DUST Search - every other combat game has..................

All Channels

General Discussions

every other combat game has..................

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1040	Posted - 2014.02.19 19:05:00 - [1] - Quote a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl) dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance this has always been the issue. pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills. what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Ares 514 D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 517	Posted - 2014.02.19 19:19:00 - [2] - Quote I'm thinking the Magsec will help with this :) The mic bubble bug... I yield, CCP will be fixing it SOON. Current ETA 1 year since bug
Knight Solitaire Brutor Vanguard Minmatar Republic 235	Posted - 2014.02.19 19:21:00 - [3] - Quote No, AVing needs to be a role. If you want to keep your Rifle and Swarm Launcher, get a Commando suit. They're being buffed. Corp: Fatal Absolution Alliance: General Tso's Alliance Aim Assist = Persuers
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7317	Posted - 2014.02.19 19:23:00 - [4] - Quote You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1040	Posted - 2014.02.19 19:23:00 - [5] - Quote Knight Solitaire wrote: No, AVing needs to be a role. If you want to keep your Rifle and Swarm Launcher, get a Commando suit. They're being buffed. this is precisely the point. in every other game av guy carries av weapon as a specialised piece of equipment meaning if he needs it he can go av but if not he can still be effective in combat. what dust has is balance which means av is not effective solo and anyone carrying it is not effective in normal combat either. this is the underlining issue with av I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1040	Posted - 2014.02.19 19:26:00 - [6] - Quote True Adamance wrote: You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Assault Chileanme Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 48	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:17:00 - [7] - Quote Knight Solitaire wrote: No, AVing needs to be a role. If you want to keep your Rifle and Swarm Launcher, get a Commando suit. They're being buffed. I agree that AVing should be it's own role, but at that point you get into the rock,paper,scissors circle. If infantry excel at taking out AV and AV is terrible at taking out infantry, then they need to excel at something else, which being AV you would think should be taking out Vehicles. At that point, the circle should continue so that if AV excels at taking out Vehicles, then vehicles should be terrible at taking out AV and instead excels at taking out infantry. I know there are some problems with that circle, namely that AV and infantry are both infantry and so how would you make Vehicles strong against one and not the other. As it stands now though, people want AV to require teamwork, which would be fine if it were a secondary role, but to have it be a primary role you have to make it effective at that role or nobody will run it. As it stands now, AV have a terrible time defending themselves against other infantry with weapons designed to kill them, but they also have a pretty bad time defending themselves against vehicles that they are sacrificing all other capabilities to be able to take down. Something's gotta give. Either make AV more powerful so that vehicles have a reason to fear it, or keep it week and make it a secondary role to at least keep it on the battlefield in some capacity.
Pvt Numnutz Black Phoenix Mercenaries 773	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:37:00 - [8] - Quote Av did this to themselves to be honest. Tower camping all the time, blowing up very expensive vehicles for pennies on the dollar from insane range. The tanks really went overboard tho. Anyway if every infantry had av, and from the sound of it you want them to be 1.6 strength then we should just remove vehicles now. There should be dedicated av, just like there are dedicated vehicle pilots (granted right now anyone can be a tanker) yes it needs to be stronger, or have more options, but not as strong as it was in 1.6. There was a justifiable argument from vehicle pilots that av was too strong. Let's not go there again.
Johnny Guilt Algintal Core 511	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:46:00 - [9] - Quote Isn't AV secondary on commando suits? it's the only class i can think of that has the ability to be considered (2 light/sidearmslots). maybe rearange the heavy trees so commandos are the basic heavies and then branch out to the heavy sentential as prime AV and the another vareient of the commando tree with skil bonus. A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Bones McGavins TacoCat Industries 507	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:54:00 - [10] - Quote Lol commando could only fill this role is thy could use forge. Swarm and Plc are far too pathetic. Forge is the only decent AV. Allow dumb fire swarms that act like AV nades so they don't detonate unless hitting a vehicle or installation and maybe you have a solution. But swarms as is do not allow for legit AV

Crimson ShieId Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 63	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:56:00 - [11] - Quote Commando commando commando... Also, RE's. Try em. It only takes 3 to give a Madruger a severe case... Oh, dang, I can't think of a good punch line... Phooey. USE THEM! They're more effective than swarms, forges, or AV nades put together. Sometimes I miss never seeing tanks in a battle... then I remember the mystical flying soma, and I can't help but smile.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1044	Posted - 2014.02.19 20:59:00 - [12] - Quote Pvt Numnutz wrote: Av did this to themselves to be honest. Tower camping all the time, blowing up very expensive vehicles for pennies on the dollar from insane range. The tanks really went overboard tho. Anyway if every infantry had av, and from the sound of it you want them to be 1.6 strength then we should just remove vehicles now. There should be dedicated av, just like there are dedicated vehicle pilots (granted right now anyone can be a tanker) yes it needs to be stronger, or have more options, but not as strong as it was in 1.6. There was a justifiable argument from vehicle pilots that av was too strong. Let's not go there again. you are missing the point i'm trying to make. you cannot be effective at av if you cannot defend yourself against anything and be weak against everything. fact is av while it is much needed when tanks are about is not needed when they are not and this leaves a huge imbalance as how can a av player afford to run with av gear just incase vehicles appear. most players are happy to just forget about tanks and hide while killing and with balance as it is that makes the av role pointless. its too expensive, fitting intensive and weak. this means that to roll with it all the time as a role is completely impractical and costly. there needs to be a way for av to move with the battle regardless of if tanks or vehicles are about so that when they do appear players can react accordingly. its completely wrong to expect a player to take av and die stupid amounts of times when no vehicles are about so they can be ready to fulfill their role when there are. the same goes for why should players have to die before spawning in av gear. fact is AV and assault should be working together. av players carries the av and assaults carry the ammo hives and when needed they support each other. this is the allround balance av needs in order to balance it with vehicles. I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
low genius The Sound Of Freedom Renegade Alliance 1257	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:00:00 - [13] - Quote I assume electronic warfare will be introduced as it's own 'role'
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1044	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:16:00 - [14] - Quote there is a reason av in every other combat game is balanced and that is down to availability. its in no way effective by itself but if there are enough of you with it then it works. there is no way for av and i mean all av to become a role when there is not enough of it about. and with costs, fitting requirements and its inability to stand up against any other role there will always be a lack of it meaning the perception of op tanks or weak av. the current build is based around many players using av to take out vehicles which would be fine if many players could live long enough to actually use it. other games get round this by creating classes similar to assaults with just a different set of equipment. with dust this should be a no brainer as we have so much customization but the problem is all that specialised equipment is a main weapon so in order to use it you have to give up your assault ability which for a medium frame is your life line. last thing we need is for the lack of av use to make ccp buff av weapons to a point where now they are so good only a few need to use them and tanks are back to being stomped again and then the circle of buff nerf continuing. with having the ability to carry while not needing it there will always be av support somewhere so we are at a better place for this whole team effort taking out tanks. I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Emperor1349 Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 24	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:25:00 - [15] - Quote A big problem also is, like people giving up on the fight and retreating to the red line, people giving up on all av, even talking ** when I pull out my av suit. It takes multiple people, I think vehicles are in a good place just need to slow down a bit (If they are at 1% hp, It's kind of ridiculous they can escape at top speed). The nerf to AV was not necessary if vehicles were getting buffed. As I was saying though, Tanks are in a good place so a lot of people are using them, AV is in a rough spot, so a lot of cowards abandon it all together. Last night in the few matches I played we destroyed all HAVs that entered the fight (** you redline rail tanks), if you have a squad who can put their big boy pants on, work together and concentrate AV fire, it's not as bad as it seems. You can avoid a total stomp, usually tanks are about like snipers, only good for k/d, annoying, but they cant win the match alone. When everyone and their grandma are using the same thing it's always a problem, we seen it with caldari logis, mass drivers, flaylocks, I feel rifles will always outnumber any other gun its a very reliable system cqc or down range, but ARs before there were alternatives, Scrambler Rifles, now the new Rifles. The problem is cowardice, people looking for the new crutch, and people playing one match and deciding for themselves whats OP and UP before they start pointing fingers. R.I.P Mag - SVER
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 7319	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:31:00 - [16] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad Still requires set up time though. "Just know that though our enemies may only #YOLO, through God's grace we can #YOLF at his side." - Disciple of Kesha
Billi Gene 489	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:38:00 - [17] - Quote DUST=FPS~RPG How many RPG's with their generally rock/paper/scissors combat systems allow a player to do every role equally well? on which topic... my swarm/smg/+nh/nh/uplink amarr logi is kinda cool.... best record was keeping two tanks circling two freight containers for a solid 5 minutes before they gave up trying to kill me... even worse the infantry that did kill me during that time didnt take out the uplink if only a Forger had seen my plight and the wounded tanks.... Pedant, Ape, Troll. My Beard makes Alpha's sook :P
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1045	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:38:00 - [18] - Quote True Adamance wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad Still requires set up time though. i remember firing a few LAWS when i was serving. they were heavy but they could be fired within a few seconds and you never missed. now we have ILAW which is super fast and just as effective and very lights and more deadly i believe. there are 2 types of av in modern warfare. the squad systems like milan, javelin etc but there are far more versions of single person, single use and reloadable ones I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 1762	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:39:00 - [19] - Quote Think about it like this. When your in a tank, you sacrifice the ability to move very precisely, to aim all the way up, and to cap obbys. Then your counter, can be wielded by anybody, is very cheap to use, and without any of your drawbacks. The issue revolves around HAVs (DSs and LAVs aren't very much an issue) eating SL volleys like cake, combined with resistance mods that make them nigh invulnerable. Looking for a Interesting Character Name? Why Not Zoidberg?
Venerable Phage Red Shirts Away Team 32	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:40:00 - [20] - Quote Logi with REs x2, hives Scout with REs, shotgun/AR/RR/Swarm, SMG/Scrambler Scouts using REs can give tanks a headache. Swarms on scouts can cause not so much damage but a worry. Also as a scout if I am close to a tank and not going to RE it I do drop a flux on it. That makes most tanks move away. If I want AV long range MLT forge and suit. The stronger ones AV ability at range the less one should expect to be strong against infantry and CQC. It would be nice for forges to have a zoom function. It would also be interesting to see heavy grenades, some suits with more weapon slots etc given that you can only use one weapon at a time and you have to spend CPU and normal PG to fit a person could carry more at dilution of individual weapon roles. I would add encumberence for those wearing 3 or more weapons with say -2% to biotic skills, quick swap and penalty to profile as your extra weapons entangle you and create a larger signature. I'd also reduce the ammo available maybe by a third so you would have the same amount of overall ammo. Also reloading should take longer as you try and find the right clip.

Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1263	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:40:00 - [21] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad Even a mortar and a heavy machine gun are carried in three pieces by three guys. You whiners be happy you can carry an HMG and an FG on your shoulder as a one man AV army. Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
killer carrot top Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 92	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:41:00 - [22] - Quote True Adamance wrote: You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. it can be done IV done it plus in a real military you would have at least two guys per squad carring Av and still carry a rifle and or room/ area denial weapons <3 249 saw. but I agree tweek the tanks a bit and your gravy
INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC Intara Direct Action Caldari State 278	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:46:00 - [23] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl) dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance this has always been the issue. pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills. what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks Commandos arent defenseless with sl, they just suck.
INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC Intara Direct Action Caldari State 278	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:49:00 - [24] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad Even a mortar and a heavy machine gun are carried in three pieces by three guys. You whiners be happy you can carry an HMG and an FG on your shoulder as a one man AV army. Why do people use rl to justify the fake space man game? ** real life, real life sucks, make the ** so its fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun thats why we are here.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1045	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:52:00 - [25] - Quote INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC wrote: Commandos arent defenseless with sl, they just suck. i have a problem with the "commandos are av suits" argument. they have been branded with the role because nothing else can fit it. how can we ever have a balanced game if we just ignore items or push them onto suits that can do the job better than others but still be weak to the task. we are just ignoring the problems hoping the problems will fix themselves but they won't and all we will ever have is ineffective roles unless we do something about it I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Billi Gene 490	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:54:00 - [26] - Quote ive fairly much given up on using swarms on alot of maps and when not squaded. its a magnet for any reds in the vicinity, or snipers... Pedant, Ape, Troll. My Beard makes Alpha's sook :P
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 1720	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:56:00 - [27] - Quote Meeko Fent wrote: Think about it like this. When your in a tank, you sacrifice the ability to move very precisely, to aim all the way up, and to cap obbys. Then your counter, can be wielded by anybody, is very cheap to use, and without any of your drawbacks. The issue revolves around HAVs (DSs and LAVs aren't very much an issue) eating SL volleys like cake, combined with resistance mods that make them nigh invulnerable. Because they nerfed the slot layout, and 2xed the reduction hardeners give, which made the reduction higher than before due to how stacking works. Read this. 'lights cigar' fuck with me, and I'll melt your face off. Gallente forever! Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation Legacy Rising 91	Posted - 2014.02.19 21:56:00 - [28] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl) dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance this has always been the issue. pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills. what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks Currently you have forge guns, swarm launchers, AV grenades, remote explosives and proximity mines for anti vehicle use. Of those remotes and proximity mines are equipment you can use with out losing any offesive capability. If you have a basic logi suit you can drop 4 mines and 4 remotes for a total of 12,000 hp of damage in one go at the basic level. Add a nano hive and ora nearby supply depot, at the proto level you can lay down different types for a total of 24 peices of AV equipoment . 1 is a homing grenade, you lose little in anti infantry, but generally your as strong as anyone who has used thier grenades already. Lai dais are still extremley dangerous. No tanks will stick around after getting hit by 1 or two. They still kill all LAVS Forge guns can destroy anything on the field. You gain in anti infantry because you can one shot any suit. Only swarm launchers require you use it as a main weapon. Commandos can caryy a Two light weapon. So you can have your Rail rifle and your swarm launcher. Then sacrifice nothing. Be honest. You, and many other players dont want to spec into AV or become a dedicated AV player. So its no wonder when tanks destroy you guys. You know tanks are a threat, dropships are a threat, and gangs of players roam in LAVs. Yet the overwhelming majority of players dont spec into AV and beg CCP to give you a hand out. I've seen lost of players who got several different FOTM rifles to proto, FOTM side arms to proto, but since AV have never been FOTM they're usually have swarm launchers at mlt, basic or maybe advanced. Wyokami swarms still really really hurt, as do all forges and ADV and up AV nades.Basic Remotes and proximities are deadly. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me.
Pvt Numnutz Black Phoenix Mercenaries 773	Posted - 2014.02.19 22:19:00 - [29] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Pvt Numnutz wrote: Av did this to themselves to be honest. Tower camping all the time, blowing up very expensive vehicles for pennies on the dollar from insane range. The tanks really went overboard tho. Anyway if every infantry had av, and from the sound of it you want them to be 1.6 strength then we should just remove vehicles now. There should be dedicated av, just like there are dedicated vehicle pilots (granted right now anyone can be a tanker) yes it needs to be stronger, or have more options, but not as strong as it was in 1.6. There was a justifiable argument from vehicle pilots that av was too strong. Let's not go there again. you are missing the point i'm trying to make. you cannot be effective at av if you cannot defend yourself against anything and be weak against everything. fact is av while it is much needed when tanks are about is not needed when they are not and this leaves a huge imbalance as how can a av player afford to run with av gear just incase vehicles appear. most players are happy to just forget about tanks and hide while killing and with balance as it is that makes the av role pointless. its too expensive, fitting intensive and weak. this means that to roll with it all the time as a role is completely impractical and costly. there needs to be a way for av to move with the battle regardless of if tanks or vehicles are about so that when they do appear players can react accordingly. its completely wrong to expect a player to take av and die stupid amounts of times when no vehicles are about so they can be ready to fulfill their role when there are. the same goes for why should players have to die before spawning in av gear. fact is AV and assault should be working together. av players carries the av and assaults carry the ammo hives and when needed they support each other. this is the allround balance av needs in order to balance it with vehicles. No I understand your point. I just don't think its a good point. To get vehicle destroying power you make yourself vulnerable to other infantry, like a forge gunner. That's balanced because av kills vehicles, infantry kills av, vehicles kill infantry, they all have counters. If the av player is with out a squad that can support him then he probably won't be doing very well sure, if he stays back behind a heavy and assault player he's not going to be fighting the enemy with his sidearm. Infantry av has the added perk of infantry skills applying. So its a lot easier to also skill into other infantry roles. The suit you use for av can also be used for other infantry rolls. I don't understand why you say its unacceptable for an av player to be running a cheap infantry fit when there is no vehicles, then when there is run to a supply depot or if he dies switch to his primary av fit, That seems reasonable to me. When I was learning to fly in chrome I had to run on the ground to get isk for my dropships (no transport wp, no pilot gun, hardly anyone wanting to get into the death traps) and since I wanted to be a dropship pilot I had all my sp invested in my dropships. On the ground I ran my starter fit logi praying the heavy i was repping would stay alive. The same argument you make here could also be applied to the dropship pilot role, its too expensive, fitting intensive and weak but you could also add sp intensive. My point is, av doesn't have to always be running around in their av suits. They are in a good position to also use suits like other infantry. If they are needed they can switch, if they have a squad they can be protected. Vehicles are a role, and the counter to that role is the av role, why should every infantry player be able to whip out a swarm and deny the vehicle player his role? Because av suits are weak against suits designed to kill infantry? I'm sorry that's not a good enough reason for me to agree with you. Destroying vehicles is a role, it requires the av player to think about how vehicles operate to destroy them while watching out for their counter like every other role in the game they shouldn't be exempt from a counter. There is a way to field both av and infantry weapons, its called the commando suit. Its not as effective at destroying vehicles as a dedicated av suit but it can deny an area to a vehicle if the squad encounters one right then and there. Your post was very confusing because at the end you got it right, av players should be working with other infantry, they protect the infantry from vehicles and the infantry protects them from other infantry. Rock paper scissors.
RedZer0 MK1 The Generals General Tso's Alliance 198	Posted - 2014.02.19 22:40:00 - [30] - Quote Said this before, every other heavy, light, sidearm can kill infantry in addition to the few that are av orientated. The problem is swarms are strictly for vehicles. I say make swarms like missile turrets, just for infantry to use. It would be the perfect inverse of the plasma cannon.

ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1045	Posted - 2014.02.19 22:53:00 - [31] - Quote Pvt Numnutz wrote: No I understand your point. I just don't think its a good point. To get vehicle destroying power you make yourself vulnerable to other infantry, like a forge gunner. That's balanced because av kills vehicles, infantry kills av, vehicles kill infantry, they all have counters. If the av player is with out a squad that can support him then he probably won't be doing very well sure, if he stays back behind a heavy and assault player he's not going to be fighting the enemy with his sidearm. Infantry av has the added perk of infantry skills applying. So its a lot easier to also skill into other infantry roles. The suit you use for av can also be used for other infantry rolls. I don't understand why you say its unacceptable for an av player to be running a cheap infantry fit when there is no vehicles, then when there is run to a supply depot or if he dies switch to his primary av fit, That seems reasonable to me. When I was learning to fly in chrome I had to run on the ground to get isk for my dropships (no transport wp, no pilot gun, hardly anyone wanting to get into the death traps) and since I wanted to be a dropship pilot I had all my sp invested in my dropships. On the ground I ran my starter fit logi praying the heavy i was repping would stay alive. The same argument you make here could also be applied to the dropship pilot role, its too expensive, fitting intensive and weak but you could also add sp intensive. My point is, av doesn't have to always be running around in their av suits. They are in a good position to also use suits like other infantry. If they are needed they can switch, if they have a squad they can be protected. Vehicles are a role, and the counter to that role is the av role, why should every infantry player be able to whip out a swarm and deny the vehicle player his role? Because av suits are weak against suits designed to kill infantry? I'm sorry that's not a good enough reason for me to agree with you. Destroying vehicles is a role, it requires the av player to think about how vehicles operate to destroy them while watching out for their counter like every other role in the game they shouldn't be exempt from a counter. There is a way to field both av and infantry weapons, its called the commando suit. Its not as effective at destroying vehicles as a dedicated av suit but it can deny an area to a vehicle if the squad encounters one right then and there. Your post was very confusing because at the end you got it right, av players should be working with other infantry, they protect the infantry from vehicles and the infantry protects them from other infantry. Rock paper scissors. you are missing the point. that circle of killing doesn't work in dust at all. tank kills infantry and av players, infantry kills av players, av players can't kill tanks because they are 1 shot as soon as they attack by snipers,tanks,other infantry, this means more tanks killing more infantry. infantry get pissed off and hide indoors or switch to sniping. snipers pick of more av as they attempt again to take out tanks. av player gives us playing av. the whole notion of team av is flawed because as more go av then there is no one left to protect them. tank is harassing team so they go av, now tank is no threat but the entire enemy team of infantry is. you respawn infantry and "oh another tank" this is the issue that's plaguing the game. players having ranged av as a backup while forge and tanks fulfill the main role is just common sense. there is no reason why it couldn't be balanced. also your wrong to imply that av should be a role but then say they should run infantry when not needed. thats like saying all logis should not run repairs or ammo. they should wait for someone to be taking damage. then run back to the resupply, get a repair, then run back to heal the guy taking damage. its either a role or it isn't. if you can't be in it all the time its not a role and the fact is av setups are so weak and situational you cannot use them for anything else. you also say av doesn't need to be always in av.... well most of the time they do. there are so many tanks,ds,lavs about now its a must have but to use swarms or plc to some extent means death and not for the tank you shoot at. how can av with the lowest life expectancy and the highest fitting cost after logi be a viable role especially if its only effective if there are more of you and with guards who cant protect you from snipers or light weapon fire or even the tanks themselves. its not a role as it stands now. if it takes a group of players to make it work and a group of players to protect you as you do it then its broken. we see how its broken every day yet player choose to ignore it. the fix is not as simple as a nerf or buff to either side. I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1045	Posted - 2014.02.19 22:56:00 - [32] - Quote the problem we have in dust is we keep balancing this against that and then repeating or doing the opposite when what we should be doing is marking it all down as broken and then taking the whole thing in a different direction. I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Darken-Soul BIG BAD W0LVES 898	Posted - 2014.02.19 22:58:00 - [33] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: the problem we have in dust is we keep balancing this against that and then repeating or doing the opposite when what we should be doing is marking it all down as broken and then taking the whole thing in a different direction. CCP has trouble making progress in one direction. I dread the day they try to fix more than the things they broke. Who wants some?
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2014	Posted - 2014.02.19 22:59:00 - [34] - Quote Commando is the offical suit of the permanent AV solution. Bonus to AV weaponry, bonus to sustained DPS via reload, still rather high EHP. The rest off us are only reacting, hence why we are at a disadva tage. Combat Engineer in training. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1048	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:03:00 - [35] - Quote Darken-Soul wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: the problem we have in dust is we keep balancing this against that and then repeating or doing the opposite when what we should be doing is marking it all down as broken and then taking the whole thing in a different direction. CCP has trouble making progress in one direction. I dread the day they try to fix more than the things they broke. thats the issue. they knew tanks were not working so they completely reworked them. the only problem is they barely touched av which was also broken. reworking or buffing/nerfing an item against a broken item doesn't fix any problems I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 1730	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:05:00 - [36] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Pvt Numnutz wrote: No I understand your point. I just don't think its a good point. To get vehicle destroying power you make yourself vulnerable to other infantry, like a forge gunner. That's balanced because av kills vehicles, infantry kills av, vehicles kill infantry, they all have counters. If the av player is with out a squad that can support him then he probably won't be doing very well sure, if he stays back behind a heavy and assault player he's not going to be fighting the enemy with his sidearm. Infantry av has the added perk of infantry skills applying. So its a lot easier to also skill into other infantry roles. The suit you use for av can also be used for other infantry rolls. I don't understand why you say its unacceptable for an av player to be running a cheap infantry fit when there is no vehicles, then when there is run to a supply depot or if he dies switch to his primary av fit, That seems reasonable to me. When I was learning to fly in chrome I had to run on the ground to get isk for my dropships (no transport wp, no pilot gun, hardly anyone wanting to get into the death traps) and since I wanted to be a dropship pilot I had all my sp invested in my dropships. On the ground I ran my starter fit logi praying the heavy i was repping would stay alive. The same argument you make here could also be applied to the dropship pilot role, its too expensive, fitting intensive and weak but you could also add sp intensive. My point is, av doesn't have to always be running around in their av suits. They are in a good position to also use suits like other infantry. If they are needed they can switch, if they have a squad they can be protected. Vehicles are a role, and the counter to that role is the av role, why should every infantry player be able to whip out a swarm and deny the vehicle player his role? Because av suits are weak against suits designed to kill infantry? I'm sorry that's not a good enough reason for me to agree with you. Destroying vehicles is a role, it requires the av player to think about how vehicles operate to destroy them while watching out for their counter like every other role in the game they shouldn't be exempt from a counter. There is a way to field both av and infantry weapons, its called the commando suit. Its not as effective at destroying vehicles as a dedicated av suit but it can deny an area to a vehicle if the squad encounters one right then and there. Your post was very confusing because at the end you got it right, av players should be working with other infantry, they protect the infantry from vehicles and the infantry protects them from other infantry. Rock paper scissors. you are missing the point. that circle of killing doesn't work in dust at all. tank kills infantry and av players, infantry kills av players, av players can't kill tanks because they are 1 shot as soon as they attack by snipers,tanks,other infantry, this means more tanks killing more infantry. infantry get pissed off and hide indoors or switch to sniping. snipers pick of more av as they attempt again to take out tanks. av player gives us playing av. the whole notion of team av is flawed because as more go av then there is no one left to protect them. tank is harassing team so they go av, now tank is no threat but the entire enemy team of infantry is. you respawn infantry and "oh another tank" this is the issue that's plaguing the game. players having ranged av as a backup while forge and tanks fulfill the main role is just common sense. there is no reason why it couldn't be balanced. also your wrong to imply that av should be a role but then say they should run infantry when not needed. thats like saying all logis should not run repairs or ammo. they should wait for someone to be taking damage. then run back to the resupply, get a repair, then run back to heal the guy taking damage. its either a role or it isn't. if you can't be in it all the time its not a role and the fact is av setups are so weak and situational you cannot use them for anything else. you also say av doesn't need to be always in av.... well most of the time they do. there are so many tanks,ds,lavs about now its a must have but to use swarms or plc to some extent means death and not for the tank you shoot at. how can av with the lowest life expectancy and the highest fitting cost after logi be a viable role especially if its only effective if there are more of you and with guards who cant protect you from snipers or light weapon fire or even the tanks themselves. its not a role as it stands now. if it takes a group of players to make it work and a group of players to protect you as you do it then its broken. we see how its broken every day yet player choose to ignore it. the fix is not as simple as a nerf or buff to either side. In this meta you keep a dedicated AV player of some kind. Also, be patient, quit QQ and fit a damn Magsec SMG. CCP are GIVING you a way to have your SL as a sidearm. Forge on for great justice! Defend the meek! Destroy the weak! Q-sync breaches into the rectum of everyone else!
TYCHUS MAXWELL Sebiestor Field Sappers Minmatar Republic 69	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:15:00 - [37] - Quote True Adamance wrote: You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. That's not true at all, but it is besides the point. Realistically, this game has no semblance of realism who has the technology to keep a mcc floating so close to the ground and yet lacks the auto targeting technology to wipe out everyone that gives off a signature. If we wanted realism, we wouldn't be using vehicles that could be detected and we would not be wearing suits that could be detected as all of this would be done in. The premise in general is absurd of fighting tiny land battles in this universe, if we wanted realism, this game would be small extraction teams centered around breaking into corporate offices for intel and such. Essentially it would be more realistic if this game looked like space counter strike, but realism doesn't make good games. What we do need is balance, which I think the constant buff nerf cycles aren't going to help as much as we just need well defined roles. If it takes one aver to kill one tank, make tanks much cheaper, they are immune to most things but being soloed by av does make them weak gameplay wise if they aren't affordable. If it takes multiple av to effectively counter them like now, then just make the large turrets all anti vehicle forcing the tank to become the heavy weapons platform it was meant to be with a manned crew instead of a one man army. Have one or the other. You can never fix the imbalance by making tanks soloable if they cost so much, and you can never fix the imbalance if 1 tank with 1 pilot= multiple infantry.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1051	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:19:00 - [38] - Quote right everyone is starting to get sidetracked here and going of topic. the topic is about the fact it takes more av to take out a tank which it should but there is no way for players to field more av without being swatted by everything before they have a chance to do anything. weak av solo is not av. weak av as a group is good av and with what ccp has done with tanks its should be doable but it is not because no one can live long enough to do anything. yes we have 1 commando suit with a bonus to explosive damage. so does that mean the entire role should be restricted to that suit if its going to be effective. thats just wrong. sure we have the magsec coming. what makes you think that if its going to be as powerful as you all think its not going to be nerfed to oblivion. fact is none of the new stuff is going to make much of a difference because the underlining problems are still there. the problem is not av damage or range. its lack of av on the field at the right time. this can be fixed without any buffs to damage or range etc by simply making av easier to fit to suits I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 1230	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:24:00 - [39] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Knight Solitaire wrote: No, AVing needs to be a role. If you want to keep your Rifle and Swarm Launcher, get a Commando suit. They're being buffed. this is precisely the point. in every other game av guy carries av weapon as a specialised piece of equipment meaning if he needs it he can go av but if not he can still be effective in combat. what dust has is balance which means av is not effective solo and anyone carrying it is not effective in normal combat either. this is the underlining issue with av Sidearms. You can still do decent against Infantry with them. Just don't expect to wipe out a whole squad.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1051	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:29:00 - [40] - Quote Joel II X wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Knight Solitaire wrote: No, AVing needs to be a role. If you want to keep your Rifle and Swarm Launcher, get a Commando suit. They're being buffed. this is precisely the point. in every other game av guy carries av weapon as a specialised piece of equipment meaning if he needs it he can go av but if not he can still be effective in combat. what dust has is balance which means av is not effective solo and anyone carrying it is not effective in normal combat either. this is the underlining issue with av Sidearms. You can still do decent against Infantry with them. Just don't expect to wipe out a whole squad. we have sidearms now... if they were actually any good within the av role against light weapon using assaults then don't you think there would be more av about an assault fits damage for 1 weapon and falls back on his sidearm. a av user fits for av damage and falls back on his sidearm. who is at a massive disadvantage at all ranges. its the av player. i often come up against swarm users while im logibroing and they just melt every time to my unmodded cr,rr and anything really I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find

TYCHUS MAXWELL Sebiestor Field Sappers Minmatar Republic 69	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:31:00 - [41] - Quote Joel II X wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Knight Solitaire wrote: No, AVing needs to be a role. If you want to keep your Rifle and Swarm Launcher, get a Commando suit. They're being buffed. this is precisely the point. in every other game av guy carries av weapon as a specialised piece of equipment meaning if he needs it he can go av but if not he can still be effective in combat. what dust has is balance which means av is not effective solo and anyone carrying it is not effective in normal combat either. this is the underlining issue with av Sidearms. You can still do decent against Infantry with them. Just don't expect to wipe out a whole squad. you can, but it's not remotely optimal. Efficiency range is poor on side arms and rightfully so. Efficiency range is a big deal, that's why people spam rail rifles and combat rifles over assault rifles, because it is an advantage to be able to respond to multiple engagement ranges. Side arms don't need to be buffed, but saying they are optimal would be absurd. There is nothing they can do that one of the light weapons won't do better, as it should be gameplay wise. Edit: It's redundant weapon mechanics that keep glossing over any diversity in this game. Not just vehicles but weapons should have defined roles. CQC weapons should be superior in hipfire engagements to medium and long range weapons. That's why CR and RR are so imbalanced right now, if they worked more like the plasma rifle tactical variant and mostly forced ADS firing, then the weapons would be balanced as is. That seems counter intuitive to CR weapons given minmitars style so personally I just believe the standard CR needs to have it's damaged dropped and the Assault variant needs to have it's rate of fire dropped to that of the smgs. The CR should just be a smg with a longer engagement range. Right now it is a smg with a longer engagement range + a greater ROF + DMG, which with an incoming smg nerf the devs already acknowledge that smgs are "too good" as a sidearm, it follows logic that likewise the CR is "too good" for it's intended role as a run and gun superior range smg.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1051	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:41:00 - [42] - Quote logi is a role assault is a role, heavy is a role, scout is a role, tank driver is a role, dropship pilot is a role, not sure what commando is av is not a role. its a piece of equipment or a weapon just like hives or scanners. yet when you fit a piece of av you are automatically branded an av player and expected to die fast and do little damage. its a situational piece of equipment. its not treated as such and thats a problem in itself I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 256	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:41:00 - [43] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl) dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance this has always been the issue. pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills. what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks No, i like the fact that you have to make a choice and dometes you make the wrong one and have to live, or die, with it. The more differentation and specialization that the game has the better. The problem is making all of them work together in some sort of balance. The answer is not to make every role almost the same. Because, that's why.
TYCHUS MAXWELL Sebiestor Field Sappers Minmatar Republic 69	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:43:00 - [44] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: logi is a role assault is a role, heavy is a role, scout is a role, tank driver is a role, dropship pilot is a role, not sure what commando is av is not a role. its a piece of equipment or a weapon just like hives or scanners. yet when you fit a piece of av you are automatically branded an av player and expected to die fast and do little damage. its a situational piece of equipment. its not treated as such and thats a problem in itself You are arguing semantics, the game uses the term role to define various suits and vehicles yes. But that isn't what the word role means. Role: a part that someone or something has in a particular activity or situation. - Courtesy of Merriam-Webster.
Nothing Certain Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 256	Posted - 2014.02.19 23:53:00 - [45] - Quote I think one obvious answer is making land turrets permanent, they are great AV weapons, art. Int. should be removed so that they must be manned to do anything and they can be disabled but also repairable. The other thing is just giving WP for damage, that alone will change the dynamics as people will want to run AV instead if having to run AV. Of course, hoe damage is measured needs changes or no CRU or supply depot would survive. Because, that's why.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1052	Posted - 2014.02.20 07:46:00 - [46] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: I think one obvious answer is making land turrets permanent, they are great AV weapons, art. Int. should be removed so that they must be manned to do anything and they can be disabled but also repairable. The other thing is just giving WP for damage, that alone will change the dynamics as people will want to run AV instead if having to run AV. Of course, hoe damage is measured needs changes or no CRU or supply depot would survive. this just hides the issue. damage wp wont mean more av, it will just mean more cheap ineffective av farming wp from a distance. we will always have issues with getting enough av players on the field unless ccp makes it easier to carry enough of it I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1849	Posted - 2014.02.20 07:53:00 - [47] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: I can't deal with tanks so I want them nerfed. That explains it. 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 467	Posted - 2014.02.20 07:57:00 - [48] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: I can't deal with tanks so I want them nerfed. That explains it. Not every other game has op tanks that insta kill you (blaster turret) 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
Kitt 514 True North. 111	Posted - 2014.02.20 08:05:00 - [49] - Quote even half decent light AV would go a long way
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1849	Posted - 2014.02.20 08:16:00 - [50] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: I can't deal with tanks so I want them nerfed. That explains it. Not every other game has op tanks that insta kill you (blaster turret) It's a tank. It's supposed to be a devastating platform. You're in a meat bag. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Yan Darn Forsaken Immortals Top Men. 243	Posted - 2014.02.20 08:45:00 - [51] - Quote Emperor1349 wrote: A big problem also is, like people giving up on the fight and retreating to the red line, people giving up on all av, even talking ** when I pull out my av suit. It takes multiple people, I think vehicles are in a good place just need to slow down a bit (If they are at 1% hp, It's kind of ridiculous they can escape at top speed). The nerf to AV was not necessary if vehicles were getting buffed. As I was saying though, Tanks are in a good place so a lot of people are using them, AV is in a rough spot, so a lot of cowards abandon it all together. Last night in the few matches I played we destroyed all HAVs that entered the fight (** you redline rail tanks), if you have a squad who can put their big boy pants on, work together and concentrate AV fire, it's not as bad as it seems. You can avoid a total stomp, usually tanks are about like snipers, only good for k/d, annoying, but they cant win the match alone. I have an issue with this too - while there is clearly a problem in the AV/ Vehicle relationship right now, when being red lined by tanks, if everyone who pulled out a sniper could pull out a MLT/FG or eve Swarm fit - if you couldn't destroy a tank/ADS you could at least push it away from red line and give scouts like me a chance to drop some uplinks in the field. Instead, Im the one switching to a fat suit/STD swarm fit hoping some blues grow a pair and push out during the window. Non redline situations combat REs/Flux does the trick more or less....sometimes when I see a rail tank, even if I've only got links I will just run at it makin them think im trying to RE them XD However - I don't AVs as sidearms is the best fix for the current situation. You probably don't know me. But next time you get gunned down or exploded by a Valor scout...check the name.
NK Scout Storm Wind Strikeforce Caldari State 469	Posted - 2014.02.20 08:53:00 - [52] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: NK Scout wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: I can't deal with tanks so I want them nerfed. That explains it. Not every other game has op tanks that insta kill you (blaster turret) It's a tank. It's supposed to be a devastating platform. You're in a meat bag. Balance is needed 2 exiles assault rifles, Skinweave caldari frame, Staff recruiter mlt frame, Templar set Caldari Master Race
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1849	Posted - 2014.02.20 08:54:00 - [53] - Quote NK Scout wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: NK Scout wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: I can't deal with tanks so I want them nerfed. That explains it. Not every other game has op tanks that insta kill you (blaster turret) It's a tank. It's supposed to be a devastating platform. You're in a meat bag. Balance is needed There's no talk of "balance" when people complain that tanks don't take damage from automatic rifles. There can be no intelligent discussion with those people. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Racro 01 Arifistan 501st Knights of Leanbox INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 161	Posted - 2014.02.20 09:33:00 - [54] - Quote wait so your saying that i cant defend my self from infantry when iam in my assualt gko with a wykomi triple stacked compelx with prof 3 and adv av nades that is killing tanks currently (yes iam able to solo tnaks but it pratcailly drains every last nad.swarm volley to do so and also a bpo lav.) and struggling to defend against infantry is a joke to me. runnoign around with just under 350 armour isnt bad as its justa huffer to me (useing basic plate) this leaves enough room for the all mighty/deadly/OP/insane killing ishukon assault sub machine gun. ealioer today i amanged to drop 3 std tanks with adv turrets all the while killign infantry with my proto SMG. as far as i can see there is no problem with av. just that tanks (especially millita) are slightly too strong atm.
steadyhand amarr TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 2351	Posted - 2014.02.20 11:31:00 - [55] - Quote Iv been saying for two years AV needs to be a secondry item not a primy. Any primy AV weapon would need to a lot stronger to make up for its lack of abilty to kill inf "i dont care about you or your goals, just show me the dam isk" winner of EU squad cup GOGO power rangers
Piraten Hovnoret Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 339	Posted - 2014.02.20 11:32:00 - [56] - Quote Well guys this is the thing http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle Have used it in real war and trust me this old gun that dates 1948 insta kills any tank in one blow and is deployed buy one infantry soldier. Used buy most special forces in the world Regards Ps belive me when I say this thing makes some pretty nasty fire works. =ƒÿê War never changes
The Robot Devil Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1682	Posted - 2014.02.20 11:43:00 - [57] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl) dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance this has always been the issue. pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills. what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks Men, most other games also allow you to pop a vehicle with a single RPG or RE. If you want a light weapon for infantry and vehicles then skill into commando. Two people fighting the HAVs while everyone else runs and hides or shoots them with CRs is the problem. When I am in a squad with two AV mercs these problems don't exist because once you stand up to the bully they run away and don't come back. Everyone skill into prox mines and deploy them all over the place, I will bet the HAV spam stops within a few days because infantry has to clear them or pilots have clear them. Infantry doing it lures the infantry into the open and if pilots do it them they have to sit still in the open to do it. Fix the amount of teamwork that goes on and you will fix the HAV problems. "You people voted for Hubert Humphrey, and you killed Jesus." Raoul Duke
ChromeBreaker SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 1576	Posted - 2014.02.20 12:33:00 - [58] - Quote Please see Sig... The answer is "ForgeGun"... doesnt matter what the question is...
Avinash Decker Seykal Expeditionary Group Minmatar Republic 100	Posted - 2014.02.20 13:27:00 - [59] - Quote The Robot Devil wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl) dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance this has always been the issue. pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills. what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks Most other games also allow you to pop a vehicle with a single RPG or RE. If you want a light weapon for infantry and vehicles then skill into commando. Two people fighting the HAVs while everyone else runs and hides or shoots them with CRs is the problem. When I am in a squad with two AV mercs these problems don't exist because once you stand up to the bully they run away and don't come back. Everyone skill into prox mines and deploy them all over the place, I will bet the HAV spam stops within a few days because infantry has to clear them or pilots have clear them. Infantry doing it lures the infantry into the open and if pilots do it them they have to sit still in the open to do it. Fix the amount of teamwork that goes on and you will fix the HAV problems. Most of those games don't do any of the sort. Anyway I been thinking this has been a problem with CCPS mentality of everyone should be specialized in a role and therefore it will make people work together to create syengry between players..... that does not happen very often especially among random players. You can't just do some laissez-faire model and expect people to work together. Certain roles with certain weapons are just to specific and only useful in very few situations. Equipping swarms makes you really vulnerable to infantry and even tanks can kill you fairly quickly if they spot you and it isn't fun to run around with a gun that isn't going to work in the overwhelming majority of situations. So not very many specs into it so therefore very little people will pull out a AV weapon. If they do then most likely it is a "throw away role" where they just switch to AV for that second and them immediately switch back to their standard role. Also speccing into to AV means I have to forgo other useful skills that will actually help me out in more situations or even all like the module skills. You do have forge guns and commando suits , but again are specialized tools that only a few people will utilize. Forge guns is a more viable option . Maybe the new smg will help even the odds . but I don't see it will anytime soon depending how it is though. I think it would be best if they can just get rid of one primary weapon and instead allow to equip two light primary weapons . To balance it the second primary weapon will have increased pg/cpu usage by 10 to maybe 25 percent so players to have to make the decision of either having more firepower or more mods. The commando don't get the penalty and should be buffed to have more mod slots and or other ways like more equipment slot and/or three weapon slots.
Assault Chileanme Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 50	Posted - 2014.02.20 15:17:00 - [60] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: There's no talk of "balance" when people complain that tanks don't take damage from automatic rifles. There can be no intelligent discussion with those people. Nobody is talking about that here. Please go back to the little kid's table and let the grown ups finish their conversation.

AP Grasshopper Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 181	Posted - 2014.02.20 15:34:00 - [61] - Quote SMG is pretty good at killing things, maybe not as good as a combat rifle, but almost as good.
AP Grasshopper Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 181	Posted - 2014.02.20 15:39:00 - [62] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: logi is a role assault is a role, heavy is a role, scout is a role, tank driver is a role, dropship pilot is a role, not sure what commando is av is not a role. its a piece of equipment or a weapon just like hives or scanners. yet when you fit a piece of av you are automatically branded an av player and expected to die fast and do little damage. its a situational piece of equipment. its not treated as such and thats a problem in itself Swarm launchers, forge guns and assault rifles are all weapon systems, not equipment. Equipment provides utility, weapons provide stopping power or "work". Of course, there is a grey line here.
AP Grasshopper Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance 181	Posted - 2014.02.20 15:41:00 - [63] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: Well guys this is the thing http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle Have used it in real war and trust me this old gun that dates 1948 insta kills any tank in one blow and is deployed buy one infantry soldier. Used buy most special forces in the world Regards Ps belive me when I say this thing makes some pretty nasty fire works. =ƒÿê Edit : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4 This is the modern version ( one time use only ) Gustav's are still in service within the U.S. Infantry divisions. Pretty scary weapon. Oh if only mr Plasma Cannon....
Roy Ventus Foxhound Corporation General Tso's Alliance 1109	Posted - 2014.02.20 15:41:00 - [64] - Quote I've been saying for a while we need an AV class. Medium Frame or Light Frame because the light AV need some buffers when being used by their specialists. Tanks would have a reason to cower when they see AV running to them. Proto Swarm Launchers actually being a major threat against Proto Armor Tanks. Plasma Cannon that melt a Proto Tank's shields. Seriously. Lower the cost of light AV and then give us a more expensive AV specialist class. The cost should be akin to the other specialist class, the Commando. An all around buff like a % increase in ammo, and then give each racial variant their buffs according to their racial AV gear and mantra. "There once was a time when there wasn't a Roy Ventus and it wasn't much of a time at all." Roy Ventus
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 4848	Posted - 2014.02.20 15:45:00 - [65] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad Even a mortar and a heavy machine gun are carried in three pieces by three guys. You whiners be happy you can carry an HMG and an FG on your shoulder as a one man AV army. I think you should be even more grateful because your HAV doesn't require 3+ people to operate. Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub AFK No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
Yokal Bob G.R.A.V.E INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 393	Posted - 2014.02.20 15:56:00 - [66] - Quote Sorry but no, if AV was a secondary role then everyone would use it, put that together with AV nades (oh light AV) then noone would be in a vehcile as it would be pointless. CPM1 candidate I want my logi tank back
Roy Ventus Foxhound Corporation General Tso's Alliance 1109	Posted - 2014.02.20 15:59:00 - [67] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: logi is a role assault is a role, heavy is a role, scout is a role, tank driver is a role, dropship pilot is a role, not sure what commando is av is not a role. its a piece of equipment or a weapon just like hives or scanners. yet when you fit a piece of av you are automatically branded an av player and expected to die fast and do little damage. its a situational piece of equipment. its not treated as such and thats a problem in itself ._. How the Hell do you consider the rest of those as roles but leave out the Commando and AV? And for that matter, I don't see the sniper role up there either. Commandos are the strictly offensive role. Despite being stuck with only offensive viability, it can be used for a many things. Once 1.8 comes out and we get the update, they'll be used more often for situations like: Spearheading an attack, Mobile Suppression, Alpha Strikes, Clearing house/elimination, Breakthroughs, Etc AV's role is what it is. Anti-Vehicle. It isn't to be used all the time but that's also what makes it a specialist role, along with the Commando, Sniper/Marksman, and whatever else. The fact that you stated that it isn't, is silly. You have to organize your whole suit around the AV gear(the actual AV weapon, whether to use Flux or AV grenades, which sidearm, whether or not to use REs or Prox-Explosives, etc). "There once was a time when there wasn't a Roy Ventus and it wasn't much of a time at all." Roy Ventus
Marlin Kirby KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 359	Posted - 2014.02.20 16:17:00 - [68] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl) Star Wars Battlefront 1&2 does........just say'n. The not Logic Bomb! -->We need better comms!<--
Alternate Insano SUICIDE SPITE SQUAD 105	Posted - 2014.02.20 16:23:00 - [69] - Quote What is this balance you speak of? Oh, you mean you want the game dumbed down because you can't figure out how easy it already is? What a horrible idea. DUST 514 Super Scrub Level 262 Forum Troll Play, or play not. There is no balance.
Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp 63	Posted - 2014.02.20 16:24:00 - [70] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Pvt Numnutz wrote: Av did this to themselves to be honest. Tower camping all the time, blowing up very expensive vehicles for pennies on the dollar from insane range. The tanks really went overboard tho. Anyway if every infantry had av, and from the sound of it you want them to be 1.6 strength then we should just remove vehicles now. There should be dedicated av, just like there are dedicated vehicle pilots (granted right now anyone can be a tanker) yes it needs to be stronger, or have more options, but not as strong as it was in 1.6. There was a justifiable argument from vehicle pilots that av was too strong. Let's not go there again. you are missing the point i'm trying to make. you cannot be effective at av if you cannot defend yourself against anything and be weak against everything. fact is av while it is much needed when tanks are about is not needed when they are not and this leaves a huge imbalance as how can a av player afford to run with av gear just incase vehicles appear. most players are happy to just forget about tanks and hide while killing and with balance as it is that makes the av role pointless. its too expensive, fitting intensive and weak. this means that to roll with it all the time as a role is completely impractical and costly. there needs to be a way for av to move with the battle regardless of if tanks or vehicles are about so that when they do appear players can react accordingly. its completely wrong to expect a player to take av and die stupid amounts of times when no vehicles are about so they can be ready to fulfill their role when there are. the same goes for why should players have to die before spawning in av gear. fact is AV and assault should be working together. av players carries the av and assaults carry the ammo hives and when needed they support each other. this is the allround balance av needs in order to balance it with vehicles. Spec into scrambler pistols, destroy everything. This is a team game, you shouldn't be able to do everything solo Sees prototompers... Sees blueberries start to snipe... Pulls out commando suit with laser rifle and swarm launcher...

Spectral Clone Dust2Dust. Top Men. 1317	Posted - 2014.02.20 16:27:00 - [71] - Quote AP Grasshopper wrote: Piraten Hovnoret wrote: Well guys this is the thing http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle Have used it in real war and trust me this old gun that dates 1948 insta kills any tank in one blow and is deployed buy one infantry soldier. Used buy most special forces in the world Regards Ps belive me when I say this thing makes some pretty nasty fire works. =ƒÿê Edit : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4 This is the modern version ( one time use only ) Gustav's are still in service within the U.S. Infantry divisions. Pretty scary weapon. Oh if only mr Plasma Cannon.... Designed and manufactured in Sweden, the most peaceful country in the world :\| Drop it like its hat.
Marlin Kirby KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 359	Posted - 2014.02.20 16:30:00 - [72] - Quote Spectral Clone wrote: .....Sweden, the most peaceful country in the world :\| Switzerland* The not Logic Bomb! -->We need better comms!<--
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1087	Posted - 2014.02.25 22:46:00 - [73] - Quote bump I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1152	Posted - 2014.04.03 19:31:00 - [74] - Quote bump I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp 385	Posted - 2014.04.03 19:35:00 - [75] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl) dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance this has always been the issue. pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills. what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks Star wars battlefront had an AV as a primary weapon. Also, in battlefield I believe they use PDWs primarily, which the magsec and smg use. -Sincerely --The Dual Swarm Commando
Takron Nistrom Tinfoil Hatz 294	Posted - 2014.04.03 20:09:00 - [76] - Quote One of the big unbalancers is the ability to swarm av when a tank starts killing you. You get 8 guys coming back with av suits and wipe up the tank and go back to killing. If you could only pick one suit the whole match, it would justify stronger AV and make killing vehicles an investment. GÇ£Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)GÇ¥ GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
Altus Nox FACTION WARFARE ARMY FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 17	Posted - 2014.04.04 12:29:00 - [77] - Quote Create a combat engineer class or a machinist class. It would be a new medium frame suit. Bonuses: Give them a bonus to light AV weaponry. Increased repair rate for vehicles. Two light weapon slots with reduced ammo capacity on one of them. One Equipment slot. Drawbacks: A price increase comparable with other specialist roles. A reduced slot layout. Limited CPU/PG too make fitting two light weapons require sacrifice to Tank or Equipment. Either this or the OP's Secondary AV weapon. -Nox -Omnes una manet Nox (The same night awaits us all)
Xin Tiger Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 12	Posted - 2014.04.04 13:17:00 - [78] - Quote I feel like the useful days of a heavy with a forge gun are gone to be honest, I'm 70% of the time murdered horribly before i can switch suits or even get a tank kill so other options like the logi with RE's is a good way to go and sometimes I work with someone who has RE's on the tank to help take it down but i'm still stuck with a very situational primary weapon at the end of it. Looks cool though
Justicar Karnellia Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State 775	Posted - 2014.04.04 13:45:00 - [79] - Quote You're touching on a lot of issues that are correct in the debate. 1) Carrying an AV weapon as a main weapon should be entirely effective against vehicles. The two options right now are not (one is broken, the other bugged). As soon as a HAV (these are the biggest issue) requires more than one infantry to engage it and neutralise it, that HAV suddenly gives his side a numerical advantage, because the HAV can also kill infantry, and other HAV's. This basically leads to a zero-sum game, which is what is occurring right now, if you have more HAV's than the other team, you have a "soft" numerical superiority. 2) classing AV as a secondary weapon is interesting, and works in other games. The elephant in the room is clearly titanfall, as everyone has three weapons, a primary, secondary and anti-titan (vehicle) weapon. This means they can engage the titans even without their own, so you don't feel like you are suddenly powerless when on foot - and quite the opposite, many pilots actually prefer it as you are more agile, while the vehicles are not. Of course, I am comparing a game that has gone through 3 years of delicate balancing around this single game mechanic, while Dust 514 is less mature, hasn't concentrated on this game mechanic at all - and this can be seen by the oddities it has created. Slow, stamina-laden infantry with ineffective AV weapons, and extremely fast and agile HAV's that can zip around the map and are sometimes nigh-on indestructible... This topic has been covered ad-nauseum. CCP and the CPM know there is a problem, the players know there is a problem (barring a few well known bridge dwellers), the question remains on how best to correct it. I think the true sandbox will be when you can engage anyone, with any weapon at any time, and if with a bit of luck and skill and the right game mechanics, you can prevail. At the moment, even with the weapons made SPECIFICALLY do destroy a particular asset, they are ineffective... so it begs the question, why are they even in the game?
Jacques Cayton II Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 745	Posted - 2014.04.04 13:49:00 - [80] - Quote True Adamance wrote: You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. Actually that's for Javelins and for crew operated weapon systems. Most rocket propelled weapons can be carried with full battle rattle like the at 4, smaw, and the such. Infantry units don't have javelin guys in each platoon that's battalion level. In real world events if a tank shows up to an infantry firefight it's screwed. The worst enemy to a tank is infantry the worst thing to infantry is that infantry in the open and artillery. Tanks are good at distance that's it get em close and the infantry will have a field day if they have the proper equipment We fight for the future of the State not our personal goals

Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 5023	Posted - 2014.04.04 14:03:00 - [81] - Quote Problem with this logic: Other games don't make vehicles into a dedicated role either. Also, Command and Conquer: Renegade has dedicated anti-vehicle loadouts instead of providing anti-vehicle weapons as secondary weapons on all loadouts. Only the highest-level (and most expensive) weapons can be useful against vehicles while remaining viable against enemy infantry. And like DUST, you have to pay for the anti-vehicle weapons or the vehicles you're choosing to fight in. If the enemy team brings out a stack of tanks, you can counter with your own vehicles, your own anti-vehicle infantry, OR with a combined-arms force. Regardless of which approach you choose, you do so by purchasing the gear you want to fight with.
SPESHULz The Southern Legion 105	Posted - 2014.04.07 19:54:00 - [82] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: True Adamance wrote: You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc. AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad by that i hope you mean ammo and a launcher like a javelin is carried by 2 people whose role is purely av unless you think a gla is effective against armour. Adamance you are correct. Blood flows. Death comes. War rages Maths is OP. Those numbers kill you RedLineLove
Leovarian L Lavitz NECROM0NGERS Caps and Mercs 1031	Posted - 2014.04.07 19:55:00 - [83] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl) dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance this has always been the issue. pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills. what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks COMMANDO!!!!!!!! Omni-Soldier Few are my equal in one of these specialties, and there are none who can compare in all of them.
Bethhy Ancient Exiles. Dirt Nap Squad. 1707	Posted - 2014.04.07 20:04:00 - [84] - Quote We had the flaylock as a AV sidearm.... Odly that was the first part of the gun to get nerfed before even talks of changes to it with Infantry. Still funny when a tank came close and then got shot by 6 flaylockers....
SPESHULz The Southern Legion 105	Posted - 2014.04.07 20:07:00 - [85] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: Well guys this is the thing http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_recoilless_rifle Have used it in real war and trust me this old gun that dates 1948 insta kills any tank in one blow and is deployed buy one infantry soldier. Used buy most special forces in the world Regards Ps belive me when I say this thing makes some pretty nasty fire works. =ƒÿê Edit : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4 This is the modern version ( one time use only ) Insta kills 1948 tanks maybe. not a chance now. i wouldnt even try it on an abrahms same thing would happen as in dust you would get destroyed without doing much. yeah can be fired by 1 person but 2 is need to quickly fire and reload and where is your ammo coming from? I have carried and used it myself. Blood flows. Death comes. War rages Maths is OP. Those numbers kill you RedLineLove
Rusty Shallows 1439	Posted - 2014.04.07 20:08:00 - [86] - Quote Pvt Numnutz wrote: Av did this to themselves to be honest. Tower camping all the time, blowing up very expensive vehicles for pennies on the dollar from insane range. snip So what you're saying is Chrome HAVs are responsible for the vehicle nerfs in Uprising 1.0. So the current rampages will justify the next nerfs all vehicles get? All because HAVs did this to themselves? Forums > Game: So here is a cookie and a Like. Please keep posting. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! >>> GòÜ(GÇóGîéGÇó)Gò¥ >>>
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 5560	Posted - 2014.04.07 20:13:00 - [87] - Quote Looks at Commando suit *1st Official Role Playing Gallente Asshole* -Title Awarded by True Adamance
Rusty Shallows 1439	Posted - 2014.04.07 20:22:00 - [88] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Darken-Soul wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: the problem we have in dust is we keep balancing this against that and then repeating or doing the opposite when what we should be doing is marking it all down as broken and then taking the whole thing in a different direction. CCP has trouble making progress in one direction. I dread the day they try to fix more than the things they broke. thats the issue. they knew tanks were not working so they completely reworked them. the only problem is they barely touched av which was also broken. reworking or buffing/nerfing an item against a broken item doesn't fix any problems You call the broad nerfing of Uprising 1.7, "barely touching?" Last December CCP kicked every single infantry AV user in the balls. Uprising 1.7 stands as a monument as to why buffing and nerfing opposite sides of the equation is terrible game design. Forums > Game: So here is a cookie and a Like. Please keep posting. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! >>> GòÜ(GÇóGîéGÇó)Gò¥ >>>
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad. 8176	Posted - 2014.04.07 20:38:00 - [89] - Quote I'm fine with AV being a dedicated role, if it actually did anything. Vehicles should fear AV just as much, if not more, than tanks. In a game of rock paper scissors, AV gives up it's infantry killing power (aside from a sidearm which is weak) for the ability to hurt a tank. A tank can hurt both infantry and other vehicles, hence it's both rock and scissors. My intentions is to have a fun game for everyone. If I seem to be biased, I have good hard data to back it up.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game 1248	Posted - 2014.04.18 10:04:00 - [90] - Quote bump I will logi the s* out of you https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find



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

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