DUST Search - Tanks - My take on the "Hot fixes"

Tebu Gan wrote:

As a forge gunner myself, using an ADV suit(cal) with stacked damage mods and a proto forge, usually the assault version. My typical tactic is putting a heavy rep on an LAV, and roaming around for tanks. Because, heavies are SLOWWW.

But with a well built LAV, it can take some shots from a blaster, giving you enough time to use it as cover if you don't directly get the jump on a tank. Generally, I can at the very least drive a tank back, giving our boys on the ground those precious seconds they need to turn the course of the battle.

Or I use a dropship (just using MLT ships here), roaming for tanks. In this way I can gain a superior position over said tank, and at the same time reduce my risk to infantry fire. Allowing me to apply max damage.

So many tanks have died to my heavy, which is why I've disagreed with many AV'ers complaining tanks are too strong. Yes they are too strong, but they make them seem invincible. As a lone forge gunner, I GIVE ROOM FOR MY TEAM TO BREATH, if not outright killin the tank.

In the short view, I understand that maybe they couldn't code in a stacking penalty, but a far better route would have been decreasing uptimes. With skills you can achieve 30 seconds of uptime and 45 seconds of downtime. Otherwise it's 24 and 60 respectively.

Decreasing the uptime to 15 seconds would have been very reasonable. Many just look at shield tanks and go, nope they are invincible. You are right, to light forms of AV, with hardeners up they become very tough. But the problem was that they were easily able to cycle these cooldowns, with no significant opening for AV to sieze upon. And they are able to do it for a rather extended periods of time.

So what if a tank gets away from you and hides, that means it is no longer bugging you, and if it comes back, a short duration on hardeners means it won't be able to stick around for long. Any form of AV will absolutely wreck a shield tank that isn't using hardeners.

Now though, any form of AV (minus explosives maybe) will wreck shield tanks WITH HARDENERS UP. Defeating the very purpose of them in the first place. All this change does is shift the balance in favor of maddies.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 692	Posted - 2014.03.28 13:57:00 - [1] - Quote Da Intro If you don't know me, my name is Tebu Gan(20mil SP). I'm a rather active player, and I frequent the forums quite often. In fact, I think I spend more time here than I do in game. My main role is a vehicle user. I've also recently taken to swarms and forge guns to help give me clarity on the Tank vs AV imbalance. I'm certainly not one of the most popular or overly vocal members of the community, but as an introvert(INTJ to be exact), that is how I like it. I struggled through pre 1.7 with my gunnlogi, giving as much positive feedback as possible, while trying to remain objective to the problems at hand. And at times doing a complete 180 when given another point of view from fellow players. We can't be right all the time! Even with the advent of 1.7, while I enjoyed the nice change, it didn't take a rocket scientist to see that tanks were OP. Anybody that would like to call me a "crybaby" that asked for this, I will kindly direct you to my sig, then to the post linked within that one. If you know me at all, you would know that all I've ever "cried" for is balance. It's not just a mantra to me in game, but a mantra I carry with me for life. Life is about balance. A balance between work, my hobby here on the forums, with my girlfriend, and family. (My girlfriend calls these postings, my essays) But you know, after attempting for over a year now to provide good solid feedback, I give up. It really doesn't matter. I tried to explain this to fellow corp mates last night as they were blaming the people on the forums for everything OP. Like tanks, how was this even the forum goers fault? I calmly explained that often CCP takes your feedback and shoves most of it through the paper shredder like the worthless trash it clearly is. ( I know, being a negatude right now) I visit these forums often, and while most of it is absolute garbage, there are many very constructive threads that really hit on the issues at hand. There are many people on here I've seen make some very good postings, and much respect always to them. While I don't expect them to actually do exactly what is being said, at the very least I expect them to take notice of the problems being brought up. Not just that, but putting it in context with what and how it was said, then going out there trying to reproduce the same results to get a clear picture of the problem. Now, I'm really trying to be calm here, and I know that they do take notice of the feedback provided, but it seems often times they are unwilling to take directly from said feedback and apply it to the game. I know they have their own ways of tackling problems but sometimes I have to question the logic behind their actions. TANKS So let's get down to it! I drive tanks, it's what I know best, nearly inside and out. No I don't makes spreadsheets, and the such to determine good fits. I simply make them, and drive them to their strengths. Finding what works and what doesn't and why. Improving my fits in the process. Which is why I question the current train of thought CCP is following with their tank "Nerfs". Yes, tanks need SLIGHT adjustments here and there. Not just that but certain AV weapons need some attention(SWARMS). So let me just mention the current round of changes they are/have implemented. Rails Railguns range reduced from 600M to 300M. I actually suggested this EXACT thing several weeks ago. So I totally agree and am happy with this change. But again, the problem isn't so much the railgun directly, but the lack of variety for railguns. I understand it's not something you can hotfix but well done for what I consider a smart change in the meantime. Read my sig for more information on that. Armor Hardeners For a maddie, it doesn't lose much in way of this change because you really didn't address the TRUE issue with them. Armor hardeners reduced from 40% to 25%. Is it just me, or does 25% seem WAY low to anyone else. Yes maddies rely heavily on armor reps for survival, but how in the world did you determine that the armor hardener itself was the problem? Obviously the armor hardener wasn't the problem to me but the reps themselves. I'm able to out rep most light AV WITHOUT the hardener. If it wasn't for CPU/PG restraints(I'm heavily shield invested) I would run 3 reps ALL DAY LONG. A simple change of how often the tics tic, would do the trick. As in, rather than repping every second, they do it once every 5 seconds, slowing the rate of recharge, and putting more importance on the need for that 40% hardener (now at 25%). See, currently it's nothing to pop behind some quick cover and come out few a few seconds later ready to rock. See, you really missed the core of the issue here, Armor (and Shield) tanks are not following your, "waves of opportunity" philosophy. There should be a time when a tank can take on the world, changing the course of the battle single handedly. But after this short period has ended, tanks become vulnerable to destruction. Your proposed changes though do a complete 180. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 692	Posted - 2014.03.28 13:57:00 - [2] - Quote Shield Hardeners Shield hardeners reduced from 60% to 40%. When I read this, my mind went into a rage to be honest. As a very dedicated shield tanker since official release of dust, I feel I have some good knowledge on this subject, so bear with me. I have seen many posts complaining about the strength of shield hardeners. Nothing short of a railgun or proto forge can take one out with hardeners up. Even then, it's going to take a bit of work. Trust me, I know all too well. More than a few of you have been at the mercy of my tank (not to mention my sica's). To me, hardeners are the problem, and I do agree that the strength is a small piece of the problem. Like with armor tanks, they are not following your "waves of opportunity" philosophy. The point being, they should be able to take on the world for a few seconds, then become vulnerable to destruction. Looking at the numbers taking my current SP investment into account 27 seconds up time and 51 seconds downtime at 60%(plus stacking penalty) per mod. From my personal experience, it's not the strength of hardeners that is the true problem. I know I may sound crazy to many here, but shield tanks are far weaker than you think. The incredibly low HP makes them very vulnerable targets without resistances. But something else people don't consider is the fact that unlike armor tanks, shield tanks have no buffer to activate hardeners. Meaning it's very important that I activate hardeners before taking incoming damage. To put this in perspective, at 2650 shields, taking a shot for 2000 damage unhardened leaves me with 650 shields hardened. Which basically means I'm dead. Where as if I had turned both my hardeners on before that shot, I can eat about 3 more of them. I say it isn't the strength of hardeners, but the long length of time in which they last, coupled with a short cooldown time. There just isn't enough vulnerability time for shield tanks (both tanks actually) for AV to seize upon. That is the inherent problem. Stacking penalties for using multiple hardeners, and an adjustment to times on hardeners are the way to go. Not the resistances themselves. In this way, you move more towards your original goal with tanks by allowing for "waves of opportunity" something totally absent with tanks. Not to mention, making hardeners weaker means encouraging the use of 3 hardeners at a time. But I think the most important issue isn't with shield tanks, but swarms. Or more specifically, the fact that swarms can't damage shield vehicles with a hardener or 2 up. Namely because a shield tank will actually rep through swarm damage. It seems INSANE to me that an AV weapon can't at the very least stop the shield regen. And not just swarms but any explosive weapon. Can you not see how much of a difference that would make??! I've been in so many matches where I was able to sit there and eat any version of swarm, with no damage to myself. And it didn't matter how many were hitting me! Come on guys, the most popular AV weapon, is useless against shield vehicles with a hardener. Couple that with the speed to get in and out, and a short cooldown period, and you have something that appears invincible to most infantry playing a match. Look, what this "waves of opportunity" would mean, is a shield tank can stay with an engagement, just like an armor tank, but they put themselves at a huge risk by doing so. They have a time where they can take a lot of damage, and they have a period where they make a choice to put themselves at risk, or play from a distance, waiting a good deal of the battle out. Everyone can agree, this is NOT true atm. With your proposed change, while it may give swarms a fighting chance, but you weaken shield tanks to forge guns, blasters, railguns ect while hardly touching their counterpart, the armor tank. The thing is, shield tanks will be very vunerable, even with hardeners up. While some AV my cry thank god, I think they are missing the point of why we are with these tanks in the first place. Let's stick with the plan please, waves of opportunity. Well, that's some of my thoughts on the matter, I would write more on the matter but I'm tired of writing now. Trust me, I didn't expect to type this much out fellas! I Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Lightning Bolt2 Binary Mercs Canis Eliminatus Operatives 415	Posted - 2014.03.28 16:50:00 - [3] - Quote +2, finnaly someone not wanting to nerf tanks into the ground. and I'm a scout. really CCP, I'm seeing cloaked scouts everywhere... they're not invis.
Goric Rumis Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 382	Posted - 2014.03.28 17:03:00 - [4] - Quote As someone who plays a (usually advanced) forge gunner from time to time, I agree completely. I think a lot of players on the forum do. There is a problem in that a more sophisticated solution has to be coded. So long as these are temporary measures and don't become permanent, I don't mind them. But in the long view, I would like to see hardeners restored to 40% and 60% with better limits as to how long and how often they can be used. Your point about repairers is also something to chew on. The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing
Mishra's Dragon Dark Side Alliance 24	Posted - 2014.03.28 17:09:00 - [5] - Quote I totally see your point there dude! I'm no tanker, but I can basically understand everything you've just put on the table as I am a Forge Gunner who is out to destroy those tanks. While the reduction of the capability of shield hardeners pleases me, making AV's easier to take down, it also makes me mad. Like you're saying, I've been hearing a lot of my tank buddies talking about throwing on triple hardeners and it's just catastrophe for me since I'm a heavy and can't run after the tanks when all their hardeners are gone and they run away to the other side of the map. Join the Dark Side Alliance, we have cookies and milk~ Mishy the Sentinal loves logi attentions <3
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Lokun Listamenn 289	Posted - 2014.03.28 17:24:00 - [6] - Quote Triple hardened tanks also have more flex in how often they are activated. Basically, lower tier equipment will become much less valid. Idea: it's getting to the point where vehicles on either side are almost a given. Very rarely does one side not pull vehicles. Would reducing the cost of all bring them into line with the changes. I ADS full time, and would not mind losing ships so easily if I didn't have to sell my legs to get a new one. As a python, I am especially worried about how that shield mechanics are going to work--i.e. smaller buffer window. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
Auris Lionesse Capital Acquisitions LLC Dirt Nap Squad. 590	Posted - 2014.03.28 18:26:00 - [7] - Quote can you slip a menu change into your proposal for r2 acceleration? like lavs Gallente Heavy Ninja Turtles! Gallente Heavy Ninja Turtles! Heroes in a half Gank! *TURTLE POWER!!!*
Dunce Masterson Savage Bullet 66	Posted - 2014.03.28 19:05:00 - [8] - Quote Quote: waves of opportunity. I also am a dedicated tanker on my other profile the real problem with hardeners isn't the amount of resistance its how many you can put on your tank if they where restricted to just 1 then the "waves of opportunity" would present themselves. I do agree that the shield tank is a little weak in this game infantry and vehicle alike from what I have observed is that they are better for hit and run has they are not the same has the shield tanks in EVE online it would be just like driving your armor repairing Maddy if they did. Armor reps are fine. they could: 1) have the skill that reduces the depleted recharge delay apply to both. 2) Take what was good from 1.6 and bring it back in a future update -skills that buffed vehicle operation. -more modules and module slots with the CPU/PG to support it. 3) Increasing the shield hit points to 3000. I don't even know why I bother.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 709	Posted - 2014.03.28 19:15:00 - [9] - Quote Goric Rumis wrote: As someone who plays a (usually advanced) forge gunner from time to time, I agree completely. I think a lot of players on the forum do. There is a problem in that a more sophisticated solution has to be coded. So long as these are temporary measures and don't become permanent, I don't mind them. But in the long view, I would like to see hardeners restored to 40% and 60% with better limits as to how long and how often they can be used. Your point about repairers is also something to chew on. As a forge gunner myself, using an ADV suit(cal) with stacked damage mods and a proto forge, usually the assault version. My typical tactic is putting a heavy rep on an LAV, and roaming around for tanks. Because, heavies are SLOWWW. But with a well built LAV, it can take some shots from a blaster, giving you enough time to use it as cover if you don't directly get the jump on a tank. Generally, I can at the very least drive a tank back, giving our boys on the ground those precious seconds they need to turn the course of the battle. Or I use a dropship (just using MLT ships here), roaming for tanks. In this way I can gain a superior position over said tank, and at the same time reduce my risk to infantry fire. Allowing me to apply max damage. So many tanks have died to my heavy, which is why I've disagreed with many AV'ers complaining tanks are too strong. Yes they are too strong, but they make them seem invincible. As a lone forge gunner, I GIVE ROOM FOR MY TEAM TO BREATH, if not outright killin the tank. In the short view, I understand that maybe they couldn't code in a stacking penalty, but a far better route would have been decreasing uptimes. With skills you can achieve 30 seconds of uptime and 45 seconds of downtime. Otherwise it's 24 and 60 respectively. Decreasing the uptime to 15 seconds would have been very reasonable. Many just look at shield tanks and go, nope they are invincible. You are right, to light forms of AV, with hardeners up they become very tough. But the problem was that they were easily able to cycle these cooldowns, with no significant opening for AV to sieze upon. And they are able to do it for a rather extended periods of time. So what if a tank gets away from you and hides, that means it is no longer bugging you, and if it comes back, a short duration on hardeners means it won't be able to stick around for long. Any form of AV will absolutely wreck a shield tank that isn't using hardeners. Now though, any form of AV (minus explosives maybe) will wreck shield tanks WITH HARDENERS UP. Defeating the very purpose of them in the first place. All this change does is shift the balance in favor of maddies. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 709	Posted - 2014.03.28 19:17:00 - [10] - Quote Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: Triple hardened tanks also have more flex in how often they are activated. Basically, lower tier equipment will become much less valid. Idea: it's getting to the point where vehicles on either side are almost a given. Very rarely does one side not pull vehicles. Would reducing the cost of all bring them into line with the changes. I ADS full time, and would not mind losing ships so easily if I didn't have to sell my legs to get a new one. As a python, I am especially worried about how that shield mechanic is going to work--i.e. smaller buffer window. I love how the non vehicle users comment on how cheap vehicles are. Umm, my tanks still cost half a million a pop, and don't even get me started on my ADS costs. Tanks - Balancing Turrets

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 709	Posted - 2014.03.28 19:23:00 - [11] - Quote Mishra's Dragon wrote: I totally see your point there dude! I'm no tanker, but I can basically understand everything you've just put on the table as I am a Forge Gunner who is out to destroy those tanks. While the reduction of the capability of shield hardeners pleases me, making AV's easier to take down, it also makes me mad. Like you're saying, I've been hearing a lot of my tank buddies talking about throwing on triple hardeners and it's just catastrophe for me since I'm a heavy and can't run after the tanks when all their hardeners are gone and they run away to the other side of the map. Triple hardeners will be the go to fit on gunnlogis now. Maddies being more rep focused (still!) But them running away is the point, you did your job as an AV user, and now you get WP for doing so. The problem being they can come back WAY too fast. But the most obvious problem with shield tanks was their resistance (invulnerability I should say) to explosives when using hardeners. Not the strength, often the strength was the ONLY thing saving a gunnlogi from destruction. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 709	Posted - 2014.03.28 19:26:00 - [12] - Quote Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote: Triple hardened tanks also have more flex in how often they are activated. Basically, lower tier equipment will become much less valid. Idea: it's getting to the point where vehicles on either side are almost a given. Very rarely does one side not pull vehicles. Would reducing the cost of all bring them into line with the changes. I ADS full time, and would not mind losing ships so easily if I didn't have to sell my legs to get a new one. As a python, I am especially worried about how that shield mechanic is going to work--i.e. smaller buffer window. Yeah, I'm afraid the python's are going to enjoy getting 2 shot out of the sky, WITH HARDENERS UP. It will be glorious and spectacular. So much money crashin and burnin. It's amazing to me that they decided that ALL vehicles need a nerf, when I never thought dropships were at all OP. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 709	Posted - 2014.03.28 19:34:00 - [13] - Quote Dunce Masterson wrote: Quote: waves of opportunity. I also am a dedicated tanker on my other profile the real problem with hardeners isn't the amount of resistance its how many you can put on your tank if they where restricted to just 1 then the "waves of opportunity" would present themselves. I do agree that the shield tank is a little weak in this game infantry and vehicle alike from what I have observed is that they are better for hit and run has they are not the same has the shield tanks in EVE online it would be just like driving your armor repairing Maddy if they did. Armor reps are fine. they could: 1) have the skill that reduces the depleted recharge delay apply to both. 2) Take what was good from 1.6 and bring it back in a future update -skills that buffed vehicle operation. -more modules and module slots with the CPU/PG to support it. 3) Increasing the shield hit points to 3000. I've heard a lot of people say limit to one, but I always disagree. Stacking penalties for hardeners is the way to go. Coupled with a few adjustments to to the duration and a small change to cooldown times. At this point, if they were to keep shield hardeners this weak, than yes, a buff to HP is completely needed. Basically we have the same resistance a maddie did, minus the constant reps. How does that make sense? And to your number 2, I miss pre 1.7. There was such a thing as tanker skill. Now it's all about who can 2 shot whom first. WOOOO, how fun is that huh. I miss drilling a maddie with a full clip from a rail and still not killing it. Not to mention the vast variety of mods available. Oh well, no sense living in the past, they've kinda ruined for me in the time being. Gonna be pullin out my forgegun now and soloin some tankers till they QQ on the forums for me about how a lone forge gun was able to kill them in just a few shots, with hardeners up! Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 709	Posted - 2014.03.28 19:35:00 - [14] - Quote Auris Lionesse wrote: can you slip a menu change into your proposal for r2 acceleration? like lavs I'm so used to using the left and right analog stick at this point that I use it on my LAV as well. I don't see why the option shouldn't be available though. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Goric Rumis Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 385	Posted - 2014.03.28 20:30:00 - [15] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: As a forge gunner myself, using an ADV suit(cal) with stacked damage mods and a proto forge, usually the assault version. My typical tactic is putting a heavy rep on an LAV, and roaming around for tanks. Because, heavies are SLOWWW. But with a well built LAV, it can take some shots from a blaster, giving you enough time to use it as cover if you don't directly get the jump on a tank. Generally, I can at the very least drive a tank back, giving our boys on the ground those precious seconds they need to turn the course of the battle. Or I use a dropship (just using MLT ships here), roaming for tanks. In this way I can gain a superior position over said tank, and at the same time reduce my risk to infantry fire. Allowing me to apply max damage. So many tanks have died to my heavy, which is why I've disagreed with many AV'ers complaining tanks are too strong. Yes they are too strong, but they make them seem invincible. As a lone forge gunner, I GIVE ROOM FOR MY TEAM TO BREATH, if not outright killin the tank. In the short view, I understand that maybe they couldn't code in a stacking penalty, but a far better route would have been decreasing uptimes. With skills you can achieve 30 seconds of uptime and 45 seconds of downtime. Otherwise it's 24 and 60 respectively. Decreasing the uptime to 15 seconds would have been very reasonable. Many just look at shield tanks and go, nope they are invincible. You are right, to light forms of AV, with hardeners up they become very tough. But the problem was that they were easily able to cycle these cooldowns, with no significant opening for AV to sieze upon. And they are able to do it for a rather extended periods of time. So what if a tank gets away from you and hides, that means it is no longer bugging you, and if it comes back, a short duration on hardeners means it won't be able to stick around for long. Any form of AV will absolutely wreck a shield tank that isn't using hardeners. Now though, any form of AV (minus explosives maybe) will wreck shield tanks WITH HARDENERS UP. Defeating the very purpose of them in the first place. All this change does is shift the balance in favor of maddies. Once again, very good points. This is a great substitute for my own thoughts about a permanent fix for hardeners, which is to place a punitive (40%) active time modifier on stacking hardeners. This way, instead of a hard limit to the number of hardeners you can fit, you can opt for fewer, longer waves of opportunity versus more, shorter waves (or a single short ultra-hardened wave). Which in turn allows you better specialization. Any chance you saw my post (buried in another thread) on balancing factors? The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 712	Posted - 2014.03.28 21:17:00 - [16] - Quote Goric Rumis wrote: Once again, very good points. This is a great substitute for my own thoughts about a permanent fix for hardeners, which is to place a punitive (40%) active time modifier on stacking hardeners. This way, instead of a hard limit to the number of hardeners you can fit, you can opt for fewer, longer waves of opportunity versus more, shorter waves (or a single short ultra-hardened wave). Which in turn allows you better specialization. Any chance you saw my post (buried in another thread) on balancing factors? I'm going to pull this little bit from your post, I know you are speaking of infantry AV here, but I want to use this little bit and apply it to tanks for a moment. Quote: targeted killing effectiveness (how efficient you are at killing a single target) group killing effectiveness (how efficient you are at killing a group of targets) suppression strength (how efficient you are at softening/dispersing targets, lowering their effectiveness) defensive strength (how hard it is to kill you--this can be a function of health, speed, suppression, etc.) evasive capability (how easily you can avoid fire and/or escape) ubiquity (your ability to get to places on the map quickly and efficiently) stealth (the ability to avoid conflict, or choose the circumstances of conflict) range (the radius of your optimal area of engagement) circumstantial effectiveness (strengths particular to your class, such as high ground, narrow corridors, cover, etc.) My idea of balance is that to gain in one area, you must lose in another. So let's say we want a tank that's good at suppression. For this to happen, it loses in it's targeted killing effectiveness. It's the trade off for having greater suppression. But this gets me thinking. We can break it down into these parts. Attack Defense A very simple way to look at it, but these 2 things encompass some of those factors you mentioned Attack Targeted killing effectiveness Group killing effectiveness Suppression strength Defense Stealth Evasive capability Resistance to damage (Defensive str) With range being a factor that can affect both attack and defense. So lets look at defense. If your evasive capability is high, then your resistance to damage or total HP will be lower than someone with a high defensive str. But said person with the high defensive str loses in evasive capability. A person with high evasive capability, is focused on not taking damage in the first place by outright avoiding it. A person with high defenses is focused on soaking up damage, so that they may dish out damage. Just to put it in a different way. Enough of that though, let me corralate this with AV balance now. If a tank wants high defenses against AV, they must lose out in attacking potential. Of if they want the attacking potential, they lose out on the defenses to achieve it. So my first tank with a high defense, could have something like suppression strength. Not outright killing but softening targets for others to kill. Say this is like shield tanks when they had the 60% resists. My second tank with the high attacking potential could walk in and wreck some infantry single handily, but put themselves at the mercy of AV in exchange for it. So this tank would have targeted killing potential, with low resistances to damage overall. This shouldn't apply to just tanks, but AV as well. Sure I'm cool with AV soloing a tank, but it needs to put itself at a disadvantage to achieve that. Not point click and dead in just a few shots(how it was pre 1.7). Anyways, kinda off topic here, figured I would comment a bit on your post though, and the thoughts that it spurned up in my brain. Good read fella. Tanks - Balancing Turrets


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