DUST Search - Question to the AV community about triple rep Madrugars

All Channels

General Discussions

Question to the AV community about triple rep Madrugars

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 780	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:00:00 - [61] - Quote Atiim wrote: Harpyja wrote: Atiim wrote: Harpyja wrote: It just goes to show that the only viable and most effective fit(s) that is/are left use repper stacking. The only two fits I'd see myself using at this point (if I was specced into armor tanks instead of shield tanks) would either be rep-rep-plate or rep-rep-rep. And would you like to explain how Armor Repairer stacking is the only viable fit? Or is anything that can be reasonably killed by it's weakness (Swarm Launchers, all other AV by extension) not considered viable? Wow, your sub-par understanding is gut-wrenching. Would you care to explain how a fit with only one armor rep is not as effective as stacking armor reps? I shouldn't even be asking a scrub like you to answer that, but please try to use your little brain as best as you can only to find that there is no Maddy fit that's better than one that stacks reps (either 2 or 3 reps). Harpyja wrote: It just goes to show that the only viable [...] fits(s) that is/are left use repper stacking. Oh noes. A tanker called me a scrub. Whatever shall I do? Call in a tank of course!
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7127	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:01:00 - [62] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Call in a tank of course! But then he'd cry about how someone who didn't spend as much SP as he did killed him. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1630	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:12:00 - [63] - Quote Atiim wrote: Harpyja wrote: Atiim wrote: Harpyja wrote: It just goes to show that the only viable and most effective fit(s) that is/are left use repper stacking. The only two fits I'd see myself using at this point (if I was specced into armor tanks instead of shield tanks) would either be rep-rep-plate or rep-rep-rep. And would you like to explain how Armor Repairer stacking is the only viable fit? Or is anything that can be reasonably killed by it's weakness (Swarm Launchers, all other AV by extension) not considered viable? Wow, your sub-par understanding is gut-wrenching. Would you care to explain how a fit with only one armor rep is not as effective as stacking armor reps? I shouldn't even be asking a scrub like you to answer that, but please try to use your little brain as best as you can only to find that there is no Maddy fit that's better than one that stacks reps (either 2 or 3 reps). Harpyja wrote: It just goes to show that the only viable [...] fits(s) that is/are left use repper stacking. Pretty sure this is what you said. I'm not saying that rep stacking isn't the best effective fit, but you were the one who said it was the only viable fitting. Care to explain why, or is my assertion correct? Oh noes. A tanker called me a scrub. Whatever shall I do? You're just like the media, trying to make everything fit your own biased opinions and try to influence the dumb majority. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 124	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:15:00 - [64] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Commander Tzu wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: 500HP/s is ridiculous you cannot deny, the fact that people are stacking so many reps just shows the general tanker attitude. I shouldn't die, because I'm in a tank One of the more moronic things I have read on the forums, and that is saying quite a lot. Agreed the triple reps are crazy, but how does that point to a tanker's attitude of "I shouldn't die because I'm in a tank"? Infantry fit armor and shields to their suits, so I guess it means they think they shouldn't die because they are in dropsuits? Tankers and infantry fit their suits so they can survive, sure there are suicide tanks and suicide suits but the basic idea is the same: survive as long as possible. CCP made triple repping the best way to do that, so why not do it? Your logic is akin to the French knights who refused to use the Italian mercenaries who used crossbows because they deemed them to be un-chivalrous. As I remember, their charge into the English lines with no archer support did not end well.... You must be pretty new to the forums. A great deal of HAV users used the reasoning "they should be hard to kill cause of their cost". Which was an actual argument. Then after the the cost reduction and all around AV nerf, many HAV users have said "we should be hard to kill because we are a tank". Which of course is horse ****. That's just a single comment of many similar ones made by tankers defending their reasoning of why a single asset should be able to excel at everything in the game, and rather easily, with the exception of hacking objectives, and why it should take multiple sources of damage to be taken out. (Some even claimed it should require 3-4 AV for instance). Dig through the forums, especially posts made by the users Takahiro something and Speaker something or other. They are the cream of the idiot crop. It will then start to make sense. I've been here for a while, but I don't ascribe the psychotic musings of Atiim and his tribe to all the AV population. As far as cost, before 1.7 cost was a valid argument, 1.4m for a tank that got killed in five seconds by swarms of swarms, which seventy percent of the time didn't even render. One of the things I tried to propose on the forums was keep pre-1.7 AV the same, fix the render bugs, and make tanks and suits cost the same. That way they would both be equally disposable.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7130	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:16:00 - [65] - Quote Harpyja wrote: You're just like the media, trying to make everything fit your own biased opinions and try to influence the dumb majority. Except unlike the media, what I say is usually true; and unlike most tankers, credible. Your exact words, were: Harpyja wrote: It just goes to show that the only viable and most effective fit(s) that is/are left use repper stacking HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1630	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:19:00 - [66] - Quote Atiim wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Call in a tank of course! But then he'd cry about how someone who didn't spend as much SP as he did killed him. Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills stand a much greater chance against a militia dropsuit with no skills? Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills have much more EHP than a militia dropsuit with no skills? You infantry scrubs think it's fine that a proto dropsuit can turn around and kill a militia dropsuit before they even get into armor, but you cry with outrage if vehicles were to also behave like that. I miss 1.6 now only because militia tanks were free kills and WPs. Give my basic Caldari medium as much EHP as a proto suit, then we'll talk. Oh wait, you don't want cheap, unskilled dropsuits to pose a threat to your proto suits "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1630	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:24:00 - [67] - Quote Atiim wrote: Harpyja wrote: You're just like the media, trying to make everything fit your own biased opinions and try to influence the dumb majority. Except unlike the media, what I say is usually true; and unlike most tankers, credible. Your exact words, were: Harpyja wrote: It just goes to show that the only viable and most effective fit(s) that is/are left use repper stacking I hope that you do realize that "and" narrows down, unlike "or" which pulls from both areas of interest. Your removal of "and most effective" in your original statement was exactly shaping the statement to fit your own biased opinion. I hope that you're joking when you're saying that what you say is usually true and credible, and that you're only referring to Spkr. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Travis Stanush GunFall Mobilization 120	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:26:00 - [68] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Passive reps need a nerf in general, either through straight efficiency or through a hefty stacking penalty. Then give us back activated reps. Activated reps at least take a tiny degree of thought and skill on the part of the operator, where passive reps are just lolherpderpiminatanklulz What we need is more modules and more slots to fit them. With these modules and slots and a nerf to reppers will only result in everyone using Armor Hardener, Armor Plate and Armor Repair module, zero variety. "What's that guy using?" - "Armor Plate, Hardener and Repper." "Ok, so what's that guy over there using then?" - "Armor Plate, Hardener and Repper." "Fine, what are you using?" - "Armor Plate, Hardener and Repper." "Erm... and your friend?" - "Armor Plate, Hardener and Repper." "Hmm.. what should I use?" - "Armor Plate, Hardener and Repper." Get it? Ahem, whats that sentinel running? 5 armour plates, 5 armour plates, 5 armour plates What do you expect tankers like heavies are more concerned about themselves than helping their team. In additionmyou only have a fraction of total vehicle modules and CCP have yet to state they are happy enough to the next stage. 500HP/s is ridiculous you cannot deny, the fact that people are stacking so many reps just shows the general tanker attitude. I shouldn't die, because I'm in a tank Wait so because they are trying to maximize their survival rate means they are bad guys? How is what they are doing any different than you I mean you don't fit your suits with the LEAST chance of surviving a firefight do you? No I will not show you where they touched me!!!
Denn Maell PIanet Express Canis Eliminatus Operatives 326	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:29:00 - [69] - Quote Harpyja wrote: If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill. Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets. There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here. Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. 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 1630	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:35:00 - [70] - Quote Denn Maell wrote: Harpyja wrote: If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill. Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets. There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here. Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. Size should not determine role. It's functionality that should. A blaster turret will always have high AI potential, so it should also have little AV potential as a trade-off. Blasters were also AV prior to 1.7, which what made them and Maddies so OP. They'd be slaughtering infantry, and then when another tank came around the corner, they'd just fire away and pop that tank, then go back to slaughtering infantry. You call this balanced? If size determined role, then why isn't it that HMGs can only kill heavies, rifles can only kill medium suits, and sidearms can only kill light suits? "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32

Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 124	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:46:00 - [71] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Denn Maell wrote: Harpyja wrote: If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill. Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets. There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here. Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. Size should not determine role. It's functionality that should. A blaster turret will always have high AI potential, so it should also have little AV potential as a trade-off. Blasters were also AV prior to 1.7, which what made them and Maddies so OP. They'd be slaughtering infantry, and then when another tank came around the corner, they'd just fire away and pop that tank, then go back to slaughtering infantry. You call this balanced? If size determined role, then why isn't it that HMGs can only kill heavies, rifles can only kill medium suits, and sidearms can only kill light suits? Rail gun maddies and missile gunnis could kill them in Chromosome, in Uprising the glitched heavy armor repper meant you had to use a maddy yourself.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 780	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:48:00 - [72] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Atiim wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Call in a tank of course! But then he'd cry about how someone who didn't spend as much SP as he did killed him. Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills stand a much greater chance against a militia dropsuit with no skills? Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills have much more EHP than a militia dropsuit with no skills? You infantry scrubs think it's fine that a proto dropsuit can turn around and kill a militia dropsuit before they even get into armor, but you cry with outrage if vehicles were to also behave like that. I miss 1.6 now only because militia tanks were free kills and WPs. Give my basic Caldari medium as much EHP as a proto suit, then we'll talk. Oh wait, you don't want cheap, unskilled dropsuits to pose a threat to your proto suits I don't know what you are smoking man. Proto die all the time to militia. That's a reasoning used by AV to bring attention to HAV bias about you feeling proto weapons should scratch you unless grouped in numbers. How about you dig up posts where infantry have said a proto dropsuit shouldn't die to a militia. I'm curious if you can actually find one, for everyone I know that has played the game knows this to be a simple unavoidable fact.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 780	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:55:00 - [73] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Denn Maell wrote: Harpyja wrote: If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill. Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets. There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here. Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. Size should not determine role. It's functionality that should. A blaster turret will always have high AI potential, so it should also have little AV potential as a trade-off. Blasters were also AV prior to 1.7, which what made them and Maddies so OP. They'd be slaughtering infantry, and then when another tank came around the corner, they'd just fire away and pop that tank, then go back to slaughtering infantry. You call this balanced? If size determined role, then why isn't it that HMGs can only kill heavies, rifles can only kill medium suits, and sidearms can only kill light suits? The problem with this is prior to 1.7, infantry AV were able to take out said Maddie. Now it has the same Killing power, with insane fuckin reps AND Weaker infantry AV to "contend" with. There's a good reason we've been complaining.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1631	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:55:00 - [74] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Harpyja wrote: Atiim wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Call in a tank of course! But then he'd cry about how someone who didn't spend as much SP as he did killed him. Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills stand a much greater chance against a militia dropsuit with no skills? Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills have much more EHP than a militia dropsuit with no skills? You infantry scrubs think it's fine that a proto dropsuit can turn around and kill a militia dropsuit before they even get into armor, but you cry with outrage if vehicles were to also behave like that. I miss 1.6 now only because militia tanks were free kills and WPs. Give my basic Caldari medium as much EHP as a proto suit, then we'll talk. Oh wait, you don't want cheap, unskilled dropsuits to pose a threat to your proto suits I don't know what you are smoking man. Proto die all the time to militia. That's a reasoning used by AV to bring attention to HAV bias about you feeling proto weapons should scratch you unless grouped in numbers. How about you dig up posts where infantry have said a proto dropsuit shouldn't die to a militia. I'm curious if you can actually find one, for everyone I know that has played the game knows this to be a simple unavoidable fact. Bah. Only unskilled players in proto die to militia. Any skilled player in proto gear is near unkillable. Even if you begin hitting them from behind, they will turn around and melt you in half a second. So why shouldn't tanks be the same? Skilled tankers with proto-fit tanks being near unkillable, even when ambushed from behind. But that's not the case. No matter how skilled you are, there's barely much of a gap between unskilled and skilled tankers. So come back to me when my unskilled dropsuit is almost equal to a fully skilled proto suit. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 124	Posted - 2014.04.23 02:56:00 - [75] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Harpyja wrote: Denn Maell wrote: Harpyja wrote: If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill. Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets. There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here. Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. Size should not determine role. It's functionality that should. A blaster turret will always have high AI potential, so it should also have little AV potential as a trade-off. Blasters were also AV prior to 1.7, which what made them and Maddies so OP. They'd be slaughtering infantry, and then when another tank came around the corner, they'd just fire away and pop that tank, then go back to slaughtering infantry. You call this balanced? If size determined role, then why isn't it that HMGs can only kill heavies, rifles can only kill medium suits, and sidearms can only kill light suits? The problem with this is prior to 1.7, infantry AV were able to take out said Maddie. Now it has the same Killing power, with insane fuckin reps AND Weaker infantry AV to "contend" with. There's a good reason we've been complaining. Blasters were effectively nerfed in 1.7. I just want to put this in here because everyone seems to forget/not know.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 780	Posted - 2014.04.23 03:01:00 - [76] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Harpyja wrote: Atiim wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Call in a tank of course! But then he'd cry about how someone who didn't spend as much SP as he did killed him. Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills stand a much greater chance against a militia dropsuit with no skills? Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills have much more EHP than a militia dropsuit with no skills? You infantry scrubs think it's fine that a proto dropsuit can turn around and kill a militia dropsuit before they even get into armor, but you cry with outrage if vehicles were to also behave like that. I miss 1.6 now only because militia tanks were free kills and WPs. Give my basic Caldari medium as much EHP as a proto suit, then we'll talk. Oh wait, you don't want cheap, unskilled dropsuits to pose a threat to your proto suits I don't know what you are smoking man. Proto die all the time to militia. That's a reasoning used by AV to bring attention to HAV bias about you feeling proto weapons should scratch you unless grouped in numbers. How about you dig up posts where infantry have said a proto dropsuit shouldn't die to a militia. I'm curious if you can actually find one, for everyone I know that has played the game knows this to be a simple unavoidable fact. Bah. Only unskilled players in proto die to militia. Any skilled player in proto gear is near unkillable. Even if you begin hitting them from behind, they will turn around and melt you in half a second. So why shouldn't tanks be the same? Skilled tankers with proto-fit tanks being near unkillable, even when ambushed from behind. But that's not the case. No matter how skilled you are, there's barely much of a gap between unskilled and skilled tankers. So come back to me when my unskilled dropsuit is almost equal to a fully skilled proto suit. Wtf are you talking about man. The difference between proto dropsuits and militia are a hundred or two ehp, and a few select skills increasing in few percentages. Do you REALLY want me to explain to you the difference between a proto AV dropsuit and a ******* mlt HAV?
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1631	Posted - 2014.04.23 03:02:00 - [77] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Harpyja wrote: Denn Maell wrote: Harpyja wrote: If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill. Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets. There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here. Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. Size should not determine role. It's functionality that should. A blaster turret will always have high AI potential, so it should also have little AV potential as a trade-off. Blasters were also AV prior to 1.7, which what made them and Maddies so OP. They'd be slaughtering infantry, and then when another tank came around the corner, they'd just fire away and pop that tank, then go back to slaughtering infantry. You call this balanced? If size determined role, then why isn't it that HMGs can only kill heavies, rifles can only kill medium suits, and sidearms can only kill light suits? The problem with this is prior to 1.7, infantry AV were able to take out said Maddie. Now it has the same Killing power, with insane fuckin reps AND Weaker infantry AV to "contend" with. There's a good reason we've been complaining. Damnit. Seriously. Stop talking like you know so much about balancing. Because you don't. All you care about is the AV/infantry vs tank part of the whole balance equation. You don't care about the tank vs tank part of balance. AV in 1.6 was a bit OP, but it was close to being balanced with some slight tweaks. But 1.6 tank vs tank was far from balanced. A blaster Maddy was the be-all end-all of tanking. Then, 1.7. Tank vs tank was almost balanced, but infantry vs tanks wasn't as close. You cried to nerf tanks and CCP hastily nerfed hardeners. OK, infantry vs tanks is almost balanced again. But now tank vs tank got f*ed up the a. You just don't realize that there are two sides to this coin of balance. Any nerfs to tanks to balance out infantry vs tanks has always resulted in upsetting the tank vs tank balance. So please, stop talking so much as if you know everything that there is to balancing. Because your crying doesn't help to achieve overall balance, which is why we're in this constant nerf-buff cycle. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1631	Posted - 2014.04.23 03:07:00 - [78] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Wtf are you talking about man. The difference between proto dropsuits and militia are a hundred or two ehp, and a few select skills increasing in few percentages. Do you REALLY want me to explain to you the difference between a proto AV dropsuit and a ******* mlt HAV? No need, I understand balance far better than you do. Nerf, mlt vehicles and modules, make SP investment actually worth a damn. Bring back the SP gap. Bring back tiers. There, now all of those OP militia tank scrubs are easily wiped off the field. And for dropsuits.... looks at my 400 EHP Caldari medium, then looks at my enemy's 800 EHP medium Hmm, right, I'm sure that 100% more EHP is definitely marginal. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 780	Posted - 2014.04.23 03:11:00 - [79] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Harpyja wrote: Denn Maell wrote: Harpyja wrote: If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill. Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets. There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here. Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. Size should not determine role. It's functionality that should. A blaster turret will always have high AI potential, so it should also have little AV potential as a trade-off. Blasters were also AV prior to 1.7, which what made them and Maddies so OP. They'd be slaughtering infantry, and then when another tank came around the corner, they'd just fire away and pop that tank, then go back to slaughtering infantry. You call this balanced? If size determined role, then why isn't it that HMGs can only kill heavies, rifles can only kill medium suits, and sidearms can only kill light suits? The problem with this is prior to 1.7, infantry AV were able to take out said Maddie. Now it has the same Killing power, with insane fuckin reps AND Weaker infantry AV to "contend" with. There's a good reason we've been complaining. Damnit. Seriously. Stop talking like you know so much about balancing. Because you don't. All you care about is the AV/infantry vs tank part of the whole balance equation. You don't care about the tank vs tank part of balance. AV in 1.6 was a bit OP, but it was close to being balanced with some slight tweaks. But 1.6 tank vs tank was far from balanced. A blaster Maddy was the be-all end-all of tanking. Then, 1.7. Tank vs tank was almost balanced, but infantry vs tanks wasn't as close. You cried to nerf tanks and CCP hastily nerfed hardeners. OK, infantry vs tanks is almost balanced again. But now tank vs tank got f*ed up the a. You just don't realize that there are two sides to this coin of balance. Any nerfs to tanks to balance out infantry vs tanks has always resulted in upsetting the tank vs tank balance. So please, stop talking so much as if you know everything that there is to balancing. Because your crying doesn't help to achieve overall balance, which is why we're in this constant nerf-buff cycle. OF course I care about the infantry AV side if it because it's fuckin unbalanced. Where have I said I don't care about tank vs tank you fuckin idiot? I want tanks to stop being able to dominate infantry while they are roaming for tank kills. I want HAVS to have their main role be vehicles first, infantry second. If you want to solo the whole damn board, then so should your infantry counter part. If you want teamwork to take down your HAV, then fit your tank with AI turrets to give logical reasoning for it to take multiple AV. The problem is people like you want to kill other HAVS and completely ignore the infantry existence until you run out of HAVS then start mowing the lawn over everything that can't counter you. That's my fuckin problem with HAV and people like you. Now you know and can stop spouting horse **. Edit - and another thing. No infantry i ***** know said nerf the percentage of hardeners. We said remove the ability to stack them and be granted total invulnerability almost indefinitely, because that was NOT "windows of opportunity". Get your facts straight.
Rusty Shallows 1630	Posted - 2014.04.23 03:40:00 - [80] - Quote Dear Original Poster, Don't worry what other people think of you. This is New Eden, milk that advantage for as long as CCP will let you. Anyone familiar with Eve Online knows if you're not using every trick or exploit possible then it is being done wrong. Sincerely, Rusty Forums > Game: So here is a cookie and a Like. Please keep posting. Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! >>> GòÜ(GÇóGîéGÇó)Gò¥ >>>

MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 457	Posted - 2014.04.23 04:18:00 - [81] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: Passive reps need a nerf in general, either through straight efficiency or through a hefty stacking penalty. Then give us back activated reps. Activated reps at least take a tiny degree of thought and skill on the part of the operator, where passive reps are just lolherpderpiminatanklulz What we need is more modules and more slots to fit them. With these modules and slots and a nerf to reppers will only result in everyone using Armor Hardener, Armor Plate and Armor Repair module, zero variety. "What's that guy using?" - "Armor Plate, Hardener and Repper." "Ok, so what's that guy over there using then?" - "Armor Plate, Hardener and Repper." "Fine, what are you using?" - "Armor Plate, Hardener and Repper." "Erm... and your friend?" - "Armor Plate, Hardener and Repper." "Hmm.. what should I use?" - "Armor Plate, Hardener and Repper." Get it? Ahem, whats that sentinel running? 5 armour plates, 5 armour plates, 5 armour plates What do you expect tankers like heavies are more concerned about themselves than helping their team. In additionmyou only have a fraction of total vehicle modules and CCP have yet to state they are happy enough to the next stage. 500HP/s is ridiculous you cannot deny, the fact that people are stacking so many reps just shows the general tanker attitude. I shouldn't die, because I'm in a tank Well, uh... how should I put this? Heavy with 5 lows? Really? Not in this game. Heavies that are using 4 plates are expecting to get help from a logi player. Vehicles don't have logi roles anymore, sadly. I do admit that heavies don't have a lot of choises either, plates or reps. More variety is what this game needs in a lot of areas, but hey, at least infantry didn't get most of their modules removed at any point in the game. Hmm... In a tank I try to bring the victory to my team almost always, even in pubs. And do you have any idea how much going all out for the win means to tankers? I don't think you do, it means losing millions of ISK in a pub match. When you bring down more ISK than that into a pub match as infantry, then you can complain that we are not doing anything and everything for the win. 230,000 ISK per Proto AV suit average deaths 8+ 255,000 ISK per Proto Logi Suit average deaths 10+ Please don't talk to me about risking ISK for the team, you really have no idea, until all your ISK, all your fitting power is geared towards ensuring your team can succeed, you cannot talk. You are a tanker, all you do is kill, there is no great sacrifice, no heroic gesture, you blindly kill anything in your path and leave your team to clean up the mess. You can come down to my level, because until you realise the importance of those of us who fling ourselves at you like lambs to slaughter, just so our team might have a few minutes to make a push then you can not talk to me. Did I hit you in a sensitive spot? How do you get non-logi proto AV suit to cost so much and why are you dying so much? You should only suffer 1-2 deaths max as AV, unless you get constantly hit by orbitals which is just plain bad luck or bad positioning. Dying to infantry is also bad positioning or scout getting you by surprise. I am the one who will stay and protect the null cannon in Domination if I think I can prevent the possible hack even if it means almost certain death to me. If it means absolutely certain death then I try to take care of the threat, which most likely happens to be a huge threat for infantry too, and then protect the infantry as they go for the counter hack. I am the one who will go suicide into the redline in my 500-700k HAV to kill thqt redline sniper / railer is preventing infantry from hacking a point. I am the one who will not bow down to enemy tank spam even if I am the only tanker on my team, I will suicide myself to them if I have to so they are busy killing me and you can go for the hack. I am the one who will go into the mass of redberries to clear them from the objective or die trying just so you can go for the hack. So, talk to me more about sacrifice, please, really, do it. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 457	Posted - 2014.04.23 04:24:00 - [82] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Benjamin Ciscko wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: Atiim wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: That is the only fit you can make if you are not allowed to stack anything. I was crying tears of sadness the moment CCP announced 1.7 vehicle changes, so hard actually that I had to quit for a while. I still hate what CCP did to vehicles, and I will always hate them for that, even if they bring the old ones back. No, it's not. Though I don't see what you have against stacking modules. You didn't see AVers complaining about how the only viable fit involved stacking 3x Complex Damage Modifiers did you? Here's another fitting. It's teamwork oriented, but it doesn't involve stacking modules of any kind. I personally like this one Highs 1x Scanner 1x MCRU Low 1x Proto CPU upgrade 1x Advanced Plate 1x Proto Repper 1x Large Missile Turret ^Terribad didn't bother to check if it's a troll your lack of understanding of tanks must be the reason your so butt hurt about them. Or maybe the people playing tanks are too scrubby to try variety, met a guy who rocked a madrugar tank with missiles and an MCRU, yet had more than std health. I can only assume this was his fit, but whatever it was, it was like 1 of the 4 horseman. That fit will die to the first MLT Blaster Soma with no modules fitted at all if he knows what he is doing. And I can only assume that fit was meant for AV cause of the Missiles. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9652	Posted - 2014.04.23 04:30:00 - [83] - Quote Monkey I don't think appreciates what Tankers attempt to do for the team. Personally I don't care about kills, WP, or Deaths. Just about the win. But as people often say to me. "True how can you be helping us win if all you are doing is killing ***?" Which is why I don't do that. I provide my squad and crew mates, yes I often have crew, with a platform from which to deploy and be supported from. This means I don't get 3x Reppers or hardners. It does however mean I get gunners. Most players see tanks and kill farming machines, and yes you can kill farm with them, but that doesn't stop them being a valuable and tactical asset in the field. What I currently dislike is to see tanks being abused under casualist mechanics and poor AV balance. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"* -Dagger Two
Denn Maell PIanet Express Canis Eliminatus Operatives 330	Posted - 2014.04.23 04:46:00 - [84] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Monkey I don't think appreciates what Tankers attempt to do for the team. Personally I don't care about kills, WP, or Deaths. Just about the win. But as people often say to me. "True how can you be helping us win if all you are doing is killing ****?" Which is why I don't do that. I provide my squad and crew mates, yes I often have crew, with a platform from which to deploy and be supported from. This means I don't get 3x Reppers or hardners. It does however mean I get gunners. Most players see tanks and kill farming machines, and yes you can kill farm with them, but that doesn't stop them being a valuable and tactical asset in the field. What I currently dislike is to see tanks being abused under casualist mechanics and poor AV balance. I would like to see more tankers supporting the squad rather than just shark attacking anything they see. Its often the tank driver is seen as a 'lone wolf' who is very efficient at killing and very difficult to kill. The most OP weapon on the Dust Battle Field: One good logi, one rep tool, and a heavy.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9653	Posted - 2014.04.23 04:48:00 - [85] - Quote Denn Maell wrote: True Adamance wrote: Monkey I don't think appreciates what Tankers attempt to do for the team. Personally I don't care about kills, WP, or Deaths. Just about the win. But as people often say to me. "True how can you be helping us win if all you are doing is killing ***?" Which is why I don't do that. I provide my squad and crew mates, yes I often have crew, with a platform from which to deploy and be supported from. This means I don't get 3x Reppers or hardners. It does however mean I get gunners. Most players see tanks and kill farming machines, and yes you can kill farm with them, but that doesn't stop them being a valuable and tactical asset in the field. What I currently dislike is to see tanks being abused under casualist mechanics and poor AV balance. I would like to see more tankers supporting the squad rather than just shark attacking anything they see. Its often the tank driver is seen as a 'lone wolf' who is very efficient at killing and very difficult to kill. Mechanics should then benefit players who fit for squad based activities not rewards those who selfishly fit tanks for their solo benefits. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!"* -Dagger Two
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 457	Posted - 2014.04.23 05:37:00 - [86] - Quote Denn Maell wrote: Harpyja wrote: If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill. Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets. There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here. Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. Well the Large Blaster is not nimble at tracking moving infantry, mainly because it's too accurate and often times you cannot see the infantry you are trying to shoot due to all the visual distractions and framerate drops. It used to be very nimble at tracking infantry when we still had the Scattered variant, because that wasn't pinpoint accurare. Also the Large Blaster is not reliable enough to be used as Anti-Shield AV as any Shield HAV fitted with Railgun or Missiles will easily take out any Blaster HAV. So the basic Large Blaster is kind of the middle ground between AV and AI, small Missiles and Rails are much better at taking out infantry and the other Large Turrets are much better at AV. The Scattered Ion Cannon was the best at both jobs and was rightfully removed until such a time that it can be properly balanced. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 457	Posted - 2014.04.23 05:44:00 - [87] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Harpyja wrote: Denn Maell wrote: Harpyja wrote: If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill. Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets. There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here. Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. Size should not determine role. It's functionality that should. A blaster turret will always have high AI potential, so it should also have little AV potential as a trade-off. Blasters were also AV prior to 1.7, which what made them and Maddies so OP. They'd be slaughtering infantry, and then when another tank came around the corner, they'd just fire away and pop that tank, then go back to slaughtering infantry. You call this balanced? If size determined role, then why isn't it that HMGs can only kill heavies, rifles can only kill medium suits, and sidearms can only kill light suits? The problem with this is prior to 1.7, infantry AV were able to take out said Maddie. Now it has the same Killing power, with insane fuckin reps AND Weaker infantry AV to "contend" with. There's a good reason we've been complaining. edit - actually sorry I forgot, the blaster got a fuckin buff to damage once ammo came into play. The same killing power? Hardly... I used to be able to pull off 50/0 consistently (not dying because of LLAV backing me up with constant, higher reps than these current day passive reps). Now I am still waiting for my 40/X game but it will never come due to the reduced killing power. And I hope I never get that insane killint power of Scattered Ion Cannon back. That was OP if anything ever was OP in this game. But you had to at least pay dearly for that OPness. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 457	Posted - 2014.04.23 06:06:00 - [88] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Harpyja wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Harpyja wrote: Atiim wrote: But then he'd cry about how someone who didn't spend as much SP as he did killed him. Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills stand a much greater chance against a militia dropsuit with no skills? Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills have much more EHP than a militia dropsuit with no skills? You infantry scrubs think it's fine that a proto dropsuit can turn around and kill a militia dropsuit before they even get into armor, but you cry with outrage if vehicles were to also behave like that. I miss 1.6 now only because militia tanks were free kills and WPs. Give my basic Caldari medium as much EHP as a proto suit, then we'll talk. Oh wait, you don't want cheap, unskilled dropsuits to pose a threat to your proto suits I don't know what you are smoking man. Proto die all the time to militia. That's a reasoning used by AV to bring attention to HAV bias about you feeling proto weapons should scratch you unless grouped in numbers. How about you dig up posts where infantry have said a proto dropsuit shouldn't die to a militia. I'm curious if you can actually find one, for everyone I know that has played the game knows this to be a simple unavoidable fact. Bah. Only unskilled players in proto die to militia. Any skilled player in proto gear is near unkillable. Even if you begin hitting them from behind, they will turn around and melt you in half a second. So why shouldn't tanks be the same? Skilled tankers with proto-fit tanks being near unkillable, even when ambushed from behind. But that's not the case. No matter how skilled you are, there's barely much of a gap between unskilled and skilled tankers. So come back to me when my unskilled dropsuit is almost equal to a fully skilled proto suit. Wtf are you talking about man. The difference between proto dropsuits and militia are a hundred or two ehp, and a few select skills increasing in few percentages. Do you REALLY want me to explain to you the difference between a proto AV dropsuit and a ******* mlt HAV? Wait, wait, wait... My unskilled STD dropsuit has ~300 EHP and my skilled proto one has ~1000 EHP, both Min logis. That's +233% EHP in comparison to the STD, well, unskilled tanker and a maxed out tanker has the exact same EHP. In the best case scenario the skilled one might have ~12.6% more EHP than the unskilled one. In my world that is nowhere near that 233% increase. PS. I hope I was able to sparse to quotes right on my phone. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2626	Posted - 2014.04.23 06:16:00 - [89] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Monkey I don't think appreciates what Tankers attempt to do for the team. Personally I don't care about kills, WP, or Deaths. Just about the win. But as people often say to me. "True how can you be helping us win if all you are doing is killing ****?" Which is why I don't do that. I provide my squad and crew mates, yes I often have crew, with a platform from which to deploy and be supported from. This means I don't get 3x Reppers or hardners. It does however mean I get gunners. Most players see tanks and kill farming machines, and yes you can kill farm with them, but that doesn't stop them being a valuable and tactical asset in the field. What I currently dislike is to see tanks being abused under casualist mechanics and poor AV balance. True, I have ever since about 1.4 appreciated that there are some tankers who go above and beyond, I know you are one of the few, but after dealing with Spkr, sTaki and their little band of tryhards for well over a year now, you cannot demy a large majprity of the tanking community are just after eaay kills. I whooly understand not all of them are like that and have had the privilege of working with 1 or 2, but those of you who really play with your team are few and far between. Masad, of course the Missile Tank is mostly AV, but once again it was stipulated, no stacking, so your kind of loadingnthe question don't you think? Also I would like to ask why you think it's unacceptable for an AV logi to die 8+ times fighting tanks, as it stands AV is a suicide run, with 500 HP/s just mere suppression doesn't work, because you rep back in less than 15 seconds. Once again your forcing us to have to outright kill you just to get a minutes breathing room. If you are redline suiciding yourself in a tank, you really are just stupid, I will talk to you about sacrifice as much as damned well want, as for my fits, no unlike you suggest I do not stack EHP, most of my Triage Logi is speed and scanning and hacking, using just 3 modules that effect my tank (1 of them negatively), no doubt about though infamtry modules are just as screwed, in most cases EHP modules provide more benifits and that needs changing, we need to encourage more variety in infamtry fits. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 457	Posted - 2014.04.23 06:41:00 - [90] - Quote Denn Maell wrote: True Adamance wrote: Monkey I don't think appreciates what Tankers attempt to do for the team. Personally I don't care about kills, WP, or Deaths. Just about the win. But as people often say to me. "True how can you be helping us win if all you are doing is killing ****?" Which is why I don't do that. I provide my squad and crew mates, yes I often have crew, with a platform from which to deploy and be supported from. This means I don't get 3x Reppers or hardners. It does however mean I get gunners. Most players see tanks and kill farming machines, and yes you can kill farm with them, but that doesn't stop them being a valuable and tactical asset in the field. What I currently dislike is to see tanks being abused under casualist mechanics and poor AV balance. I would like to see more tankers supporting the squad rather than just shark attacking anything they see. Its often the tank driver is seen as a 'lone wolf' who is very efficient at killing and very difficult to kill. When I'm playing with a squad, they usually tell me what threatens them and where and so I can go help them out, and in return they tell me what threatens me and where and eliminate it if possible. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: 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.