DUST Search - Any Tank Changes Coming in 1.8?

All Channels

General Discussions

Any Tank Changes Coming in 1.8?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Egonz4 The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 109	Posted - 2014.03.16 20:59:00 - [1] - Quote I hope so...I mean how hard is it to change the range of the rail gun? MASTER OF THE FLAYLOCK
Taeryn Frost Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 176	Posted - 2014.03.16 21:05:00 - [2] - Quote A tanker told me tanks were fine. Not a good one mind you.
Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 11191	Posted - 2014.03.16 21:06:00 - [3] - Quote Nope. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Llast 326 An Arkhos 2450	Posted - 2014.03.16 21:08:00 - [4] - Quote The possibility exists that some of changes may appear in the patch notes. I have the impression that most of the changes are not Devblog style changes but patch style fixes. Who knows though KRRROOOOOOM
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 1700	Posted - 2014.03.16 21:20:00 - [5] - Quote Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown. AV needs to be buffed.
Scheneighnay McBob Endless Hatred Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 4395	Posted - 2014.03.16 21:25:00 - [6] - Quote Taeryn Frost wrote: A tanker told me tanks were fine. Not a good one mind you. Bullshit. I have a sentinel fit with an advanced forge gun and a heavy damage mod. It took 4 or 5 shots to kill what appeared to be a complete barebones soma (didn't seem to have any mods aside from the default)- and that's only because it didn't try to run. I am your scan error.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8286	Posted - 2014.03.16 21:35:00 - [7] - Quote Taeryn Frost wrote: A tanker told me tanks were fine. Not a good one mind you. I am one They aren't fine....too powerful for no noticeable risk. but they arent hard to kill, and I am talking Basic Forgegun with no proficiencies here. " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum
Egonz4 The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 111	Posted - 2014.03.16 21:38:00 - [8] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown. AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot MASTER OF THE FLAYLOCK
Pvt Numnutz R 0 N 1 N 965	Posted - 2014.03.16 21:53:00 - [9] - Quote We will find out in two days
Cyzad4 Blackfish Corp. 186	Posted - 2014.03.16 21:58:00 - [10] - Quote Lemme check the magic 8-ball... ... it says "lol" Welcome to you're "DOOM"

Arkena Wyrnspire Fatal Absolution 11193	Posted - 2014.03.16 21:58:00 - [11] - Quote Egonz4 wrote: Joel II X wrote: Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown. AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot Invariably, with any balancing problem someone on the forums will declare a 'simple' solution to a complex problem. You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
Joel II X Dah Gods O Bacon 1704	Posted - 2014.03.16 23:42:00 - [12] - Quote Egonz4 wrote: Joel II X wrote: Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown. AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot Swarms need more range. AV nades more damage. Ships can still do their thing, but can be countered by swarms (you know, the weapon that is actually affective against them besides rail tech?). The AV nades won't reach, so they'll be put to better use against tanks and LAVs. 3 Lai Dai Packed for an LAV? C'mon...
Forever ETC 703rd Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 140	Posted - 2014.03.16 23:47:00 - [13] - Quote CCP Logic 101: Tanks are OP, so if we Nerf AV that should solver the problem. Right? Well, time to go Commando. Fill the Ranks at 703rd. Love,Hate, and everything in between.- ETC 2013 ETC- My Initials!!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8294	Posted - 2014.03.16 23:49:00 - [14] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Egonz4 wrote: Joel II X wrote: Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown. AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot Swarms need more range. AV nades more damage. Ships can still do their thing, but can be countered by swarms (you know, the weapon that is actually affective against them besides rail tech?). The AV nades won't reach, so they'll be put to better use against tanks and LAVs. 3 Lai Dai Packed for an LAV? C'mon... I honestly stand by my statement that AV doesnt need any changes made to is. Any and all changes should be on the vehicles to balance them against the AV values. Considering lighter frame vehicles aka the MAV, and both light and heavy air units have yet to be introduced I feel like we should avoids buffing directly AV " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1282	Posted - 2014.03.17 00:09:00 - [15] - Quote Egonz4 wrote: I hope so...I mean how hard is it to change the range of the rail gun? Changing the range of the railgun is not going to solve any of the problems. Sure, it might mask the problem of the redline, but the redline is what's the issue (plus map design), not the turret. Plus, there are other problems with the rail gun that have other solutions. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8295	Posted - 2014.03.17 00:11:00 - [16] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Egonz4 wrote: I hope so...I mean how hard is it to change the range of the rail gun? Changing the range of the railgun is not going to solve any of the problems. Sure, it might mask the problem of the redline, but the redline is what's the issue (plus map design), not the turret. Plus, there are other problems with the rail gun that have other solutions. Agreed what needs to be altered is the RoF and the elevation of the turret. Damage and range do not need changes. " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum
Gavr1Io Pr1nc1p 104	Posted - 2014.03.17 00:13:00 - [17] - Quote Yes--------AV got a nerf because they were super OP Kills-Archduke Ferdinand Balance!
Aeon Amadi Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 5209	Posted - 2014.03.17 00:16:00 - [18] - Quote Egonz4 wrote: Joel II X wrote: Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown. AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot Or just change the resistances on the Dropship to accomodate a higher damage value... If you don't believe it's possible, aim an HMG at a Dropship and then aim it at an HAV. Useful Links //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588 //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8297	Posted - 2014.03.17 00:19:00 - [19] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Egonz4 wrote: Joel II X wrote: Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown. AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot Or just change the resistances on the Dropship to accomodate a higher damage value... If you don't believe it's possible, aim an HMG at a Dropship and then aim it at an HAV. No. How can you justify one weapon designed to destroy much more thickly armoured vehicled doing less damage to lightly armored ones? A 220mm cannon does not explode with any less force against the hull of a helicpoter than it does against the hull of a tank. Both are equally right ****** destroyed. AV works well against dropships now, thus what need to happen is balancing on the HAV end or more utility AV weapons to prevent tanks escaping otherwise untenable situations. " ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters" - Malleus Malificorum
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1283	Posted - 2014.03.17 00:31:00 - [20] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Egonz4 wrote: Joel II X wrote: Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown. AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot Or just change the resistances on the Dropship to accomodate a higher damage value... If you don't believe it's possible, aim an HMG at a Dropship and then aim it at an HAV. No. How can you justify one weapon designed to destroy much more thickly armoured vehicled doing less damage to lightly armored ones? A 220mm cannon does not explode with any less force against the hull of a helicpoter than it does against the hull of a tank. Both are equally right ****** destroyed. AV works well against dropships now, thus what need to happen is balancing on the HAV end or more utility AV weapons to prevent tanks escaping otherwise untenable situations. Agreed. I want to see AV in forms of electronic warfare as well. DPS shouldn't be the be-all, end-all method to destroying vehicles. I remember in my later times in EVE, I enjoyed flying the Arbitrator (bonuses to drone damage and tracking disruption). I loved the aspect of not needing so much raw DPS because I'd be able to avoid the turrets of my opponent, plus neutralize their capacitor because I had energy neuts instead of turrets in my highs. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32

KalOfTheRathi Nec Tributis 1015	Posted - 2014.03.17 00:36:00 - [21] - Quote Egonz4 wrote: I hope so...I mean how hard is it to change the range of the rail gun? Man that would be great! This silly limitation of 599m is boring. Give me the old ranges! Infinite range across the entire map, from any direction even corner to corner. Those were the days. I loved counter sniping snipers with a rail gun from almost any location on the map. Although Forge Guns were unlimited back then as well. If a change is coming then make sure the forge guns lose another 50-100m. That would be about right. They would be able to kill a blaster tank that was too close but all other turrets could smite them. And all know forge gunners need their smiting. Smite early, smite often! Works on all infantry as well. Thumbs up, bullet magnet! And so it goes.
Louis Domi Pradox One Proficiency V. 43	Posted - 2014.03.17 01:06:00 - [22] - Quote Gavr1Io Pr1nc1p wrote: Yes--------AV got a nerf because they were super OP tanks got buffed because they were UP, The only reason i think they nerfed AV is for dropships... those poor guys were getting 1 shotted by forges and swarms... they in my oppinion should have either 1) vehicles we have now with old av, or old vehicles and new av, they did too much IMO
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 399	Posted - 2014.03.17 02:00:00 - [23] - Quote Joel II X wrote: Egonz4 wrote: Joel II X wrote: Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown. AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot Swarms need more range. AV nades more damage. Ships can still do their thing, but can be countered by swarms (you know, the weapon that is actually affective against them besides rail tech?). The AV nades won't reach, so they'll be put to better use against tanks and LAVs. 3 Lai Dai Packed for an LAV? C'mon... So what you are saying is that one Lai Dai should blow up a LAV or three for a tank , with hardeners on ..???.. what type of response time is that for someone who has invested skill points into a role ? They are working on fixing the TTK and it seems like you would like to go in the wrong way. Leave all negative comments about tanks in the bin marked " TRASH " and we'll get to it as soon as possible . Thank You
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 399	Posted - 2014.03.17 02:01:00 - [24] - Quote Louis Domi wrote: Gavr1Io Pr1nc1p wrote: Yes--------AV got a nerf because they were super OP tanks got buffed because they were UP, The only reason i think they nerfed AV is for dropships... those poor guys were getting 1 shotted by forges and swarms... they in my oppinion should have either 1) vehicles we have now with old av, or old vehicles and new av, they did too much IMO I can agree but would like the later because old A.V. was foolish and cartoonish . Leave all negative comments about tanks in the bin marked " TRASH " and we'll get to it as soon as possible . Thank You
Aeon Amadi Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 5219	Posted - 2014.03.17 03:08:00 - [25] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: Egonz4 wrote: Joel II X wrote: Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown. AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot Or just change the resistances on the Dropship to accomodate a higher damage value... If you don't believe it's possible, aim an HMG at a Dropship and then aim it at an HAV. No. How can you justify one weapon designed to destroy much more thickly armoured vehicled doing less damage to lightly armored ones? A 220mm cannon does not explode with any less force against the hull of a helicpoter than it does against the hull of a tank. Both are equally right ****** destroyed. AV works well against dropships now, thus what need to happen is balancing on the HAV end or more utility AV weapons to prevent tanks escaping otherwise untenable situations. That argument is flawless... in real life. But, this is Dust 514, which is a video game and video games are far better off not hugging so closely to reality Useful Links //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133588 //forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134182


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.