DUST Search - People aren't seeing the whole picture here... (AV vs. Vehicles)...

All Channels

General Discussions

People aren't seeing the whole picture here... (AV vs. Vehicles)...

» 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)
hackerzilla Defenders of the Helghast Dream Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 633	Posted - 2014.04.15 16:47:00 - [1] - Quote I see all these threads about how "tanks are OP" and "AV is UP" so "let's buff the ** out of AV". Wut.... It's incredibly easy to take out a dropship with AV (except brokenness of FG and passive skill not working), and same with a LAV. The real problem here are tanks. NOT LAVs. NOT Dropships. Tanks. So It makes no sense why you would buff AV, when that would disturb the (pretty good) balance of AV vs. LAVs, and AV vs. Dropships, although I'm not saying that there should be a nerf to tanks, I think there should be a more thoughtful and creative fix, to this obvious problem. I could add more but I'm not up for a rant right now ... Long live the Helghast. The best defense in not a good offense, it's a good defense**
hackerzilla Defenders of the Helghast Dream Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 634	Posted - 2014.04.15 16:59:00 - [2] - Quote Righteous bump! Long live the Helghast. I used to be invisible... The best defense in not a good offense, it's a good *defense
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2533	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:00:00 - [3] - Quote He is right people, nerf tanks, nerf them all to hell. In all seriousness AV vs Tanks is pretty good right now, the REAL problem is vehicle vs infantry. Blasters need 1) A serious range nerf, 150m most people can't see what's killing them at that range. 2) A serious accuracy nerf, it should not be possible to headshot someone at 80m with a large turret, period 3) A serious heat build up nerf, if you insist on having a 150 rounds a mag you should be overheating at 35 rounds of continuous fire. Blasters need to work more like a HMG , this will make them better on moving vehicles. Light Missile Turrets needs a serious splash damage nerf, nothing wrong with the radius but the damage is too rewarding. Light Railgun turrets need more damage against vehicles and less overheat. This will balance tanks ability to slaughter infantry a little more and mean that 6 blaster tanks on the field isn't the be all and end all of pubs, as is so often the case. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
hackerzilla Defenders of the Helghast Dream Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 634	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:07:00 - [4] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: He is right people, nerf tanks, nerf them all to hell. In all seriousness AV vs Tanks is pretty good right now, the REAL problem is vehicle vs infantry. Blasters need 1) A serious range nerf, 150m most people can't see what's killing them at that range. 2) A serious accuracy nerf, it should not be possible to headshot someone at 80m with a large turret, period 3) A serious heat build up nerf, if you insist on having a 150 rounds a mag you should be overheating at 35 rounds of continuous fire. Blasters need to work more like a HMG , this will make them better on moving vehicles. Light Missile Turrets needs a serious splash damage nerf, nothing wrong with the radius but the damage is too rewarding. Light Railgun turrets need more damage against vehicles and less overheat. This will balance tanks ability to slaughter infantry a little more and mean that 6 blaster tanks on the field isn't the be all and end all of pubs, as is so often the case. I agree with most things here. Also the vehicle weapons should have different damage values for vehicle and infantry, just like repair tools, and different variants would give different combinations of values, again, just like the repair tools, because just like the repair tools, vehicle's weapons work against both infantry AND vehicles... Long live the Helghast. I used to be invisible... The best defense in not a good offense, it's a good *defense
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3364	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:08:00 - [5] - Quote Just rebuild Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors Part 2: Armor & Shield Part 3: Modules & Skills Part 4: Vehicles Part 5: Overview All this sorts out alot of problems, adds more weapons/mods/skills/variety and playstyles for both vehicles and infantry
Protocake JR Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 1454	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:17:00 - [6] - Quote hackerzilla wrote: I see all these threads about how "tanks are OP" and "AV is UP" so "let's buff the **** out of AV". Wut.... It's incredibly easy to take out a dropship with AV (except brokenness of FG and passive skill not working), and same with a LAV. The real problem here are tanks. NOT LAVs. NOT Dropships. Tanks. So It makes no sense why you would buff AV, when that would disturb the (pretty good) balance of AV vs. LAVs, and AV vs. Dropships, although I'm not saying that there should be a nerf to tanks, I think there should be a more thoughtful and creative fix, to this obvious problem. I could add more but I'm not up for a rant right now ... I think you are right about needed a more creative fix. The ideas that most people come up with are just readjustments to numbers and stats we already have. What we need to realize is that V vs AV (this entire game, really) is broken at it's core. This game needs a complete redesign. It feels like a lot of decisions were made because of "EVE has this so Dust should have this". Not only gameplay design needs overhauling. Development of content needs to improve as well. CCP released Cloaks, which feel like only a taste of a bigger "abilities" mechanic. EACH suit needs their own "ability" Light frames have cloaks, then medium and heavy need an equivalent ability as well. I really hate how CCP introduced cloaks. Making them equipment? Seriously? I'd rather they make new slot module for Active Modules that can be activated by pressing the circle button. The PC and SL should fit into the Sidearm slot so it's accessible and practical to carry one. AV spam vs V spam
hackerzilla Defenders of the Helghast Dream Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 635	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:17:00 - [7] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Just rebuild Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors Part 2: Armor & Shield Part 3: Modules & Skills Part 4: Vehicles Part 5: Overview All this sorts out alot of problems, adds more weapons/mods/skills/variety and playstyles for both vehicles and infantry Makes sense that CCP would bring of the elements of a game they have worked for a decade on, into this one. I mean seriously a freaking decade is a long time to achieve a good game balance... Long live the Helghast. I used to be invisible... The best defense in not a good offense, it's a good *defense
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2533	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:25:00 - [8] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Just rebuild Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors Part 2: Armor & Shield Part 3: Modules & Skills Part 4: Vehicles Part 5: Overview All this sorts out alot of problems, adds more weapons/mods/skills/variety and playstyles for both vehicles and infantry Do you really think the majority of players are gonna go with an overcomplicated capacitor system that really only facilitates use of keyboard, I'd like to see you try and micromanage all of your modules using just a selection wheel. Mid-Combat Also their is no need to rebuild, AV vs HAV is pretty well balanced right about now, all we to do is reduce your effectiveness against infantry slightly such that people can in certain circumstances push past HAV's without getting blown to pieces from hyper-accurate 3 round bursts of large blaster. Not to say the large blaster shouldn't be infantry capable, but when you can sit on a rooftop in a tank of the fractured road domination and headshot people consistently on the pipes above the objective, it makes you think. 1) Why the hell does this map actually encourage rooftop camping? 2) How the . . . +60 WP hell is . . . +60 WP this blaster so damn . . . +60 WP accurate? Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
KILLER EI ITE16 Inner.Hell 10	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:28:00 - [9] - Quote We'll their wouldn't be so much tank spam if the dam things cost a little more. You are almost Guarenteed to make isk in a tank. The Asssult Dropship costs 300k(nothing equipped) & requires you to put skills into it The Militia tank costs me 70k (fully fit) requires ZERO skills & gets me more kills and war points.
hackerzilla Defenders of the Helghast Dream Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 636	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:39:00 - [10] - Quote KILLER EI ITE16 wrote: We'll their wouldn't be so much tank spam if the dam things cost a little more. You are almost Guarenteed to make isk in a tank. The Asssult Dropship costs 300k(nothing equipped) & requires you to put skills into it The Militia tank costs me 70k (fully fit) requires ZERO skills & gets me more kills and war points. Makes a lot of sense how a tank that has 3X+ the tank of an assault dropship and 3X+the damage output, cost 1/3- the cost of an assault dropship. Maybe because the fact that it flies makes it cost so much, but honestly let's just think about game balance here... Long live the Helghast. I used to be invisible... The best defense in not a good offense, it's a good *defense

Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3369	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:47:00 - [11] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Just rebuild Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors Part 2: Armor & Shield Part 3: Modules & Skills Part 4: Vehicles Part 5: Overview All this sorts out alot of problems, adds more weapons/mods/skills/variety and playstyles for both vehicles and infantry Do you really think the majority of players are gonna go with an overcomplicated capacitor system that really only facilitates use of keyboard, I'd like to see you try and micromanage all of your modules using just a selection wheel. Mid-Combat Also their is no need to rebuild, AV vs HAV is pretty well balanced right about now, all we to do is reduce your effectiveness against infantry slightly such that people can in certain circumstances push past HAV's without getting blown to pieces from hyper-accurate 3 round bursts of large blaster. Not to say the large blaster shouldn't be infantry capable, but when you can sit on a rooftop in a tank of the fractured road domination and headshot people consistently on the pipes above the objective, it makes you think. 1) Why the hell does this map actually encourage rooftop camping? 2) How the . . . +60 WP hell is . . . +60 WP this blaster so damn . . . +60 WP accurate? Cap can easily be done on a controller, all you have to do is watch and make sure the cap doesnt hit 0 or the pretty pony doesnt disappear - Its not ***** hard unless your blind ffs and i already have to deal with the wheel of fortune already which is *** annoying so it can easily be done Is it **, vehicles have less skills, less slots, less mods, less vehicles, less variety, less playstyles, less of everything while infantry has more Since vehicles came into DUST right now we are alot worse off in every department, no choice, no variety The addition of EVE aka New Eden into DUST which is supposed to be in New Eden gives it ties to the game and a system which has already been well thought out for the best part of 10years and adds more variety for everyone involved Its a win win
Principus Shmoof Triariian Sardianii-Triarii Planetary Services Armed-n-Hammered 109	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:53:00 - [12] - Quote How about we add the rest of the AV weapons, being the Amarr weapons that are good against shields and the Minmatar weapons that are good against armor. Gallente are basically Caldari only closer range (Blaster vs Rail, only difference is tracking and RoF). Also the rest of the HAVs would be nice, as now all tanks have counters to each other. Less nerf/buff, more new content please
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2938	Posted - 2014.04.15 17:58:00 - [13] - Quote hackerzilla wrote: I see all these threads about how "tanks are OP" and "AV is UP" so "let's buff the **** out of AV". Wut.... It's incredibly easy to take out a dropship with AV (except brokenness of FG and passive skill not working), and same with a LAV. The real problem here are tanks. NOT LAVs. NOT Dropships. Tanks. So It makes no sense why you would buff AV, when that would disturb the (pretty good) balance of AV vs. LAVs, and AV vs. Dropships, although I'm not saying that there should be a nerf to tanks, I think there should be a more thoughtful and creative fix, to this obvious problem. I could add more but I'm not up for a rant right now ... Swarm Launchers need a small damage buff. About 12%. (Keep in mind that triple damage mod AV fits were nerfed by 12% in 1.8, and Swarms were weak in 1.7 to start with.) The other AV are fine. Dropships can easily get out of range of Swarm Launchers unless 3 of them focus fire at the same time. A fast Moving LAV is hard to lock, particularly when they pass behind stuff and the lock is lost. Even in 1.6, if you put extenders or plates on your LAV and drove properly, you could usually avoid getting taken out by AV. The range nerf took away the Swarm LauncherGÇÖs supremacy over Drop Ships. I do think the AV vs Vehicle balance is better now than it has been in a long time, but it is still tipped slightly in the favour of Vehicles. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 6752	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:07:00 - [14] - Quote Incredibly easy? No. However, I think the difficulty is just about right. Monkey MAC already said most of what I was going to post, but the only issues that need to be addressed is the Triple 'Rep' Madrugar, and the 55% efficiency that's still on the armored Dropships (Gorgon, Grimsnes, and Incubus). As for those who believe the Triple 'Rep' Madrugar is unbalanced, Judge would like a word with you. #LivingLikeLarry [s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Denn Maell PIanet Express Canis Eliminatus Operatives 278	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:07:00 - [15] - Quote In order to be a (passable) AV infantryman, one must have a weapon occupy a Light weapon slot that has been gimped in some ways to be completely ineffectual against other infantry. To defend yourselves or others requires you to rely on sidearms (which are mostly highly situational weapons). Doable? Certainly. But discouraging. That, I think is the root of the AV/V issues right there. For weapons that don't perform well unless massed, much has to be sacrificed in terms of self defense. The most OP weapon on the Dust Battle Field: One good logi, one rep tool, and a heavy.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1588	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:07:00 - [16] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: He is right people, nerf tanks, nerf them all to hell. In all seriousness AV vs Tanks is pretty good right now, the REAL problem is vehicle vs infantry. Blasters need 1) A serious range nerf, 150m most people can't see what's killing them at that range. 2) A serious accuracy nerf, it should not be possible to headshot someone at 80m with a large turret, period 3) A serious heat build up nerf, if you insist on having a 150 rounds a mag you should be overheating at 35 rounds of continuous fire. Blasters need to work more like a HMG , this will make them better on moving vehicles. Light Missile Turrets needs a serious splash damage nerf, nothing wrong with the radius but the damage is too rewarding. Light Railgun turrets need more damage against vehicles and less overheat. This will balance tanks ability to slaughter infantry a little more and mean that 6 blaster tanks on the field isn't the be all and end all of pubs, as is so often the case. Just nerf large blaster damage by about 33% and it's where it's supposed to be: best at AI but also worst at AV. Right now it's best at AI with little loss to AV potential. WTF? There's absolutely no trade-off, which is causing all of these QQ threads. If blaster tanks are almost guaranteed to go down to a missile/railgun tank, then I don't see any problem with them being AI focused. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2939	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:09:00 - [17] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: He is right people, nerf tanks, nerf them all to hell. In all seriousness AV vs Tanks is pretty good right now, the REAL problem is vehicle vs infantry. Blasters need 1) A serious range nerf, 150m most people can't see what's killing them at that range. 2) A serious accuracy nerf, it should not be possible to headshot someone at 80m with a large turret, period 3) A serious heat build up nerf, if you insist on having a 150 rounds a mag you should be overheating at 35 rounds of continuous fire. Blasters need to work more like a HMG , this will make them better on moving vehicles. Light Missile Turrets needs a serious splash damage nerf, nothing wrong with the radius but the damage is too rewarding. Light Railgun turrets need more damage against vehicles and less overheat. This will balance tanks ability to slaughter infantry a little more and mean that 6 blaster tanks on the field isn't the be all and end all of pubs, as is so often the case. 1) Wow. That is a lot more range than I would have expected from a blaster weapon, even a big one. I would have expected something between 60m and 100m. 2) Well, technically if you can shoot that fare it should be possible to get a head shot just through random chance, even if the accuracy was terrible, but I get what you mean. 3) I have not used Blaster turrets enough to comment on that one. I wonder if we will ever get HAV mounted AutoCannons? I think the Light Missile Turrets are fine. The Splash does not do much when shooting horizontally, and you have to have mad skills to be accurate with an Assault Dropship. I guess they can be a danger on dropship door guns, but then you can just shoot the gunner out of the Dropship. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
NAV HIV The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1467	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:11:00 - [18] - Quote hackerzilla wrote: KILLER EI ITE16 wrote: We'll their wouldn't be so much tank spam if the dam things cost a little more. You are almost Guarenteed to make isk in a tank. The Asssult Dropship costs 300k(nothing equipped) & requires you to put skills into it The Militia tank costs me 70k (fully fit) requires ZERO skills & gets me more kills and war points. Makes a lot of sense how a tank that has 3X+ the tank of an assault dropship and 3X+the damage output, cost 1/3- the cost of an assault dropship. Maybe because the fact that it flies makes it cost so much, but honestly let's just think about game balance here... Some tankers might not like the idea...
Kage Roth Wolf-Monkey Bastards 126	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:13:00 - [19] - Quote I completely agree that most people don't see the whole picture. I do think infantry AV needs a rework, maybe not an all around buff because some seems to work, but a lot of the weapons (especially at lower levels) feel really ineffective against anything. That, however is a topic for another thread. As for tanks I have a basic rebalance idea. Nerf HAV HP and Heavy turret damage by about 10%. Then give non-militia tanks a per skill level resistance to AV weapons so that with tank lvl 5 you have the same effective HP vs AV weapons. Tank V Tank - Right now the balance here seems good. An across the board nerf to HP and DPS would leave them feeling the same. Tank V Infantry - Militia tanks become weaker, but skill points in vehicle command become actually useful. Reward specialization. Tank V other vehicles. This is where things could get sticky or it could also make things more interesting. It is kind of up in the air.
ratamaq doc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 523	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:18:00 - [20] - Quote I hate tanks, I always have. That is no secret. But balance is almost there. The only thing I think is left is reducing the effectiveness of blasters vs infantry. Other than that, tanks can be killed with either 1 dedicated AV or 2 simi dedicated. I hate tanks, and I can believe I'm defending these jackasses, but no other nerf to tanks is really needed. Dropships can kiss my whole ass. These things are more of an issue than any other vehicle in the game. Regular DS are OK, you get buzzed by one of those and you can shoot the gunner. ADS can **** anything on the map and as soon as there is a little trouble from one of the very limited counter weapons, they can just fly away or straight up like little faries and come back 30 seconds later. I'm gonna learn how to fly these things just to ram them out of the sky. Fee fy foo figga boy I hate a Dropship. The buff that is needed is realistic speed on swarm missles. It's a missle! It should move faster than a floating cargo container. I can throw a football faster than swarm missiles fly, and I was in the band. . YouTube

Vespasian Andendare Subsonic Synthesis RISE of LEGION 851	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:19:00 - [21] - Quote hackerzilla wrote: I see all these threads about how "tanks are OP" and "AV is UP" so "let's buff the **** out of AV". Wut.... It's incredibly easy to take out a dropship with AV (except brokenness of FG and passive skill not working), and same with a LAV. The real problem here are tanks. NOT LAVs. NOT Dropships. Tanks. So It makes no sense why you would buff AV, when that would disturb the (pretty good) balance of AV vs. LAVs, and AV vs. Dropships, although I'm not saying that there should be a nerf to tanks, I think there should be a more thoughtful and creative fix, to this obvious problem. I could add more but I'm not up for a rant right now ... I would argue that there are some concerns with respect to relative AV power vs LAVs and ADSs. Namely, the primary form of damage to these vehicles are swarm launchers, and it's very easy for an ADS to fly away and an LAV to drive off or drive past cover for the missiles to not impact. The other, more immedate weapon, the forge gun, simply doesn't hit hard enough to be worth the effort of charging it, keeping the charge, moving around (can't run), aiming and waiting for the travel time on the charge to miss. Forge guns need to have a much more, considerable and significant impact when they connect one of their shots with the vehicle. Swarms, sure, out-range the missiles or seek cover (in the case of an LAV) and that's probably good counterplay to the swarm's missiles. But for all the effort a FG has to go through to hit a shot, it should provide significantly more damage to vehicles. It already one shots infantry, so there's no more further concern to be addressed with respect to FG vs infantry. I hope Amarr's scrambler lance or Gallente's plasma mortar can get the job done and provide that punch that FGs simply don't pack now. Yes, the issue--the humongous white elephant in the room--is tanks. But that doesn't necessarily mean that AV is balanced all around because tanks are stupidly op at the moment. >> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! <<
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2939	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:23:00 - [22] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Just nerf large blaster damage by about 33% and it's where it's supposed to be: best at AI but also worst at AV. Right now it's best at AI with little loss to AV potential. WTF? There's absolutely no trade-off, which is causing all of these QQ threads. If blaster tanks are almost guaranteed to go down to a missile/railgun tank, then I don't see any problem with them being AI focused. I disagree. I think Blaster tanks should have the advantage in a CQC Tank brawl. I would go for a rang nerf to 100m instead of a damage nerf. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
ratamaq doc Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION 524	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:26:00 - [23] - Quote Fox Gaden wrote: Harpyja wrote: Just nerf large blaster damage by about 33% and it's where it's supposed to be: best at AI but also worst at AV. Right now it's best at AI with little loss to AV potential. WTF? There's absolutely no trade-off, which is causing all of these QQ threads. If blaster tanks are almost guaranteed to go down to a missile/railgun tank, then I don't see any problem with them being AI focused. I disagree. I think Blaster tanks should have the advantage in a CQC Tank brawl. I would go for a rang nerf to 100m instead of a damage nerf. How about a RoF nerf and Damage buff? That is the suggestion I like the most. Make it a formidable CQC tank killer but much harder to waste infantry. YouTube
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2939	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:26:00 - [24] - Quote By the way, I updated my Swarm Launcher guide to reflect recent changes. It now contains current anti Tank tactics. Fox Guide: Swarm Launcher, Unleashing the Swarm Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides 2939	Posted - 2014.04.15 18:34:00 - [25] - Quote ratamaq doc wrote: Fox Gaden wrote: Harpyja wrote: Just nerf large blaster damage by about 33% and it's where it's supposed to be: best at AI but also worst at AV. Right now it's best at AI with little loss to AV potential. WTF? There's absolutely no trade-off, which is causing all of these QQ threads. If blaster tanks are almost guaranteed to go down to a missile/railgun tank, then I don't see any problem with them being AI focused. I disagree. I think Blaster tanks should have the advantage in a CQC Tank brawl. I would go for a rang nerf to 100m instead of a damage nerf. How about a RoF nerf and Damage buff? That is the suggestion I like the most. Make it a formidable CQC tank killer but much harder to waste infantry. True, even a slight decrease to rate of fire (ROF) balanced by an equal damage buff to keep the DPS the same would give Infantry a better chance. It should still be a lot faster fire rate than the Rail Turret though. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
HappyAsshole1 Bragian Order Amarr Empire 10	Posted - 2014.04.15 19:18:00 - [26] - Quote fix forge gun, buff swarms and we are good to go.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2007	Posted - 2014.04.15 19:53:00 - [27] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Just rebuild Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors Part 2: Armor & Shield Part 3: Modules & Skills Part 4: Vehicles Part 5: Overview All this sorts out alot of problems, adds more weapons/mods/skills/variety and playstyles for both vehicles and infantry Do you really think the majority of players are gonna go with an overcomplicated capacitor system that really only facilitates use of keyboard, I'd like to see you try and micromanage all of your modules using just a selection wheel. Mid-Combat Also their is no need to rebuild, AV vs HAV is pretty well balanced right about now, all we to do is reduce your effectiveness against infantry slightly such that people can in certain circumstances push past HAV's without getting blown to pieces from hyper-accurate 3 round bursts of large blaster. Not to say the large blaster shouldn't be infantry capable, but when you can sit on a rooftop in a tank of the fractured road domination and headshot people consistently on the pipes above the objective, it makes you think. 1) Why the hell does this map actually encourage rooftop camping? 2) How the . . . +60 WP hell is . . . +60 WP this blaster so damn . . . +60 WP accurate? Breaking the blaster (which already got a nerf) is a horrible idea. no,fixing it is a better way to go about things. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2007	Posted - 2014.04.15 19:54:00 - [28] - Quote I'll just leave this here click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Paladin Sas Ancient Exiles. Dirt Nap Squad. 334	Posted - 2014.04.15 19:55:00 - [29] - Quote vehicles are fine where their at, so is AV, its the blueberries that need to be buffed. 2 guys with decent AV gear and half an ounce of coordination with kill almost anything, or at least get it to back away and render it useless. and i dont wanna hear anything about av fits being useless against anything other than vehicles, sidearms are lethal, learn to use them.
Thumb Green THE STAR BORN 897	Posted - 2014.04.15 20:03:00 - [30] - Quote Firstly I'm going to say LAV's should be tin cans on wheels. Their defense is supposed to be their speed; not their speed and the ability to take a pounding from AV. I'm nowhere near to being a good DS pilot but so far since the rail turret range nerf the biggest threat to my ADS has been the environment; but I'm not a dumbsh!t that hovers in one spot without a hardener active. A DS is only easy to destroy by infantry AV if they don't bug out when things start to get hairy because infantry AV doesn't have the ROF and range to destroy a DS unless the guy was an idiot and was hovering without a hardener on. Vehicles are supposed to operate on a wave of opportunity now, not a stream of destruction. If you use the wave of opportunity properly you've got nothing to worry about from AV Support Orbital Spawns



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.

#LivingLikeLarry