DUST Search - Vehicles vs AV is almost balanced

All Channels

General Discussions

Vehicles vs AV is almost balanced

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10275	Posted - 2014.04.04 17:58:00 - [1] - Quote Since the hardener nerf, fighting tanks no longer feel like an overwhelming challenge. I can personally damage a tank enough with advanced swarms to make it retreat in fear, and with one or 2 more other AV players on the field we can manage to completely destroy a tank. In my opinion, this is how it should be. Sometimes I can even solo a militia tank if the driver is dumb enough to stick around. Tanks are much more expensive than AV, so I think its fair that solo-ing a tank should not be a common occurrence. I also don't think it that the price tag justifies taking an overwhelming force of AV to stop one tank like some tankers would like; while AV is much cheaper, it also requires teamwork, means less people on your team fulfilling objectives, and (with the exception of the commando) also it requires you to sacrifice the use of an anti-infantry light weapon. Anyway, I think where we are now is pretty close to the ideal. There is still things that need to be fixed with vehicles: Repair-tanking leads to near invincibility. I found this thread on the features and ideas board that shows how crazy it is. It basically means infantry don't ever have a realistic chance at destroying certain tanks and dropships. In one of the comments in the thread I link, one pilot shares a story of how it took clever coordination between 4 assault dropship pilots (including himself) to take down just one enemy assault dropship because of how obscenely effective repair tanking is. Large blasters are still way too good at killing infantry. A giant plasma high ROF machinegun mounted on a tank to easily mow down infantry and rack up a ton of kills seems inherently overpowered, there is a thread on the subject here. I would prefer if large blaster turrets had 30% less ROF, but 30% more damage (hell I would fine with 35-40% more damage); the DPS would remain the same, but it wouldn't be so overly powerful against infantry. Do blasters really need as much range as they currently have? They can hit you further than swarm launchers can lock-on. While this does not affect AV, at least not directly, railgun tanks should not out-DPS blaster tanks at close range. Their should be a tradeoff between range and DPS. You wouldn't give a sniper rifle more damage per second than an assault rifle, likewise you shouldn't give a large railgun turret higher DPS than a comparatively close range large blaster turret. At close range the large blasters should generally win, and at longer ranges the large railgun should have the advantage. These are my thoughts on the issue, and balance seems fairly close. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Mobius Wyvern Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad. 4997	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:15:00 - [2] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Since the hardener nerf, fighting tanks no longer feel like an overwhelming challenge. I can personally damage a tank enough with advanced swarms to make it retreat in fear, and with one or 2 more other AV players on the field we can manage to completely destroy a tank. In my opinion, this is how it should be. Sometimes I can even solo a militia tank if the driver is dumb enough to stick around. Tanks are much more expensive than AV, so I think its fair that solo-ing a tank should not be a common occurrence. I also don't think it that the price tag justifies taking an overwhelming force of AV to stop one tank like some tankers would like; while AV is much cheaper, it also requires teamwork, means less people on your team fulfilling objectives, and (with the exception of the commando) also it requires you to sacrifice the use of an anti-infantry light weapon. Anyway, I think where we are now is pretty close to the ideal. There is still things that need to be fixed with vehicles: Repair-tanking leads to near invincibility. I found this thread on the features and ideas board that shows how crazy it is. It basically means infantry don't ever have a realistic chance at destroying certain tanks and dropships. In one of the comments in the thread I link, one pilot shares a story of how it took clever coordination between 4 assault dropship pilots (including himself) to take down just one enemy assault dropship because of how obscenely effective repair tanking is. Large blasters are still way too good at killing infantry. A giant plasma high ROF machinegun mounted on a tank to easily mow down infantry and rack up a ton of kills seems inherently overpowered, there is a thread on the subject here. I would prefer if large blaster turrets had 30% less ROF, but 30% more damage (hell I would fine with 35-40% more damage); the DPS would remain the same, but it wouldn't be so overly powerful against infantry. Do blasters really need as much range as they currently have? They can hit you further than swarm launchers can lock-on. While this does not affect AV, at least not directly, railgun tanks should not out-DPS blaster tanks at close range. Their should be a tradeoff between range and DPS. You wouldn't give a sniper rifle more damage per second than an assault rifle, likewise you shouldn't give a large railgun turret higher DPS than a comparatively close range large blaster turret. At close range the large blasters should generally win, and at longer ranges the large railgun should have the advantage. These are my thoughts on the issue, and balance seems fairly close. Complete agreement on all three of these. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Tectonic Fusion 1393	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:16:00 - [3] - Quote Tell that to my forge gun. It can't even do damage. Solo Player Squad status: Locked
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3246	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:22:00 - [4] - Quote Missile/Rail tanks do wonders against nonhardened tanks Its a large blaster of course its going to kill infantry it is what it is there for, it actually works now because pre 1.7 all i got was shield flare alot of the time it was better for killing other tanks with it Your also going the wrong way about it all, at this rate vehicles will barely have any fits to use without it being classed as OP
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Lokun Listamenn 1130	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:22:00 - [5] - Quote As I poi ted out in the thread OP linked, the math used was horridly flawed. AFG has nearly 900 DPs, and reps can do just shy of 475 HP/s. A single forge gunner can kill a repper tank. Two makes it even easier. Best PVE idea I've seen. Fixed link.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10276	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:23:00 - [6] - Quote Tectonic Fusion wrote: Tell that to my forge gun. It can't even do damage. Forge gun isn't working a lot because of a bug. That's a technical issue, not a balance issue. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
Vulpes Dolosus SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 1300	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:23:00 - [7] - Quote The thing about the repair stacking is that it's only designed to be uber defensive to infantry (and blasters, but I don't count those as AV). However, they are incredibly weak to rails and missiles. I think it's fair if they put all their eggs in one basket to defend against one type of threat and it leaves them defenseless against another, though I wouldn't be opposed to a slight nerf, either to base rate or the skill bonus. Me in my ADS: 1,2
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10278	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:37:00 - [8] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Missile/Rail tanks do wonders against nonhardened tanks Its a large blaster of course its going to kill infantry it is what it is there for, it actually works now because pre 1.7 all i got was shield flare alot of the time it was better for killing other tanks with it Your also going the wrong way about it all, at this rate vehicles will barely have any fits to use without it being classed as OP The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry is insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, at this level of effectiveness its far too much. Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon. As for the comment about barely having fits to use, that is not the case at all. I think repair-tanking should be an acceptable tactic, but right now its far too effective. There should never be a dominant unkillable strategy that is practically immune to AV; it reduces the value of different fits, and reduces variety in gameplay. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
The-Errorist 621	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:42:00 - [9] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: As I poi ted out in the thread OP linked, the math used was horridly flawed. AFG has nearly 900 DPs, and reps can do just shy of 475 HP/s. A single forge gunner can kill a repper tank. Two makes it even easier. Obviously you didn't read the linked thread well enough, the DPS shown there took into account charge time and reload speed.
Goric Rumis Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn 394	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:45:00 - [10] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry at such levels of effectiveness is inherently insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, at this level of effectiveness its far too much. Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon. I might disagree with you if infantry weren't so completely exposed to vehicles. They would have to overhaul all the maps for the large blaster turret to be acceptable. It has to have limitations that it just doesn't have at present. The Tank Balancing Factor No One Is Discussing

KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10281	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:47:00 - [11] - Quote Goric Rumis wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: The fact that there are large turrets specifically designed to specifically eradicate infantry at such levels of effectiveness is inherently insane. It basically stealing the role of infantry with 3,000+ HP, super speed, and an extreme amount of more fire power. It is just bad game design. While I'm ok with blasters killing infantry, at this level of effectiveness its far too much. Dial down the anti-infantry capability a bit, and dial up the anti-vehicle/installation power a bit as well. Its damage profile as a blaster would definitely secure it a role as an anti-shield vehicle weapon. I might disagree with you if infantry weren't so completely exposed to vehicles. They would have to overhaul all the maps for the large blaster turret to be acceptable. It has to have limitations that it just doesn't have at present. Yeah, I think I would be fine with blasters being so good against infantry if there was more cover for infantry. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt Gû¦Gû+
calisk galern BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 2306	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:49:00 - [12] - Quote why would Av be balanced? all they did was nerf the ** out of infantry AV and reduced the range on rail guns... suddenly balanced? i'm not ignoring the hardener nerfes, but infantry av can't kill my non-modded soma, so ya that doesn't mean ** to infantry.
137H4RGIC SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 142	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:54:00 - [13] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: The thing about the repair stacking is that it's only designed to be uber defensive to infantry (and blasters, but I don't count those as AV). However, they are incredibly weak to rails and missiles. I think it's fair if they put all their eggs in one basket to defend against one type of threat and it leaves them defenseless against another, though I wouldn't be opposed to a slight nerf, either to base rate or the skill bonus. Madrugar Fit - two Complex Heavy Armor Reps, one Basic Hardener. Armor still reps against all infantry, and can survive two blaster tanks for long engagements, and survive any onslaught of rails, with enough time to get away. Madrugar can take against both types with relative ease.
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Dominion of the Supreme Emperor God-King KAGEHOSHI 10282	Posted - 2014.04.04 18:56:00 - [14] - Quote calisk galern wrote: why would Av be balanced? all they did was nerf the ** out of infantry AV and reduced the range on rail guns... suddenly balanced? i'm not ignoring the hardener nerfes, but infantry av can't kill my non-modded soma, so ya that doesn't mean to infantry. I can assure you that infantry AV can definitely kill an un-modded soma. Gû¦Gû+Supreme emperor god-kingpÇÉKAGEH¦PSHIpÇæ// Lord of threads // Forum alt** Gû¦Gû+
Velvet Overkill SVER True Blood General Tso's Alliance 126	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:01:00 - [15] - Quote calisk galern wrote: why would Av be balanced? all they did was nerf the ** out of infantry AV and reduced the range on rail guns... suddenly balanced? i'm not ignoring the hardener nerfes, but infantry av can't kill my non-modded soma, so ya that doesn't mean ** to infantry. Wanna make that a bet?
Rusty Shallows 1404	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:01:00 - [16] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: Tell that to my forge gun. It can't even do damage. Forge gun isn't working a lot because of a bug. That's a technical issue, not a balance issue. It is impossible to say if the current situation is balanced or to even evaluate it while their is a bug in place. It will bias the data in such a way that when it is fixed our current observations become obsolete. After 1.7 I only spawned in with Forge Guns when it was absolutely necessary. Ever since hearing about the bug I have not used my Main in battle since 1.8 dropped. Thank God I have two ALTs. Forums > Game: So here is a cookie and a Like. Please keep posting. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! >>> GòÜ(GÇóGîéGÇó)Gò¥ >>>
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1497	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:15:00 - [17] - Quote I really like where the AV vs tanks balance is. Now tank v tank just needs balancing. The railgun needs some nerfing to damage and RoF with an increase to heat cost. I disagree with your points on the blaster turret. It will still be the most effective large turret at AI, so it's AV abilities should be the weakest. Currently it's AV capabilities are too powerful due to the hardener nerf, so I think an overall damage nerf on the large blaster is in order. Then it won't deal so much damage at infantry while still being the best turret at AI while sacrificing AV abilities. Large blasters should not be both effective at AI and AV as they were in 1.6. They had a good balance between the two before the hardener nerf. I'm still of the opinion though that swarms shouldn't be able to interrupt my hardened shield regen. But perhaps once we get shield based AV; I just think it doesn't make sense that an anti-armor specialized weapon can deter a shield tanked vehicle. It's like asking for bug spray to also deter sharks when you're in the ocean. I agree with the points made above on repping tanks. They make themselves powerful against infantry at the cost of making themselves weak to high alpha damage, such as a rail or missile tank. As long as that trade-off exists, reps are fine. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
The-Errorist 621	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:15:00 - [18] - Quote Rusty Shallows wrote: KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Tectonic Fusion wrote: Tell that to my forge gun. It can't even do damage. Forge gun isn't working a lot because of a bug. That's a technical issue, not a balance issue. It is impossible to say if the current situation is balanced or to even evaluate it while their is a bug in place. It will bias the data in such a way that when it is fixed our current observations become obsolete. After 1.7 I only spawned in with Forge Guns when it was absolutely necessary. Ever since hearing about the bug I have not used my Main in battle since 1.8 dropped. Thank God I have two ALTs. Because the bug consistently goes away and you can see when it does, one can evaluate the forge-gun, it's just that you can only evaluate it when the dropsuit and weapons skills kick in when one's armor and shields fill all the way.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4887	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:20:00 - [19] - Quote Repair Tanking: I've agreed with this point since BEFORE THE HARDENER NERF. It was a problem then, and now that it's been indirectly sort-of-buffed by hardeners become less attractive, it's more of a problem than it was before. Blasters: The problem with Blasters is the same problem we had before 1.8 came out. There's no clarity on their role. There are two ways CCP could fix Blasters to make them a worthwhile option without being unfair. There are two explanations provided by people trying to argue that Blasters aren't OP, and CCP need to choose one and back that proposed role up with legitimate changes to the functionality of the weapon. 1. Blasters are an anti-infantry turret: Fine, then give them the same kind of damage reduction that all other anti-infantry weapons get when shooting vehicles. Since they're large-scale weapons, it doesn't have to be as harsh as the small arms penalty given to ARs and the like, but something like 70 or 80% efficiency would help them fill the role and make them less viable for vehicle combat. If this happens, Blaster tanks will require support in combined-arms combat, either from a tank with another turret type, or from AV infantry. 2. Blasters are CQC turrets. In that case, make their range ACTUALLY SHORT. They're not all that much shorter range than Railguns right now. Keep them powerful against infantry and vehicles, but make it so they have to get REALLY CLOSE to hurt anything. Railguns: Last, but definitely not least. Yes. SOMETHING needs to change. Railguns are meant to have high alpha/burst damage and long range. Reducing the rate of fire would make them less viable as a burst damage weapon, but at the same time, nerfing damage significantly would feel wrong for a railgun. SLIGHT damage nerf and SLIGHT RoF nerf combined should do it - but knowing CCP, they need us to emphasise the "err on the side of OP" nerfbat recommendation. In addition to these proposed changes, I still think the missile reloading system needs to work more like shotgun reloading. When you reload a missile turret at the moment, you have to wait the full reload time (longest in the game) even if you're only reloading a single missile. With how long the reload delay is, missiles have serious issues in combat which at times aren't warranted. You don't necessarily need the Shotgun's ability to interrupt a reload and fire whatever's been loaded (although that might be nice), but at the very least, the reload time should be shorter when reloading after 2 - 3 missiles than when reloading a full volley's worth at a time.
Dauth Jenkins Ultramarine Corp 410	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:25:00 - [20] - Quote calisk galern wrote: why would Av be balanced? all they did was nerf the ** out of infantry AV and reduced the range on rail guns... suddenly balanced? i'm not ignoring the hardener nerfes, but infantry av can't kill my non-modded soma, so ya that doesn't mean ** to infantry. Come at my availability suit, and We'll see how well your soma does. The problem is, most people gave up even trying to destroy tanks in 1.7, so they don't even attempt to in 1.8 -Sincerely --The Dual Swarm Commando

Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 4888	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:32:00 - [21] - Quote Dauth Jenkins wrote: availability suit Autocorrect is OP. Please nerf.
Alpha 443-6732 General Tso's Alliance 393	Posted - 2014.04.04 19:46:00 - [22] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Since the hardener nerf, fighting tanks no longer feel like an overwhelming challenge. I can personally damage a tank enough with advanced swarms to make it retreat in fear, and with one or 2 more other AV players on the field we can manage to completely destroy a tank. In my opinion, this is how it should be. Sometimes I can even solo a militia tank if the driver is dumb enough to stick around. Tanks are much more expensive than AV, so I think its fair that solo-ing a tank should not be a common occurrence. I also don't think it that the price tag justifies taking an overwhelming force of AV to stop one tank like some tankers would like; while AV is much cheaper, it also requires teamwork, means less people on your team fulfilling objectives, and (with the exception of the commando) also it requires you to sacrifice the use of an anti-infantry light weapon. Anyway, I think where we are now is pretty close to the ideal. There is still things that need to be fixed with vehicles: Repair-tanking leads to near invincibility. I found this thread on the features and ideas board that shows how crazy it is. It basically means infantry don't ever have a realistic chance at destroying certain tanks and dropships. In one of the comments in the thread I link, one pilot shares a story of how it took clever coordination between 4 assault dropship pilots (including himself) to take down just one enemy assault dropship because of how obscenely effective repair tanking is. Large blasters are still way too good at killing infantry. A giant plasma high ROF machinegun mounted on a tank to easily mow down infantry and rack up a ton of kills seems inherently overpowered, there is a thread on the subject here. I would prefer if large blaster turrets had 30% less ROF, but 30% more damage (hell I would fine with 35-40% more damage); the DPS would remain the same, but it wouldn't be so overly powerful against infantry. Do blasters really need as much range as they currently have? They can hit you further than swarm launchers can lock-on. While this does not affect AV, at least not directly, railgun tanks should not out-DPS blaster tanks at close range. Their should be a tradeoff between range and DPS. You wouldn't give a sniper rifle more damage per second than an assault rifle, likewise you shouldn't give a large railgun turret higher DPS than a comparatively close range large blaster turret. At close range the large blasters should generally win, and at longer ranges the large railgun should have the advantage. These are my thoughts on the issue, and balance seems fairly close. TL;DR, nerf the ******* railgun also I can confirm that I can solo tanks with an advanced AFG, no proficiency or damage mods. I too feel that the hardener nerf almost balanced it all, but in my opinion the only problem left to solve (disregarding bugs) is the railgun DPS issue. This can be solved by making the railgun act like a bolt pistol; make it charge every shot. Also, dramatically increase the heat cost per shot (so that it actually plays a significant role in how the gun operates. 6 shots before overheating? Please...).
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Lokun Listamenn 1136	Posted - 2014.04.04 20:12:00 - [23] - Quote The-Errorist wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: As I poi ted out in the thread OP linked, the math used was horridly flawed. AFG has nearly 900 DPs, and reps can do just shy of 475 HP/s. A single forge gunner can kill a repper tank. Two makes it even easier. Obviously you didn't read the linked thread well enough, the DPS shown there took into account charge time and reload speed. EDIT: also the max possible repair rate a Madrugar can get when it has an advanced neutron blaster, is 512.5 HP/s when it has 2 complex and 1 advanced heavy repairer modules on with maximum fitting skills and vehicle armor repair systems to lv5. In order to lower the sustained dps to 388, the reload speed would have to exceed 10-12 seconds. Obviously you didn't read my post in that thread. And with max fitting skills, you run out of CPU before being able to fit 2 complex reps and an advanced rep with an advanced turret. Best PVE idea I've seen. Fixed link.
medomai grey WarRavens League of Infamy 511	Posted - 2014.04.04 20:22:00 - [24] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Since the hardener nerf, fighting tanks no longer feel like an overwhelming challenge. I can personally damage a tank enough with advanced swarms to make it retreat in fear, and with one or 2 more other AV players on the field we can manage to completely destroy a tank. In my opinion, this is how it should be. Sometimes I can even solo a militia tank if the driver is dumb enough to stick around. Tanks are much more expensive than AV, so I think its fair that solo-ing a tank should not be a common occurrence. I also don't think it that the price tag justifies taking an overwhelming force of AV to stop one tank like some tankers would like; while AV is much cheaper, it also requires teamwork, means less people on your team fulfilling objectives, and (with the exception of the commando) also it requires you to sacrifice the use of an anti-infantry light weapon. Anyway, I think where we are now is pretty close to the ideal. There is still things that need to be fixed with vehicles: Repair-tanking leads to near invincibility. I found this thread on the features and ideas board that shows how crazy it is. It basically means infantry don't ever have a realistic chance at destroying certain tanks and dropships. In one of the comments in the thread I link, one pilot shares a story of how it took clever coordination between 4 assault dropship pilots (including himself) to take down just one enemy assault dropship because of how obscenely effective repair tanking is. Large blasters are still way too good at killing infantry. A giant plasma high ROF machinegun mounted on a tank to easily mow down infantry and rack up a ton of kills seems inherently overpowered, there is a thread on the subject here. I would prefer if large blaster turrets had 30% less ROF, but 30% more damage (hell I would fine with 35-40% more damage); the DPS would remain the same, but it wouldn't be so overly powerful against infantry. Do blasters really need as much range as they currently have? They can hit you further than swarm launchers can lock-on. While this does not affect AV, at least not directly, railgun tanks should not out-DPS blaster tanks at close range. Their should be a tradeoff between range and DPS. You wouldn't give a sniper rifle more damage per second than an assault rifle, likewise you shouldn't give a large railgun turret higher DPS than a comparatively close range large blaster turret. At close range the large blasters should generally win, and at longer ranges the large railgun should have the advantage. These are my thoughts on the issue, and balance seems fairly close. Agree for the most part. As for large turrets, blasters are supposed to be good at killing infantry and rails good for vehicles. If a large blaster turret has a greater DPS than large rail turrets, we will see the return of large blaster turrets dominating everything. I've been told that people prefer fake smiles over the honest expressions of their fellow men. : )
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Lokun Listamenn 1137	Posted - 2014.04.04 20:25:00 - [25] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Agree for the most part. As for large turrets, blasters are supposed to be good at killing infantry and rails good for vehicles. If a large blaster turret has a greater DPS than large rail turrets, we will see the return of large blaster turrets dominating everything. Large Blasters should be AV weapons instead of AP. The AP turrets should be small turrets. Best PVE idea I've seen. Fixed link.
medomai grey WarRavens League of Infamy 511	Posted - 2014.04.04 20:33:00 - [26] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: medomai grey wrote: Agree for the most part. As for large turrets, blasters are supposed to be good at killing infantry and rails good for vehicles. If a large blaster turret has a greater DPS than large rail turrets, we will see the return of large blaster turrets dominating everything. Large Blasters should be AV weapons instead of AP. The AP turrets should be small turrets. In order to pull that off, some very big changes have to be made to the large blaster turret. The best way I can think of to achieve this is a decrease in rate of fire, increase damage, drastic increase in spread, and having bullets randomly curve out like the forge guns of old. Essentially up the DPS but lower the accuracy to were its frustratingly annoying to kill smaller targets like infantry. I've been told that people prefer fake smiles over the honest expressions of their fellow men. : )
Alena Ventrallis PAND3M0N1UM Lokun Listamenn 1137	Posted - 2014.04.04 20:35:00 - [27] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: medomai grey wrote: Agree for the most part. As for large turrets, blasters are supposed to be good at killing infantry and rails good for vehicles. If a large blaster turret has a greater DPS than large rail turrets, we will see the return of large blaster turrets dominating everything. Large Blasters should be AV weapons instead of AP. The AP turrets should be small turrets. In order to pull that off, some very big changes have to be made to the large blaster turret. The best way I can think of to achieve this is a decrease in rate of fire, increase damage, drastic increase in spread, and having bullets randomly curve out like the forge guns of old. Essentially up the DPS but lower the accuracy to were its frustratingly annoying to kill smaller targets like infantry. The only reason this would be a ba idea is that beyond blaster tanks, there really isn't anything for AV tanks to engage. We need more vehicle diversity before implementing this. Best PVE idea I've seen. Fixed link.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 6388	Posted - 2014.04.04 21:10:00 - [28] - Quote KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote: Tanks are much more expensive than AV, [..] This is not the case. While paying for a vehicle upfront is more expensive, an Anti-Vehicle user is subject to death far more often than the average tanker, meaning that the true cost of AV is their fitting multiplied by their deaths as AV. Take a look at these fittings. Here, we have a fully decked, top-of-the-line AV fitting. It's got all of the tools an AVer needs to get the job done, and it's 3rd best AV fitting in the game. The Cost: 227,490 ISK. Now let's look at this fitting. Here, we have a Gunnlogi built for Anti-Vehicle purposes. It's also a top-of-the-line fitting, and one of the best Railgun fittings in the game. (I think) The Cost: 448,020 ISK. Based on my experience, an AVer using this suit can expect to die about 3-4 times on average. So now what seems like half the price of the HAV (227,490 ISK), is actually a cost ranging 682,470 ISK - 909,960 ISK. That isn't "much more expensive" by any definition. So with that in mind, shouldn't it be the Pilot who barely lives solo? The Snack That Smiles Back! "Swarmers" [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Takron Nistrom Tinfoil Hatz 303	Posted - 2014.04.04 21:35:00 - [29] - Quote I do not agree with more than one person needing to kill a tank currently. When one pilot can tie up 3+ mercs, thats wrong. Until it takes at least 2 mercs to pilot a tank. One guy should be able to pop ur crutchmobiles all day. GÇ£Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)GÇ¥ GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 750	Posted - 2014.04.04 21:54:00 - [30] - Quote sometimes im thinking i die more when in a tank than i do out of one.. though while using my rep blaster maddy the main ppl i tend to kill with any type of av are standing really still not bothering to move at all. kinda makes an easy target for you. (oh look a tank i think ill just stand in front of his big turret and fire swarms at him and not bother to move while he returns fire.) that seems to be the mentality i come across the most. if they were to only move an inch they would live. mlt vets are eternal. they shall be the bane to proto scrubs everywhere...



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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