DUST Search - question for all the "real" HAV pilots out there.

All Channels

General Discussions

question for all the "real" HAV pilots out there.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 235	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:13:00 - [1] - Quote if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8753	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:15:00 - [2] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2291	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:16:00 - [3] - Quote Who said they weren't OP? Taka and Spkr? You need to find some more sensible tankers to pay attention to. I promise we're out there (although I think by this point only True is actively pursuing a vehicle balance) EDIT: TRUE YOU'RE MAKING MY PARTIALLY HYPERBOLIC STATEMENT INTO A LIE!! ak.0 4 LYFE Large Missile Turrets: the real unicorns of DUST.
DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 235	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:18:00 - [4] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. so if they nerf militia then what I go put a few hundred thousand in HAV operation and run militia mods on it and become a slightly bigger threat? Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make
Summ Dude Direct Action Resources 325	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:23:00 - [5] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. You seem to be implying that STD HAV's are well balanced; this is blatantly untrue. Not just a laymen, but the laymen. Winn Summ and lose Summ.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2292	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:25:00 - [6] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. so if they nerf militia then what I go put a few hundred thousand in HAV operation and run militia mods on it and become a slightly bigger threat? The third high/low actually makes you a significantly greater threat. It's the difference between being out-DPSed by my Particle Cannon and having comparable DPS (at least until I pop my own damage mod, but that's what you have friends for!) Basically it gives you dramatically more options. You'd never dream of running a nitrous on a Sica; not enough tank, (or gank, I guess) otherwise. My missile tank setup varies between 1x dam 1x hard 1x nitro and 2x hard 1x nitro depending. That third slot lets you come up with some unique fittings. ak.0 4 LYFE Large Missile Turrets: the real unicorns of DUST.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2292	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:28:00 - [7] - Quote Summ Dude wrote: True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. You seem to be implying that STD HAV's are well balanced; this is blatantly untrue. They are. Sicas are often just as durable as my Particle Cannon fitting, for zero SP versus my millions upon millions. Hardener, armour rep and by extension damage mod stacking is what's imbalanced and needs fixing. A hard nerf (so no stacking at all) or a soft one (huge penalties, so it's subpar rather than impossible), either way, but it has to be done. Shield regen also needs to be altered; judge's video was evidence of this, though I've thought it from the first time I got attacked by an MLT large blaster. ak.0 4 LYFE Large Missile Turrets: the real unicorns of DUST.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8757	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:28:00 - [8] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. so if they nerf militia then what I go put a few hundred thousand in HAV operation and run militia mods on it and become a slightly bigger threat? Its not about nerfing anything. That doesn't achieve balance in the slightest. Its about tweaking what we have to develop the relationship between vehicles and AV. Personally the only way I see to develop this is to start with static AV models. Lets take the ones we are given and introduce the required racial parity amongst heavy/AV weapons. Once done we as a community over a period of time test the weapons and determine where faults with the weapon lie, and present a statement to CCP/CPM. After which we actively try to balance vehicles around the AV values. If you are looking for quick fixes I can list a few off for you. 1.) 5% increase to the damage of AV weapons (all ranges, charge/rof, etc stay the same) 2.) Decrease effectiveness of shield hardeners to 50%, and Armour Hardeners to 35%. 3.) Increase by 5-10% the fitting requirements of Hardener units. 4.) Implement a system like the Cloak Cooldown whereby Hardeners cannot be consecutively activated. Once a hardener activates it runs its duration and starts a hardener cool down cycle equivalent to half of that activated modules cool down timers before another hardener can be activated. The following should not be implemented at once but equally considered as a possible solution to quickly and temporarily fix the situation. This de-incentivising stacking hardeners but doesn't prevent it, reinforces the nature of waves of opportunity and allows AV to capitalise on such weaknesses which not directly buff or nerf AV and tanks respectively. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 687	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:29:00 - [9] - Quote I think that novice tankers will start to show a bit more, now that points are being provided for damaging, and not only destroying, tanks. People will come in this next patch, who will be solely designed to damage vehicles while escaping enemy infantry. Buuutt.. only time can show if this is realistic or not. Tanks would be incredibly balanced as they are now... IF we had Webifiers. It's kind of a delicate edge they're trodding on... either too effective or too ineffective, and Webifiers would change things to have regions of effective use, and regions of risky use. If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
Kara Anschel Tech Guard RISE of LEGION 60	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:38:00 - [10] - Quote This might be a shocker, but I really don't think tanks are OP, I just don't think they are tiered or balanced well. We only have two tiers of vehicle (mlt, and std) but we have four tiers of AV (mlt, std, adv, pro). It's very hard to balance 4 tiers around 2 tiers. It also doesn't help that there are four tiers of modules for tanks, so a standard tank or a militia tank can fit all the way to proto but still be just a standard tank. Vehicles are annoying sure, but people simply don't AV. When my corp squads up, it's generally me with a Kaalakiota forge and my Corp Leader with his Ishukone. We also have a resident rail tanker whose been trying infantry lately. Anywho, if any combination of the three of us pull out rails or forges, the vehicle game is done. We win. Even doubled hardened Maddies have trouble with this kind of firepower. However, we will be the only people running AV the entire game. AV generally doesn't start in my games until I start slinging slugs at people. People normally don't pull out the AV fits until six Somas hit the field, and sorry kiddies but that's too late. I can understand why people are hesitant to AV however, simply put, without vehicles you are useless. Swarms are only lock on, PLC is a joke (still get kills with it on occasion), and unless you practice, popping redberries with a forge is difficult (my favorite pastime). I guess you could get vehicles with the MD, but until 1.8 drops I don't think it's even viable. AV means almost entirely removing your AI capability for the off chance a tank rolls your way WITHOUT hardeners. (Seriously though, **** hardeners) 1.8 may not seem to address vehicles but I do think it is a step in the right(ish) direction. All racial commando suits are coming out, Gallente and Minmatar damage buffs work for the light AV, and they all have an equipment slot for hives. WP for damaging vehicles will help too. Now people actually have some intensive to shoot at that tank, points are points. Much better than offloading 15k damage into something, watch it speed away, double hardened, and get nothing but a railgun to the face. 1.8 is not without downsides however, the nerf to damage mods and proficiencies is going to hurt (The forge still works wonders at advanced without mods though, so I'm not too concerned). These nerfs hit the swarm launcher very hard, but if the damage bug is ever fixed, it will still get a performance jump to what we see today. Personally, I think we need less time between patches and lighter patches, even if they are as simple are just bringing proficiency back to what it was. Two weeks should be enough time to see how these changes all play out, and then change accordingly.

DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 235	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:42:00 - [11] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. so if they nerf militia then what I go put a few hundred thousand in HAV operation and run militia mods on it and become a slightly bigger threat? Its not about nerfing anything. That doesn't achieve balance in the slightest. Its about tweaking what we have to develop the relationship between vehicles and AV. Personally the only way I see to develop this is to start with static AV models. Lets take the ones we are given and introduce the required racial parity amongst heavy/AV weapons. Once done we as a community over a period of time test the weapons and determine where faults with the weapon lie, and present a statement to CCP/CPM. After which we actively try to balance vehicles around the AV values. If you are looking for quick fixes I can list a few off for you. 1.) 5% increase to the damage of AV weapons (all ranges, charge/rof, etc stay the same) 2.) Decrease effectiveness of shield hardeners to 50%, and Armour Hardeners to 35%. 3.) Increase by 5-10% the fitting requirements of Hardener units. 4.) Implement a system like the Cloak Cooldown whereby Hardeners cannot be consecutively activated. Once a hardener activates it runs its duration and starts a hardener cool down cycle equivalent to half of that activated modules cool down timers before another hardener can be activated. The following should not be implemented at once but equally considered as a possible solution to quickly and temporarily fix the situation. This de-incentivising stacking hardeners but doesn't prevent it, reinforces the nature of waves of opportunity and allows AV to capitalise on such weaknesses which not directly buff or nerf AV and tanks respectively. whats your take on range? I am not a pilot but I have an alt that I carefully spec'd 10 mill SP into gunnlogi not tanking until mid 1.7 I can become 1 if not the biggest threat on the field with skyhigh KDR I do not rail snipe I get down on the ground and pound tanks off my squadmates but putting a standard blaster on this thing and I can rock infantry "with headshots" at 100m away IMO blasters should have extreme spread making them mediocre at killing infantry and still good at killing tanks I mean the spread would still land on a tank but give infantry a chance and my opinion on mods is they are completely broken its like they are solely based around tank on tank combat leaving infantry crap out of luck Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8757	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:47:00 - [12] - Quote Summ Dude wrote: True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. You seem to be implying that STD HAV's are well balanced; this is blatantly untrue. I think they are essentially as balanced as ADV tanks need to be which for the most part they are. Tanks don't tier well. Another manner of balancing HAV is MLT- 1 Slots High and Low STD- Two Slots essentially our MLT now but requires SP ADV- 3 Slots out STD HAV now but more SP PRO- 4 slots, better than our STD now but most SP "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 1628	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:49:00 - [13] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested Huh? Yes, everybody agrees mil tanks are OP at no sp cost and not much different from a skilled tank char. Tankers have been complaining about not being able to be better for th sp and time invested to run them. "Stay stealthy scouts." GÇô Ron Burgundy
nakaya indigene 0uter.Heaven 188	Posted - 2014.03.24 05:53:00 - [14] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I dont agree with the angle you are coming from. but I do agree that the tank spam is a problem that ccp needs to look at. The Jove espier --- my youtube --> NakaNakaNaka
DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 235	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:00:00 - [15] - Quote nakaya indigene wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I dont agree with the angle you are coming from. but I do agree that the tank spam is a problem that ccp needs to look at. why not? if I can pick up a tank mid 1.7 and feel godly and take on all tanks plus infantry on the field I must be one of the best pilots out there in new eden Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8760	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:01:00 - [16] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. so if they nerf militia then what I go put a few hundred thousand in HAV operation and run militia mods on it and become a slightly bigger threat? Its not about nerfing anything. That doesn't achieve balance in the slightest. Its about tweaking what we have to develop the relationship between vehicles and AV. Personally the only way I see to develop this is to start with static AV models. Lets take the ones we are given and introduce the required racial parity amongst heavy/AV weapons. Once done we as a community over a period of time test the weapons and determine where faults with the weapon lie, and present a statement to CCP/CPM. After which we actively try to balance vehicles around the AV values. If you are looking for quick fixes I can list a few off for you. 1.) 5% increase to the damage of AV weapons (all ranges, charge/rof, etc stay the same) 2.) Decrease effectiveness of shield hardeners to 50%, and Armour Hardeners to 35%. 3.) Increase by 5-10% the fitting requirements of Hardener units. 4.) Implement a system like the Cloak Cooldown whereby Hardeners cannot be consecutively activated. Once a hardener activates it runs its duration and starts a hardener cool down cycle equivalent to half of that activated modules cool down timers before another hardener can be activated. The following should not be implemented at once but equally considered as a possible solution to quickly and temporarily fix the situation. This de-incentivising stacking hardeners but doesn't prevent it, reinforces the nature of waves of opportunity and allows AV to capitalise on such weaknesses which not directly buff or nerf AV and tanks respectively. whats your take on range? I am not a pilot but I have an alt that I carefully spec'd 10 mill SP into gunnlogi not tanking until mid 1.7 I can become 1 if not the biggest threat on the field with skyhigh KDR I do not rail snipe I get down on the ground and pound tanks off my squadmates but putting a standard blaster on this thing and I can rock infantry "with headshots" at 100m away IMO blasters should have extreme spread making them mediocre at killing infantry and still good at killing tanks I mean the spread would still land on a tank but give infantry a chance and my opinion on mods is they are completely broken its like they are solely based around tank on tank combat leaving infantry crap out of luck Range is a sensitive issue..... Frankly speaking I like the range we have now....but understand most people don't..... maybe its just selfish but I am getting to the point where I can snipe infantry at long range with a blaster...... range sure keep range where it is. Damage drop off though..... that's a better solution than hard capping range IMO. As such I can't really say we should de-incentivise long range aiming. To vehicles that is not even a threat....to infantry however I can see why that is an issue. I would need to refine my own internal discussion regarding range.... I tend to try to rationalise/ argue to myself why things should or shouldn't be.... Again for blaster turrets I am not a huge fan of them....or how they operate....but hypocritically they are the turret type I most run. I personally find Rail Guns distasteful, and am working on Missile HAV, atm I roll blasters for close infantry support which is where I am on the map, brawling with other tanks and keeping the objectives clear for my squad mates. Still I cannot help but mislike them..... asking me about blasters is never going to get you a truly unbiased answer because while I dislike them, I also find them oddly fulfilling when I best another AV built tank. I will edit this post with a more refined statement, or simply repost. For the most part I find blaster ranges to be a little excessive.....however. I am a huge fan/proponent of the idea that AV and HAV always need to be overlapping in engagement zones, meaning that I believe that while some AV should be long range and hard hitting other types that perhaps favour DPS over Alpha are possible to engage. Nothing was worse than pre 1.7 when Tankers could not see past 50m due to poor rendering, or even after that when blaster hit detection was poor and AV like swarms could snipe us from outside our effective ranges..... 1.2- 1.7 was atrocious balance in favour of AV. Which is why while I am on the upside of the nerf bat I am going to campaign for careful tweaks and community feed back of calls for nerfs and buffs. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 235	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:02:00 - [17] - Quote Kara Anschel wrote: This might be a shocker, but I really don't think tanks are OP, I just don't think they are tiered or balanced well. We only have two tiers of vehicle (mlt, and std) but we have four tiers of AV (mlt, std, adv, pro). It's very hard to balance 4 tiers around 2 tiers. It also doesn't help that there are four tiers of modules for tanks, so a standard tank or a militia tank can fit all the way to proto but still be just a standard tank. Vehicles are annoying sure, but people simply don't AV. When my corp squads up, it's generally me with a Kaalakiota forge and my Corp Leader with his Ishukone. We also have a resident rail tanker whose been trying infantry lately. Anywho, if any combination of the three of us pull out rails or forges, the vehicle game is done. We win. Even doubled hardened Maddies have trouble with this kind of firepower. However, we will be the only people running AV the entire game. AV generally doesn't start in my games until I start slinging slugs at people. People normally don't pull out the AV fits until six Somas hit the field, and sorry kiddies but that's too late. I can understand why people are hesitant to AV however, simply put, without vehicles you are useless. Swarms are only lock on, PLC is a joke (still get kills with it on occasion), and unless you practice, popping redberries with a forge is difficult (my favorite pastime). I guess you could get vehicles with the MD, but until 1.8 drops I don't think it's even viable. AV means almost entirely removing your AI capability for the off chance a tank rolls your way WITHOUT hardeners. (Seriously though, **** hardeners) 1.8 may not seem to address vehicles but I do think it is a step in the right(ish) direction. All racial commando suits are coming out, Gallente and Minmatar damage buffs work for the light AV, and they all have an equipment slot for hives. WP for damaging vehicles will help too. Now people actually have some intensive to shoot at that tank, points are points. Much better than offloading 15k damage into something, watch it speed away, double hardened, and get nothing but a railgun to the face. 1.8 is not without downsides however, the nerf to damage mods and proficiencies is going to hurt (The forge still works wonders at advanced without mods though, so I'm not too concerned). These nerfs hit the swarm launcher very hard, but if the damage bug is ever fixed, it will still get a performance jump to what we see today. Personally, I think we need less time between patches and lighter patches, even if they are as simple are just bringing proficiency back to what it was. Two weeks should be enough time to see how these changes all play out, and then change accordingly. plus 1 to you and your mates but what about the guys with militia and standard AV? Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 425	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:04:00 - [18] - Quote If hardeners are tweaked then make them so that if you stack them that you would only receive ten percent more of a cushion , same with damage mods . CCP did the community a great favor changing damage mods ( talking about infantry and using that as an example ) and reducing the percentage but now they need to make it the same to reduce stacking damage mods . Ten percent to infantry and the same from vehicles so if someone wanted to stack they would only receive a slight boost for the excessive amount of CPU / PG for the mods . This would reduce stacking and would kill the double damage mods ( or triple for vehicles and infantry ) and double hardeners . Everything else is fine basically . Shields are so weak that they need the regen for all vehicles so I wouldn't touch that at all . There must be a way to kill the incentive to stack and it shouldn't be by killing their effectiveness or changing PG / CPU it should be by increasing the penalty . Leave all negative comments about tanks in the bin marked " TRASH " and we'll get to it as soon as possible . Thank You
DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 235	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:09:00 - [19] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: If hardeners are tweaked then make them so that if you stack them that you would only receive ten percent more of a cushion , same with damage mods . CCP did the community a great favor changing damage mods ( talking about infantry and using that as an example ) and reducing the percentage but now they need to make it the same to reduce stacking damage mods . Ten percent to infantry and the same from vehicles so if someone wanted to stack they would only receive a slight boost for the excessive amount of CPU / PG for the mods . This would reduce stacking and would kill the double damage mods ( or triple for vehicles and infantry ) and double hardeners . Everything else is fine basically . Shields are so weak that they need the regen for all vehicles so I wouldn't touch that at all . There must be a way to kill the incentive to stack and it shouldn't be by killing their effectiveness or changing PG / CPU it should be by increasing the penalty . hardeners should be capped at 1 IMO like afterburners and nitro I mean tanks are so extreme at this point there is no need for armor plates on armor tanks or shield extender on shield tanks Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution 2230	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:13:00 - [20] - Quote they're OP as **. as long as more than 20 people are any threat with them, they will be OP. i miss when you were either god mode tanker or you were a scrub who got booted out of the club the second you knocked on the door with your *** ass sica. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!

MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution 263	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:15:00 - [21] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested Well, they are not OP in a sense that the HAV's themselves are OP, but in a sense that swarms, the easiest weapon to pick up and use is broken at the worst of times and next to useless at the best of times. Forges do wonders, PLC is a joke, Remotes/Proxies instagib tanks. Solo HAVs may be stronger than before 1.7 but HAV pilots that use teamwork are weaker than ever. And like True Adamance said, MLT tanks are too efficient for what they cost, for both SP and ISK. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 235	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:16:00 - [22] - Quote @ True I can totally respect a pilot like yourself and I hope other follow in your footsteps to find a balance I agree the before 1.7 rendering and infantry AV vs HAV's were completely unbalanced but now after 1.7 its the complete opposite infantry AV is a complete joke vs HAV's and HAV's are ninja like vs passive scans Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 425	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:22:00 - [23] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: If hardeners are tweaked then make them so that if you stack them that you would only receive ten percent more of a cushion , same with damage mods . CCP did the community a great favor changing damage mods ( talking about infantry and using that as an example ) and reducing the percentage but now they need to make it the same to reduce stacking damage mods . Ten percent to infantry and the same from vehicles so if someone wanted to stack they would only receive a slight boost for the excessive amount of CPU / PG for the mods . This would reduce stacking and would kill the double damage mods ( or triple for vehicles and infantry ) and double hardeners . Everything else is fine basically . Shields are so weak that they need the regen for all vehicles so I wouldn't touch that at all . There must be a way to kill the incentive to stack and it shouldn't be by killing their effectiveness or changing PG / CPU it should be by increasing the penalty . hardeners should be capped at 1 IMO like afterburners and nitro I mean tanks are so extreme at this point there is no need for armor plates on armor tanks or shield extender on shield tanks Now this is where I can disagree . They need shield extenders and extra armor . Pre 1.7 seen a variety of fittings that you just don't get now and now you want to make the experience even more boring with one basic fit and everyone driving around with clone tanks with the same stats ??? You people can be so condescending at times . Leave all negative comments about tanks in the bin marked " TRASH " and we'll get to it as soon as possible . Thank You
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution 263	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:24:00 - [24] - Quote Summ Dude wrote: True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. You seem to be implying that STD HAV's are well balanced; this is blatantly untrue. You don't like 1-shot-kill weapons? Then what do you want? You want a button that instantly destroys all HAVs on the field? You want to be able to stare us to death like Chuck Norris? Imagine if AV and tanks were reverted back to 1.6 but the current swarm effectiveness was kept. Take the time to think. Now tell me, are STD tanks OP or is it maybe that the Swarms are not working like people are used to see them work? R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
Zirzo Valcyn Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 288	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:25:00 - [25] - Quote was flying this RE scout around and was hotdropping on the rear of tanks, then i would fly around and distract the tank, we killed a good number of tanks, we failed as many times but it was worth the effort, it was like fighting an endboss. i managed to get a proxy kill somewhere on a missile tank. we trashed at least 7 tanks between the 2 of us in a couple of hours. u can ban the troll out of the forums but u can't ban the forums out of the troll. forum warrior .189
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 426	Posted - 2014.03.24 06:29:00 - [26] - Quote Someone else brought this up and it was something that I had forgotten and wish the community would remember . When CCP broke the vehicles down they told the community that this was a work in progress and that changes were in store so nothing was definite and final . People need to remember that and let them take in the suggestions and stop being anti-HAV and come with some constructive suggestions so this can be resolved and need not be revisited again . Most of these people come with role killing and self centered suggestions that they would not appreciate others to suggest for their own role . There are so many anti-HAV statements and attitudes you would think that HAV's perpetrated some type of crime . Leave all negative comments about tanks in the bin marked " TRASH " and we'll get to it as soon as possible . Thank You
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2295	Posted - 2014.03.24 07:13:00 - [27] - Quote I nuked a Neutron Maddy about twenty minutes ago. Used my DAU on my 'Templar' Heavy; prof 3, one damage mod. Three shotted him. LAVs are your friend, would-be AVers. Before that I killed him with four shots and a packed AV nade; three of them went into hardeners and the AV nade finished the job. STD nade. I don't think it's tanks that are necessarily OP, just that multiple hardeners are, and swarms are defs UP. ak.0 4 LYFE Large Missile Turrets: the real unicorns of DUST.
zero shocker TRUE TEA BAGGERS EoN. 2	Posted - 2014.03.24 07:27:00 - [28] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested all the "real tanker" are in pre-1.7 wanno baby
Rusty Shallows 1224	Posted - 2014.03.24 07:36:00 - [29] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Someone else brought this up and it was something that I had forgotten and wish the community would remember . When CCP broke the vehicles down they told the community that this was a work in progress and that changes were in store so nothing was definite and final . People need to remember that and let them take in the suggestions and stop being anti-HAV and come with some constructive suggestions so this can be resolved and need not be revisited again . Most of these people come with role killing and self centered suggestions that they would not appreciate others to suggest for their own role . There are so many anti-HAV statements and attitudes you would think that HAV's perpetrated some type of crime . We had the better part of 2013 with a few people screaming infantry AV was OP at biblical proportions. Other people tried to be constructive and there was some decent academic discussions. In the end CCP didn't listen to anybody except the nerf wish-list. Talk all you want but as more OP threads continue to build up it just pushes us all towards the next nerf. Here, have some candy and a Like. :-) Forums > Game
DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 238	Posted - 2014.03.24 07:36:00 - [30] - Quote zero shocker wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested all the "real tanker" are in pre-1.7 I know this thats why I want them to stand up for their art i'f I can get on my alt and shred in a 10 mill invested tank not tanking before 1.7 then something is wrong only the pre 1.7 tankers can give CCP the actuall feedback they need about tanks not people who sink 5-10 mill in a tank and wreck ass in 1.7 Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make

DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 238	Posted - 2014.03.24 07:40:00 - [31] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: I nuked a Neutron Maddy about twenty minutes ago. Used my DAU on my 'Templar' Heavy; prof 3, one damage mod. Three shotted him. LAVs are your friend, would-be AVers. Before that I killed him with four shots and a packed AV nade; three of them went into hardeners and the AV nade finished the job. STD nade. I don't think it's tanks that are necessarily OP, just that multiple hardeners are, and swarms are defs UP. multiple hardeners are OP I agree thats what I mean by you dont see the armor tanks using armor plates or shield tanks using extenders Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make
Auris Lionesse Capital Acquisitions LLC Dirt Nap Squad. 541	Posted - 2014.03.24 07:49:00 - [32] - Quote DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter Lol wut op? No ...just no Gallente Heavy Ninja Turtles! Gallente Heavy Ninja Turtles! Heroes in a half Gank! *TURTLE POWER!!!*
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8764	Posted - 2014.03.24 07:50:00 - [33] - Quote In the end this discussion is not about who is and who isn't a "True Anything". It doesn't matter if you tank, doesn't matter if you AV. We all see the imbalances and discussing and developing suggestions and statements regarding that imbalance is what we should be doing instead of name calling, bragging about X,Y,or Z, brashly pushing one agenda or another. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
wait reloading Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 5	Posted - 2014.03.24 08:00:00 - [34] - Quote I think the first step to getting a balance would be to limit vehicles to to 1 hardner, but tweak duration and cooldown so there is at least an opportunity for the tank able to get away. At the moment I can 3 shot any tank that isn't running a hardner or extender, but a complex hardner means I gotta wait a very long time or give up, if more than 1 complex hardner it isn't worth bothering with
DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 239	Posted - 2014.03.24 08:04:00 - [35] - Quote 1.8 drops in a day or so and ive already heard people talking about not going back into dropsuits just so they can drop the SP into their hardly spec'd HAV's we have seen what the bonus SP has done with the all the new "pilots" running around and 1.8 will only add to the sad truth I know in my heart you guys don't want these guys moving in on your territory and ABUSING what we all know need adjustments cause when that happens the nerf bat swings even harder in the next patches its kind of how I dont want all these FOTM chasers coming after my gallente scout suit in 1.8 but its gonna happen and when it does I want CCP to listen to the real scouts and not the tourists scouts because when its all said and done nerfs and all I will be still wearing my suit while they will have moved on Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make
DozersMouse XIII Ultramarine Corp 239	Posted - 2014.03.24 08:08:00 - [36] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: they're OP as **. as long as more than 20 people are any threat with them, they will be OP. i miss when you were either god mode tanker or you were a scrub who got booted out of the club the second you knocked on the door with your *** ass sica. I remember the 1.6 tankers who had heart and no wallet Bacon pancakes makin' bacon pancakes Take some bacon and I'll put it a pancake Bacon pancakes thats what it's gonna make
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8764	Posted - 2014.03.24 08:25:00 - [37] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: Charlotte O'Dell wrote: they're OP as **. as long as more than 20 people are any threat with them, they will be OP. i miss when you were either god mode tanker or you were a scrub who got booted out of the club the second you knocked on the door with your *** ass sica. I remember the 1.6 tankers who had heart and no wallet <---------- This guy..... "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8765	Posted - 2014.03.24 08:30:00 - [38] - Quote wait reloading wrote: I think the first step to getting a balance would be to limit vehicles to to 1 hardner, but tweak duration and cooldown so there is at least an opportunity for the tank able to get away. At the moment I can 3 shot any tank that isn't running a hardner or extender, but a complex hardner means I gotta wait a very long time or give up, if more than 1 complex hardner it isn't worth bothering with Again as I have said lets not make arbitrary decisions about what fits can do what and lets de-incentivize fitting multiple hardeners. Rather than say no dual hardeners (and I only run one so I operate under the 36 second rule) let say hardeners are tougher to fit, perhaps they do not work so efficiently or for so long. Or my personal favourite have a timer equivalent to 1/2 their cool down period before a second hardener can be activated, not preventing dual hardeners but enforcing waves of opportunity. The benefits of dual hardeners are mitigated mostly, and we don't close off or lock down playstyles. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4594	Posted - 2014.03.24 08:31:00 - [39] - Quote Tank hulls need slowing down. Mods need minor tweaks. Turrets could use some minor rebalancing. Tanks have a few levels where they're VERY MILDLY overpowered. The biggest problem is that AV is horribly UNDERPOWERED, which makes it look like Tanks are OP when in fact the problem is on the other side of the fence. Buff AV first, THEN look at nerfing the tanks if they still need it.
Sir Snugglz Red Star. EoN. 548	Posted - 2014.03.24 08:52:00 - [40] - Quote the price.... scrubs could have always done it but chose not too because of how "expensive" they were to run... well not anymore. now anyone can afford one. -Pro AFKing LVL 5 -Luck is just one of my skills -Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is

Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2297	Posted - 2014.03.24 08:59:00 - [41] - Quote True Adamance wrote: wait reloading wrote: I think the first step to getting a balance would be to limit vehicles to to 1 hardner, but tweak duration and cooldown so there is at least an opportunity for the tank able to get away. At the moment I can 3 shot any tank that isn't running a hardner or extender, but a complex hardner means I gotta wait a very long time or give up, if more than 1 complex hardner it isn't worth bothering with Again as I have said lets not make arbitrary decisions about what fits can do what and lets de-incentivize fitting multiple hardeners. Rather than say no dual hardeners (and I only run one so I operate under the 36 second rule) let say hardeners are tougher to fit, perhaps they do not work so efficiently or for so long. Or my personal favourite have a timer equivalent to 1/2 their cool down period before a second hardener can be activated, not preventing dual hardeners but enforcing waves of opportunity. The benefits of dual hardeners are mitigated mostly, and we don't close off or lock down playstyles. yeah but you use two reppers you scrub everyone knows that's the best fitting for a pub Maddy. ak.0 4 LYFE Large Missile Turrets: the real unicorns of DUST.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 8767	Posted - 2014.03.24 10:09:00 - [42] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: True Adamance wrote: wait reloading wrote: I think the first step to getting a balance would be to limit vehicles to to 1 hardner, but tweak duration and cooldown so there is at least an opportunity for the tank able to get away. At the moment I can 3 shot any tank that isn't running a hardner or extender, but a complex hardner means I gotta wait a very long time or give up, if more than 1 complex hardner it isn't worth bothering with Again as I have said lets not make arbitrary decisions about what fits can do what and lets de-incentivize fitting multiple hardeners. Rather than say no dual hardeners (and I only run one so I operate under the 36 second rule) let say hardeners are tougher to fit, perhaps they do not work so efficiently or for so long. Or my personal favourite have a timer equivalent to 1/2 their cool down period before a second hardener can be activated, not preventing dual hardeners but enforcing waves of opportunity. The benefits of dual hardeners are mitigated mostly, and we don't close off or lock down playstyles. yeah but you use two reppers you scrub everyone knows that's the best fitting for a pub Maddy. No I actually don't. 1 Hardener 1 Repper 1 Complex CPU enhancer Yeah that fit sounds terribly True....I though all tankers were scrubs....but you are the worst, you tell me Ah ye of little faith says I..... ye of little faith What could you possibly be using that means you can't fit two reppers or two hardeners? says you. says I. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
thomas mak THE-TITANS 45	Posted - 2014.03.24 10:35:00 - [43] - Quote in fact, not tanks op, but tanks cheap (mit), real tanker is angry too, I spended 5000000 sp on tanks, and it was 2 shot by mit tanks, of cause modlues too, Here's the point in beta a tank will full module win a weaker tank, aways while 1 or 2 swarm win a tank, proto (both) because at that time tanks only get about 50% resist at most(20 passive 30 active) Why tank rule the sky Why tanks are so cheap Why all the vehicle module are GONE!!!!!!!!
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 2236	Posted - 2014.03.24 16:58:00 - [44] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: zero shocker wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested all the "real tanker" are in pre-1.7 I know this thats why I want them to stand up for their art i'f I can get on my alt and shred in a 10 mill invested tank not tanking before 1.7 then something is wrong only the pre 1.7 tankers can give CCP the actuall feedback they need about tanks not people who sink 5-10 mill in a tank and wreck ass in 1.7 Exactly. I'm ashamed to call myself a tanker in 1.7 They're OP as **** and need a nerf. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Ryme Intrinseca Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 901	Posted - 2014.03.24 17:00:00 - [45] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. so if they nerf militia then what I go put a few hundred thousand in HAV operation and run militia mods on it and become a slightly bigger threat? The third high/low actually makes you a significantly greater threat. It's the difference between being out-DPSed by my Particle Cannon and having comparable DPS (at least until I pop my own damage mod, but that's what you have friends for!) Basically it gives you dramatically more options. You'd never dream of running a nitrous on a Sica; not enough tank, (or gank, I guess) otherwise. My missile tank setup varies between 1x dam 1x hard 1x nitro and 2x hard 1x nitro depending. That third slot lets you come up with some unique fittings. Or to permaharden, like every other scrub.
ReGnYuM Dirt Nap Squad. 2549	Posted - 2014.03.24 17:02:00 - [46] - Quote If a tanker does not have 2+ KDR, then Tanking must be Broken or Imbalanced Welcome to the Tanker mentality. My SP GAP carries me.
Charlotte O'Dell Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 2240	Posted - 2014.03.24 17:12:00 - [47] - Quote ReGnYuM wrote: If a tanker does not have 2+ KDR, then Tanking must be Broken or Imbalanced Welcome to the Tanker mentality. I don't think that. Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1457	Posted - 2014.03.24 17:12:00 - [48] - Quote True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. triple hardners sadly sees that you are in same "club" as spkr, tanka shakes head. reads your post again so you say tanks are not op when they are the best av choice tanks are broken Hey CCP get a PS4 client Planetside 2 in June on PS4 Dust Deserters Alliance
ReGnYuM Dirt Nap Squad. 2550	Posted - 2014.03.24 17:17:00 - [49] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: ReGnYuM wrote: If a tanker does not have 2+ KDR, then Tanking must be Broken or Imbalanced Welcome to the Tanker mentality. I don't think that. Really because we should compare general infantry players stats to Tank player Stats. You might see a slight disparity My SP GAP carries me.
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1457	Posted - 2014.03.24 17:19:00 - [50] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: Summ Dude wrote: True Adamance wrote: DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested I don't think HAV are OP.... but they aren't tiered well. This HAV pandemic is an example of what tiericide can do if done wrong. What I would say is that MLT HAV are too efficient for what they are. You seem to be implying that STD HAV's are well balanced; this is blatantly untrue. You don't like 1-shot-kill weapons? Then what do you want? You want a button that instantly destroys all HAVs on the field? You want to be able to stare us to death like Chuck Norris? Imagine if AV and tanks were reverted back to 1.6 but the current swarm effectiveness was kept. Take the time to think. Now tell me, are STD tanks OP or is it maybe that the Swarms are not working like people are used to see them work? tanks are too fast just that simple detail makes them op even if we ignored all the other problems Hey CCP get a PS4 client Planetside 2 in June on PS4 Dust Deserters Alliance

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1948	Posted - 2014.03.24 17:23:00 - [51] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested All you have to do is message me and/or English, or maybe squad with us sometime. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 6087	Posted - 2014.03.24 17:37:00 - [52] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: All you have to do is message me and/or English, or maybe squad with us sometime. I might just take you up on that offer. The Snack That Smiles Back! "Swarmers" [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp 279	Posted - 2014.03.24 18:17:00 - [53] - Quote DozersMouse XIII wrote: if tanks were not somewhat OP as most of the community would agree on then how can these scrubs that never used a HAV before 1.7 just pick one up hop in and become one if not the biggest threat on the battlefield? I mean if there not OP and AV is fine this can only mean 1 thing DuST is full of the best pilots that have ever touched tanks in a battlefield type shooter and none of you guys can claim to be better then the next because your all a balanced threat from beginner - vet and militia - SP invested Hey, real tanker here, and tanks are op versus infantry Sees prototompers... Sees blueberries start to snipe... Pulls out commando suit with laser rifle and swarm launcher...
Jake Diesel BIG BAD W0LVES Canis Eliminatus Operatives 120	Posted - 2014.03.24 18:19:00 - [54] - Quote 1.) 5% increase to the damage of AV weapons (all ranges, charge/rof, etc stay the same) 2.) Decrease effectiveness of shield hardeners to 50%, and Armour Hardeners to 35%. 3.) Increase by 5-10% the fitting requirements of Hardener units. 4.) Implement a system like the Cloak Cooldown whereby Hardeners cannot be consecutively activated. Once a hardener activates it runs its duration and starts a hardener cool down cycle equivalent to half of that activated modules cool down timers before another hardener can be activated. The following should not be implemented at once but equally considered as a possible solution to quickly and temporarily fix the situation. This de-incentivising stacking hardeners but doesn't prevent it, reinforces the nature of waves of opportunity and allows AV to capitalise on such weaknesses which not directly buff or nerf AV and tanks respectively. [/quote] You forgot to add "decreased tank speed" to your list. Tanks are too fast. Since 1.7, speed has attributed greatly to the survivability of tanks. Which in turn, has created a "solo" mentality among tankers and they no longer rely on infantry support. They've become the most effective hit-n-run vehicles out there, and yet they are the most powerful and heaviest of them all. Any tanker who doesn't acknowledge their speed as an issue is just trying to keep things in there favor. Two full proto assault forgers cannot drop a standard HAV with just one hardener activated due to their speed alone. They're long gone before any serious damage is done. 80%-90% of the time this is how tanks survive. And I ask why? Speed should not be the tanks main source of survivability. Slow down tanks and they will start to rely on infantry support.


Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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