DUST Search - Tankers: Pick two of three poll

All Channels

General Discussions

Tankers: Pick two of three poll

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Awry Barux New Eden Blades Of The Azure Zero-Day 580	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:07:00 - [1] - Quote Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three.
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1220	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:10:00 - [2] - Quote Yeah we can. Lol. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 370	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:16:00 - [3] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. The madrugar is the problem, the gunlogi strugles to aim 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7070	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:33:00 - [4] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. Tanks never should be able to have anti infantry capacity on their pilot/main gunner but they should be able to OHKO infantry they nail with their slower firing anti vehicle main gun,. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 269	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:42:00 - [5] - Quote Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive.
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 372	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:47:00 - [6] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. No they shoudlnt be up Unless they are op for 4 more months 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7071	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:48:00 - [7] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ******* ignorant you are doesn't it. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1631	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:51:00 - [8] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ******* ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 372	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:52:00 - [9] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Tanks were for 6 months 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race**
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1631	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:56:00 - [10] - Quote I stand by my assertion. I would not be surprised at all, if a small minority of tankers have soured the opinions of many (though perhaps not all) "AV Infantry" players who will be gunning specifically for this vocal minority. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7072	Posted - 2014.02.15 08:57:00 - [11] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Pff if you call Spkr the vocal majority. For the most part Tankers didn't want another patch of being woefully underpowered or more blanket nerfs against AV. You haven't hurt...unless you are a scout..... unless you experienced the pain of High DPS Autolocking Swarmers ar 400m' while forgers remained invisible at 50m. But agreed. Most veteran tankers, and sane balance oriented ones like myself, are aware of how broken tanks are, they need changes and it seems like we are the only section of the community willing to offer reasonable suggestions. All the rest of you seem to do it *** and moan and call us scrubs but then in the same game fail to combat tanks better than most "scrub" tankers can. The hypocrisy of that is rich, too rich. As such blanket statements like that are only indicative of how weak minded an individual like this guy is. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4477	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:02:00 - [12] - Quote Tanks shouldn't be able to outrun LAVs in terms of straightline speed. Also, tanks shouldn't be anti-infantry without compromising on anti-vehicle capabilities. Blasters are too good at too many jobs at too long a range to fit EITHER the claim of anti-infantry or short-range weapon. So Blasters: ACTUALLY limited range, or counting as small arms when shooting vehicles. Pick one. All Railgun turrets need is semi-competent map design to control their lines of fire (particularly from the redline).
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1631	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:06:00 - [13] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Pff if you call Spkr the vocal majority. For the most part Tankers didn't want another patch of being woefully underpowered or more blanket nerfs against AV. You haven't hurt...unless you are a scout..... unless you experienced the pain of High DPS Autolocking Swarmers ar 400m' while forgers remained invisible at 50m. But agreed. Most veteran tankers, and sane balance oriented ones like myself, are aware of how broken tanks are, they need changes and it seems like we are the only section of the community willing to offer reasonable suggestions. All the rest of you seem to do it *** and moan and call us scrubs but then in the same game fail to combat tanks better than most "scrub" tankers can. The hypocrisy of that is rich, too rich. As such blanket statements like that are only indicative of how weak minded an individual like this guy is. Balance should always be at the forefront of AV v V discussions. Personally, I want both sides to require intelligence and teamwork to prosper. I feel this would be best achieved through Crew Service for all vehicles (and not just Dropships/LAVs) as well as requiring that AV Infantry need to work together to destroy them (outside of extreme circumstances such as PRO AV v MLT/STD V). Balance should be based on unmodded AV and V with no hardeners (with slight adjustments for the inclusion of either, they should modify not dictate). Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 270	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:09:00 - [14] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Pff if you call Spkr the vocal majority. For the most part Tankers didn't want another patch of being woefully underpowered or more blanket nerfs against AV. You haven't hurt...unless you are a scout..... unless you experienced the pain of High DPS Autolocking Swarmers ar 400m' while forgers remained invisible at 50m. But agreed. Most veteran tankers, and sane balance oriented ones like myself, are aware of how broken tanks are, they need changes and it seems like we are the only section of the community willing to offer reasonable suggestions. All the rest of you seem to do it *** and moan and call us scrubs but then in the same game fail to combat tanks better than most "scrub" tankers can. The hypocrisy of that is rich, too rich. As such blanket statements like that are only indicative of how weak minded an individual like this guy is. Wow I guess I hit home with that thales comment eh? Whatever mouth-breather, tanks are currently skill-less pwn-mobiles that allow the risk averse to AVOID DAMAGE FROM OVER HALF OF THE GAME. The caps part is the b-llshit portion if you didn't realize it. You guys are the biggest f-cking crybabies this game has ever seen, and now as a community you think we are near balance. How f-cking much would tankers cry if there was something in this game that they couldn't damage and that could OHKO or insta-blap them? Oh right, we already know because that is what they did prior to 1.6. *Now that the situation is 100% inverted, they think everything is fine.* Anyway, my point stands. Tanker = thales users.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7076	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:12:00 - [15] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Tanks shouldn't be able to outrun LAVs in terms of straightline speed. Also, tanks shouldn't be anti-infantry without compromising on anti-vehicle capabilities. Blasters are too good at too many jobs at too long a range to fit EITHER the claim of anti-infantry or short-range weapon. So Blasters: ACTUALLY limited range, or counting as small arms when shooting vehicles. Pick one. All Railgun turrets need is semi-competent map design to control their lines of fire (particularly from the redline). Nah they shouldn't, that ** is pretty ridiculous I have to agree. Tanks shouldn't be anti infantry at all. When was the last time you saw a Main Battle Tank with a .50 Cal as its main gun....never right, so why should Dust 514 tanks operate like that. I'd much rather see Racial Main Battle Cannon, like the Rail gun on All HAV making combat more situational. No longer would HAV massacre infantry like my 31/0 game today, we'd skill shot our targets so no one could *** about it, we'd focus on clear the battlefield of installations and other ground vehicles, we could be as durable as we are now, and be slowed slightly, to compensate for our strengths. I would love to see balanced HAV in Dust 514 as right now they are woefully unbalanced. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7076	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:15:00 - [16] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Pff if you call Spkr the vocal majority. For the most part Tankers didn't want another patch of being woefully underpowered or more blanket nerfs against AV. You haven't hurt...unless you are a scout..... unless you experienced the pain of High DPS Autolocking Swarmers ar 400m' while forgers remained invisible at 50m. But agreed. Most veteran tankers, and sane balance oriented ones like myself, are aware of how broken tanks are, they need changes and it seems like we are the only section of the community willing to offer reasonable suggestions. All the rest of you seem to do it *** and moan and call us scrubs but then in the same game fail to combat tanks better than most "scrub" tankers can. The hypocrisy of that is rich, too rich. As such blanket statements like that are only indicative of how weak minded an individual like this guy is. Wow I guess I hit home with that thales comment eh? Whatever mouth-breather, tanks are currently skill-less pwn-mobiles that allow the risk averse to AVOID DAMAGE FROM OVER HALF OF THE GAME. The caps part is the b-llshit portion if you didn't realize it. You guys are the biggest f-cking crybabies this game has ever seen, and now as a community you think we are near balance. How f-cking much would tankers cry if there was something in this game that they couldn't damage and that could OHKO or insta-blap them? Oh right, we already know because that is what they did prior to 1.6. *Now that the situation is 100% inverted, they think everything is fine.* Anyway, my point stands. Tanker = thales users. I wouldn't know what Sniping or Thales using is like I don't have skills in either since I find such combat style distasteful. When you spend more than a significant portion of your in game time nerfed through the floor then you can whine, since you have only suffered about 6 weeks you have no reason to *****. I would love to see orbitals, if their mechanics were changed insta blap me, kinda feels like they already should since I am being shot with a turret mounted on a 100m long ship. Dunno what else would insta blap me, if you have a well thought out suggestion I am all ears. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 372	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:16:00 - [17] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Pff if you call Spkr the vocal majority. For the most part Tankers didn't want another patch of being woefully underpowered or more blanket nerfs against AV. You haven't hurt...unless you are a scout..... unless you experienced the pain of High DPS Autolocking Swarmers ar 400m' while forgers remained invisible at 50m. But agreed. Most veteran tankers, and sane balance oriented ones like myself, are aware of how broken tanks are, they need changes and it seems like we are the only section of the community willing to offer reasonable suggestions. All the rest of you seem to do it *** and moan and call us scrubs but then in the same game fail to combat tanks better than most "scrub" tankers can. The hypocrisy of that is rich, too rich. As such blanket statements like that are only indicative of how weak minded an individual like this guy is. Wow I guess I hit home with that thales comment eh? Whatever mouth-breather, tanks are currently skill-less pwn-mobiles that allow the risk averse to AVOID DAMAGE FROM OVER HALF OF THE GAME. The caps part is the b-llshit portion if you didn't realize it. You guys are the biggest f-cking crybabies this game has ever seen, and now as a community you think we are near balance. How f-cking much would tankers cry if there was something in this game that they couldn't damage and that could OHKO or insta-blap them? Oh right, we already know because that is what they did prior to 1.6. *Now that the situation is 100% inverted, they think everything is fine.* Anyway, my point stands. Tanker = thales users. Much much isk does infantry lose in a pub? 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1674	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:16:00 - [18] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Pff if you call Spkr the vocal majority. For the most part Tankers didn't want another patch of being woefully underpowered or more blanket nerfs against AV. You haven't hurt...unless you are a scout..... unless you experienced the pain of High DPS Autolocking Swarmers ar 400m' while forgers remained invisible at 50m. But agreed. Most veteran tankers, and sane balance oriented ones like myself, are aware of how broken tanks are, they need changes and it seems like we are the only section of the community willing to offer reasonable suggestions. All the rest of you seem to do it *** and moan and call us scrubs but then in the same game fail to combat tanks better than most "scrub" tankers can. The hypocrisy of that is rich, too rich. As such blanket statements like that are only indicative of how weak minded an individual like this guy is. Wow I guess I hit home with that thales comment eh? Whatever mouth-breather, tanks are currently skill-less pwn-mobiles that allow the risk averse to AVOID DAMAGE FROM OVER HALF OF THE GAME. The caps part is the b-llshit portion if you didn't realize it. You guys are the biggest f-cking crybabies this game has ever seen, and now as a community you think we are near balance. How f-cking much would tankers cry if there was something in this game that they couldn't damage and that could OHKO or insta-blap them? Oh right, we already know because that is what they did prior to 1.6. *Now that the situation is 100% inverted, they think everything is fine.* Anyway, my point stands. Tanker = thales users. You're a scrub. I kill tanks more cheaply and effectively* outside my tank. I have fitting opt 5 for large railguns - does that tell you my dedication to my trade? I have about 3.5 M invested in an AV build. Put up or shut up. *in this context effectively = performing squad support as opposed to solely AV, like a railgun. Happily printing ISK with permahardeners and MLT blasters. Just let me get a couple mil more before nerf, CCP!
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4478	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:18:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Tanks shouldn't be able to outrun LAVs in terms of straightline speed. Also, tanks shouldn't be anti-infantry without compromising on anti-vehicle capabilities. Blasters are too good at too many jobs at too long a range to fit EITHER the claim of anti-infantry or short-range weapon. So Blasters: ACTUALLY limited range, or counting as small arms when shooting vehicles. Pick one. All Railgun turrets need is semi-competent map design to control their lines of fire (particularly from the redline). Nah they shouldn't, that ** is pretty ridiculous I have to agree. Tanks shouldn't be anti infantry at all. When was the last time you saw a Main Battle Tank with a .50 Cal as its main gun....never right, so why should Dust 514 tanks operate like that. I'd much rather see Racial Main Battle Cannon, like the Rail gun on All HAV making combat more situational. No longer would HAV massacre infantry like my 31/0 game today, we'd skill shot our targets so no one could *** about it, we'd focus on clear the battlefield of installations and other ground vehicles, we could be as durable as we are now, and be slowed slightly, to compensate for our strengths. I would love to see balanced HAV in Dust 514 as right now they are woefully unbalanced. If a tank could be anti-infantry by sacrificing its anti-vehicle role, I wouldn't object. Making Blasters as effective against other vehicles as ARs would actually balance them, because then people would only use them when supported by AC weaponry to hold off enemy tanks, and if you saw someone running Blasters and brought even your Missile-armed LAV out, you could take them down (especially if the LAV can move faster than the tank).
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 372	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:24:00 - [20] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: True Adamance wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Tanks shouldn't be able to outrun LAVs in terms of straightline speed. Also, tanks shouldn't be anti-infantry without compromising on anti-vehicle capabilities. Blasters are too good at too many jobs at too long a range to fit EITHER the claim of anti-infantry or short-range weapon. So Blasters: ACTUALLY limited range, or counting as small arms when shooting vehicles. Pick one. All Railgun turrets need is semi-competent map design to control their lines of fire (particularly from the redline). Nah they shouldn't, that ** is pretty ridiculous I have to agree. Tanks shouldn't be anti infantry at all. When was the last time you saw a Main Battle Tank with a .50 Cal as its main gun....never right, so why should Dust 514 tanks operate like that. I'd much rather see Racial Main Battle Cannon, like the Rail gun on All HAV making combat more situational. No longer would HAV massacre infantry like my 31/0 game today, we'd skill shot our targets so no one could * about it, we'd focus on clear the battlefield of installations and other ground vehicles, we could be as durable as we are now, and be slowed slightly, to compensate for our strengths. I would love to see balanced HAV in Dust 514 as right now they are woefully unbalanced. If a tank could be anti-infantry by sacrificing its anti-vehicle role, I wouldn't object. Making Blasters as effective against other vehicles as ARs would actually balance them, because then people would only use them when supported by AC weaponry to hold off enemy tanks, and if you saw someone running Blasters and brought even your Missile-armed LAV out, you could take them down (especially if the LAV can move faster than the tank). If blasters did that damage, no one would run blasters.....but they need a damage and range reduction 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race**

Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 270	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:38:00 - [21] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I wouldn't know what Sniping or Thales using is like I don't have skills in either since I find such combat style distasteful. When you spend more than a significant portion of your in game time nerfed through the floor then you can whine, since you have only suffered about 6 weeks you have no reason to ***. I would love to see orbitals, if their mechanics were changed insta blap me, kinda feels like they already should since I am being shot with a turret mounted on a 100m long ship. Dunno what else would insta blap me, if you have a well thought out suggestion I am all ears. You find hiding in the redline away from the reach of 90% of infantry while killing them distastful, so you jump in a tank away from the reach of 90% of infantry while killing them.... yeah that adds up. So its actually over 9 weeks, over half the amount of time that tanks were bullshit for and we still have at least another 4 weeks to go, so do you feel better now? Do you feel like this horrible balance against infantry is paying you back for where the bad CCP touched you? There should be a non-vehicle based solution, available to anyone to skill into, that works as well against vehicles as vehicles work against infantry. I am not sure what we should call this new role, but it would be the antithesis of vehicles.... lets shorten that, we will call this role anti-vehicle or AV for short. This role should be 100% as effective against vehicles as vehicles are against infantry, and in-turn infantry should be 100% as efficient against AV as AV is against vehicles. This paradigm will require effective teams to represent all phases of gameplay. NK Scout wrote: Much much isk does infantry lose in a pub? Oh so Isk is a balancing factor here right? Well seeing as how there are barely any Gastun Forge guns in the game, meaning they are worth WAY MORE than a tank, I guess they should OHKO any vehicle from any distance..... since we are using isk to balance and all. Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:** You're a scrub. I kill tanks more cheaply and effectively* outside my tank. I have fitting opt 5 for large railguns - does that tell you my dedication to my trade? I have about 3.5 M invested in an AV build. Put up or shut up. *in this context effectively = performing squad support as opposed to solely AV, like a railgun. ^^^ Calling someone a scrub is a good indicator we have a neckbeard here. How is life in your mom's basement Mr. Ketch-up stained A-shirt wearer? Anyway, refute my point, refute that tankers get to avoid well over 80% of all forms of damage in this game while being perfectly effective versus everything, show me how there is a counter to a tank that works better than a tank (you know.... balance). Right now tanks are just carriages for risk averse cry-babies. Go get your diaper changed and hop back in one. So you are a neckbeard and a carebear.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1677	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:39:00 - [22] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: True Adamance wrote: Garrett Blacknova wrote: Tanks shouldn't be able to outrun LAVs in terms of straightline speed. Also, tanks shouldn't be anti-infantry without compromising on anti-vehicle capabilities. Blasters are too good at too many jobs at too long a range to fit EITHER the claim of anti-infantry or short-range weapon. So Blasters: ACTUALLY limited range, or counting as small arms when shooting vehicles. Pick one. All Railgun turrets need is semi-competent map design to control their lines of fire (particularly from the redline). Nah they shouldn't, that ** is pretty ridiculous I have to agree. Tanks shouldn't be anti infantry at all. When was the last time you saw a Main Battle Tank with a .50 Cal as its main gun....never right, so why should Dust 514 tanks operate like that. I'd much rather see Racial Main Battle Cannon, like the Rail gun on All HAV making combat more situational. No longer would HAV massacre infantry like my 31/0 game today, we'd skill shot our targets so no one could *** about it, we'd focus on clear the battlefield of installations and other ground vehicles, we could be as durable as we are now, and be slowed slightly, to compensate for our strengths. I would love to see balanced HAV in Dust 514 as right now they are woefully unbalanced. If a tank could be anti-infantry by sacrificing its anti-vehicle role, I wouldn't object. Making Blasters as effective against other vehicles as ARs would actually balance them, because then people would only use them when supported by AV weaponry to hold off enemy tanks, and if you saw someone running Blasters and brought even your Missile-armed LAV out, you could take them down (especially if the LAV can move faster than the tank). I think 90% is excessive - 50% is more reasonable; it still allows the potential for ganking another HAV, rather than whT we have now where a competent blaster user is king of CQC. Missile should have that role, IMO. Forge on for great justice! Defend the meek! Destroy the weak! Q-sync breaches into the rectum of everyone else!
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1677	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:46:00 - [23] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: True Adamance wrote: I wouldn't know what Sniping or Thales using is like I don't have skills in either since I find such combat style distasteful. When you spend more than a significant portion of your in game time nerfed through the floor then you can whine, since you have only suffered about 6 weeks you have no reason to ***. I would love to see orbitals, if their mechanics were changed insta blap me, kinda feels like they already should since I am being shot with a turret mounted on a 100m long ship. Dunno what else would insta blap me, if you have a well thought out suggestion I am all ears. You find hiding in the redline away from the reach of 90% of infantry while killing them distastful, so you jump in a tank away from the reach of 90% of infantry while killing them.... yeah that adds up. So its actually over 9 weeks, over half the amount of time that tanks were bullshit for and we still have at least another 4 weeks to go, so do you feel better now? Do you feel like this horrible balance against infantry is paying you back for where the bad CCP touched you? There should be a non-vehicle based solution, available to anyone to skill into, that works as well against vehicles as vehicles work against infantry. I am not sure what we should call this new role, but it would be the antithesis of vehicles.... lets shorten that, we will call this role anti-vehicle or AV for short. This role should be 100% as effective against vehicles as vehicles are against infantry, and in-turn infantry should be 100% as efficient against AV as AV is against vehicles. This paradigm will require effective teams to represent all phases of gameplay. NK Scout wrote: Much much isk does infantry lose in a pub? Oh so Isk is a balancing factor here right? Well seeing as how there are barely any Gastun Forge guns in the game, meaning they are worth WAY MORE than a tank, I guess they should OHKO any vehicle from any distance..... since we are using isk to balance and all. Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:** You're a scrub. I kill tanks more cheaply and effectively* outside my tank. I have fitting opt 5 for large railguns - does that tell you my dedication to my trade? I have about 3.5 M invested in an AV build. Put up or shut up. in this context effectively = performing squad support as opposed to solely AV, like a railgun. ^^^ Calling someone a scrub is a good indicator we have a neckbeard here. How is life in your mom's basement Mr. Ketch-up stained A-shirt wearer? Anyway, refute my point, refute that tankers get to avoid well over 80% of all forms of damage in this game while being perfectly effective versus everything, show me how there is a counter to a tank that works better than a tank (you know.... balance). Right now tanks are just carriages for risk averse cry-babies. Go get your diaper changed and hop back in one. So you are a neckbeard and a carebear. Yep, tanks avoid most damage in this game. Not gonna refute that . Forge gun is better than tanks - assuming you're competent? It always has been. Probably always will be. Stealth is a wonderful thing. I'm going to enjoy 1.8 - it's removing any downsides from forge gunning. 'Risk averse'? Most pilots I know run 450k+ fits. We used to run 800k+ fits. Risk averse? My 450k investment can be two-shotted from the other side of the map by a 0SP nub. Or two guys with collectively less SP invested than me that insta me. My forge gun suit is 50k. I have zero problems destroying red tanks. When I do, I phone a friend. Can't do that? Pull an MLT hull, scrub, and QQ some more. We dealt with this bull*** 'balance' for nine months, it's your turn to bend over and take it. I will leave you with some parting words often relayed to me by persons on your side of the debate... Adapt or die. Forge on for great justice! Defend the meek! Destroy the weak! Q-sync breaches into the rectum of everyone else!
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4479	Posted - 2014.02.15 09:48:00 - [24] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: I think 90% is excessive - 50% is more reasonable; it still allows the potential for ganking another HAV, rather than whT we have now where a competent blaster user is king of CQC. Missile should have that role, IMO. The point was massive damage reduction against vehicles with the logic that they're an anti-infantry weapon. The specific value isn't as important. And as for making them CQC kings, that would be fine too, IF they were limited to an actual CQC range (and if tanks were slow enough for limited range to actually be a significant factor in a fight). Slow HAVs down to less than LAV speed, leave Blaster damage alone, but cut their range back far enough that they don't outrange ARs, and that would fix them just as well as making them weaker agaisnt vehicles. Either solution is viable.
Crimson Cerberes Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance 271	Posted - 2014.02.15 10:02:00 - [25] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Yep, tanks avoid most damage in this game. Not gonna refute that . Forge gun is better than tanks - assuming you're competent? It always has been. Probably always will be. Stealth is a wonderful thing. I'm going to enjoy 1.8 - it's removing any downsides from forge gunning. 'Risk averse'? Most pilots I know run 450k+ fits. We used to run 800k+ fits. Risk averse? My 450k investment can be two-shotted from the other side of the map by a 0SP nub. Or two guys with collectively less SP invested than me that insta me. My forge gun suit is 50k. I have zero problems destroying red tanks. When I do, I phone a friend. Can't do that? Pull an MLT hull, scrub, and QQ some more. We dealt with this bull**** 'balance' for nine months, it's your turn to bend over and take it. I will leave you with some parting words often relayed to me by persons on your side of the debate... Adapt or die. Uhh.. in what world are forge guns better than tanks? Do forge guns make you impervious to 90% of the weaponry in this game? Do forge guns allow you to mow down entire squads of infantry with impunity? Do forge guns even out-damage the tanking capability of a tank? (the answer of course is not really, 3 armor reps = 525 hp/sec, 1 maxxed out IAFG(with reloads) ~ 550DPS) Your statement about dealing with it is exactly the problem here, you don't see a problem. It is exactly the reason why when there is balance between the two (AV and vehciles) everyone will destroy every/any tank they see no matter the cost. Because you a thales red-liner on wheels.
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1221	Posted - 2014.02.15 13:20:00 - [26] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Funny, I play with a tank like everything else in the game. I play to enjoy things. Really, many of you players need to reevaluate why you play a video game. You keep wanting to assume others play this game with the same dire attitude that you do. You could play a tank too; but, choose not to and then show an unreasoned hatred for it. If you are playing for any other reason than fun then please quit the game. You are ruining it for everyone else. Console kiddies. Whatcha gonna do. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1221	Posted - 2014.02.15 13:23:00 - [27] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Yep, tanks avoid most damage in this game. Not gonna refute that . Forge gun is better than tanks - assuming you're competent? It always has been. Probably always will be. Stealth is a wonderful thing. I'm going to enjoy 1.8 - it's removing any downsides from forge gunning. 'Risk averse'? Most pilots I know run 450k+ fits. We used to run 800k+ fits. Risk averse? My 450k investment can be two-shotted from the other side of the map by a 0SP nub. Or two guys with collectively less SP invested than me that insta me. My forge gun suit is 50k. I have zero problems destroying red tanks. When I do, I phone a friend. Can't do that? Pull an MLT hull, scrub, and QQ some more. We dealt with this bull**** 'balance' for nine months, it's your turn to bend over and take it. I will leave you with some parting words often relayed to me by persons on your side of the debate... Adapt or die. Uhh.. in what world are forge guns better than tanks? Do forge guns make you impervious to 90% of the weaponry in this game? Do forge guns allow you to mow down entire squads of infantry with impunity? Do forge guns even out-damage the tanking capability of a tank? (the answer of course is not really, 3 armor reps = 525 hp/sec, 1 maxxed out IAFG(with reloads) ~ 550DPS) Your statement about dealing with it is exactly the problem here, you don't see a problem. It is exactly the reason why when there is balance between the two (AV and vehciles) everyone will destroy every/any tank they see no matter the cost. Because you a thales red-liner on wheels. Doesn't sound like you want balance either. You, like most other tankophobes just want to destroy a playstyle you don't want to like. Tanks are in the process of being balanced. CCP can't have a public test server on PS3. These patches are the testing. We are actively testing stuff and CCP will make changes next patch. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 551	Posted - 2014.02.15 13:25:00 - [28] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Pff if you call Spkr the vocal majority. For the most part Tankers didn't want another patch of being woefully underpowered or more blanket nerfs against AV. You haven't hurt...unless you are a scout..... unless you experienced the pain of High DPS Autolocking Swarmers ar 400m' while forgers remained invisible at 50m. But agreed. Most veteran tankers, and sane balance oriented ones like myself, are aware of how broken tanks are, they need changes and it seems like we are the only section of the community willing to offer reasonable suggestions. All the rest of you seem to do it *** and moan and call us scrubs but then in the same game fail to combat tanks better than most "scrub" tankers can. The hypocrisy of that is rich, too rich. As such blanket statements like that are only indicative of how weak minded an individual like this guy is. Wow I guess I hit home with that thales comment eh? Whatever mouth-breather, tanks are currently skill-less pwn-mobiles that allow the risk averse to AVOID DAMAGE FROM OVER HALF OF THE GAME. The caps part is the b-llshit portion if you didn't realize it. You guys are the biggest f-cking crybabies this game has ever seen, and now as a community you think we are near balance. How f-cking much would tankers cry if there was something in this game that they couldn't damage and that could OHKO or insta-blap them? Oh right, we already know because that is what they did prior to 1.6. *Now that the situation is 100% inverted, they think everything is fine.* Anyway, my point stands. Tanker = thales users. I am going to disagree I have a chance to kill tankers, even if it means running a jahad jeep into the redline. Thale users are neigh on invulnerable. CCP your matchmaking sucks Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
Billi Gene 485	Posted - 2014.02.15 13:55:00 - [29] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Pff if you call Spkr the vocal majority. For the most part Tankers didn't want another patch of being woefully underpowered or more blanket nerfs against AV. You haven't hurt...unless you are a scout..... unless you experienced the pain of High DPS Autolocking Swarmers ar 400m' while forgers remained invisible at 50m. But agreed. Most veteran tankers, and sane balance oriented ones like myself, are aware of how broken tanks are, they need changes and it seems like we are the only section of the community willing to offer reasonable suggestions. All the rest of you seem to do it *** and moan and call us scrubs but then in the same game fail to combat tanks better than most "scrub" tankers can. The hypocrisy of that is rich, too rich. As such blanket statements like that are only indicative of how weak minded an individual like this guy is. Wow I guess I hit home with that thales comment eh? Whatever mouth-breather, tanks are currently skill-less pwn-mobiles that allow the risk averse to AVOID DAMAGE FROM OVER HALF OF THE GAME. The caps part is the b-llshit portion if you didn't realize it. You guys are the biggest f-cking crybabies this game has ever seen, and now as a community you think we are near balance. How f-cking much would tankers cry if there was something in this game that they couldn't damage and that could OHKO or insta-blap them? Oh right, we already know because that is what they did prior to 1.6. *Now that the situation is 100% inverted, they think everything is fine.* Anyway, my point stands. Tanker = thales users. your point is an opinion and a badly formed and overly emotive one at that. stop abusing people and stop inferring your opinion as the only valid opinion. Unless you came here to scream and shout and rant, in which case carry on, you'll get the attention you deserve. If you came here looking for discussion, then be prepared to form arguments based around not only your own ideas but those of others. At this point I'm fairly sure you're just a troll. Pedant, Ape, Troll. My Beard makes Alpha's sook :P
The Attorney General 1968	Posted - 2014.02.15 14:09:00 - [30] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Wow I guess I hit home with that thales comment eh? Whatever mouth-breather, tanks are currently skill-less pwn-mobiles that allow the risk averse to AVOID DAMAGE FROM OVER HALF OF THE GAME. The caps part is the b-llshit portion if you didn't realize it. You guys are the biggest f-cking crybabies this game has ever seen, and now as a community you think we are near balance. How f-cking much would tankers cry if there was something in this game that they couldn't damage and that could OHKO or insta-blap them? Oh right, we already know because that is what they did prior to 1.6. *Now that the situation is 100% inverted, they think everything is fine.* Anyway, my point stands. Tanker = thales users. This patch has been around long enough that everyone should have a proto forge and be able to chew up tanks. Yet none of them do, and tanks reign supreme. If you, as an infantryman would learn to protect yourself then you wouldn't be getting stepped on. MLT tanks are easy to destroy, and redline rails are not affecting a fight at the flags most times. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.

Gregor stormwalker Seraphim Auxiliaries 68	Posted - 2014.02.15 14:09:00 - [31] - Quote Just going to throw this out what about reintroducing mandatory small turrets im not a tanker (FGer) so not sure would that help with low sp militia tanks, then have the enforcer with no small turrets for your heavy hitter.
The Attorney General 1968	Posted - 2014.02.15 14:15:00 - [32] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Uhh.. in what world are forge guns better than tanks? Do forge guns make you impervious to 90% of the weaponry in this game? Do forge guns allow you to mow down entire squads of infantry with impunity? Do forge guns even out-damage the tanking capability of a tank? (the answer of course is not really, 3 armor reps = 525 hp/sec, 1 maxxed out IAFG(with reloads) ~ 550DPS) Your statement about dealing with it is exactly the problem here, you don't see a problem. It is exactly the reason why when there is balance between the two (AV and vehciles) everyone will destroy every/any tank they see no matter the cost. Because you a thales red-liner on wheels. A FG, properly positioned can cover an area just as large as the range of a railgun. He does not have to retreat when his hardeners go down, since he doesn't have any. He can be a constant source of DPS for as long as he can be supplied with ammo, or until he gets OB'd. Well positioned, a heavy will be immune to anything but multiple snipers, tank railguns, or a dropship ambush. If using a KB + M it is still possible to target infantry, although the reduced splash and longer charge times limit that particular effectiveness. There are lots of problems with the vehicle situation, but it isn't forges, aside from their charge times. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
zibathy numbertwo Nox Aeterna Security 510	Posted - 2014.02.15 14:21:00 - [33] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. People are more motivated by emotion than logic. Enjoy the nine circles of Hell once your vehicles are balanced, tanker scum. AR Dmg: 34, RoF: 750 RPM, DPS: 425, RR Dmg: 55, RoF: 461 RPM, DPS: 422**, + double the range. Balanced.
The Attorney General 1969	Posted - 2014.02.15 14:41:00 - [34] - Quote zibathy numbertwo wrote: People are more motivated by emotion than logic. Enjoy the nine circles of Hell once your vehicles are balanced, tanker scum. Thanks for a rational reply. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
Aleph Rynedee Science For Death 60	Posted - 2014.02.15 14:42:00 - [35] - Quote True Adamance wrote: When you spend more than a significant portion of your in game time nerfed through the floor then you can whine, since you have only suffered about 6 weeks you have no reason to *****. Who pointed a gun to your head and forced you to play a 'nerfed thru the floor' game? This holier than thou attitude because you were a moron for six months or whatever is really beginning to grate. We are all Dusties, while your sorry ass was bouncing around in a paper tank we were getting run over by parked LAVs. Point is we've all had frustrations within this game, driving a HAV does not give one deeper insight into this mess of a game. Btw can you define "more than a significant portion of your time"? Wouldn't that be "all of your time"? That's pretty smart, throw an unattainable qualifier into a debate to silence your critics.
CommanderBolt ACME SPECIAL FORCES Legacy Rising 676	Posted - 2014.02.15 14:56:00 - [36] - Quote This is my opinion but I believe tanks do need a speed reduction. Not a too heavy handed nerf but they do need to be a little slower. That will change a lot of the balance issues overnight I think. As for the large turret types. Railguns - I hate to say this but I do think they should lose a little bit of range and maybe a percentage of there elevation.(For the sake of dropships) Blasters - They certainly need a range reduction, again not too much - keep them viable. People have also mentioned dispersion as a balancing mechanic. Missiles - Don't see too many of these. They seem extremely powerful VS armour tanks but I would say even though they do have that sheer damage, range seems to be a factor that works against them when fighting rails so they might be considered balanced-ish in that regard. As for against infantry, they seem a little UP.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1155	Posted - 2014.02.15 15:00:00 - [37] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Tanks shouldn't be able to outrun LAVs in terms of straightline speed. Also, tanks shouldn't be anti-infantry without compromising on anti-vehicle capabilities. Blasters are too good at too many jobs at too long a range to fit EITHER the claim of anti-infantry or short-range weapon. So Blasters: ACTUALLY limited range, or counting as small arms when shooting vehicles. Pick one. All Railgun turrets need is semi-competent map design to control their lines of fire (particularly from the redline). Blasters are fine. Not a single one has beat my missile Gunnlogi. The closest one ever got was a blaster Gunnlogi that brought me down to armor just as I laid down the final missile volley. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4481	Posted - 2014.02.15 15:06:00 - [38] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: Funny, I play with a tank like everything else in the game. I play to enjoy things. Really, many of you players need to reevaluate why you play a video game. You keep wanting to assume others play this game with the same dire attitude that you do. You could play a tank too; but, choose not to and then show an unreasoned hatred for it. If you are playing for any other reason than fun then please quit the game. You are ruining it for everyone else. Console kiddies. Whatcha gonna do. The problem is that not everyone plays the game to be a tank. Funnily enough, contrary to what you appear to believe, different people enjoy playing different roles in games. Even if you're playing to have fun, tanks make the game not fun for a lot of people who DON'T run tanks because at the moment, they have just a few too many advantages and not enough disadvantages. For the most part, they ARE balanced as vehicles, but 2 out of 3 turrets are better than they should be, and they're WAAAY too fast for their role. You might enjoy having a cool toy, but if YOUR fun ruins someone else's, the game isn't doing its job. There's a reason this game is called "DUST 514" and not "World of Tanks" - not everyone belongs in a tank here, we have other options FOR A REASON. If those other roles are being invalidated, THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.
Fizzer94 L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 2201	Posted - 2014.02.15 15:17:00 - [39] - Quote I don't know about other people, but I am getting really bitter about HAVs. It doesn't take a damn genius to see that they are obscenely overpowered, and the fact that some of the tankers are unwilling to admit to that just pisses me off even further. I know that not all of the tankers are beliggerent assholes, but I know I am going to be punishing them all equally with overwhelming AV once they get a nerf and have been thoroughly weakened by their crutch. You Rail Rifle users better watch out too, my Laser Rifle is going to melt your Caldarian heads off at a range where you will be the ones that can't hurt me! Fizzer94 // Forum Warrior Operation II // MAG Vet Gallente Neutron Rifle
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone 660	Posted - 2014.02.15 15:19:00 - [40] - Quote Durable only. Tanks should be hard to kill. But it should be hard to kill infantry with them. Tanks should be anti-vehicle. The real infantry killers should be LAVs and the unreleased MAVs. A HAVs infantry killer should come from fitting small turrets. Best PVE idea I've seen.

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2545	Posted - 2014.02.15 16:20:00 - [41] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. I will take all 3 bob This is great, from 1.0 to 1.7 tanks got nerfed and made worse while AV got buffed and made better while rendering was not working so AV was invisible and powerful and as a consequence durable and unkillable since no one in a vehicle could see them which was generally at the top of something After 1.7 was introduced we could now see everything which helps alot and also our vehicles were completely changed due to CCP not due to the pilots, none of us asked for this, this is CCP plan AV stayed doing the same things, pointing and shooting in open view thinking we cant see them, firing swarms at hardened tanks and generally not moving from where they were camping Tanks went from being useless in pubs/PC to being balanced for PC and sometimes OP in pubs due to terrible matchmaking Problem is now infatry want them nerfed to uselessness in pubs and as a consequence they would be useless in PC You do not break balance in a competitve game mode because of lolpubs Quote: Tanks are balanced in PC Generally anything can be OP in pubs If tanks are in a much better place for a competitve mode then what happens when you nerf tanks for pub games? are they still balanced for the competitive gamemode? Now onto turrets Closed beta Rails hit 5k dmg easily and did 2 shot every tank in the game, now it can be done with mlt rails and 2 dmg mods Im not too fussed, sure 0SP player can 2 shot me but generally they miss and i 2 shot them back if i need to bring out a rail because its redline to redline anyways and can also annoy DS but a good pilot can avoid them but generally they should just move the redline/spawns back about 500m anyways. Rarely kills infantry unless you are good at CQC with it Blasters the great infantry killer, working as intended, if you dont want to get shot dont show yourself and its rare i get the so called long range kills with it, its doing its job Missiles cant counter rail tanks, cant effectively kill infantry like a blaster can yet its firing 12 missiles in a full auto volley and the infantryman can be right in the middle and barely take any damage but for infantry thats fine, if it was like closed beta where missiles did **** infantry because its a missile then they would cry like they did last time except last time i could fire missiles across the map. Missiles have a 250m hard cap and are generally useless against infantry too and for tanks are the most situation turret we have Small turrets - All capped at range and do reduced dmg than its big brother, small missiles seem to be the best atm problem is in tanks bluedots wont jump out and spam at anything like the MCC, i cant lock my door or kick them out and i cant recall if the situation changes hence why most of us dont use them because we dont have the tools to deal with the current problems, also no turrets for maddy because of lack of CPU especially Mods - There is generally very little difference between basic/adv/proto mods except for the SP needed to use them and generally the fitting requirements, some like the nitro mods also offer shorter cooldown times and longer activation times as you skill up but the resistance and dmg mods do not do this - If you want to seperate a mlt 0SP tanker from a 20mil SP all proto except the hull tanker than there has to be a difference between basic/adv/proto mods just like there is with infantry mods We dont even have the APCs yet or the other racial vehicles and turrets Infantry arguments - No tank mode/limit tanks - Do the same to infantry then, limit the roles, 2 assult/2 logi/2 heavys and 5 commandos and scouts problem is how many players would be pissed that they cannot use what they skilled into? Crew - Currently would need to be reworked, new vehicles, new skills, who skills what, where is my lock and kicking out button, do i keep 3rd person camera as a driver, since it needs 4 to operate 4 to kill it, buff to PG/CPU/slot layout and HP since it requires so many to use it and requires more stuff to fit on it etc etc etc Remove rails - DS rule the skies Remove blaster turrets - So then vehicles exist to kill vehicles? whats the point you kill off the AV players too Vehicles are in a state of change, you nerf the mods you kill off the LAV/DS, you nerf the turrets and they can become substandard at there role and weaker than AV ie old rail vs FG, you nerf all vehicles and we could end up with the 1.0-1.6 all over again Intelligence is OP
thomas mak THE-TITANS 43	Posted - 2014.02.15 16:41:00 - [42] - Quote do you know what is HAV? a tank in EVE which is designed for kill do you know how big is a tank in real? do you know how big is a tank in EVE? why tank are not tanky and fast and able to carry a MASSIVE HMG Why tank rule the sky Why tanks are so cheap Why all the vehicle module are GONE!!!!!!!!
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1644	Posted - 2014.02.15 18:35:00 - [43] - Quote I love the "4 to operate, 4 to destroy" argument. TBH, you'd need minimum 1 to operate it, he just wouldn't be able to move and fire at the same time. So I guess you could technically say that you need two minimum to operate effectively, one to drive and one to shoot. Anymore than that would be totally dependent on if you chose to fit the small turrets. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Scheneighnay McBob Learning Coalition College 4039	Posted - 2014.02.15 18:45:00 - [44] - Quote HAV's aren't fast without fuel injectors. Once again; it's the active mods that make them OP. I am your scan error.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4487	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:00:00 - [45] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: HAV's aren't fast without fuel injectors. Once again; it's the active mods that make them OP. Wrong. Tanks can't ACCELERATE fast without fuel injectors. They still have a higher top speed than LAVs without any mods. Even with stacked armour on a Sica or Gunnlogi (lower speed than Madrugar) they can move faster than Onikumas and Sagas. They take a while to get up to speed without injectors, but they CAN reach those speeds, and it's ridiculous.
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 236	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:02:00 - [46] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: True Adamance wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ***** ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Pff if you call Spkr the vocal majority. For the most part Tankers didn't want another patch of being woefully underpowered or more blanket nerfs against AV. You haven't hurt...unless you are a scout..... unless you experienced the pain of High DPS Autolocking Swarmers ar 400m' while forgers remained invisible at 50m. But agreed. Most veteran tankers, and sane balance oriented ones like myself, are aware of how broken tanks are, they need changes and it seems like we are the only section of the community willing to offer reasonable suggestions. All the rest of you seem to do it *** and moan and call us scrubs but then in the same game fail to combat tanks better than most "scrub" tankers can. The hypocrisy of that is rich, too rich. As such blanket statements like that are only indicative of how weak minded an individual like this guy is. I think you are discussing two different things, forum behavior and in game behavior. I think most of the tankers on the forums are reasonable, but there is ample reason to rage against tanks right now. I personally am going to be one that is going to go after tanks when 1.8 drops. I try to go after them now and it has nothing to do with anything said in the forums. Because, that's why.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2552	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:23:00 - [47] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: HAV's aren't fast without fuel injectors. Once again; it's the active mods that make them OP. Wrong. Tanks can't ACCELERATE fast without fuel injectors. They still have a higher top speed than LAVs without any mods. Even with stacked armour on a Sica or Gunnlogi (lower speed than Madrugar) they can move faster than Onikumas and Sagas. They take a while to get up to speed without injectors, but they CAN reach those speeds, and it's ridiculous. They are not faster than LAVs Intelligence is OP
HYENAKILLER X Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 590	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:25:00 - [48] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. 2 vehicles max per team period. Tanks are for pussies.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2552	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:29:00 - [49] - Quote HYENAKILLER X wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. 2 vehicles max per team period. And only 2 assault/2 logi/2 heavys and 5 scouts/commandos Intelligence is OP
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2552	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:31:00 - [50] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: I love the "4 to operate, 4 to destroy" argument. TBH, you'd need minimum 1 to operate it, he just wouldn't be able to move and fire at the same time. So I guess you could technically say that you need two minimum to operate effectively, one to drive and one to shoot. Anymore than that would be totally dependent on if you chose to fit the small turrets. Nope If i have 4ppl in it to use it its 4 proto AV to kill it Like you said now its only takes 1 to use it so it should be 1 to kill it Intelligence is OP

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1825	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:49:00 - [51] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. So then as infantry, YOU choose 2, because you can't have all 3. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 374	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:52:00 - [52] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. So then as infantry, YOU choose 2, because you can't have all 3. All that needs happening if the evening of tiers of the swarm launchers, and a nitros nerf, and a slight blaster turret nerf, range if needed. 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
Awry Barux New Eden Blades Of The Azure Zero-Day 617	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:55:00 - [53] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. So then as infantry, YOU choose 2, because you can't have all 3. Uh, OK. I pick scout, I am not durable. I pick heavy, I am not fast. I pick medium, I get the middle ground between fast and durable, but am great at neither. See how that balance works?
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1703	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:55:00 - [54] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. The madrugar is the problem, the gunlogi strugles to aim HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1825	Posted - 2014.02.15 19:58:00 - [55] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. So then as infantry, YOU choose 2, because you can't have all 3. Uh, OK. I pick scout, I am not durable. I pick heavy, I am not fast. I pick medium, I get the middle ground between fast and durable, but am great at neither. See how that balance works? And as a tanker, the only use the circle button gets is to enter and exit a vehicle. We can't climb stairs, and we can't go through doors. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Awry Barux New Eden Blades Of The Azure Zero-Day 618	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:01:00 - [56] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. So then as infantry, YOU choose 2, because you can't have all 3. Uh, OK. I pick scout, I am not durable. I pick heavy, I am not fast. I pick medium, I get the middle ground between fast and durable, but am great at neither. See how that balance works? And as a tanker, the only use the circle button gets is to enter and exit a vehicle. We can't climb stairs, and we can't go through doors. That matters not at all when you can drive right up to half of the null cannon consoles on the vast majority of maps.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1825	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:07:00 - [57] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. So then as infantry, YOU choose 2, because you can't have all 3. All that needs happening if the evening of tiers of the swarm launchers, and a nitros nerf, and a slight blaster turret nerf, range if needed. A NOS nerf? Lol no I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
KingBabar The Rainbow Effect Negative-Feedback 1900	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:19:00 - [58] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Durable only. Tanks should be hard to kill. But it should be hard to kill infantry with them. Tanks should be anti-vehicle. The real infantry killers should be LAVs and the unreleased MAVs. A HAVs infantry killer should come from fitting small turrets. This. Having the main weapon as a huge glorified AR is simply moronic on so many levels. If we didn't have them tankers would rely on gunners for close AP support, you now, have a need for teamwork, as AV currently need to be any sort of effective. Tanks = perfectly fine Large blasters on the current tank frames = game breaking for so many players it should be threated seriously, not merely by HTFU and adpt or die. Did you ever hear anyone QQ about dying to a missile tank or rail tank as infantry? I have never heard any, its the blasters that pisses people off. Perhaps its ttime for light weapons doing damage to tanks, l mean if they can shoot me with their AR, wwhy shouldn't my AR do dmage to them? FU and FU Dust community, you're mostly a bunch of moronic carebear crybabies. Get good.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1703	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:22:00 - [59] - Quote Garrett Blacknova wrote: Tanks shouldn't be able to outrun LAVs in terms of straightline speed. Also, tanks shouldn't be anti-infantry without compromising on anti-vehicle capabilities. Blasters are too good at too many jobs at too long a range to fit EITHER the claim of anti-infantry or short-range weapon. So Blasters: ACTUALLY limited range, or counting as small arms when shooting vehicles. Pick one. All Railgun turrets need is semi-competent map design to control their lines of fire (particularly from the redline). 1: You know HAV's can't outrun LAV's in a straight line without a nitro, and that's barely noticeable (picture a kincat put on a amarr scout, and then a Winmatar Scout), and on top of that, it's for 20 full seconds. And like you said, it's in a straight line. 2: Neither of those blaster changes are good. the range is fine, and at range, you're doing under half damage. Maybe if you idiots stop standing still in the open, maybe you wouldn't die. Also, if it does infantry damage (which in itself makes no sense), how would I fight other HAV's? I couldn't. 3: I would say yes, but redesigning all the maps would take too long. I'd go for redline weapon locks until that happens. 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2558	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:33:00 - [60] - Quote KingBabar wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Durable only. Tanks should be hard to kill. But it should be hard to kill infantry with them. Tanks should be anti-vehicle. The real infantry killers should be LAVs and the unreleased MAVs. A HAVs infantry killer should come from fitting small turrets. This. Having the main weapon as a huge glorified AR is simply moronic on so many levels. If we didn't have them tankers would rely on gunners for close AP support, you now, have a need for teamwork, as AV currently need to be any sort of effective. Tanks = perfectly fine Large blasters on the current tank frames = game breaking for so many players it should be threated seriously, not merely by HTFU and adpt or die. Did you ever hear anyone QQ about dying to a missile tank or rail tank as infantry? I have never heard any, its the blasters that pisses people off. Perhaps its ttime for light weapons doing damage to tanks, l mean if they can shoot me with their AR, wwhy shouldn't my AR do dmage to them? Yea i did Closed beta, but large missiles then got nerfed to uselessness even tho we fired 4 missiles at the feet of infantry and infantry complained that it killed them Can you guess how much damage 12 large missiles does to infantry? It barely scratches them and you need a direct hit to even get that chance of a kill but yet they can stand in the middle of 12missiles and be fine Intelligence is OP

Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1648	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:34:00 - [61] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: I love the "4 to operate, 4 to destroy" argument. TBH, you'd need minimum 1 to operate it, he just wouldn't be able to move and fire at the same time. So I guess you could technically say that you need two minimum to operate effectively, one to drive and one to shoot. Anymore than that would be totally dependent on if you chose to fit the small turrets. Nope If i have 4ppl in it to use it its 4 proto AV to kill it Like you said now its only takes 1 to use it so it should be 1 to kill it So even if you only had a driver and a main gunner it would still take 4 Proto AV to kill your HAV? lol, sad thing is I know you're serious with that despite the fact that it is a ludicrous demand. Is the HAV Proto too or is it just a run of the mill Gunnlogi/Madrugar? IMHO, if the HAV is anything less than Proto, against Proto AV it should take no more than 2 AV guys to pop the HAV. Personally, I think that anywhere from two to four to operate effectively (ie drive and fire at the same time) would be balanced with a requirement of 3 AV of equivalent tier to the hull in order to destroy the hull. Remember, I am basing these comparisons on the assumption that the AV has no damage mods and the HAV has no hardeners. If damage mods/hardeners are included, they should modify the base requirements though the base requirements should be calculated off of a "No damage mods/hardeners" assumption. Another thing to take into account. If you have a full-time driver and a full-time main gunner (not to mention the possibility of two full-time secondary gunners), both (all) of whom are dedicating their attention to their position in the crew and you still can't evade/kill three AVers of equivalent tier to the hull? Well, if that is the case, you deserve to lose that HAV. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1648	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:38:00 - [62] - Quote KingBabar wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Durable only. Tanks should be hard to kill. But it should be hard to kill infantry with them. Tanks should be anti-vehicle. The real infantry killers should be LAVs and the unreleased MAVs. A HAVs infantry killer should come from fitting small turrets. This. Having the main weapon as a huge glorified AR is simply moronic on so many levels. If we didn't have them tankers would rely on gunners for close AP support, you now, have a need for teamwork, as AV currently need to be any sort of effective. Tanks = perfectly fine Large blasters on the current tank frames = game breaking for so many players it should be threated seriously, not merely by HTFU and adpt or die. Did you ever hear anyone QQ about dying to a missile tank or rail tank as infantry? I have never heard any, its the blasters that pisses people off. Perhaps its ttime for light weapons doing damage to tanks, l mean if they can shoot me with their AR, wwhy shouldn't my AR do dmage to them? Maybe we just need to remove large blasters and small rails? Keep small blasters for an HAV AP weapon and keep large rails for the HAV AV weapon? It would do some to force a coexistence as well. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2561	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:54:00 - [63] - Quote Alaika Arbosa wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: I love the "4 to operate, 4 to destroy" argument. TBH, you'd need minimum 1 to operate it, he just wouldn't be able to move and fire at the same time. So I guess you could technically say that you need two minimum to operate effectively, one to drive and one to shoot. Anymore than that would be totally dependent on if you chose to fit the small turrets. Nope If i have 4ppl in it to use it its 4 proto AV to kill it Like you said now its only takes 1 to use it so it should be 1 to kill it So even if you only had a driver and a main gunner it would still take 4 Proto AV to kill your HAV? lol, sad thing is I know you're serious with that despite the fact that it is a ludicrous demand. Is the HAV Proto too or is it just a run of the mill Gunnlogi/Madrugar? IMHO, if the HAV is anything less than Proto, against Proto AV it should take no more than 2 AV guys to pop the HAV. Personally, I think that anywhere from two to four to operate effectively (ie drive and fire at the same time) would be balanced with a requirement of 3 AV of equivalent tier to the hull in order to destroy the hull. Remember, I am basing these comparisons on the assumption that the AV has no damage mods and the HAV has no hardeners. If damage mods/hardeners are included, they should modify the base requirements though the base requirements should be calculated off of a "No damage mods/hardeners" assumption. Another thing to take into account. If you have a full-time driver and a full-time main gunner (not to mention the possibility of two full-time secondary gunners), both (all) of whom are dedicating their attention to their position in the crew and you still can't evade/kill three AVers of equivalent tier to the hull? Well, if that is the case, you deserve to lose that HAV. Not my rules, infantry keep saying 1 is in so 1 to kill well if 4 is in it 4 to kill Proto HAV, but a specalized HAV since it requires 4 to use it If i have a driver/3 gunners then i will not die to 3 AVers because remember your rule, its takes the same amount of ppl to kill whats in the tank 4 is the magic number Intelligence is OP
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. Interstellar Murder of Crows 1648	Posted - 2014.02.15 20:58:00 - [64] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Alaika Arbosa wrote: I love the "4 to operate, 4 to destroy" argument. TBH, you'd need minimum 1 to operate it, he just wouldn't be able to move and fire at the same time. So I guess you could technically say that you need two minimum to operate effectively, one to drive and one to shoot. Anymore than that would be totally dependent on if you chose to fit the small turrets. Nope If i have 4ppl in it to use it its 4 proto AV to kill it Like you said now its only takes 1 to use it so it should be 1 to kill it So even if you only had a driver and a main gunner it would still take 4 Proto AV to kill your HAV? lol, sad thing is I know you're serious with that despite the fact that it is a ludicrous demand. Is the HAV Proto too or is it just a run of the mill Gunnlogi/Madrugar? IMHO, if the HAV is anything less than Proto, against Proto AV it should take no more than 2 AV guys to pop the HAV. Personally, I think that anywhere from two to four to operate effectively (ie drive and fire at the same time) would be balanced with a requirement of 3 AV of equivalent tier to the hull in order to destroy the hull. Remember, I am basing these comparisons on the assumption that the AV has no damage mods and the HAV has no hardeners. If damage mods/hardeners are included, they should modify the base requirements though the base requirements should be calculated off of a "No damage mods/hardeners" assumption. Another thing to take into account. If you have a full-time driver and a full-time main gunner (not to mention the possibility of two full-time secondary gunners), both (all) of whom are dedicating their attention to their position in the crew and you still can't evade/kill three AVers of equivalent tier to the hull? Well, if that is the case, you deserve to lose that HAV. Not my rules, infantry keep saying 1 is in so 1 to kill well if 4 is in it 4 to kill Proto HAV, but a specalized HAV since it requires 4 to use it If i have a driver/3 gunners then i will not die to 3 AVers because remember your rule, its takes the same amount of ppl to kill whats in the tank 4 is the magic number lol, more childish demands and putting words in my mouth. Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
FarQue FromAfar Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 11	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:05:00 - [65] - Quote Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. It is a TANK... Not a little dropsuit... Tank vs. Humanoid... Hmm my bets are on the tank... Oh to answer your poll,,, ill take all 3 tyvm
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 889	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:08:00 - [66] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. Funny, I play with a tank like everything else in the game. I play to enjoy things. Really, many of you players need to reevaluate why you play a video game. You keep wanting to assume others play this game with the same dire attitude that you do. You could play a tank too; but, choose not to and then show an unreasoned hatred for it. If you are playing for any other reason than fun then please quit the game. You are ruining it for everyone else. Console kiddies. Whatcha gonna do. I want to play a game to enjoy and 'have fun' - however, 'fun' is a different thing to different ppl. Your 'fun' is to destroy defenseless infantry that's why you play with a tank. You assume that "everyone plays a tank" for the same reason - to run FOTM to have your kind of 'fun'. I lot of ppl, if not majority, have never tried even with a militia tank. If 'everyone' indeed was running tanks you would be the first one to quit. I want to play an FPS that Dust promised. If I want to play a game with tanks, I would play a real tank game - like WoT. I don't mind HAVs in an FPS game as long as they don't ruin the FPS itself as they do now. A game is fun to me only if it's fair and balanced, not when I get the 'I win button' at the expense of other ppl. PLC, NK, Scout - before 1.8. That's right, I stack that OP Sh!t.
Awry Barux New Eden Blades Of The Azure Zero-Day 630	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:08:00 - [67] - Quote FarQue FromAfar wrote: Awry Barux wrote: Tanks right now are fast, durable, and can deal massive damage to infantry. Which two aspects would you like to keep? Because you're not allowed to have all three. It is a TANK... Not a little dropsuit... Tank vs. Humanoid... Hmm my bets are on the tank... Oh to answer your poll,,, ill take all 3 tyvm ............................................________ ....................................,.-'"...................``~., .............................,.-"..................................."-., .........................,/...............................................":, .....................,?......................................................, .................../...........................................................,} ................./......................................................,:`^`..} .............../...................................................,:"........./ ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../ ............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ .........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/ ..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} ...........((.....~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ ...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../ ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" ............/.`~,......`-...................................../ .............`~.-,.....................................\|,./.....,__ ,,_..........}.>-._...................................\|..............`=~-, .....`=~-,__......`,................................. ...................`=~-,,.,............................... ................................`:,,...........................`..............__ .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` ........................................_..........._,-%.......` ...................................,
KingBabar The Rainbow Effect Negative-Feedback 1900	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:21:00 - [68] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: KingBabar wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Durable only. Tanks should be hard to kill. should be hard to kill infantry with them. Tanks should be anti-vehicle. The real infantry killers should be LAVs and the unreleased MAVs. A HAVs infantry killer should come from fitting small turrets. This. Having the main weapon as a huge glorified AR is simply moronic on so many levels. If we didn't have them tankers would rely on gunners for close AP support, you now, have a need for teamwork, as AV currently need to be any sort of effective. Tanks = perfectly fine Large blasters on the current tank frames = game breaking for so many players it should be threated seriously, not merely by HTFU and adpt or die. Did you ever hear anyone QQ about dying to a missile tank or rail tank as infantry? I have never heard any, its the blasters that pisses people off. Perhaps its ttime for light weapons doing damage to tanks, l mean if they can shoot me with their AR, wwhy shouldn't my AR do dmage to them? Yea i did Closed beta, but large missiles then got nerfed to uselessness even tho we fired 4 missiles at the feet of infantry and infantry complained that it killed them Can you guess how much damage 12 large missiles does to infantry? It barely scratches them and you need a direct hit to even get that chance of a kill but yet they can stand in the middle of 12missiles and be fine OK you probably did, fair enough. My point still stands though. The large blasters are the main problem with tanks. AP with the main turret should be skillfull weapon use, not the spray and kill everything in sight we have now. If we did get a locking mechanic for the small turrets, or something as simple as "for squad members only", do you then agree that the most effective AP guns should be in the form of the smaller turrets? The ccombination of speed, durability and the awsome destructive power vs just about anything is a tad too much. The real reason l believe for most of the QQ is the current scale of it all, its magnitude if you like. As a CQC slayer and infantry support player it really gets old to have to spend this amount of games hideing to tanks, its not fun and l am left with either hideing or use about 5 m sp for an somewhat effective AV fit. Or l can simply call in a militia tank of my own, all of which are bad for me cause llike to push objectives and slay reddots. All in all tanks are way too dominant, they make life misserable for such a large part of this community and we have to ask ourselves if this is really what we want. You and so many others QQ about my use of protogear in pubgames, so l can flip it around and say why use a tank in pubgames? Think about those poor new players... And you''ll say "Duh, l'm a tanker, thats what l do, what do you expect me to do?" And l can say, l'm a logi, try putting the proto medkit, an insanely expensive to fit allotek hive and a proto scanner on an enhanced cal logi suit...... And the circle of QQ continues... Solguess the only thing we can really agree upon is that militia tanks should be ne+òfed, this will make life a lot easierfor most players. The "true tankers" will have an easier time vs scrub tankers and so will the infantry too.That someone thats invested 20 m sp and spent 500k - 1 m isk on a tank is hard to kill we all get. I don't claim to have the ansver, but something needs to be done, its simply not fun for the vast majorityof theplayerbase, and that can't be a good thing. (Some bad writing here, sorry, l never should have gotten a tablet) FU and FU Dust community, you're mostly a bunch of moronic carebear crybabies. Get good.
Bojo The Mighty L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 3154	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:25:00 - [69] - Quote Durability and Effectiveness against infantry. If they aren't so god damn mobile they'd be far easier to take out. Currently when I'm trying to slap some RE's on the back of an HAV, they accelerate too fast IMO because I would have thrown my RE so while it's in air the tank just zips forward and my RE's hit the dirt. I mean if they were using a booster that would be one thing, but their overall mobility makes them kind of hard to get a counter on without forge and other vehicle support. The current hardener scenario, is pretty good IMO. Just remove dual, triple abilities and you'll be fine because windows of opportunity are a hard counter to HAVs right now. (I Enjoy Difficulty); GB-9 Breach AR, EK-AR Breach Mass Driver, GK-13 and Allotek Burst AR
R F Gyro Clones 4u 1179	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:26:00 - [70] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Not my rules, infantry keep saying 1 is in so 1 to kill well if 4 is in it 4 to kill Proto HAV, but a specalized HAV since it requires 4 to use it If i have a driver/3 gunners then i will not die to 3 AVers because remember your rule, its takes the same amount of ppl to kill whats in the tank 4 is the magic number Tank crew should be 3, at least initially, because this is dead easy for CCP to implement. Give the driver the front small turret, move the 3rd person view to the top turret. Now balance that against 3 AV infantry with roughly the same SP, spending about the same amount of ISK. That should be a 50/50 fight. RF Gyro: 12.5% damage bonus; 10.5% rate of fire bonus

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4690	Posted - 2014.02.15 21:39:00 - [71] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Tankers = thales users. They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others. Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears. So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive. I'm a Thale's user and not a single one of those things apply to me, or a majority of the Sniper community. It's funny though. Pull out an Ishukone, Kaalikiotia, or Charge and nobody cares as long as your helping the team; but when someone brings a Thale's out, they suddenly become K/D whoring carebears, regardless of position or whether or not they are helping the team. Want to know how to make a strike-through? [s[Example[/s] Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2561	Posted - 2014.02.15 22:01:00 - [72] - Quote R F Gyro wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Not my rules, infantry keep saying 1 is in so 1 to kill well if 4 is in it 4 to kill Proto HAV, but a specalized HAV since it requires 4 to use it If i have a driver/3 gunners then i will not die to 3 AVers because remember your rule, its takes the same amount of ppl to kill whats in the tank 4 is the magic number Tank crew should be 3, at least initially, because this is dead easy for CCP to implement. Give the driver the front small turret, move the 3rd person view to the top turret. Now balance that against 3 AV infantry with roughly the same SP, spending about the same amount of ISK. That should be a 50/50 fight. If im driver i dont want a turret, i want to concentrate on driving Intelligence is OP
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2561	Posted - 2014.02.15 22:09:00 - [73] - Quote KingBabar wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: KingBabar wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Durable only. Tanks should be hard to kill. should be hard to kill infantry with them. Tanks should be anti-vehicle. The real infantry killers should be LAVs and the unreleased MAVs. A HAVs infantry killer should come from fitting small turrets. This. Having the main weapon as a huge glorified AR is simply moronic on so many levels. If we didn't have them tankers would rely on gunners for close AP support, you now, have a need for teamwork, as AV currently need to be any sort of effective. Tanks = perfectly fine Large blasters on the current tank frames = game breaking for so many players it should be threated seriously, not merely by HTFU and adpt or die. Did you ever hear anyone QQ about dying to a missile tank or rail tank as infantry? I have never heard any, its the blasters that pisses people off. Perhaps its ttime for light weapons doing damage to tanks, l mean if they can shoot me with their AR, wwhy shouldn't my AR do dmage to them? Yea i did Closed beta, but large missiles then got nerfed to uselessness even tho we fired 4 missiles at the feet of infantry and infantry complained that it killed them Can you guess how much damage 12 large missiles does to infantry? It barely scratches them and you need a direct hit to even get that chance of a kill but yet they can stand in the middle of 12missiles and be fine OK you probably did, fair enough. My point still stands though. The large blasters are the main problem with tanks. AP with the main turret should be skillfull weapon use, not the spray and kill everything in sight we have now. If we did get a locking mechanic for the small turrets, or something as simple as "for squad members only", do you then agree that the most effective AP guns should be in the form of the smaller turrets? The ccombination of speed, durability and the awsome destructive power vs just about anything is a tad too much. The real reason l believe for most of the QQ is the current scale of it all, its magnitude if you like. As a CQC slayer and infantry support player it really gets old to have to spend this amount of games hideing to tanks, its not fun and l am left with either hideing or use about 5 m sp for an somewhat effective AV fit. Or l can simply call in a militia tank of my own, all of which are bad for me cause llike to push objectives and slay reddots. All in all tanks are way too dominant, they make life misserable for such a large part of this community and we have to ask ourselves if this is really what we want. You and so many others QQ about my use of protogear in pubgames, so l can flip it around and say why use a tank in pubgames? Think about those poor new players... And you''ll say "Duh, l'm a tanker, thats what l do, what do you expect me to do?" And l can say, l'm a logi, try putting the proto medkit, an insanely expensive to fit allotek hive and a proto scanner on an enhanced cal logi suit...... And the circle of QQ continues... Solguess the only thing we can really agree upon is that militia tanks should be ne+òfed, this will make life a lot easierfor most players. The "true tankers" will have an easier time vs scrub tankers and so will the infantry too.That someone thats invested 20 m sp and spent 500k - 1 m isk on a tank is hard to kill we all get. I don't claim to have the ansver, but something needs to be done, its simply not fun for the vast majorityof theplayerbase, and that can't be a good thing. (Some bad writing here, sorry, l never should have gotten a tablet) Maybe, but even with the small turrets the top gun does kinda suck sometimes because its movement is not independent from the large turrets so if L turret moves left it also makes the S turret move left also if i did have control of who is in my tank with locking but also kicking out then i may use small turrets more often but if 2 AV ppl kill my tank if im using 3ppl would i get a buff? Your protostomping hasnt had to hide for the past 6+months, its only since vehicles actually became relevent it now means you has to look both ways before you cross the road, imho protostomping is worse than current tank spam since you could be everything inside and out of complexes and just pure **** but now vehicles can keep you lot in check and as for new players they can compete with tanks because the difference between a 20mil SP pilot and a 0SP pilot isnt much, its about a sica with 2 mlt dmg mods. But make academy need 100k WP to leave and maube accelerated SP gain and thats dealt with and make FW/PC better and playable Mlt would need changing but also some mods at basic/adv level so that there is an incentive to use proto ie basic/adv mods have less resistance or offer less dmg bonus like the nitro mods do now Intelligence is OP
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p TRA1LBLAZERS 611	Posted - 2014.02.15 22:14:00 - [74] - Quote TANKAHIRO! WHERE IS MY PUBLIC APOLOGY!? I think you still owe me one after i proved you wrong about rail guns oh so long ago, and i have been anticipating it with bated breath. Kills- Archduke Ferdinand Balance!
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation Legacy Rising 91	Posted - 2014.02.15 22:27:00 - [75] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Uhh.. in what world are forge guns better than tanks? D. This world. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQiePuGJxhA I keep this link on hand for players like you. In denial and want everything handed to you on a silver platter. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2561	Posted - 2014.02.15 22:27:00 - [76] - Quote Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: TANKAHIRO! WHERE IS MY PUBLIC APOLOGY!? I think you still owe me one after i proved you wrong about rail guns oh so long ago, and i have been anticipating it with bated breath. I think? source? Intelligence is OP
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p TRA1LBLAZERS 615	Posted - 2014.02.15 22:39:00 - [77] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: TANKAHIRO! WHERE IS MY PUBLIC APOLOGY!? I think you still owe me one after i proved you wrong about rail guns oh so long ago, and i have been anticipating it with bated breath. I think? source? Sure, just one minute, it will be buried somewhere deep in general discussions. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1748277#post1748277 here you go, it should be in the last 3 pages. Kills- Archduke Ferdinand Balance!
PEW JACKSON Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 222	Posted - 2014.02.15 22:47:00 - [78] - Quote I could care less about killing infantry in my tank, as long as my rail can pop other tanks while enduring AV. Nerf my infantry killing and I could care less. Installations and other vehicles is where the $$$ really hides. Dead on the ground.... Think I made a wrong turn :/


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.