DUST Search - How to fix tanks

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

How to fix tanks

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Eskimorris SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 21	Posted - 2014.02.18 07:30:00 - [1] - Quote Its so simple I can't believe its never been proposed. Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down. tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage tank vs infantry is still viable until AV (existing damage even) appears. A tank can still choose fight or flight at this point. scenario 1 both tank and av are viable in this scenario a tank is wrecking a group of infantry, an AV infantry appears to answer to this tank the tank can still easily gun down solo AV, but would fall prey to a team of coordinated AV (a real risk not like the current model) if the tank chooses to run and use a hardener there is incentive to move to a safer location, as dithering between fight and flight would waste a hardener, AV still get to deter tanks without killing them constantly. a more balanced battlefield. the tanker if successful at killing or detering the AV group or solo AV wielder would still be able to dominate the infantry battling on foot. scenario 2 tank v tank is still viable and actually becomes a richer experience in this scenario a tank meets another tank on the battlefield. neither tank benefits from a hardener while dealing damage the playing field is still even. this would open up more imaginative load outs of tank modules. a clever tanker could activate their hardener and bait the the other tank until they must reload then turn the tide. This adds relevency to having a finite clip of ammo. scenario 3 in this scenario passengers are an advantage again as intended an enemy tank or team of av appear to fight your tank off you activate your hardener and your passengers go on the assault with small turrets. the AV crew would be in serious trouble. but you sacrifice a lot of dominance by fitting these turrets. The enemy tank not having the benefit of a hardener whilst dealing large cannon damage could still be in big trouble with the right load of small turrets. discuss.
stlcarlos989 SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 1142	Posted - 2014.02.18 14:21:00 - [2] - Quote I like it, its the same concept thats been developed for scout cloaking. Start firing your weapon cloak wears off, throw a grenade cloak wears off, use another piece of equipment cloak wears off. Tankers won't be a fan of it for obvious reasons, but it won't effect good tankers that much. Smart tankers go to an area wreck infantry then move on before the other team has time to react with another tank flanking them or proto AV shows up. STB Director, #1 in Warpoints E3 Closed Beta Build, Water Pipe Aficionado, Cannabis Sativa Connoisseur
Eskimorris SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 21	Posted - 2014.02.18 20:51:00 - [3] - Quote Tankers would still be lethal and full their role. It wouldn't allow for complete dominance as they have now though. This solution does not remove any defensive our offensive power. But you can't be both simultaneously
Awry Barux New Eden Blades Of The Azure Zero-Day 849	Posted - 2014.02.18 21:04:00 - [4] - Quote I think it's a great idea. But oh man, the tanker rage that's about to show up in this topic... Edit: this will also encourage tanker/gunner teamwork, as you can have the small guns firing with a hardener up, right?
Eskimorris SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 22	Posted - 2014.02.18 23:31:00 - [5] - Quote Correct light turrets could still be fired during a hardener. I invite tankers to post their thoughts as well. If they're is a constructive rebuttal id bee pleased to hear it as much as support. Cheers
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7295	Posted - 2014.02.18 23:35:00 - [6] - Quote Eskimorris wrote: Its so simple I can't believe its never been proposed. Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down. tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage tank vs infantry is still viable until AV (existing damage even) appears. A tank can still choose fight or flight at this point. scenario 1 both tank and av are viable in this scenario a tank is wrecking a group of infantry, an AV infantry appears to answer to this tank the tank can still easily gun down solo AV, but would fall prey to a team of coordinated AV (a real risk not like the current model) if the tank chooses to run and use a hardener there is incentive to move to a safer location, as dithering between fight and flight would waste a hardener, AV still get to deter tanks without killing them constantly. a more balanced battlefield. the tanker if successful at killing or detering the AV group or solo AV wielder would still be able to dominate the infantry battling on foot. scenario 2 tank v tank is still viable and actually becomes a richer experience in this scenario a tank meets another tank on the battlefield. neither tank benefits from a hardener while dealing damage the playing field is still even. this would open up more imaginative load outs of tank modules. a clever tanker could activate their hardener and bait the the other tank until they must reload then turn the tide. This adds relevency to having a finite clip of ammo. scenario 3 in this scenario passengers are an advantage again as intended an enemy tank or team of av appear to fight your tank off you activate your hardener and your passengers go on the assault with small turrets. the AV crew would be in serious trouble. but you sacrifice a lot of dominance by fitting these turrets. The enemy tank not having the benefit of a hardener whilst dealing large cannon damage could still be in big trouble with the right load of small turrets. discuss. No that is not fair, tanking is not supposed to be about being on even terms, if half of the modules we put into our fits are unusable while firing how do we as HAVers determine which HAV is the best fit? This is not balanced or well thought out. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Billy Lawson 1	Posted - 2014.02.19 00:29:00 - [7] - Quote True adamance, he's talking only about armor hardeners! Do you just roll armor hardeners for days! Seriously, don't your run anything else on your tank? This encourages tanks to use other things besides armor and shield hardeners. Oh btw, I run tanks too so I like this idea instead of listening to more crying about tanks. Got a better idea? EDIT: talking only about armor hardeners and shield hardeners
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 25	Posted - 2014.02.19 02:11:00 - [8] - Quote i have a dedicated vehicle account and your idea is terrible the simple and most effective solution to balance tanks is to restrict them to only one hardener like only one speed booster is allowed to be fitted this will give them time to finish off 1 or 2 more targets and get the hell out of their so the infantry can go back to shooting each other.
Eskimorris SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 24	Posted - 2014.02.19 03:33:00 - [9] - Quote Thank you True Adamance, BIlly Lawson, and Dunce Masterson for your feedback. @True Adamance i agree tanks and infantry should not be an even match by any means. Given tanks are a larger target it makes sense that they would be harder to destroy, they are in fact the hardest playable role in the game. I have two questions for you that will help me understand your concern / position a lot better if you would be so kind as to answer them thoroughly. Thank You :) Considering the very large amount of eHP and that fastest shield or armor regeneration speed and health per pulse in the game. 1) Do you actually feel tanks would not be effective at their intended role with these changes? Currently, as you are certainly aware, there are also infantry classes in this game as well. There is no best fit Infantry for all situations and most would agree this enriches our experience playing dust. Choose which of these questions seem more natural for you to answer. 2a) Do you feel tanking is enriched by having fewer choices of combat roles and fittings during a match? 2b) Do you feel it is necessary to fit your with multiple hardeners or a certain way because you may encounter opposition with the same equally powerful fit? @Billy Lawson thank you for your support. Could you follow up to explain your typical role during gameplay, do you tank often or run AV? @Dunce Masterson I have a belly button and sometimes theres lint in it. You have failed to articulate as to why this proposal is bad other than offer a different unrelated change. Please make a post about it or follow up with how this would negatively impact your role (i'm assuming) as a tanker. That being said i disagree with your proposal, tanks should be allowed multiple hardeners, the cost is high, but continuous armor hardeners without pause or very little pause appears to not be the intended effect of the recent changes to vehicles. We can all agree that tanking is a lot of fun in 1.7, it should stay this way.
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 25	Posted - 2014.02.19 04:18:00 - [10] - Quote "Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down." so some one who has a rep tool on them has its effectiveness reduced to 0 while they are engaging other forces. "tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage" this will make red line rails the only tanks in the game worth playing as the other tanks who are engaging enemy forces will activate their hardener and try to suppress the AV while they get out of line of sight of the red line rail while they use multiple damage mods to kill them in 1 or 2 more shots after their hardener gets immediately shut off. that is why only one hardener per fit or force them to all be active at the same time would in my opinion would give AV in all its forms a window to take down tanks. this wont prevent them from calling in another one so that they can have fresh cool downs on their hardeners. @Eskimorris hows tanking supposed to be fun when your cant take out the av squad or the pesky forge gunner? have you ever tried playing the game in the tankers seat in 1.7? you do that and get back to me after the AV squads and forge gunners have cost you a bit of isk.

Thrillhouse Van Houten DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 83	Posted - 2014.02.19 05:01:00 - [11] - Quote @Dunce Masterson A logi can't self repair at all AND they can't repair other people while firing their weapon. A tanker can do both with the most eHP of anything in the game WHILE doing the most damage in the game. Hardeners and reppers make them UNKILLABLE by anything but another tank OR 4 or 5 FGers (because of FG reload times). All while being able to quickly reach 110km/hr and boot out of a sticky situation. You can't even whine that tanks are expensive because they are about 1/6th the price they used to be and twice as powerful (a major cause of tank spam). I have never thought it was fair in the past that a single member of infantry could take out a single tank. In 1.7, though, even an expensive tank costs 300k or 350k ISK. This isn't the old days where PRO fit tanks are 2mil ISK and MLT fit tanks are 400k. My PRO Logi fit costs more than your average tank nowadays and I die MUCH easier. I think this idea is completely fair. You want to dish out absurd amounts of damage and kill infantry in 3 hits (or 1 hit with a good missile or rail shot), then you have to leave your hardeners turned off. Either this idea or: Add capacitors to Dust like they have in Eve. Using blasters and rails, or using active modules costs Cap. When your cap is dry...you can't fire or use hardeners or a speed booster. Using missiles doesn't cost Cap but make fitting a blaster/rail add a large amount of Cap. Either that or make a missile specific chassis that has lower Cap. Frankly, Eskimorris' idea is something the devs could implement without hardly a breath whereas the Capacitor idea would take a good deal of time to develop. Before you tow the tired old "you aren't even a tanker" crap...I have an alt account with 7mil SP. I used to run blasters on armor in 1.5 and now I run shields with missiles. Tanks are hard to drive, I will admit, but dish out stupid amounts of damage, can absorb more damage than anything in the game, can become nearly invulnerable to harm with two hardeners running and are faster than everything except DSs (including LAVs at top speed?!) AND barely cost more than PRO infantry fits. You'd like my other idea for balancing tanks even less...haha.
Billy Lawson 1	Posted - 2014.02.19 05:28:00 - [12] - Quote @Eskimorris I really don't often tank. Only tank because they called in a tank and my team is just getting mopped by it. Usually run logi support so often times my tanks are a supporting role. I do run hardeners but I also run scanners so I can keep scanning. I'm all support and so I don't often get kills with tanks unless if another tank is creeping up on my territory or infantry is being a pain to my guys.
Billy Lawson 1	Posted - 2014.02.19 05:30:00 - [13] - Quote Also I run small turrets so when my infantry, say Heavies, are getting mauled, they can hop into my tank, be saved, and I activate boosters to get them the hell out of the hot zone. I think really, that the MAVs will be my kind of style but until then, tanks are it.
Tailss Prower 501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit 185	Posted - 2014.02.19 11:45:00 - [14] - Quote Eskimorris wrote: Its so simple I can't believe its never been proposed. Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down. tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage tank vs infantry is still viable until AV (existing damage even) appears. A tank can still choose fight or flight at this point. scenario 1 both tank and av are viable in this scenario a tank is wrecking a group of infantry, an AV infantry appears to answer to this tank the tank can still easily gun down solo AV, but would fall prey to a team of coordinated AV (a real risk not like the current model) if the tank chooses to run and use a hardener there is incentive to move to a safer location, as dithering between fight and flight would waste a hardener, AV still get to deter tanks without killing them constantly. a more balanced battlefield. the tanker if successful at killing or detering the AV group or solo AV wielder would still be able to dominate the infantry battling on foot. scenario 2 tank v tank is still viable and actually becomes a richer experience in this scenario a tank meets another tank on the battlefield. neither tank benefits from a hardener while dealing damage the playing field is still even. this would open up more imaginative load outs of tank modules. a clever tanker could activate their hardener and bait the the other tank until they must reload then turn the tide. This adds relevency to having a finite clip of ammo. scenario 3 in this scenario passengers are an advantage again as intended an enemy tank or team of av appear to fight your tank off you activate your hardener and your passengers go on the assault with small turrets. the AV crew would be in serious trouble. but you sacrifice a lot of dominance by fitting these turrets. The enemy tank not having the benefit of a hardener whilst dealing large cannon damage could still be in big trouble with the right load of small turrets. discuss. the issue i see with this is the amount of dmg AV and tanks do now when they hit another tank without a hardner it would be a almost 100% lost to isk every battle think of it this way a gunnlogi with a particle cannon hits another gunlogi same fit but without a hardner he could basicly 3 shot the guy no problem and this is where the issue would kick in same thing with av without a hardner a proto swarms can take off 20% of my shields EASY and thats only a guess it's most likely more and also even though dmg mods are being nerfed or so I hear this extremely encourages dmg mods stacking which is one of the main issues of the tanks in 1.7 the other issue is stacking hardners if they fixed these 2 issues it actually would balance out alot because about 95% of the tanks you see now is a mlt tank or a std tank with either stacked dmg mods or stacks hardners or both in some cases
Tailss Prower 501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit 185	Posted - 2014.02.19 11:49:00 - [15] - Quote Thrillhouse Van Houten wrote: @Dunce Masterson A logi can't self repair at all AND they can't repair other people while firing their weapon. A tanker can do both with the most eHP of anything in the game WHILE doing the most damage in the game. Hardeners and reppers make them UNKILLABLE by anything but another tank OR 4 or 5 FGers (because of FG reload times). All while being able to quickly reach 110km/hr and boot out of a sticky situation. You can't even whine that tanks are expensive because they are about 1/6th the price they used to be and twice as powerful (a major cause of tank spam). I have never thought it was fair in the past that a single member of infantry could take out a single tank. In 1.7, though, even an expensive tank costs 300k or 350k ISK. This isn't the old days where PRO fit tanks are 2mil ISK and MLT fit tanks are 400k. My PRO Logi fit costs more than your average tank nowadays and I die MUCH easier. I think this idea is completely fair. You want to dish out absurd amounts of damage and kill infantry in 3 hits (or 1 hit with a good missile or rail shot), then you have to leave your hardeners turned off. Either this idea or: Add capacitors to Dust like they have in Eve. Using blasters and rails, or using active modules costs Cap. When your cap is dry...you can't fire or use hardeners or a speed booster. Using missiles doesn't cost Cap but make fitting a blaster/rail add a large amount of Cap. Either that or make a missile specific chassis that has lower Cap. Frankly, Eskimorris' idea is something the devs could implement without hardly a breath whereas the Capacitor idea would take a good deal of time to develop. Before you tow the tired old "you aren't even a tanker" crap...I have an alt account with 7mil SP. I used to run blasters on armor in 1.5 and now I run shields with missiles. Tanks are hard to drive, I will admit, but dish out stupid amounts of damage, can absorb more damage than anything in the game, can become nearly invulnerable to harm with two hardeners running and are faster than everything except DSs (including LAVs at top speed?!) AND barely cost more than PRO infantry fits. You'd like my other idea for balancing tanks even less...haha. the dmg they do now is nothing compared to the older builds the only thing I see thats gained power is the large missles but only when it is attacking an armor tank before you used to see railgun tanks 2 shotting a 7k armor hardend tank armor tank and 1 shotting just about everything else so no they are actually weaker than they used to be
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2632	Posted - 2014.02.19 12:01:00 - [16] - Quote So basically you cant defend your vehicle You either sit with hardeners on while not doing anything or you fire your turret which means you have no defences What is the point then of having a tank? Intelligence is OP
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 1026	Posted - 2014.02.19 13:01:00 - [17] - Quote Tank Balance is about more than numbers. I've said this many times. Heavy Attack Vehicles are supposed to be hard to kill and hard hitting. What makes them too effective is the lack of map balance (search the term, it's frequently described) where HAVS are the 'dominant' power for roughly 20-30% of the map (open plains, mountain perches) have roughly equal footing for another 20-30%, and for the final % they are ineffective, or overpowered by other units. Also the fact that the only counter Infantry (being Infantry Specific here)has to Heavy Attack Vehicles is Anti-Vehicle. In 'real-world' Main Battle Tanks are mitigated by numerous environments (they are less effective in urban environments as infantry can move around to positions where the Main Battle Tank cannot) and by effective blocking solutions such as gates, walls, barricades, and numerous other impositions. Before we attack the numbers of AV Vs. HAVs, or HAVs, Vs. Anything. Lets ensure that they playing field we have is equalized first. Main Battle Tanks are effective in numerous roles Real Life AND in other Vehicle Infantry Combination Games, but are neutralized by much more than just the ability to destroy / drive them off with Anti-Vehicle. Map balance also denotes much more restricted access to certain areas, meaning that things like Dropships are chosen over LAVs for transport because they can get up a cliff face to the fortification at the top faster, while both the LAV and the HAV have to work their way up. Once you go Black, you just never go back!
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 592	Posted - 2014.02.19 13:08:00 - [18] - Quote Meh, while the idea is logically sound, I don't think it has a place with hardeners. Tank on tank battles would be instant. 2 rail shots and you're dead (gunnlogi). You also need to consider the fact that a gunnlogi may be big on using hardeners, but a maddie worries less about their one hardener. It's all about those reps. SO by doing this, you effectively take any advantage a gunnlogi holds against a maddie, as the maddie will ALWAYS have the upper hand. I don't think this idea would work out, there are alternatives though. A stacking penlty that increases CD periods or in addition to resistance, you LOSE overall damage. Lot of ways to go about it, I don't think this will solve anything though. It's been identified that the price of milita allows for "Tank SPAM" and the Blaster turret is the main problem for infantry. These are 2 issues that once fixed, will truly stop the QQ. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 337	Posted - 2014.02.19 14:17:00 - [19] - Quote This is a very interesting base of an idea. I say yes. Start this for sicas and somas. But for maddies and gunnies lessen the penalty as they are made better. Perhaps shorten hardeners according to power used, 1000 damage shortens by 5-10 seconds
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 592	Posted - 2014.02.19 14:28:00 - [20] - Quote Text Grant wrote: This is a very interesting base of an idea. I say yes. Start this for sicas and somas. But for maddies and gunnies lessen the penalty as they are made better. Perhaps shorten hardeners according to power used, 1000 damage shortens by 5-10 seconds That last part certainly sparks an idea. Hardeners provide huge resistances, up to a certain damage limit. So say the hardener deactivates after 30 seconds of runtime OR after absorbing 6000 damage, just for example. AV would then have a reason to actively attack tanks with resistances active. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 337	Posted - 2014.02.19 14:46:00 - [21] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Text Grant wrote: This is a very interesting base of an idea. I say yes. Start this for sicas and somas. But for maddies and gunnies lessen the penalty as they are made better. Perhaps shorten hardeners according to power used, 1000 damage expended shortens by 5-10 seconds That last part certainly sparks an idea. Hardeners provide huge resistances, up to a certain damage limit. So say the hardener deactivates after 30 seconds of runtime OR after absorbing 6000 damage, just for example. AV would then have a reason to actively attack tanks with resistances active. Or 1000 damage taken decreases hardener time by 5 seconds for standard HAVs, and 10 seconds for mlt. So you have reasons to use better equipment. But I actually think damage expended makes more sense.
CLONE117 planetary retaliation organisation ACME Holding Conglomerate 683	Posted - 2014.02.19 15:52:00 - [22] - Quote id really rather have hardeners either drastically slow the tank down. or immobilize it. this is what id like to see for the hardener modules. id also like to see an end to the hardener cycling. my idea on how to end it would be something like this. player has 2 armor hardeners on the vehicle. he activates the first hardener and the second hardener activates at the same time. could be extended to other active modules as well in the future. but not entirely sure how well something like this would work.
Confligration Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 49	Posted - 2014.02.19 16:36:00 - [23] - Quote Dunce Masterson wrote: i have a dedicated vehicle account and your idea is terrible the simple and most effective solution to balance tanks is to restrict them to only one hardener like only one speed booster is allowed to be fitted this will give them time to finish off 1 or 2 more targets and get the hell out of their so the infantry can go back to shooting each other. As some one with 20m SP into all vehicles and mainly tanks, this is perhaps the only viable way to change tanks. I believed that only one of any specific module should be fitted to any tank. Also the removal of militia tanks or severely lowering their potency is needed aswell. Yes I know this is not real life but think of a militia tank as a T-55 or M-60, these tanks are good for what they are but they cannot stack up to a Soviet era T-80 or US M-1. To have it where a militia tank with a rail gun with 2+ù damage mods can take out anything on the field aside from a tank with double or triple hardners is not anywhere balanced. Disconnect and self destruct One bullet at a time What's your rush now, everyone will have his day to die
Eskimorris SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 30	Posted - 2014.02.19 18:34:00 - [24] - Quote Text Grant wrote: This is a very interesting base of an idea. I say yes. Start this for sicas and somas. But for maddies and gunnies lessen the penalty as they are made better. Perhaps shorten hardeners according to power used, 1000 damage expended shortens by 5-10 seconds This its a great piece of feedback i agree. Replying via smart phone will give a much deserved counter to these posts tonight though. One closing thought before tonight. My average cost of an effective tank is about 80k. Average cost of an ineffective av is 90k minimum. I still agree the tank should have the advantage 1v1
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 26	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:09:00 - [25] - Quote Confligration wrote: Dunce Masterson wrote: i have a dedicated vehicle account and your idea is terrible the simple and most effective solution to balance tanks is to restrict them to only one hardener like only one speed booster is allowed to be fitted this will give them time to finish off 1 or 2 more targets and get the hell out of their so the infantry can go back to shooting each other. As some one with 20m SP into all vehicles and mainly tanks, this is perhaps the only viable way to change tanks. I believed that only one of any specific module should be fitted to any tank. Also the removal of militia tanks or severely lowering their potency is needed aswell. Yes I know this is not real life but think of a militia tank as a T-55 or M-60, these tanks are good for what they are but they cannot stack up to a Soviet era T-80 or US M-1. To have it where a militia tank with a rail gun with 2+ù damage mods can take out anything on the field aside from a tank with double or triple hardners is not anywhere balanced. your right also restricting damage mods to 1 per fit would go along way to balancing militia and standard tanks has well. this would also make drop ship piloting more enjoyable has the rails will have less alpha damage.
Psychotic Shooter 149	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:18:00 - [26] - Quote Eskimorris wrote: Its so simple I can't believe its never been proposed. Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down. tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage tank vs infantry is still viable until AV (existing damage even) appears. A tank can still choose fight or flight at this point. scenario 1 both tank and av are viable in this scenario a tank is wrecking a group of infantry, an AV infantry appears to answer to this tank the tank can still easily gun down solo AV, but would fall prey to a team of coordinated AV (a real risk not like the current model) if the tank chooses to run and use a hardener there is incentive to move to a safer location, as dithering between fight and flight would waste a hardener, AV still get to deter tanks without killing them constantly. a more balanced battlefield. the tanker if successful at killing or detering the AV group or solo AV wielder would still be able to dominate the infantry battling on foot. scenario 2 tank v tank is still viable and actually becomes a richer experience in this scenario a tank meets another tank on the battlefield. neither tank benefits from a hardener while dealing damage the playing field is still even. this would open up more imaginative load outs of tank modules. a clever tanker could activate their hardener and bait the the other tank until they must reload then turn the tide. This adds relevency to having a finite clip of ammo. scenario 3 in this scenario passengers are an advantage again as intended an enemy tank or team of av appear to fight your tank off you activate your hardener and your passengers go on the assault with small turrets. the AV crew would be in serious trouble. but you sacrifice a lot of dominance by fitting these turrets. The enemy tank not having the benefit of a hardener whilst dealing large cannon damage could still be in big trouble with the right load of small turrets. discuss. F### no are you ret*rdedor something Dust 514 Closed Beta Vet Tanker for Hire Contact me in game
Psychotic Shooter 149	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:19:00 - [27] - Quote . Dust 514 Closed Beta Vet Tanker for Hire Contact me in game
Psychotic Shooter 149	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:23:00 - [28] - Quote your right also restricting damage mods to 1 per fit would go along way to balancing militia and standard tanks has well. this would also make drop ship piloting more enjoyable has the rails will have less alpha damage.[/quote] No infantry don't have a restriction vehicle shouldn't Dust 514 Closed Beta Vet Tanker for Hire Contact me in game
Eskimorris SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 30	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:47:00 - [29] - Quote Psychotic Shooter wrote: . obvious troll is obvious obvious troll is also obvious scrub. please articulate your concern. Are you saying tanks are fine and need no balancing? Please day something less idiotic k thx.
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 1028	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:37:00 - [30] - Quote Eskimorris wrote: Psychotic Shooter wrote: . obvious troll is obvious obvious troll is also obvious scrub. please articulate your concern. Are you saying tanks are fine and need no balancing? Please day something less idiotic k thx. I'll say it. Tanks are fine... Maps are not. Open Maps = Tank dominance. As it would be. If infantry have nowhere to hide from Tanks, and no where to strike at tanks where tanks cannot reach, Tanks will win unless they are weak as crap. Which, even as you said, they should have the advantage 1v1. The advantage of infantry Vs. Tanks is their ability to get into places where tanks cannot. Have a larger Field of Fire from high places than tanks have, and are generally able to avoid incoming blasts by taking cover, or turning a corner. At the moment, tanks can chase you wherever you can go, and if they physically can't get to you with their hull, they can generally shoot you from another vantage point. Infantry needs to be more effective via map design first, before numbers, altered mechanics, or other ill considered changes are made to the entities themselves. Also stating Tanks should have more vulnerable sections like Side / Top Armor / Shields and Rear Armor / Shields being weaker by gradual %. giving infantry the ability and notion to actually position themselves to take out enemy HAVs. Also included would be the lack of, or weak, underside armor / shield making proximity mines (that should not beep) more effective. What I'm saying is that the maps always favour HAVs over Infantry. Tanks can dominate over half of every map. I'm a tanker, and I know where I can go to get angles on every spot I want to, or at the very least, prevent people from moving from one socket to ANY other socket (as effective as killing them in the socket). Once you go Black, you just never go back!

Maniak Madness Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 13	Posted - 2014.02.20 00:23:00 - [31] - Quote I love this In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom.
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 341	Posted - 2014.02.20 03:07:00 - [32] - Quote I'm waiting to hear from OP
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 436	Posted - 2014.02.20 03:36:00 - [33] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So basically you cant defend your vehicle You either sit with hardeners on while not doing anything or you fire your turret which means you have no defences What is the point then of having a tank? ...greater ability to deal damage, greater ability to absorb damage, offer AV and AI support to your infantry, mobile heavy weapons platform that has faster movement than a suit, option to fit multiple turrets and have more than a single player attacking opponents from a mobile fortress... Should I go on? Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Chesyre Armundsen Thanes Of Dust 436	Posted - 2014.02.20 03:39:00 - [34] - Quote Psychotic Shooter wrote: Eskimorris wrote: Its so simple I can't believe its never been proposed. Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down. tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage tank vs infantry is still viable until AV (existing damage even) appears. A tank can still choose fight or flight at this point. scenario 1 both tank and av are viable in this scenario a tank is wrecking a group of infantry, an AV infantry appears to answer to this tank the tank can still easily gun down solo AV, but would fall prey to a team of coordinated AV (a real risk not like the current model) if the tank chooses to run and use a hardener there is incentive to move to a safer location, as dithering between fight and flight would waste a hardener, AV still get to deter tanks without killing them constantly. a more balanced battlefield. the tanker if successful at killing or detering the AV group or solo AV wielder would still be able to dominate the infantry battling on foot. scenario 2 tank v tank is still viable and actually becomes a richer experience in this scenario a tank meets another tank on the battlefield. neither tank benefits from a hardener while dealing damage the playing field is still even. this would open up more imaginative load outs of tank modules. a clever tanker could activate their hardener and bait the the other tank until they must reload then turn the tide. This adds relevency to having a finite clip of ammo. scenario 3 in this scenario passengers are an advantage again as intended an enemy tank or team of av appear to fight your tank off you activate your hardener and your passengers go on the assault with small turrets. the AV crew would be in serious trouble. but you sacrifice a lot of dominance by fitting these turrets. The enemy tank not having the benefit of a hardener whilst dealing large cannon damage could still be in big trouble with the right load of small turrets. discuss. F### no are you retrdedor something Not helpful Psychotic. Mihi gravato Deus* - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1723	Posted - 2014.02.20 03:52:00 - [35] - Quote Let me explain what you just said into words you can probably better understand, as I don't think you even got what you're asking for: once you start firing your rifle, any plate or extender you have equipped will be void. Let that sink in for a bit....... Now that you're back to reality, Thiswould do much better than that horrible idea. If you're still in lala land, then let me bring you out. That was completely stupid. You're seriously asking to completely nerf a entire class of tanking (active tanking, and yes, that's a thing), leaving exposed to enemy fire, and you will most likely just die. If you're still lost, read this, and have a nice day. 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Eskimorris SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 32	Posted - 2014.02.20 05:42:00 - [36] - Quote Thank you everyone for great feedback. It is great having so many points of view on the way tanking can be improved. I would like to emphasis if you have an alternative idea please link to your post about it or start your own thread, which is a great way to voice your opinion. This thread is about hardeners disabling once you fire your large blaster cannon and how it could improve tanking for all scenarios of tanking. It would be fair to explain my experience with tanking and also my experience with AV at this point. before this build i had 6 million skill points devoted to tanking, i consider myself an advanced tanker but not a dedicated tanker. I am comfortable in a tank but certainly not the best tanker, i feel i have a decent understanding of the mechanics and also when you are dominant and when you are also in danger. I have also ran proficiency 5 swarm launchers since open beta. I am basing my feedback from both of these points of views. here are some points that should be clear about my feedback I do not feel it would make AV over powered I do not feel it would wound the Tanker class substantially aka make them underpowered Both AV and tanking are damn near balanced except for when multiple hardeners come into play I feel tanks being cheap are good, i feel AV fits being more expensive than usable tank fits is not fair unless these changes are implemented common argument: Tanks are not OP they are as intended. It should take a group of av to take down one tank as tanks are meant to dominate an engagement situationaly when they enter the engagement. my unique opposing arguement: It is really not uncommon to see 2-4 tanks (on average 3) in any battle. It would take 3-4 AV specific infantry suites to challenge/deter/destroy an enemy tank. That means on maps that there are, to be modest, 2 tanks, it would require 6 or 8 of the infantry to answer that. Lets really examine this integer for a moment. 1/8 of the enemy team has tanks 1/3 (or 1/2) of your team is dedicated to detering the tanker the enemy team has 14 players at minimum to hack and defend objectives. the friendly team has 12 to 8 players to take the objectives. This is a modest number and in a lot of games there are more tanks and less AV. This is just the best case scenario balance (imagine if there were 4 tanks as sometimes there are right?) points of view: Speaking from a tanking perspective in 1.7 (0 SP spent into tanks) i fear dedicated tankers i understand how skilling into the vehicle tree would improve my performance I do not in any way fear AV with 0 SP speaking from an AV perspective in 1.7 with proficiency 5 swarms i can at best kill a miliia tank with my entire payload 2 reloads. my suit cost more than the tank im attacking what i assume: assuming dedicated tankers position (with feedback from dedicated tankers) I fear tanks when they are fit to destroy tanks only multiple hardeners with damage mod) I fear no AV with multiple hardeners lol infantry is cool to kill i win **** my opinion for your consideration: anyone who says tanking is not a blast is wrong, low risk high reward. an already deployed tanking squad though can squelch any anti tank tanks from being deployed. They fear no AV and they dominate an area. The maps may be flawed but currently they are what we have. swarms are not OP because they are slow and are exposed during lock which w/ proficiency 5 (being buggy) is still a long moment. red line tankers are a problem but are likely already being dealt with. You would not fire upon a redline tanker with a blaster or a missile turret from over 150 meters so there is no arguement here, they are OP but that is not for this thread. i ask everyone who posts after this message to really imagine what it would be like WITH armor repair modules on tanks. WITH shield boosters on tanks, BUT without multiple hardeners running around the clock during the match. There would be a MORE equal playing field but still not op. All of the opposing opinions have pointed out extra strengths tanks have but have. Only one has voice concern that rail gun tankers in a battle proximity might have an advantage vs tanks. Duh they should, but if you use your hardener right they may be destroyed while reloading. if they dont they would be at a disadvantage during their first shot. If you should post after this post please consider this addendum. I invite more critique and also more support. If this reply does not prove adequate please let me know so i can expand upon it more. cheers.
Eskimorris SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 32	Posted - 2014.02.20 05:47:00 - [37] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Let me explain what you just said into words you can probably better understand, as I don't think you even got what you're asking for: once you start firing your rifle, any plate or extender you have equipped will be void. Let that sink in for a bit....... Now that you're back to reality, Thiswould do much better than that horrible idea. If you're still in lala land, then let me bring you out. That was completely stupid. You're seriously asking to completely nerf a entire class of tanking (active tanking, and yes, that's a thing), leaving exposed to enemy fire, and you will most likely just die. If you're still lost, read this, and have a nice day. first link: read your own feedback. There are plenty of reservations. I tanked during these builds, still OP. 1.7 is still better until someone abuses stacked hardeners. then its worse. second link: eat a d***. k thx.
The Black Jackal The Southern Legion The Umbra Combine 1030	Posted - 2014.02.20 12:03:00 - [38] - Quote You state that maps 'may' be flawed. And they are. But they are 'what we have' at the moment. Now let me relate to you a scenario. You rule out 'fixing maps' in favour of tweaking HAV / AV numbers. Making it possible for a single AV to take out a Tank. Now you have 'numbers balance' according to 'current meta-game view' in which the 'hard counter' to anything should be able to destroy said countered entity in 1v1. This would be considered a 'balance pass'. In which you go back, tweak numbers, to get the 'correct effect'. Assuming you get it right, you get the balance pretty right. Now in the near future, CCP revamps the maps in accordance with.. well, almost every other FPS out there that combines Vehicles and Infantry Combat to 'Map Balance'. This is a pretty large task, much more work than tweaking the numbers, however you suddenly get an imbalance. - Tanks are now 'equally' effective in Open Fields Vs. Infantry. - Tanks are weaker Vs. Infantry in what would be considered 'equal' territory due to numbers. - Tanks are laughable in over 50% of the map. Reducing them to ridiculous levels. Making running a Tank not worth the time. Some may rejoice at this, but it takes away from diversity, takes away from the potential the game has, and makes it another free-to-play run and gun game. Now we wait another 3-6 months (assuming Sony and CCP can agree on the update timetable) to get another small 'numbers' tweak in order to bring HAVs and other vehicles back 'into line' with the Balance. All in all, two number tweaks, and a map rebalance may take up to one year. Now let's look at another way. We tweak the maps. Yes, it may add another 2-3 months onto the release timetable of the balancing patch, but keeping current statistics on HAVs will mean they are truly battle-tested, and it's a known factor. Map Design can be based on that now. - Map Balance allows HAVs to dominate some parts of the maps. - HAVs are now 'equalized' in so designated areas. - HAVs are near useless, or grossly ineffective in up to a third of the map, but do not need to operate in those regions. After this, you have another balance pass, minor in probability by comparison, to iron out any 'kinks' in the system. The first option, with 3 'large' changes (probably including some minor ones too) would require a possible development time of 6-9 months (dependant on the new release schedule and Sony's Approval Process). The Second Option with 2 Large Changes to the mechanics, could require a possible 3-6 months development time (also dependant on the new release schedule and Sony's Approval Process). Now to head off the immediate rage attacks. You say something like 'They'll make numbers adjustments when they rebalance maps!' Indeed, they will. But it is a proven fact that making two changes to a single entity or interaction always causes imbalance requiring another pass. Now on to an even more impactful change that will affect the Infantry / Vehicle Balance. Deployable structures. While we may not know exactly what we will get (turrets are about the ONLY thing confirmed in some measure) we can guage the impact of various structures on the balance. For example. Deployable Infrastructure will free up the 'AV Requirement' to take down or keep HAVs at bay. Why? Imagine you can deploy 2 Railgun Turrets on a vantage point overlooking a Road. Imagine they can be fitted, and when manned, have active modules. The people on these Railguns need not be AV specced. They may, in fact, be hackers, or point guards for another nearby point. Imagine if you will, a deployable 'hedgehog' barricade. Now these would be destructible, but have HP equivalent to a Supply Depot. Meaning that AV is no longer required to deny Vehicles access to an area. tl:dr In conclusion I believe before NUMBERS are altered to impact HAV balance, Infantry require the myriad of options they SHOULD have to deal with Vehicular Threats beforehand. The current reliance on AV as the 'sole' counter to HAVs is causing the imbalance. The Map Designs that are far to open and accessible by HAVs is causing the imbalance. Not the Numbers themselves. Once you go Black, you just never go back!
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 167	Posted - 2014.02.20 12:29:00 - [39] - Quote Didn't read far but what I got from this is that hardeners would only become useful when you are being hit by redline rail and that triple repped armor tanks would become vastly superior in tank vs tank battles and shields would be utterly useless at anything other than dying or tanking damage. I know that every time I activated a hardener on my shield tank and my turret would bug and not fire after that I died while I still had my hardener on because I lost my deterrent that is my large turret. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2643	Posted - 2014.02.20 13:01:00 - [40] - Quote Chesyre Armundsen wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So basically you cant defend your vehicle You either sit with hardeners on while not doing anything or you fire your turret which means you have no defences What is the point then of having a tank? ...greater ability to deal damage, greater ability to absorb damage, offer AV and AI support to your infantry, mobile heavy weapons platform that has faster movement than a suit, option to fit multiple turrets and have more than a single player attacking opponents from a mobile fortress... Should I go on? How can you deal damage when you have no defence and will die as soon as anything looks at you? Yea i can absorb damage just not fire at the ppl who are shooting at me so i cant defend myself Offer AV & AI support in my glass cannon because i cant use hardeners when i fire my turret Faster than a suit but it has no defence when i shoot Multiple turrets but as soon as one fire i have no hardeners and defence Yes go on please about how i cant use hardeners or defend myself Intelligence is OP

Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 344	Posted - 2014.02.20 13:57:00 - [41] - Quote I added my idea to your idea. Feel free to post https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=143425&find=unread
Maniak Madness Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 15	Posted - 2014.02.21 04:26:00 - [42] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Let me explain what you just said into words you can probably better understand, as I don't think you even got what you're asking for: once you start firing your rifle, any plate or extender you have equipped will be void. Let that sink in for a bit....... Now that you're back to reality, Thiswould do much better than that horrible idea. If you're still in lala land, then let me bring you out. That was completely stupid. You're seriously asking to completely nerf a entire class of tanking (active tanking, and yes, that's a thing), leaving exposed to enemy fire, and you will most likely just die. If you're still lost, read this, and have a nice day. Thats not it at all as the plates and extenders for tanks are still there. Its just u cant run a hardener while dealing damage. who knows it'll probably curb the use of 2+ hardeners on a tank and it will give AV a use... now all we need to do is fix rail turrets... In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 596	Posted - 2014.02.21 12:49:00 - [43] - Quote Maniak Madness wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Let me explain what you just said into words you can probably better understand, as I don't think you even got what you're asking for: once you start firing your rifle, any plate or extender you have equipped will be void. Let that sink in for a bit....... Now that you're back to reality, Thiswould do much better than that horrible idea. If you're still in lala land, then let me bring you out. That was completely stupid. You're seriously asking to completely nerf a entire class of tanking (active tanking, and yes, that's a thing), leaving exposed to enemy fire, and you will most likely just die. If you're still lost, read this, and have a nice day. Thats not it at all as the plates and extenders for tanks are still there. Its just u cant run a hardener while dealing damage. who knows it'll probably curb the use of 2+ hardeners on a tank and it will give AV a use... now all we need to do is fix rail turrets... I really hate, when know nothing non tankers give feedback like this. Rail turrets, what the hell is wrong with rail turrets, do they blow your MLT tank up to fast?! There are much more viable ways to fix hardeners, the way proposed here cripples them to the point of uselessness. So you want to take a tanks ability to fight back? Do you have any idea how quickly a tank goes down WITHOUT HARDENERS ON. No you don't understand any of it, as you DON'T TANK! The idea isn't even feasible or useful. All it does is further the imbalance issue, except this time tipping it heavily into the AV's favor and one particular tank, the madrudger(less so than AV). Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Eskimorris SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 32	Posted - 2014.02.21 16:13:00 - [44] - Quote I have tanked almost every build since open beta. Currently this would improve the battle disparity tha mobs of t tanks create on the battlefield for all other classes.could a non red line rail gun tanker please way in. How would this affect you and your game
Text Grant Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 344	Posted - 2014.02.22 03:40:00 - [45] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Maniak Madness wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Let me explain what you just said into words you can probably better understand, as I don't think you even got what you're asking for: once you start firing your rifle, any plate or extender you have equipped will be void. Let that sink in for a bit....... Now that you're back to reality, Thiswould do much better than that horrible idea. If you're still in lala land, then let me bring you out. That was completely stupid. You're seriously asking to completely nerf a entire class of tanking (active tanking, and yes, that's a thing), leaving exposed to enemy fire, and you will most likely just die. If you're still lost, read this, and have a nice day. Thats not it at all as the plates and extenders for tanks are still there. Its just u cant run a hardener while dealing damage. who knows it'll probably curb the use of 2+ hardeners on a tank and it will give AV a use... now all we need to do is fix rail turrets... I really hate, when know nothing non tankers give feedback like this. Rail turrets, what the hell is wrong with rail turrets, do they blow your MLT tank up to fast?! There are much more viable ways to fix hardeners, the way proposed here cripples them to the point of uselessness. So you want to take a tanks ability to fight back? Do you have any idea how quickly a tank goes down WITHOUT HARDENERS ON. No you don't understand any of it, as you DON'T TANK! The idea isn't even feasible or useful. All it does is further the imbalance issue, except this time tipping it heavily into the AV's favor and one particular tank, the madrudger(less so than AV). That guy runs tanks all the time. Your just scared to not be invincible in the redline I guess.
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 1767	Posted - 2014.02.22 04:05:00 - [46] - Quote I Like the idea of Shooting shutting down hardeners, but I don't think going into immediate cooldown would work. A bit to much of a nerf. Maybe just turning off the hardener for a few seconds. Or Shooting reduces the effect of the hardner x amount for the rest of its duration. Looking for a Interesting Character Name? Why Not Zoidberg?
Maniak Madness Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 16	Posted - 2014.02.22 08:52:00 - [47] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Maniak Madness wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Let me explain what you just said into words you can probably better understand, as I don't think you even got what you're asking for: once you start firing your rifle, any plate or extender you have equipped will be void. Let that sink in for a bit....... Now that you're back to reality, Thiswould do much better than that horrible idea. If you're still in lala land, then let me bring you out. That was completely stupid. You're seriously asking to completely nerf a entire class of tanking (active tanking, and yes, that's a thing), leaving exposed to enemy fire, and you will most likely just die. If you're still lost, read this, and have a nice day. Thats not it at all as the plates and extenders for tanks are still there. Its just u cant run a hardener while dealing damage. who knows it'll probably curb the use of 2+ hardeners on a tank and it will give AV a use... now all we need to do is fix rail turrets... I really hate, when know nothing non tankers give feedback like this. Rail turrets, what the hell is wrong with rail turrets, do they blow your MLT tank up to fast?! There are much more viable ways to fix hardeners, the way proposed here cripples them to the point of uselessness. So you want to take a tanks ability to fight back? Do you have any idea how quickly a tank goes down WITHOUT HARDENERS ON. No you don't understand any of it, as you DON'T TANK! The idea isn't even feasible or useful. All it does is further the imbalance issue, except this time tipping it heavily into the AV's favor and one particular tank, the madrudger(less so than AV). LMAO the rail turret is currently the rail rifle of the tanking world. Please go back and enjoy your redline rails. btw I do tank and I do know that it takes roughly 4-5 protoswarms to take down my maddy and roughly 3-4 proto forges without hardeners. I remember when tanking actualy took skill to use, I remember when it took extreme planning and map awareness to beable to survive. Im not disagreeing that pre 1.7 was retardedly sided towards AV but i do believe that the burden must be slightly on the tanker to get good. But when you finaly do get good, your an unstoppable killing machine... now anyone can call in a sica/rail with dmg mod, hide in the redline and claim to be a tanker xD In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 603	Posted - 2014.02.22 17:23:00 - [48] - Quote Maniak Madness wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Maniak Madness wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Let me explain what you just said into words you can probably better understand, as I don't think you even got what you're asking for: once you start firing your rifle, any plate or extender you have equipped will be void. Let that sink in for a bit....... Now that you're back to reality, Thiswould do much better than that horrible idea. If you're still in lala land, then let me bring you out. That was completely stupid. You're seriously asking to completely nerf a entire class of tanking (active tanking, and yes, that's a thing), leaving exposed to enemy fire, and you will most likely just die. If you're still lost, read this, and have a nice day. Thats not it at all as the plates and extenders for tanks are still there. Its just u cant run a hardener while dealing damage. who knows it'll probably curb the use of 2+ hardeners on a tank and it will give AV a use... now all we need to do is fix rail turrets... I really hate, when know nothing non tankers give feedback like this. Rail turrets, what the hell is wrong with rail turrets, do they blow your MLT tank up to fast?! There are much more viable ways to fix hardeners, the way proposed here cripples them to the point of uselessness. So you want to take a tanks ability to fight back? Do you have any idea how quickly a tank goes down WITHOUT HARDENERS ON. No you don't understand any of it, as you DON'T TANK! The idea isn't even feasible or useful. All it does is further the imbalance issue, except this time tipping it heavily into the AV's favor and one particular tank, the madrudger(less so than AV). LMAO the rail turret is currently the rail rifle of the tanking world. Please go back and enjoy your redline rails. btw I do tank and I do know that it takes roughly 4-5 protoswarms to take down my maddy and roughly 3-4 proto forges without hardeners. I remember when tanking actualy took skill to use, I remember when it took extreme planning and map awareness to beable to survive. Im not disagreeing that pre 1.7 was retardedly sided towards AV but i do believe that the burden must be slightly on the tanker to get good. But when you finaly do get good, your an unstoppable killing machine... now anyone can call in a sica/rail with dmg mod, hide in the redline and claim to be a tanker xD No, I know that the railgun has problems, but it certainly doesn't belong in a discussion that is at the core, focused on AV and Tank interaction. And redline rails, f that. CQC railgun all the way (read my signature, I've highlighted my ideas on what should be done with that stupidly OP railgun) Yeah, I miss when tanking took real skill. Situational awareness, planning your routes, baiting your enemies, so much. I hated losing tanks, but it was always fun nonetheless (minus the battles were swarm launchers locked down the entire map). Now, pop my 2 hardeners and go to town on some poor hapless tank from behind with my railgun. Or have the same done to me. Really disliking the short TTK with tanks (when it comes to railguns). Let's not forget to mention the skill tree now. Just one big sink to get proto mods and turrets. It's soo lame. Why did I even need to bother skilling into tanks? And MLT, at one time MLT tanks were a joke. I can't say if that was a good or bad thing, though in this current iteration, I feel stupid for spending 10mil + SP into tanking. Tanking, it's a joke. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Salt Dog 76 Red Star. EoN. 72	Posted - 2014.02.22 18:19:00 - [49] - Quote Simple as this get rid of militia tanks that will get rid of like 70% of the tanks out there, then you will only have to deal with a Tanker who has specked into them, not scrubs with no ground game, so they hop in a soma. Besides militia tanks dont have a chance against a well fit Maddy or Gunny. An the skill trees for tanking and turrets specked highly into. I believe it will help with all the Tank Op BS cause they aint.
Maniak Madness Death Firm. Canis Eliminatus Operatives 22	Posted - 2014.02.23 02:40:00 - [50] - Quote Ya I want the passive skill bonus like we had in 1.6 back to widen the gap between Militia Scrubs and Dedicated Tankers. In a completely sane world, madness is the only freedom.

KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 973	Posted - 2014.02.23 03:43:00 - [51] - Quote This is not a well balanced solution, possibly because the OP is not a tanker. Many would switch to armor plating thus negating all the fancy math and the effects of his magical thinking. Note the recent history of CCP/Shanghai themselves hacking up a better solution for tanks. First they informed us that we tankers were playing them incorrectly, dominating the battlefield where they wanted us to come in - change the flow of the battle - and then have to retreat to let modules cool down. The result was 1.7 and is what we are playing when the OP made this thread. Before 1.7 I could play all day and only run into tanks on specific maps consistently. They were expensive and could be popped quickly. So some maps didn't work well and indeed most wouldn't drop a tank unless there was a reason. With 1.7 it is common to see multiple tanks, indeed I have seen tank squads fairly often. So, imagine that CCP/Shanghai put their heads together to come up with this situation by their own magical thinking that players will only play the game they way that they envisioned it being played. That is so hilariously off target as to be ... well pretty stinking funny as well as flat out wrong. Gamers will play the game to win, to have fun or to make the win expensive for the other side. They never play a game so they can only push the one button that CCP/Shanghai (or the OP) wants them to push. They will push, pull, twist and turn every single button, switch, option and method. Get used to it. I believe it is time for CCP/Shanghai to HTFU and learn about gamers and most importantly FPS gamers. And so it goes.
MRBH1997 Knights Of Ender Galactic Skyfleet Empire 67	Posted - 2014.02.23 05:51:00 - [52] - Quote Only changes I feel towards vehicles should be is the reduction of pg/CPU available on militia tanks. Getting actual efficiency differations between modules like militia hardeners have reduction of 40% damage and proto 60%, not just recharge times and active duration. Also why should a militia railgun or blaster be able to do the same damage as a standard? A militia railgun should do under a 1000 damage. It'd make more sense for a militia to struggle to take out a fully protod tank unlike how they can easily do so now. These would make tanks more sensible in both tank vs tank and tank vs infantry. Then infantry would only struggle more so with tankers that got all proto mods and have ally of SP into armor repair rate and other skills like that. This would also probably alow non proto AV to actually take down militia tanks and other lower speced vehicle operators and remove the unfair advantage the average crappy tanker has against the average AV infantry. CEO of Knights of Ender Corporation Website: http://koe.shivtr.com Public Channel: Knights of Ender Public
KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 974	Posted - 2014.02.23 11:19:00 - [53] - Quote MRBH1997 wrote: Only changes I feel towards vehicles should be is the reduction of pg/CPU available on militia tanks. Getting actual efficiency differations between modules like militia hardeners have reduction of 40% damage and proto 60%, not just recharge times and active duration. I wonder if the Militia variant has an equal in EVE? That might explain the disparity. I also don't see why the effects of all the modules are identical, except to simplify the tanking skills? But to allow the Proto to become nearly invincible once again would be a concern me. However, having said that I disagree with reducing PG/CPU for Militia vehicles. Militia tanks should be able to fit all the modules in a Militia tank. So I guess what I am saying is I would take your idea but in the other direction. Specifically Militia tanks/vehicles should be the starting point and the others should scale up from there. Just my viewpoint on your idea. And so it goes.
Thrillhouse Van Houten DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 84	Posted - 2014.02.25 04:18:00 - [54] - Quote I like the idea of hardeners significantly slowing down tanks as a compromise. People act like their tanks can't move. Well, they bloody well can! If you're going to get taken out in 3 hits...STOP SHOOTING, put on a hardener and boot it out of there. The OPs idea still works. This idea like you can't defend yourself is half-baked. You can either 1)fire back with less hull integrity (no hardeners) or 2) activate hardeners and get the hell out of there. How is than any different from an infantryman having to duck behind cover in order to not get popped? It isn't. I can't fire through walls at my enemies and I can't stand toe to toe with 4 guys firing my rifle without expecting to either die or take severe damage. Why should a HAV be able to just fire away and absorb sick amounts of damage at the same time? "Cause its a tank!" isn't a defense. They cost less than my proto Logi fits do. Make them 2Mil ISK again and leave everything where it is or reduce how awesome they are...that is the only way to make them even close to fair.
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 679	Posted - 2014.02.25 04:20:00 - [55] - Quote Firing weapon makes modules go to cooldown. Lolwut?
Tailss Prower 501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit 190	Posted - 2014.02.25 04:36:00 - [56] - Quote Thrillhouse Van Houten wrote: I like the idea of hardeners significantly slowing down tanks as a compromise. People act like their tanks can't move. Well, they bloody well can! If you're going to get taken out in 3 hits...STOP SHOOTING, put on a hardener and boot it out of there. The OPs idea still works. This idea like you can't defend yourself is half-baked. You can either 1)fire back with less hull integrity (no hardeners) or 2) activate hardeners and get the hell out of there. How is than any different from an infantryman having to duck behind cover in order to not get popped? It isn't. I can't fire through walls at my enemies and I can't stand toe to toe with 4 guys firing my rifle without expecting to either die or take severe damage. Why should a HAV be able to just fire away and absorb sick amounts of damage at the same time? "Cause its a tank!" isn't a defense. They cost less than my proto Logi fits do. Make them 2Mil ISK again and leave everything where it is or reduce how awesome they are...that is the only way to make them even close to fair. Oh like your jlavs are fair and tanks didn't used to be 2 mil only the enforcer tanks were and hardly anyone used them right now my tanks costjust as much as it used to so im sorry that you can't wait for mlt tank nerf
Tailss Prower 501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit 190	Posted - 2014.02.25 05:04:00 - [57] - Quote Maniak Madness wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Maniak Madness wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Let me explain what you just said into words you can probably better understand, as I don't think you even got what you're asking for: once you start firing your rifle, any plate or extender you have equipped will be void. Let that sink in for a bit....... Now that you're back to reality, Thiswould do much better than that horrible idea. If you're still in lala land, then let me bring you out. That was completely stupid. You're seriously asking to completely nerf a entire class of tanking (active tanking, and yes, that's a thing), leaving exposed to enemy fire, and you will most likely just die. If you're still lost, read this, and have a nice day. Thats not it at all as the plates and extenders for tanks are still there. Its just u cant run a hardener while dealing damage. who knows it'll probably curb the use of 2+ hardeners on a tank and it will give AV a use... now all we need to do is fix rail turrets... I really hate, when know nothing non tankers give feedback like this. Rail turrets, what the hell is wrong with rail turrets, do they blow your MLT tank up to fast?! There are much more viable ways to fix hardeners, the way proposed here cripples them to the point of uselessness. So you want to take a tanks ability to fight back? Do you have any idea how quickly a tank goes down WITHOUT HARDENERS ON. No you don't understand any of it, as you DON'T TANK! The idea isn't even feasible or useful. All it does is further the imbalance issue, except this time tipping it heavily into the AV's favor and one particular tank, the madrudger(less so than AV). LMAO the rail turret is currently the rail rifle of the tanking world. Please go back and enjoy your redline rails. btw I do tank and I do know that it takes roughly 4-5 protoswarms to take down my maddy and roughly 3-4 proto forges without hardeners. I remember when tanking actualy took skill to use, I remember when it took extreme planning and map awareness to beable to survive. Im not disagreeing that pre 1.7 was retardedly sided towards AV but i do believe that the burden must be slightly on the tanker to get good. But when you finaly do get good, your an unstoppable killing machine... now anyone can call in a sica/rail with dmg mod, hide in the redline and claim to be a tanker xD those idiots can hit me in the back and I can still turn around and kill them even with their dmg modsI've been hit in the back and been able to kill them most of the time and i'm only using 1 hardner and no dmg mods well unless I got like 4 dmg mod stacked tanks over there but even on my dmg mod tank it's only 1 so they still lose either way whats making the railgun op isn't the railgun's rate of fire or anything like that it's simply the dmg mods the reason you see all these who can hit who in the back first type of tank battles is because everyone is either using stacked dmg mods stacked hardners or a gunny with 2 hardners and a dmg mod make a tank that isn't like that and find my tank character and you would have an actual tank battle at least it wouldn't be as quick as these mlt noobs
Tailss Prower 501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit 190	Posted - 2014.02.25 19:45:00 - [58] - Quote Thrillhouse Van Houten wrote: I like the idea of hardeners significantly slowing down tanks as a compromise. People act like their tanks can't move. Well, they bloody well can! If you're going to get taken out in 3 hits...STOP SHOOTING, put on a hardener and boot it out of there. The OPs idea still works. This idea like you can't defend yourself is half-baked. You can either 1)fire back with less hull integrity (no hardeners) or 2) activate hardeners and get the hell out of there. How is than any different from an infantryman having to duck behind cover in order to not get popped? It isn't. I can't fire through walls at my enemies and I can't stand toe to toe with 4 guys firing my rifle without expecting to either die or take severe damage. Why should a HAV be able to just fire away and absorb sick amounts of damage at the same time? "Cause its a tank!" isn't a defense. They cost less than my proto Logi fits do. Make them 2Mil ISK again and leave everything where it is or reduce how awesome they are...that is the only way to make them even close to fair. the idear of hardners slowing you down is interesting however if it was to slow you down so much to the point you can't move it defeats the purpose of the entire tank setup without a hardner your tank will take 3 maybe 4 shots regaurdless and thats both railguns and AV for those who don't pay attention when they hit a tank with no hardner and say for example you got hit in the back ok turn on hardner but now I can't engage him and he can just do circles around me the idear is nice but only if it is was 1v1 in a head on fight otherwise it makes defending yourself useless
nakaya indigene 0uter.Heaven 126	Posted - 2014.02.25 20:38:00 - [59] - Quote Eskimorris wrote: Its so simple I can't believe its never been proposed. Shooting your large cannon causes any active hardeners to go into immediate cool down. tank v tank is still equal , neither tanker has the benefit of a hardener while dealing damage tank vs infantry is still viable until AV (existing damage even) appears. A tank can still choose fight or flight at this point. scenario 1 both tank and av are viable in this scenario a tank is wrecking a group of infantry, an AV infantry appears to answer to this tank the tank can still easily gun down solo AV, but would fall prey to a team of coordinated AV (a real risk not like the current model) if the tank chooses to run and use a hardener there is incentive to move to a safer location, as dithering between fight and flight would waste a hardener, AV still get to deter tanks without killing them constantly. a more balanced battlefield. the tanker if successful at killing or detering the AV group or solo AV wielder would still be able to dominate the infantry battling on foot. scenario 2 tank v tank is still viable and actually becomes a richer experience in this scenario a tank meets another tank on the battlefield. neither tank benefits from a hardener while dealing damage the playing field is still even. this would open up more imaginative load outs of tank modules. a clever tanker could activate their hardener and bait the the other tank until they must reload then turn the tide. This adds relevency to having a finite clip of ammo. scenario 3 in this scenario passengers are an advantage again as intended an enemy tank or team of av appear to fight your tank off you activate your hardener and your passengers go on the assault with small turrets. the AV crew would be in serious trouble. but you sacrifice a lot of dominance by fitting these turrets. The enemy tank not having the benefit of a hardener whilst dealing large cannon damage could still be in big trouble with the right load of small turrets. discuss. If you do that in dust you break the verisimilitude between dust and eve. just make mlt tanks weaker.. like REALLY weak. bam problem solved. I have a video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi-sCEE94CU and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jhnG5vkBFg using a militia tank. its near just below par with a standard tank. that isnt right. The Jove espier --- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPGgRFDT9eYY1dMwb50luXw


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.