DUST Search - Why Are HAVs In DUST?

All Channels

General Discussions

Why Are HAVs In DUST?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5432	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:09:00 - [1] - Quote Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Archbot W a r F o r g e d 71	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:10:00 - [2] - Quote Their role is obstructed by their versatility. Ya¦Åu-Å Å-ÅGèéGäîGä¦Gä¦Gä¦-ìY
darkiller240 WarRavens League of Infamy 539	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:20:00 - [3] - Quote Becuase this is not COD, in real warfare tanks egsist and so does in Dust "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
ads alt 124	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:21:00 - [4] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Support infantry, kill, deatroy installations, lock down an objective/defend it... 1.8 will release...
Sam Tektzby Better Hide R Die 310	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:22:00 - [5] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. I think there will be something like strategic use for them in future, imagine against drones Support - Tactician/Support Deteis - Orator BHD since MAG
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5432	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:31:00 - [6] - Quote darkiller240 wrote: Becuase this is not COD, in real warfare tanks egsist and so does in Dust No they don't. Exist? Yes. But not egsist. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
darkiller240 WarRavens League of Infamy 539	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:38:00 - [7] - Quote Atiim wrote: darkiller240 wrote: Becuase this is not COD, in real warfare tanks egsist and so does in Dust No they don't. Exist? Yes. But not egsist. yer i know i cant spell "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5432	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:42:00 - [8] - Quote ads alt wrote: Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Support infantry, kill, deatroy installations, lock down an objective/defend it... So basically it's a Slayer Logi with 4 wheels and an 80GJ Turret? I ~~think~~ hope CCP could do better. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8019	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:46:00 - [9] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Agreed......but for the most part I feel like aspects in game that would benefit from the use of HAV simply aren't there.... In many historical conflicts HAV have been able to clear that's through urban terrain....yet dust 514 HAV cannot even get past small hand rails.... They also mounted large cannon for anti vehicle and positional fire power and an armoured frame. My personal interpretation of what HAV should be is durable platforms for ground based anti vehicle fire power and anti position fire power. As such these HAV would be susceptible to infantry units closing the distance and making use of AV grenades, RE, or at longer ranges simply making use of cover to launch AV projectiles and would require gunners in their seats, and on ground infantry support to last out engagements. HAV need to be less of a sledge hammer and more of a spear. Also remove and an all blaster turrets. I hate them and they need to die a terrible death. LONG LIVE THE 80GJ HEAVY PLASMA CANNON! "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp 185	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:50:00 - [10] - Quote I don't remember the last time a slayer logi took out an installation.... anyways, to add my 2 isk, I hate tanks. I fly a dropships, and I get destroyed by them all the time. But when I sit back, and stop raging, I realize that tanks are an integral part of this game. Sees prototompers... Sees blueberries start to snipe... Pulls out commando suit with laser rifle and swarm launcher...

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5436	Posted - 2014.03.08 21:51:00 - [11] - Quote Dauth Jenkins wrote: I don't remember the last time a slayer logi took out an installation.... anyways, to add my 2 isk, I hate tanks. I fly a dropships, and I get destroyed by them all the time. But when I sit back, and stop raging, I realize that tanks are an integral part of this game. Remote Explosives. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2863	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:08:00 - [12] - Quote To breach defences To **** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops Intelligence is OP
Patrick57 5849	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:10:00 - [13] - Quote Because variety. Without tanks, there'd be sixteen people using Rail Rifles instead of ten!
Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp 185	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:10:00 - [14] - Quote I believe what were getting at here is that tanks, right now, are doing their role.... they are just too good at it Sees prototompers... Sees blueberries start to snipe... Pulls out commando suit with laser rifle and swarm launcher...
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5439	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:10:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Agreed......but for the most part I feel like aspects in game that would benefit from the use of HAV simply aren't there.... In many historical conflicts HAV have been able to clear that's through urban terrain....yet dust 514 HAV cannot even get past small hand rails.... They also mounted large cannon for anti vehicle and positional fire power and an armoured frame. My personal interpretation of what HAV should be is durable platforms for ground based anti vehicle fire power and anti position fire power. As such these HAV would be susceptible to infantry units closing the distance and making use of AV grenades, RE, or at longer ranges simply making use of cover to launch AV projectiles and would require gunners in their seats, and on ground infantry support to last out engagements. HAV need to be less of a sledge hammer and more of a spear. Also remove and an all blaster turrets. I hate them and they need to die a terrible death. LONG LIVE THE 80GJ HEAVY PLASMA CANNON! My idea for what an HAV should be is basically a Missile or Railgun turret with a Mobile CRU, kind of like an APC I'm not too sure how CCP would create an 80GJ Plasma Cannon though. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8023	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:11:00 - [16] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to ** up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1485	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:13:00 - [17] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. The whole flow of battle in this game is circular, as in merry-go-round. Why do carnivals have rigged games? Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5439	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:13:00 - [18] - Quote Dauth Jenkins wrote: I believe what were getting at here is that tanks, right now, are doing their role.... they are just too good at it Not quite. HAVs don't really have a unique role, and from the responses I've gathered they are either: 1. A Mega Dropsuit 2. A Slayer Logi with 4 Wheels and an 80GJ Turret 3. Cosmetic. At first I thought it was just me, but I'm glad to see that others believe that the HAV needs a role change. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2863	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:14:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? Intelligence is OP
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5439	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:18:00 - [20] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: The whole flow of battle in this game is circular, as in merry-go-round. Why do carnivals have rigged games? Actually, the flow of battle in this game is a set of different roles and niches which revolve around each-other. It's not circular, it's spherical. Carnivals have rigged games because they are cheap and allow for profit and success with theoretically no risk whatsoever. While that does describe HAVs in it's current state, that should not be present in any role. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND

Martyr Saboteur Amarrtyrs 209	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:22:00 - [21] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? Seriously fuckface. Nobody but you agrees with you. Go away. Totally not Fizzer94's forum alt. Definitely just a random dude.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8023	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:24:00 - [22] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? I understand but I feel we can achieve a more balanced Anti infantry role without requiring a turret that spits our anti vehicle level projectiles froma 205 capacity magazine at a tremendous rate of fire. A weapon that more closely resembles a modern tank turret could suffice. There are a number of ways to alter the Blaster to make it more balanced from - Taking the Battelfield approach, and direct fire cannon with coaxial machinegun - PS2 where I believe they have fast firing explosives turrets - Or follow the EVE side model where blasters requiring a cycling time I agree that in terms of infantry vs Tank combat Tanks are resistant to small arms fire....but is not a tanks primary designation the delivery of large ordinance against a specific entrenched postion or enemy vehicle? I'm not going to deny Tanks have strong anti personell capacity but that is normally in the hands of secondary crew men. "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
Scheneighnay McBob Hammerhead i Eagle Thrust 4238	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:25:00 - [23] - Quote ads alt wrote: Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Support infantry, kill, deatroy installations, lock down an objective/defend it... AKA area-denial The only role that players consistently have called overpowered, no matter what it comes from. I am your scan error.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5439	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:34:00 - [24] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following: Timing Positioning Situational Awareness "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user) Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles 80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Admonishment The Enclave Syndicate Dark Taboo 142	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:35:00 - [25] - Quote It is because Stone Cold said so, and that's the bottom line! I don't always win 1v1 but... when I don't, I cry for nerfs. Stay nerfing my friends.
THEAMAZING POTHEAD Nyain San Renegade Alliance 1038	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:39:00 - [26] - Quote Just need to nerf turning speed and damage for large blaster turrets, then bring in MAVs that get bonuses to blasters. Making Anti Vehicle a tanks job and anti infantry doable with a tank but not nearly as effective as with an MAV. Your post is making me facepalm very hard right now.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8023	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:42:00 - [27] - Quote THEAMAZING POTHEAD wrote: Just need to nerf turning speed and damage for large blaster turrets, then bring in MAVs that get bonuses to blasters. Making Anti Vehicle a tanks job and anti infantry doable with a tank but not nearly as effective as with an MAV. Do we ever have to keep anti infantry tanks at all when you could consider the MAV an APC and designed to support infantry units with either logistical module options or anti infantry turret options? "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
poison Diego NECROM0NGERS The CORVOS 321	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:56:00 - [28] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. You know there is a turret called large blaster and is still used by few loyal tankers. The large blaster is used to engage enemy infantry and push objectives. The terribly broken railgun is used to prevent blaster tanks to do that. Missiles are supposed to be used in the purpose destroying tanks in no time but never see them anymore... WELCOME TO WORLDofTANKz514
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2865	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:56:00 - [29] - Quote Martyr Saboteur wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? Seriously fuckface. Nobody but you agrees with you. Go away. u mad bro? Intelligence is OP
ads alt 126	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:56:00 - [30] - Quote Admonishment wrote: It is because Stone Cold said so, and that's the bottom line! Ha, nice sig, I get it. Also, from now on im reporting every fotm remote after death scrub, already reported one from fa and he's a kid. 1.8 will release...

ads alt 126	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:57:00 - [31] - Quote Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following: Timing Positioning Situational Awareness "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user) Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles 80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 Swarms WERE easy mode Now the s5d and adv swarms are up and blasters are op 1.8 will release...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8023	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:58:00 - [32] - Quote Martyr Saboteur wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? Seriously fuckface. Nobody but you agrees with you. Go away. Dude don't be a goddamn ****. If we don't discuss this with knowledgible tankers like Takahiro then we wont get anywhere. You are honestly the one who needs to leave if you cannot have a reasonable or constructive thing to say. I can disagree with him, but I still want to hear what he has to say. "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum*
ads alt 126	Posted - 2014.03.08 22:59:00 - [33] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? I understand but I feel we can achieve a more balanced Anti infantry role without requiring a turret that spits our anti vehicle level projectiles froma 205 capacity magazine at a tremendous rate of fire. A weapon that more closely resembles a modern tank turret could suffice. There are a number of ways to alter the Blaster to make it more balanced from - Taking the Battelfield approach, and direct fire cannon with coaxial machinegun - PS2 where I believe they have fast firing explosives turrets - Or follow the EVE side model where blasters requiring a cycling time I agree that in terms of infantry vs Tank combat Tanks are resistant to small arms fire....but is not a tanks primary designation the delivery of large ordinance against a specific entrenched postion or enemy vehicle? I'm not going to deny Tanks have strong anti personell capacity but that is normally in the hands of secondary crew men. Ps2 has rapid explosive turrets for tanks? Wth all I see is a 1 shot tank cannon 1.8 will release...
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2865	Posted - 2014.03.08 23:01:00 - [34] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? I understand but I feel we can achieve a more balanced Anti infantry role without requiring a turret that spits our anti vehicle level projectiles froma 205 capacity magazine at a tremendous rate of fire. A weapon that more closely resembles a modern tank turret could suffice. There are a number of ways to alter the Blaster to make it more balanced from - Taking the Battelfield approach, and direct fire cannon with coaxial machinegun - PS2 where I believe they have fast firing explosives turrets - Or follow the EVE side model where blasters requiring a cycling time I agree that in terms of infantry vs Tank combat Tanks are resistant to small arms fire....but is not a tanks primary designation the delivery of large ordinance against a specific entrenched postion or enemy vehicle? I'm not going to deny Tanks have strong anti personell capacity but that is normally in the hands of secondary crew men. But the secondary crewman has a small turret of whatever which generally cant reach past 150m let alone AV which can be at 200m-300m away and plus they have to be able to see them and also deliver enough dmg to kill or prevent them from getting a shot on which frankly they cannot do If a tank is going to be mainly for vehicles yes you could stick on a LMG for the main gun but then is that really a small turret tbh which frankly isnt worth the slot anyways because of the above reasons To make the HAV more about keeping it clear from vehicles then we need more vehicles to shoot at but right now all i see is infantry and AV infantry which i have to shoot at because they pose a threat Intelligence is OP
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8025	Posted - 2014.03.08 23:01:00 - [35] - Quote Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following: Timing Positioning Situational Awareness "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user) Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles 80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 Atiim you know for a fact swarms don't require the level of skill you claim they do. I am not trying to get into a discussion between AV and Tanks.....but you don't have a predict movement paths with a weapon that fires and locks the rounds for you, you also do not need gun game to make use of any weapon that is fire and forget. Don't presume additionally that these remaining "skills" are not universal to all weapons and aspects of FPS games. But I see your point and can accept that. "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8025	Posted - 2014.03.08 23:02:00 - [36] - Quote ads alt wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? I understand but I feel we can achieve a more balanced Anti infantry role without requiring a turret that spits our anti vehicle level projectiles froma 205 capacity magazine at a tremendous rate of fire. A weapon that more closely resembles a modern tank turret could suffice. There are a number of ways to alter the Blaster to make it more balanced from - Taking the Battelfield approach, and direct fire cannon with coaxial machinegun - PS2 where I believe they have fast firing explosives turrets - Or follow the EVE side model where blasters requiring a cycling time I agree that in terms of infantry vs Tank combat Tanks are resistant to small arms fire....but is not a tanks primary designation the delivery of large ordinance against a specific entrenched postion or enemy vehicle? I'm not going to deny Tanks have strong anti personell capacity but that is normally in the hands of secondary crew men. Ps2 has rapid explosive turrets for tanks? Wth all I see is a 1 shot tank cannon Oh perhaps the footage of the game that I have seen is not what is currently in the game now? My bad, I'll go and watch some PS2 tank gameplay and come back with a better suggestion. Sorry about that. "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8025	Posted - 2014.03.08 23:04:00 - [37] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? I understand but I feel we can achieve a more balanced Anti infantry role without requiring a turret that spits our anti vehicle level projectiles froma 205 capacity magazine at a tremendous rate of fire. A weapon that more closely resembles a modern tank turret could suffice. There are a number of ways to alter the Blaster to make it more balanced from - Taking the Battelfield approach, and direct fire cannon with coaxial machinegun - PS2 where I believe they have fast firing explosives turrets - Or follow the EVE side model where blasters requiring a cycling time I agree that in terms of infantry vs Tank combat Tanks are resistant to small arms fire....but is not a tanks primary designation the delivery of large ordinance against a specific entrenched postion or enemy vehicle? I'm not going to deny Tanks have strong anti personell capacity but that is normally in the hands of secondary crew men. But the secondary crewman has a small turret of whatever which generally cant reach past 150m let alone AV which can be at 200m-300m away and plus they have to be able to see them and also deliver enough dmg to kill or prevent them from getting a shot on which frankly they cannot do If a tank is going to be mainly for vehicles yes you could stick on a LMG for the main gun but then is that really a small turret tbh which frankly isnt worth the slot anyways because of the above reasons To make the HAV more about keeping it clear from vehicles then we need more vehicles to shoot at but right now all i see is infantry and AV infantry which i have to shoot at because they pose a threat Indeed I suppose that is the case. There is not enough for Tanks to shoot at while on the field besides infantry units. You might see and enemy HAV and target that but its not really a satisfying game to be reliant on your opposition to deploy armoured units that require countering. "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2865	Posted - 2014.03.08 23:06:00 - [38] - Quote Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following: Timing Positioning Situational Awareness "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user) Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles 80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 Timing? Basically instant lock time firing all 3 volleys in what 3 seconds? No timing needed Positioning - Only now do they require it Sit awareness - Due to reduced lock range Gun game? lolno auto lock on fire and forget, blaster requires more gun game than swarms because all you do is point at the big red box Ability - Goes with positioning I have to wait till my dot goes red or i wont get a kill and thats OP? thats working as intended because my exile BPO AR does that No i still use sit awareness i always will, 1 breach on the weakspot and your dead, ignore AV for long enough and its your own downfall Rep working as intended Swarms & skill does not belong in the same sentence, they have never required skill because you dont aim Intelligence is OP
Martyr Saboteur Amarrtyrs 211	Posted - 2014.03.09 00:10:00 - [39] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Martyr Saboteur wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? Seriously fuckface. Nobody but you agrees with you. Go away. Dude don't be a goddamn *****. If we don't discuss this with knowledgible tankers like Takahiro then we wont get anywhere. You are honestly the one who needs to leave if you cannot have a reasonable or constructive thing to say. I can disagree with him, but I still want to hear what he has to say. I've heard on what he has to say. Multiple times. He doesn't listen to reason. He is unwavering in his belief that HAVs are balanced. Even though the community is widely in the opinion that they are not balanced. I have yet to see anyone fully agree with his ideas and opinions. I have yet to agree with anything he says. Balance isn't what he wants. He doesn't want to discuss balance. He wants to sit there and defend HAVs in his hope that they will remain horribly unbalanced. He has this bent dream that CCP will agree with him and keep HAVs as they are right now. They won't. He needs to understand that HAVs will be nerfed. What he should be doing is negotiating a nerf, rather than saying that they shouldn't be nerfed. He should be trying to make sure the nerf isn't too strong, as it oftentimes is. To Takahiro: Seriously. You need to understand that HAVs will be nerfed, regardless of how much you say they shouldn't be. Your best course of action would to be negotiating a nerf, and how strong that nerf should be, instead of fervently fighting against a nerf. I can tell you right now that the more you try to convince that HAVs are balanced, they less they will believe you. You need to try and strike a middle ground, rather than doing what you are doing. Totally not Fizzer94's forum alt. Definitely just a random dude.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2869	Posted - 2014.03.09 00:17:00 - [40] - Quote Martyr Saboteur wrote: To Takahiro: Seriously. You need to understand that HAVs will be nerfed, regardless of how much you say they shouldn't be. Your best course of action would to be negotiating a nerf, and how strong that nerf should be, instead of fervently fighting against a nerf. I can tell you right now that the more you try to convince that HAVs are balanced, they less they will believe you. You need to try and strike a middle ground, rather than doing what you are doing. I dont have to do **** CCP will patch and change stuff and break the game more Infantry wont be happy until its COD 514 space edition Infantry wont be happy until vehicles are gone or at least OHK with militia AV I have no power with anything, i cant tell CCP what to do, i cant rely on CPM doing anything they wanted vehicles gone also, if i make a vehicle balance thread like ive done before infantry doesnt like it I use proto AV and have prof in it but to infantry im not AV because i can use a tank If i had it my way i would have copy and pasted everything from EVE with cap and infantry would hate that more if i was able to perma run a hardener because i had max cap skills and was able to do so But no COD Space edition here we come, get ready you might see DUST on mountain dew bottles Intelligence is OP

ads alt 129	Posted - 2014.03.09 00:21:00 - [41] - Quote ads alt wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. If a tank cant ** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? I understand but I feel we can achieve a more balanced Anti infantry role without requiring a turret that spits our anti vehicle level projectiles froma 205 capacity magazine at a tremendous rate of fire. A weapon that more closely resembles a modern tank turret could suffice. There are a number of ways to alter the Blaster to make it more balanced from - Taking the Battelfield approach, and direct fire cannon with coaxial machinegun - PS2 where I believe they have fast firing explosives turrets - Or follow the EVE side model where blasters requiring a cycling time I agree that in terms of infantry vs Tank combat Tanks are resistant to small arms fire....but is not a tanks primary designation the delivery of large ordinance against a specific entrenched postion or enemy vehicle? I'm not going to deny Tanks have strong anti personell capacity but that is normally in the hands of secondary crew men. Ps2 has rapid explosive turrets for tanks? Wth all I see is a 1 shot tank cannon Oh perhaps the footage of the game that I have seen is not what is currently in the game now? My bad, I'll go and watch some PS2 tank gameplay and come back with a better suggestion. Sorry about that.[/quote] I will play pa2 soon (tm) sadly, tm 1.8 will release...
Martyr Saboteur Amarrtyrs 211	Posted - 2014.03.09 00:36:00 - [42] - Quote Anyhow. My opinion. I want HAVs to be part of a team, rather than the base a team is built on. I want them to perform crucial roles in a battle. I want them to have a certain synergy with infantry and other vehicles alike. I would like for HAVs to not be treated as something better than everything else, I would like them to be treated as just another player. I want to be able to work alongside HAVs, and provide them with support as much as they would provide me with support. I don't want to work around HAVs, I want to work with them (and against them). I believe that the should have the capability to provide a massive boon to any team that uses them. However, the word "capability" is key. They shouldn't be something that behaves like a powerup or killstreak reward, like they are right now. They should require a good amount of player skill and teamwork to fully utilize their strengths. If someone pilots an HAV like a fool, they should die just a fast as anyone else. However, if they play to their strengths, and work around or avoid their weaknesses, they can have a good game and be a huge part of any team. They should rely on their teammates just as much as their teammates should rely on them. How can we get to a point like this? Give HAVs something to do. Obviously their role is a destructive one. So, let's give them something to destroy. I'm going to take a page from MAG's book. Gates. Anyone that ever played Acquisition knows what I am talking about. Introduce gates in all the main entrances for large sockets. Another thing for them to destroy would be things like SATCOM stations that increase WP generation rates for the enemy team, or structures that make objectives harder to hack. Perhaps they could render the NULL cannot themselves unoperable... Totally not Fizzer94's forum alt. Definitely just a random dude.
Baal Roo Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 3028	Posted - 2014.03.09 00:39:00 - [43] - Quote If tanks were half as fast as they currently are, all of a sudden the entire vehicle/infantry dichotomy would all make sense and be fun for everyone.
Martyr Saboteur Amarrtyrs 213	Posted - 2014.03.09 00:48:00 - [44] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Martyr Saboteur wrote: To Takahiro: Seriously. You need to understand that HAVs will be nerfed, regardless of how much you say they shouldn't be. Your best course of action would to be negotiating a nerf, and how strong that nerf should be, instead of fervently fighting against a nerf. I can tell you right now that the more you try to convince that HAVs are balanced, they less they will believe you. You need to try and strike a middle ground, rather than doing what you are doing. I dont have to do **** CCP will patch and change stuff and break the game more Infantry wont be happy until its COD 514 space edition Infantry wont be happy until vehicles are gone or at least OHK with militia AV I have no power with anything, i cant tell CCP what to do, i cant rely on CPM doing anything they wanted vehicles gone also, if i make a vehicle balance thread like ive done before infantry doesnt like it I use proto AV and have prof in it but to infantry im not AV because i can use a tank If i had it my way i would have copy and pasted everything from EVE with cap and infantry would hate that more if i was able to perma run a hardener because i had max cap skills and was able to do so But no COD Space edition here we come, get ready you might see DUST on mountain dew bottles I too would like to see Capacitors and cap warfare added to the game. It would be nice to see a bit more depth added to the game. You should understand that not everything can be like it is in EVE. They are two completely different kinds of games, and things that work there simply won't work here. Many things can be adapted, but some things can't. If you expected DUST to be EVE copypasted into a shooter, you were bound to be disappointed from the word "go". Totally not Fizzer94's forum alt. Definitely just a random dude.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5446	Posted - 2014.03.09 00:56:00 - [45] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following: Timing Positioning Situational Awareness "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user) Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles 80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 Atiim you know for a fact swarms don't require the level of skill you claim they do. I am not trying to get into a discussion between AV and Tanks.....but you don't have a predict movement paths with a weapon that fires and locks the rounds for you, you also do not need gun game to make use of any weapon that is fire and forget. Don't presume additionally that these remaining "skills" are not universal to all weapons and aspects of FPS games. But I see your point and can accept that. I have to disagree. You do have to predict the vehicle's movement paths, because the Swarms have significantly slow travel time, and again your Swarm won't turn a corner or evade obstacles, so once the pilot decides to take cover your Swarms are guaranteed to miss. You do need gun-game. Or would you like to explain how easy it is to fight people when your only defense is a sidearm with a range that's less than half someone's optimal? Those who use hitscan weapons should not be talking about fire and forget. Still yet to find another role that forces me into the eHP of a Light Frame, with less than half their AI capability. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
poison Diego NECROM0NGERS The CORVOS 322	Posted - 2014.03.09 01:00:00 - [46] - Quote Less than 10% of dust players are tankers and that is why so very few agree with us when we bring up something that would seem reasonable to tankers. Since you were arguing about the swarm luncher, let me tell you that they were always to powerful for an auto-locking weapon. I will agree that the range is ridiculously short right now but it used to be to long. I would settle on 275-300 meters but the damage must not be buffed. The SL has a lock-on and therefore should not be a high-powered weapon. The forge is where it should be. It packs a great punch and you actually need to aim with it. The plasma cannon should do 50% more direct damage. AV grenades are almost where they should be. Damage is fine. You should be able to carry 4-5 nades but not be able to resupply them by hives. Flux is fine. This is what I think is reasonable but you don't have to agree with me. WELCOME TO WORLDofTANKz514
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5447	Posted - 2014.03.09 01:08:00 - [47] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following: Timing Positioning Situational Awareness "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user) Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles 80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 Timing? Basically instant lock time firing all 3 volleys in what 3 seconds? No timing needed Positioning - Only now do they require it Sit awareness - Due to reduced lock range Gun game? lolno auto lock on fire and forget, blaster requires more gun game than swarms because all you do is point at the big red box Ability - Goes with positioning I have to wait till my dot goes red or i wont get a kill and thats OP? thats working as intended because my exile BPO AR does that No i still use sit awareness i always will, 1 breach on the weakspot and your dead, ignore AV for long enough and its your own downfall Rep working as intended Swarms & skill does not belong in the same sentence, they have never required skill because you dont aim Nope. You can insta-lock and fire all 3 volleys, but that doesn't guarrantee a hit. Swarms have this nice feature called travel time that requires you to release at the right moment, or watch as all your Swarms miss. Doesn't make much of a difference. Yes, you need gun-game. Unless of course you'd like to be destroyed by people who have weapons with 3x your range while you have the AI ability of a Light Frame. Perhaps you shouldn't expose your weakspot? Please refrain from using your lack of competence in a discussion. It really makes you look bad. To who? People also said 1.6 AV was working as intended, and yet you didn't agree with that. Not really sure what makes you think that statement would hold merit. Such laughable amounts of hypocrisy. Not really sure why someone who uses a hitscan weapon is talking about a lack of skill. Hypocrite much? lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
poison Diego NECROM0NGERS The CORVOS 322	Posted - 2014.03.09 01:15:00 - [48] - Quote Atiim what are you saying though? do you think that the SL needs a buff WELCOME TO WORLDofTANKz514
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5450	Posted - 2014.03.09 01:19:00 - [49] - Quote poison Diego wrote: Atiim what are you saying though? do you think that the SL needs a buff The majority of the playerbase is in an agreement when it comes to Swarm Launchers needing a buff. What I'm saying, is that Swarm Launchers require an immense amount of skill when compared to their counter; and those who say Swarms require no skill are either: A. Don't use SLs, and haven't experienced their drawbacks B. Hypocrites. C. Lying to themselves. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
poison Diego NECROM0NGERS The CORVOS 322	Posted - 2014.03.09 01:43:00 - [50] - Quote Atiim wrote: poison Diego wrote: Atiim what are you saying though? do you think that the SL needs a buff The majority of the playerbase is in an agreement when it comes to Swarm Launchers needing a buff. What I'm saying, is that Swarm Launchers require an immense amount of skill when compared to their counter; and those who say Swarms require no skill are either: A. Don't use SLs, and haven't experienced their drawbacks B. Hypocrites. C. Lying to themselves. Yes SL require skills but the skills req is just to be aware of your environment which you need for every role. I think SL should get longer range but no more damage(maybe 245 damage per missile). We want a balanced weapon, not a tear-bringer... WELCOME TO WORLDofTANKz514

SGT NOVA STAR Ahrendee Mercenaries 215	Posted - 2014.03.09 03:38:00 - [51] - Quote so i can show you how to tank like a man and not in your redline VAYU! I CHOOSE YOU!
Ivy Zalinto Bobbit's Hangmen 312	Posted - 2014.03.09 03:45:00 - [52] - Quote Their supposed to be to help infantry move up against the badly placed installations. But seeing as their health is so low, and they kill tanks just as quick, it doesnt really work that way. Dedicated Stealth Scout. Scout instructor; Learning Coalition Scrambler Pistol dedication
ROMULUS H3X research lab 74	Posted - 2014.03.09 03:48:00 - [53] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Other than being Forge Gun Fodder..... i was actually thinking this same thing recently, at the moment they really serve no purpose, just easy targets for my Forge. FORGE/FLAYLOCK/FISTS--NUFF SED YOU SHALL NOT CATCH ME FOR I AM THE GINGERBREAD FATMAN -Romulus H3X
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2001	Posted - 2014.03.09 03:51:00 - [54] - Quote Atiim wrote: Dauth Jenkins wrote: I believe what were getting at here is that tanks, right now, are doing their role.... they are just too good at it Not quite. HAVs don't really have a unique role, and from the responses I've gathered they are either: 1. A Mega Dropsuit 2. A Slayer Logi with 4 Wheels and an 80GJ Turret 3. Cosmetic. At first I thought it was just me, but I'm glad to see that others believe that the HAV needs a role change. :( I posted this thread a month ago I need more forum notoriety so people pay attention to my threads. (I will try to find a link if I can stop being too lazy ) Assault ak.0 w/ScR+ScP 4LYFE
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5478	Posted - 2014.03.09 03:57:00 - [55] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Atiim wrote: Dauth Jenkins wrote: I believe what were getting at here is that tanks, right now, are doing their role.... they are just too good at it Not quite. HAVs don't really have a unique role, and from the responses I've gathered they are either: 1. A Mega Dropsuit 2. A Slayer Logi with 4 Wheels and an 80GJ Turret 3. Cosmetic. At first I thought it was just me, but I'm glad to see that others believe that the HAV needs a role change. :( I posted this thread a month ago I need more forum notoriety so people pay attention to my threads. (I will try to find a link if I can stop being too lazy ) That forum notoriety comes with a heavy price in New Eden... lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8030	Posted - 2014.03.09 04:07:00 - [56] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following: Timing Positioning Situational Awareness "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user) Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles 80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 Atiim you know for a fact swarms don't require the level of skill you claim they do. I am not trying to get into a discussion between AV and Tanks.....but you don't have a predict movement paths with a weapon that fires and locks the rounds for you, you also do not need gun game to make use of any weapon that is fire and forget. Don't presume additionally that these remaining "skills" are not universal to all weapons and aspects of FPS games. But I see your point and can accept that. I have to disagree. You do have to predict the vehicle's movement paths, because the Swarms have significantly slow travel time, and again your Swarm won't turn a corner or evade obstacles, so once the pilot decides to take cover your Swarms are guaranteed to miss. You do need gun-game. Or would you like to explain how easy it is to fight people when your only defense is a sidearm with a range that's less than half someone's optimal? Those who use hitscan weapons should not be talking about fire and forget. Still yet to find another role that forces me into the eHP of a Light Frame, with less than half their AI capability. I get the Gun game thing since I use a LR and CQC is impossible with it...but it aint hard to outplay someone with a side arm. "War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine." - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2003	Posted - 2014.03.09 04:11:00 - [57] - Quote Atiim wrote: poison Diego wrote: Atiim what are you saying though? do you think that the SL needs a buff The majority of the playerbase is in an agreement when it comes to Swarm Launchers needing a buff. What I'm saying, is that Swarm Launchers require an immense amount of skill when compared to their counter; and those who say Swarms require no skill are either: A. Don't use SLs, and haven't experienced their drawbacks B. Hypocrites. C. Lying to themselves. 1.6 and prior I'd have vehemently (and probably abusively) disagreed with you. Right now swarms are the second best form of AV, after forges, but considering the states of PLC and AV nades (not that I mind this one) it's like coming second at the Special Olympics. Assault ak.0 w/ScR+ScP 4LYFE Forum Warrior Level Two. (GëºGêçGëª)/
Meeko Fent Kirkinen Risk Control Caldari State 1948	Posted - 2014.03.09 04:19:00 - [58] - Quote Because "future big maps", and Installations that need to be blapped by tanks to get your DS's to drop troops in an efficient manner Potential 514 again it seems... I just open a Steam Group for all the ex/current DUST players to enjoy good games with others from DUST.Named it Arkombine. Just to let you know. Please continue discussion. Because you Wanted to be Something your Not.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2879	Posted - 2014.03.09 10:58:00 - [59] - Quote Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: If a tank cant **** up infantry what do we have tanks for? could an LAV do it? lolno So then we have tanks just for taking out tanks but if no tanks are out then we dont need tanks which makes them pointless and i get a 20mil respec and put it into FOTM suit and weapon for the rest of my days I currently aim with my blaster, it actually works and so does hit detection, if i dont get that little dot to go red i dont get kills, how much more skill does it need? do you want me to have a swamr launcher turret which locks onto infantry and kills then around corners? A Swarm Launcher is no longer capable of turning a corner. Swarm Launchers require the following: Timing Positioning Situational Awareness "Gun Game" (Unless you want to be insta-killed by a rifle user) Ability to predict flight / movement path of vehicles 80GJ Blasters however, are hit-scan weapons, and simply pressing R1 while the reticule is red guarantees that you will get a hit. Couple that with the fact that Hardners and Armor Repairers remove the need for almost all situational awareness, and you've got yourself a plentiful helping of EZ-Mode. In Uprising 1.7, Swarm Launchers literally require more skill than using an HAV. inb4 You going on a baseless tangent about how Swarm Launchers are actually EZ-Mode and how HAVs are the most talent intensive thing in DUST 514 Timing? Basically instant lock time firing all 3 volleys in what 3 seconds? No timing needed Positioning - Only now do they require it Sit awareness - Due to reduced lock range Gun game? lolno auto lock on fire and forget, blaster requires more gun game than swarms because all you do is point at the big red box Ability - Goes with positioning I have to wait till my dot goes red or i wont get a kill and thats OP? thats working as intended because my exile BPO AR does that No i still use sit awareness i always will, 1 breach on the weakspot and your dead, ignore AV for long enough and its your own downfall Rep working as intended Swarms & skill does not belong in the same sentence, they have never required skill because you dont aim Nope. You can insta-lock and fire all 3 volleys, but that doesn't guarrantee a hit. Swarms have this nice feature called travel time that requires you to release at the right moment, or watch as all your Swarms miss. Doesn't make much of a difference. Yes, you need gun-game. Unless of course you'd like to be destroyed by people who have weapons with 3x your range while you have the AI ability of a Light Frame. Perhaps you shouldn't expose your weakspot? Please refrain from using your lack of competence in a discussion. It really makes you look bad. To who? People also said 1.6 AV was working as intended, and yet you didn't agree with that. Not really sure what makes you think that statement would hold merit. Such laughable amounts of hypocrisy. Not really sure why someone who uses a hitscan weapon is talking about a lack of skill. Hypocrite much? If you miss with a lock on weapon your doing it wrong Not really, majority of dust players have no gun game How can i not expose my weaksport when its always on my tank and infact smart AV players move around so they can see that weakspot even if i dont move Players liked popping a 2mil+ HAV with 20k worth of AV nades, of course it was working for them Blaster requires aim, like the exile, if it aint red i wont get a kill, its not like the never miss fire and forget swarms which require 0 aim Intelligence is OP
Obodiah Garro Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 803	Posted - 2014.03.09 11:14:00 - [60] - Quote Defo love the idea of no blaster and introducing heavy plasma cannon, it even sounds better ADS said it perfectly though, HAV is used to counter enemy HAV and hold points/ deny enemy advances. Its a shame a blaster turret can be used to break the game but thats on CCP, there are uses for the HAV outside of roflstomping. Nemo me impune lacessit

Derpty Derp It's All Gone Derp 113	Posted - 2014.03.09 11:27:00 - [61] - Quote They should let tanks deal damage to the MCC... But not as much as the Null Cannons.
bamboo x Eternal Beings Proficiency V. 173	Posted - 2014.03.09 11:48:00 - [62] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Pretty sure a blaster tank's purpose is ******* infantry up. You're thinking of a rail tank's purpose. Sign my petition for mortal tanks
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5499	Posted - 2014.03.09 15:29:00 - [63] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: I dont have to do **** CCP will patch and change stuff and break the game more Infantry wont be happy until its COD 514 space edition Infantry wont be happy until vehicles are gone or at least OHK with militia AV I have no power with anything, i cant tell CCP what to do, i cant rely on CPM doing anything they wanted vehicles gone also, if i make a vehicle balance thread like ive done before infantry doesn't like it I use proto AV and have prof in it but to infantry im not AV because i can use a tank If i had it my way i would have copy and pasted everything from EVE with cap and infantry would hate that more if i was able to perma run a hardener because i had max cap skills and was able to do so But no COD Space edition here we come, get ready you might see DUST on mountain dew bottles Your right, you don't. However if you don't, your complaints shall fall on deaf ears once vehicles are brought into balance. I've yet to see a general consensus of the Infantry // AV playerbase ask for DUST 514 to be a Call Of Duty clone. In fact, asking this game to be like COD with cause you to be ridiculed and insulted. I've also yet to see a general consensus of the any part playerbase ask for any vehicle to be OHK'd by MLT level AV. You yourself have no power, but we as a community do. Once a general consensus has been reached, CCP will act. They've proven this time, and time again. Why do you think the TTK is being raised? I bet you didn't enjoy it when I could solo you with Max. Swarm Launcher skills (Op. V, Prof V, Ammo IV, & Specialist III); so why should you get to enjoy that power? Even if, cycled hardners completely break balance against AV. You keep telling AV to strike once your hardeners are down, but what if they never are down? V and AV's opportunity is supposed to come in a wave of strength, followed by a wave of weakness. V's counter (AV) cannot extend their wave, so why should you be able to? The nerfbat's coming either way, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, so you might as well submit to it. Maybe it'll even go easy on you. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5499	Posted - 2014.03.09 15:30:00 - [64] - Quote bamboo x wrote: Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Pretty sure a blaster tank's purpose is ******* infantry up. You're thinking of a rail tank's purpose. So, a Slayer Logi with 4 wheels and an 80GJ Turret? lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5499	Posted - 2014.03.09 15:33:00 - [65] - Quote Derpty Derp wrote: They should let tanks deal damage to the MCC... But not as much as the Null Cannons. They used to be allowed to do so with 80GJ Railguns & Forge Guns. It was so broken. You didn't even need to capture an objective to win the match. Just have 7 HAVs with Compressed Particle Cannons and 9 Players with FGs and you were guaranteed a win. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Renegade Alliance 648	Posted - 2014.03.09 15:38:00 - [66] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: To breach defences To ** up infantry if its built like that To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that To pin down the enemy To provide a distraction To assault objectives To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them. Sure, tanks can ** infantry up. But are you willing to be solo'ed by AV, the same way you solo AV. That's called balance, something lacking in Taka's dictionary. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 1846	Posted - 2014.03.09 15:38:00 - [67] - Quote Atiim wrote: bamboo x wrote: Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Pretty sure a blaster tank's purpose is ******* infantry up. You're thinking of a rail tank's purpose. So, a Slayer Logi with 4 wheels and an 80GJ Turret? No not really a blaster gets obliterated by rails and if it's armor by missiles as well and lets not forget ADS's can wreck tanks with out the tank being able to do anything. Slayer Logi's only real counter excluding another slayer logi is a Sniper who isn't all that effective considering a Slayer Logi can go wherever the other one is the Sniper however can only see a certain area and if the logi avoids that area than the Sniper isn't even in the equation.. Team carry Prof. IV
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5500	Posted - 2014.03.09 15:43:00 - [68] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: No not really a blaster gets obliterated by rails and if it's armor by missiles as well and lets not forget ADS's can wreck tanks with out the tank being able to do anything. Slayer Logi's only real counter excluding another slayer logi is a Sniper who isn't all that effective considering a Slayer Logi can go wherever the other one is the Sniper however can only see a certain area and if the logi avoids that area than the Sniper isn't even in the equation.. That's actually a perfect analogy to how V vs. AV is. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 1846	Posted - 2014.03.09 15:44:00 - [69] - Quote Atiim wrote: Benjamin Ciscko wrote: No not really a blaster gets obliterated by rails and if it's armor by missiles as well and lets not forget ADS's can wreck tanks with out the tank being able to do anything. Slayer Logi's only real counter excluding another slayer logi is a Sniper who isn't all that effective considering a Slayer Logi can go wherever the other one is the Sniper however can only see a certain area and if the logi avoids that area than the Sniper isn't even in the equation.. That's actually a perfect analogy to how V vs. AV is. I really didn't think that through now did I. Team carry Prof. IV
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5500	Posted - 2014.03.09 15:47:00 - [70] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: Atiim wrote: Benjamin Ciscko wrote: No not really a blaster gets obliterated by rails and if it's armor by missiles as well and lets not forget ADS's can wreck tanks with out the tank being able to do anything. Slayer Logi's only real counter excluding another slayer logi is a Sniper who isn't all that effective considering a Slayer Logi can go wherever the other one is the Sniper however can only see a certain area and if the logi avoids that area than the Sniper isn't even in the equation.. That's actually a perfect analogy to how V vs. AV is. I really didn't think that through now did I. No, not really lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND

Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 3008	Posted - 2014.03.09 15:47:00 - [71] - Quote We need tanks for variety, but that means they need a role of their own too. Why should they be forced to play the role of mega dropsuit slaying individual infantry units? Why can't they do more tanky things like breaching defenses and blowing up bunkers? Why is slaying infantry one at a time *the only* task in this game? It makes balance nearly impossible to achieve when every fitting shares the same goal. When we get cloaking it too will be used as an aid to slaying. It won't be used to sneak into the enemy camp to sabotage their shied generator because we don't have complex game play. CCP can pile on asset after asset, but it will only result in an unbalanced mess if they don't add more goals.
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 2054	Posted - 2014.03.09 16:12:00 - [72] - Quote shutup about tanks already. they probably wont be fixed for as long as it took last time to change them (uprising 1.0-1.6 Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 5503	Posted - 2014.03.09 16:14:00 - [73] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: shutup about tanks already. they probably wont be fixed for as long as it took last time to change them (uprising 1.0-1.6 Like you decided to shut up about AV? Thanks for the advice, but nobody likes a hypocrite. lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 938	Posted - 2014.03.09 16:18:00 - [74] - Quote They should siege/ destroy tough defenses - that's what tanks are used for IRL (as if anyone cares for sound arguments), instead in DUST they just drop on the heads of the other team and wipe the whole team in a jiffy. In a real situation a tank would have been burned if it got to infantry this close in close quarters. PLC, NK, Scout - before 1.8. That's right, I stack that OP Sh!t.
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 3010	Posted - 2014.03.09 16:29:00 - [75] - Quote I think CCP was thinking of defense breaching when it came up with the hardener idea, but the problem is it didn't come up with any defenses to be breached. A gaggle of infantry isn't a "defense" that needs a tank to be breached.
Lanius Pulvis Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 163	Posted - 2014.03.09 16:36:00 - [76] - Quote Traditionally tanks specialize in one of two roles; anti-infantry, or anti-material. Since currently we do not have a destructible environment, this limits the usefulness of that second role to installations, vehicles and turrets. The first is typically a light tank role, which we don't have, so we get a heavy tank with overwhelming anti-infantry capabilities. I agree that large blaster turrets in their current state should not exist, I'm not saying remove them, just tone down their rate of fire and increase damage. In addition I would like to see tanks take splash damage from their own turrets, this could help alleviate the issue of tanks camping open doors and windows like they do now. The flip side of this is, the LAV is mostly laughable at anti-infantry right now (I know, some people use them quite successfully). If however we give some protection to the gunner, perhaps just a front shield without head protection, it may be able to fulfill the role of the gun-truck most modern militaries have replaced light tanks with. And since we're obviously discussing swarms now too... As a dropship pilot I'm of two minds on this issue; no matter what you say they are currently usefull on DS, even hardened ones, if for nothing other than area denial. I do think projectile speed needs buffed though. My .02 ISK, about what it's worth... Not new, just new to you.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1910	Posted - 2014.03.09 17:55:00 - [77] - Quote Baal Roo wrote: If tanks were half as fast as they currently are, all of a sudden the entire vehicle/infantry dichotomy would all make sense and be fun for everyone. Oh, heaven forbid a tank should move faster than a heavy dropsuit. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
ads alt 146	Posted - 2014.03.09 17:58:00 - [78] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Baal Roo wrote: If tanks were half as fast as they currently are, all of a sudden the entire vehicle/infantry dichotomy would all make sense and be fun for everyone. Oh, heaven forbid a tank should move faster than a heavy dropsuit. Im gunna start a movie on the forums Tanks are suoer overpowered, they need nerfing, blaster turrets need a damm huge nerf, and your a fotm tank scrub Click here for 1.8 release date quote from devs
Roy Ventus Axis of Chaos 1282	Posted - 2014.03.09 18:16:00 - [79] - Quote Atiim wrote: Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here? They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Anti-Infantry, destroying heavily armored support, suppression, deterrence, yadayada. Just being a force multiplier. "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 5521	Posted - 2014.03.09 18:25:00 - [80] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Baal Roo wrote: If tanks were half as fast as they currently are, all of a sudden the entire vehicle/infantry dichotomy would all make sense and be fun for everyone. Oh, heaven forbid a tank should move faster than a heavy dropsuit. They'd still be faster than a Heavy Fame lolPLC [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND



Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

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