon, and you won't need to worry about them. That's what you should be telling players. If this is going to be a tank-centric game, then at least tell people to play properly. I have to admit you almost got me with this one. I had already started typing a point by point rebuttal when I realized your intention is to generally spew nonsense at every chance and your comments were not intended for serious discussion. Well played. The reason you didn't do a point by point rebuttal is because Atiim got you. Calling b###s##t or staying quiet were your only options at this point. Personally I would have stayed quiet and let readers make up their own minds. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
Horizen Kenpachi Kenpachi's Castle 161	Posted - 2014.02.14 00:35:00 - [88] - Quote My gunniloggggeeeee says tanks are fine theres nothing planning and knowing ur enemy cant fix i have 1.5 mill sp in vehicles and theres nothing i cant counter except stupidity Hit me with your nerf bat.
Aeon Amadi Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 4884	Posted - 2014.02.14 00:54:00 - [89] - Quote The Attorney General wrote: Atiim wrote: The Attorney General wrote: This is just a thread of bads having a pity party. Kinda reminds me of your pre 1.7 posts. Nice try, but you can go back to the start of uprising, where I am saying that tanks are fine, and that the only major change needs to be rendering fixes. Unlike you, I actually adapted, learned to thrive and then made posts. Also, I didn't have the experience of using a crutch like all the pre-uprising tankers did, so I was not spoiled by being OP. You were, and you can't help but long for the days when your OP weapon that did the work for you made you feel strong. Poor baby. Went ahead and highlighted some notable aspects of this post to distinguish the difference between constructive criticism and accusation with some ad hominem (if, such allegations are true). Mostly because this argument is lulzy to me Useful Links //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588 //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4465	Posted - 2014.02.14 06:17:00 - [90] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: You forgot option 3. Tanks aren't OP in a fair and balanced setting, but random pub players suck at countering them, so they look far more OP than any infantry options because those can be more effectively countered 1 vs. 1. Forge Guns are viable AV weapons. Plasma Cannons are bordering on almost viable. Swarm Launchers can barely scratch armour tanks when they're meant to be a viable threat to them, and can do literally nothing of value against shield tanks which should at least suffer some negative repercussions from being fired on by an ANTI-VEHICLE WEAPON. Tanks aren't OP, but most AV needs a buff. Whats fair amd balanced setting? Where one MLT tank requires 2-3proto forges in a high up position, with infantry protection? You don't need infantry protection against a tank. You need infantry protection against infantry. If you're talking about infantry protection, you're not trying to counter the tank, but a COORDINATED EFFORT THAT INCLUDES A TANK. These are two very different scenarios. Also, the job of AV shouldn't be ALWAYS about "kill tank, move to next" - simply DENYING the tank value is a more practical approach, and can be achieved with only 1 or 2 Forge Gunners (depending on the skills/equipment of both sides). The problem here is that the game doesn't reward players for vehicle damage like it did in beta (removed because WP farming and orbitals, I believe). When vehicle damage WP comes back, a proper AV area denial role will be effective AND rewarding enough to be worth considering. Atiim wrote: You do realize that this is circular right? X isn't OP, the thing that allows X to be balanced is simply UP, which makes X OP in the first place. So it's either "The user suck" or "The user's gear sucks." Saying both is a double negative. People using Forge Guns and failing are usually using them wrong. People using Light AV weapons are using underpowered weapons that need a buff to be viable in their intended role. AV being underpowered IS NOT the same as vehicles being overpowered. Fixing one requires something to be nerfed, fixing the other requires something to be buffed. They're exact OPPOSITE problems with exact opposite solutions. If something has no viable counter, it's OP. If something has a viable counter that doesn't work properly, the counter is UP, and the appearance of OP-ness is an illusion based on a completely different flaw. If someone gave you a cheap counterfeit fire-resistant suit, and you walked through a fire and got burned, it was because the suit was cheap junk, not because the fire was too hot. The fire worked as intended, the counter to it didn't. Tanks work (for the most part) as intended. AV doesn't. The problem is with AV, not with tanks, and AV is what needs fixing, not tanks. I'm not going to say tanks are perfect, having them move faster than LAVs is completely insane and I have no idea who thought that was anything other than utterly ridiculous. They need slowing down, and ONE turret type needs to be looked at seriously for ways to balance it properly. Railguns need to be balanced by competent map design, not more nerfs. Blasters are the only weapon with a legitimate argument for their OP-ness with tanks. There's argument that they're the anti-infantry turret, but by that argument, they're WAAAAY too effective against other vehicles to qualify as anti-infantry, and should suffer a "small arms" penalty like other anti-infantry weapons do against vehicles. The other argument is that they're "short ranged" and are only useful in close. Considering the range at which they're useful against both vehicles and other infantry is easily well into infantry's long range, they need a range nerf (along with the aforementioned HAV speed nerf to a vaguely sensible level) before they're filling a short range niche instead of ALWAYS being "close" to EVERYTHING and killing because "you should have stayed further away".

Awry Barux New Eden Blades Of The Azure Zero-Day 557	Posted - 2014.02.14 06:19:00 - [91] - Quote Soldier Sorajord wrote: abarkrishna wrote: Soldier Sorajord wrote: abarkrishna wrote: There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground. I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them. To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. Blaster is meant for anti infantry. Get over it. It wouldn't have 200 rounds and a heat up if it wasn't for anti infantry. Rails and missiles are your AV. Wrong currently the large blaster is just as effective at killing tanks as any other large turret. If it is meant to be anti-infantry then it's damage should not be as high as it currently is. Large blasters are not balanced. Railguns can not kill people easily. Missiles can not kill infantry easily. Blasters can kill tanks and infantry with very litte effort. Sure blasters have a slight disadvantage when fighting vehicles but not enough to actually make a difference. Do you even run blasters? They aren't unbalanced. If you wanna keep QQ then go somewhere else, LOL. They're a CLOSE RANGE WEAPON. They can kill both Infantry and Vehicles. AT CLOSE RANGE. pffft. 150m is not close range.
Soldier Sorajord Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 71	Posted - 2014.02.14 15:06:00 - [92] - Quote So done with you all, lol. Do not complain if you have never done anything about it. Chromosome Veteran *Subsonic.*
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4474	Posted - 2014.02.15 06:44:00 - [93] - Quote Soldier Sorajord wrote: Run some blasters and try hitting a heavy from 150m, then come back to talk about how "easy" it was. I can honestly say that it's MUCH easier hitting them with a Blaster Turret than a Missile Turret, which ISN'T meant to be a short-range weapon, and is meant to be useful against infantry. Or an Assault Rifle, Plasma Cannon, Shotgun, or anything else that's typically described as a short range weapon. Next?
Maniak Madness Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 10	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:26:00 - [94] - Quote Stinker Butt wrote: Altina McAlterson wrote: There's only 2 problems with tanks: 1. They are way too cheap, especially the militia tanks. 2. Rail tanks in the redline. That's it. Everything else might not be fine, but it is at least tolerable. I agree with that. There are also way too many. Limit of 2 per side per match - 4 total. There shouldn't be more tanks than objectives. Slow them down. It's a tank, it's not supposed to run away. Nerf red line rail tanks hard. I suppose we should put a cap on how many heavies are allowed per team too while were at it, since 1.8 is just around the corner. In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom.
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1634	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:35:00 - [95] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: That would not be a great start. Nerfing them, for sure. But "Hey guys I have a great idea lets remove some of the already limited content in the game because I can't think of a better way of working it!" is stupid. Nerf them so they're either capable only of AI, and change them to AV when we get a medium vehicle class (so HAVs are heavy breaching and AV weapons) or just make them CQC AV par excellence. This is the way to do it. Im not a tank advocate, that much is probably well know. But even I disagree with removing blaster turrets, we want a full battlfiled, not 2 seperate ones. Nerf the Blaster by giving it dispersion, REAL dispersion. Then reduce tne DPS to approx 400 DPS and reduce optimal ramge to 80m and effective to 200m. It is now a CLOSE RANGE anti infantry turret. By reducing the DPS sentinels can now go toe to toe as expected. Buff Swarms, FG, Plc by 25% direct damage. Then increase charge time on hardners by 50% Sorted. They should take this time to introduce modules that modify light av weapons. Faster lock times, more range, faster projectiles and a larger blast radius. Allow AVers to fit their suit with modules that make AV weapons better. GÇ£No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride." Hunter S. Thompson


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.