DUST Search - Tanks are NOT OP

Leonid Tybalt wrote:

Monkey MAC wrote:

Its a difficult topic, when it comes to rails v anything, the redline is indeed the problem, but I don't think takes away from the disproportionate amount of effort required to kill a tank, with or without a redline.

Removing or fixing the redline is the first step, but we need to consider more over the ramifications of stacked or cycled hardners.
As I said in a post before .7 dropped the hardners stack to easily to give MASSIVE EHP, with very few drawbacks.

Until we look at hardners tanks will not be balanced by infantry.

Cycled hardeners shouldn't be nerfed. You have to really work your butt off to earn enough SP to be able to cycle hardeners with no delay, and that effort should be rewarded.

Stacked hardeners however I can agree that they are op. I only just recently learned that you can actually get even more damage resistance by activating two or three hardeners at once. Im not a noob, it's just that in my folly I honestly didn't believe that ccp would be stupid enough to let hardener bonuses to be able to stack. That decision was pretty insane honestly.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 632	Posted - 2014.02.28 12:59:00 - [1] - Quote Leonid Tybalt wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Its a difficult topic, when it comes to rails v anything, the redline is indeed the problem, but I don't think takes away from the disproportionate amount of effort required to kill a tank, with or without a redline. Removing or fixing the redline is the first step, but we need to consider more over the ramifications of stacked or cycled hardners. As I said in a post before .7 dropped the hardners stack to easily to give MASSIVE EHP, with very few drawbacks. Until we look at hardners tanks will not be balanced by infantry. Cycled hardeners shouldn't be nerfed. You have to really work your butt off to earn enough SP to be able to cycle hardeners with no delay, and that effort should be rewarded. Stacked hardeners however I can agree that they are op. I only just recently learned that you can actually get even more damage resistance by activating two or three hardeners at once. Im not a noob, it's just that in my folly I honestly didn't believe that ccp would be stupid enough to let hardener bonuses to be able to stack. That decision was pretty insane honestly. Yeah, but by stacking the timers, you effectively make yourself far more vulnerable at the end of said cycles. Where using one and then the other prolongs your active time, and mitigaties any down time. Problem with one hardener (and understand you are talkling gunnlogi here, not madrudger.) is that it just won't give enough to make a push on anything fortified. Gunnlogis already have very low HP compared to a madrudger, and one hardener often doesn't cut it. What will happen, the madrudger will once again, become king of the tanks. ANY CHANGES YOU DO TO HARDENERS, WILL DIRECTLY AFFECT GUNNLOGIS, AND HARDLY TOUCH MADRUDGERS. You can't go about generalizing tanks like this! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 632	Posted - 2014.02.28 13:05:00 - [2] - Quote I would like to see changes to the railgun yes, so that TTK among tanks is prolonged. Not NERFED, but MODIFIED to better fit the environment they are in. I have a bit of a problem with a long range, high damage weapon, that easily 3 - 5 shots tanks (or outright murderers dropships). I see a long range weapon as more of a support weapon, not the end all to vehicles. But I think the biggest problem is that it works at any sort of range effectively. It has no true weakness, like being restricted by range, or low DPS against hardeners, all I see are positives! My sig details my idea on turrets. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 634	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:49:00 - [3] - Quote Hoover Damn wrote: Zeylon Rho wrote: You think a modern-day rail comparison looks bad? None of the weapons are sensible in a real-life context. M-16 (made in 1962): effective range > 500m Gallente AR: 250m (absolute, it will do 0 damage past that) Uzi (made in 1954): effective range - 200m SMG: 125m (absolute) M40 (1966 U.S. sniper rifle): effective range > 1200m Sniper Rifle: 600m (absolute) So, all the super sci-fi weapons have max possible ranges frequently that are less than HALF of the "effective" range of equivalents made five decades ago. All the in-game ranges are totally made up and tweaked for game reasons, there is no realism attached to it. Oh great, now I have four more things to *** about. Realism takes a back seat to balance. No, the real world isn't about balance, you don't give the enemy a "chance" like you would in the game. We want a fair balanced game, and real life stuff ISN'T BALANCED, as it's the real world and that ** is serious. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 634	Posted - 2014.02.28 18:52:00 - [4] - Quote Hoover Damn wrote: ALT2 acc wrote: Its called balance, scrub Indeed, and the non-idiotic way to achieve that is by making it a hitscan weapon that does tremendous damage and has some other drawback, like a low rate of fire, or a long spool-up. EDIT: Or stop pretending it's a railgun. Exactly, if you want to keep the high damage, you have to lose out in some other area. Much lower rate of fire, less ammo, longer spool times, increased heat cost per shot. Lot's of things that can be done to bring the railgun closer to balanced with the other turret types. Tanks - Balancing Turrets