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)
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 444	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:15:00 - [1] - Quote So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 1887	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:30:00 - [2] - Quote 3 PG mods on the right 1 afterburner on the left 1 damage mod (for a turret different to yours) The unnamed new build it's so secret that nobody know what will be in it, even after patch notes.. \o/ summon me
Dexter307 The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar 1435	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:31:00 - [3] - Quote 3 pg mods and 2 missile damage mods (use a railgun)
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 444	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:32:00 - [4] - Quote shaman oga wrote: 3 PG mods on the right 1 afterburner on the left 1 damage mod (for a turret different to yours) Ah, gotcha. Dexter307 wrote: 3 pg mods and 2 afterburners Even better. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
shaman oga Nexus Balusa Horizon 1887	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:34:00 - [5] - Quote Is it still possible to mount 2 afterburners? The unnamed new build it's so secret that nobody know what will be in it, even after patch notes.. \o/ summon me
Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 419	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:34:00 - [6] - Quote Active reps have been OP since the day they were announced. I use a variety of rep fits. Sometimes I use 2 reps and a CPU mod so I can make some interesting damage mod fits... A missile Madrugar with damage mod. There will be bullets. ACR+SMG [CEO of Terror]
Jack Boost Zarena Family 363	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:35:00 - [7] - Quote What AV community? I was yesterday tear-apart with 2 tanks, team of 3 cloaked scouts with CR and 2 dropships abowe me. So much team work to bring down ONE AV .. it makes me chukkle all the time
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1625	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:36:00 - [8] - Quote If only we had our chassis upgrades. You could probably fit up a Maddy with plate, repper, and nanofiber/torque unit in the lows with a fuel injector + mod of your choice in the high. I also find it humorous how the AV community basically brought triple rep Maddies onto themselves. Just goes to show that they don't care what nerfs are taken into effect. They see a tank nerf and they think it'll solve their problems. Sadly, CCP listens to them. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2034	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:36:00 - [9] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. LOL No Let's tell them how they can fit out their MLT dropsuit with Darkside swarms. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
NAV HIV The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1530	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:36:00 - [10] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? There is nothing wrong with triple Rep Maddys... They said they are fixing FG miss fire today... Will let you know how it works... Tanks are ok atm... Even though some people still farm ambush with 2 tanks... but still... You can still see some skilled tankers doing some tank v tank.... Swarms need some fixing... even the proto one sucks... 1 less AV nade... So most issues are still with AVs not tanks...

NAV HIV The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1530	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:39:00 - [11] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. LOL No Let's tell them how they can fit out their MLT dropsuit with Darkside swarms. I don't even know whether i should btchslap you for running your mouth or just ignore your scrub ass...
noob cavman Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 1273	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:48:00 - [12] - Quote Who the hell uses darkside swarms? 3 remotes, 2 lai dai packed av and wiki swarms to your arse. Only thing is I do have get right on top of you. Thank god most tankers have tunnel vision (b^-^)b I want to be a caveman! Ccp: DENIED YOU DRUNK Gö+GöüGö+ n+¦pâ+(`-ö´)n+ën+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ Jollys quirky inconsistent sidekick. dem spandex yo
Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 489	Posted - 2014.04.22 13:55:00 - [13] - Quote Option A) Give the "AV Community" decent AV. Option B) Give the "AV Community" an excuse for your Win Button. Bang?
noob cavman Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 1274	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:00:00 - [14] - Quote Adipem Nothi wrote: Problem) Merc discovers that he might be OP after 5 months of mashing his Win Button. Solution A) Give the "AV Community" decent AV. Solution B) Give the "AV Community" an excuse. Or have enough instant gank to make his butthole flap as wide as a church door. I want to be a caveman! Ccp: DENIED YOU DRUNK Gö+GöüGö+ n+¦pâ+(`-ö´)n+ën+¦ Gö+GöüGö+ Jollys quirky inconsistent sidekick. dem spandex yo
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7088	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:03:00 - [15] - Quote Well here's one. I'd make two more, but it's not worth my time. It was you guys were crying tears of joy for the changes, so now it's you guys who get to live with a monotonous playstyle. Careful what you wish for. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
I-Shayz-I I-----I 3010	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:04:00 - [16] - Quote Armor reps are fine. But a triple rep maddy is like a heavy with 800 hp and 70 armor repair per second, and all you have to use against him is a sniper that only deals 300 damage every 4 seconds, but he can run 20 m/s away from you if you start taking his armor down too far. The problem is not the fitting, but the amount that they rep. I'm not a tanker so I have no idea what would break the tank as far as tank v tank, but you can't seriously tell me that the amount of armor repair possible is not broken. The whole idea behind an armor tank is that you deal damage to it slowly and chew away at its health until it has to retreat. This crazy armor repair allows you to just sit there and take forge after forge and swarm after swarm. Honestly I'd rather armor tanks have 8000 armor, but a very low armor repair rate. Unfortunately that's more of an amarr tank, and who knows when we'll see those. Links: 7162 wp with a Repair Tool! I make logistics videos!
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar Silver Bullet Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY 488	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:18:00 - [17] - Quote its not the tankers fault we have to use reps now instead of plates or hardeners, all you whinny av infantry who hav no skill got hardeners nerfed and plates were never viable unless u were spider tanking which ccp removed without reason.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2609	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:23:00 - [18] - Quote How about 1x Plate 1x Repper 1x Hardner On an armour tank that's enough EHP to survive a whole magazine volley of swarms passively, a hardner will allow you to sponge 2 before requiring a retreat and the repers mean you don't need to recall it everytime someond puts a dent in it. You still get a decent amount of reps that means you don't have to be out of the fight long, you have longer to defend against suprise attacks. Then in the high slots you fit an afterburner or scanner in 1 slot and an MCRU in the other. Then you use the remaing PG/CPU to fit the best weapons you can. Et voila, now not only are you a decent tank dealing moderate amounts of damage, you are the spearhead for your force, providing cover and an FOB to yourmfellow mercs, who will actually appreciate your exsistance instead of just being another scrub tanker, looking to slauhter enemies for the sake of KDR and your own twisted enjoyment. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 2875	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:25:00 - [19] - Quote Atiim wrote: Well here's one. I'd make two more, but it's not worth my time. It was you guys were crying tears of joy for the changes, so now it's you guys who get to live with a monotonous playstyle. Careful what you wish for. Yes. And 1.7 tank v tank was pretty much fine except for railguns. Unfortunately it was the AV community who wanted these changes. Still can't hack it, though. ak.0 4 LYFE I am the Lorhak. I speak for the trees.
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 348	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:33:00 - [20] - Quote If vehicles were price tiered like suits and had matched survivability you might see a decrease in the amount of teamwork that goes into protecting these things. When I ADS, a single loss is inexcusable. What makes you think that I would casually allow that loss then? I put extra work into making sure our squad can destroy any opposition. In the end game, squads are OP, the cost of my paper thin ship causes me to be ruthless on the field. I call your location out immediately for destruction by our squad. If I could even lose a single ship I would be a little more casual with my presence on the field. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment

Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1627	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:38:00 - [21] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: How about 1x Plate 1x Repper 1x Hardner On an armour tank that's enough EHP to survive a whole magazine volley of swarms passively, a hardner will allow you to sponge 2 before requiring a retreat and the repers mean you don't need to recall it everytime someond puts a dent in it. You still get a decent amount of reps that means you don't have to be out of the fight long, you have longer to defend against suprise attacks. Then in the high slots you fit an afterburner or scanner in 1 slot and an MCRU in the other. Then you use the remaing PG/CPU to fit the best weapons you can. Et voila, now not only are you a decent tank dealing moderate amounts of damage, you are the spearhead for your force, providing cover and an FOB to yourmfellow mercs, who will actually appreciate your exsistance instead of just being another scrub tanker, looking to slauhter enemies for the sake of KDR and your own twisted enjoyment. At this point, a repper is better than a hardener. Why give up a slot for 25% more resistance when you can DOUBLE your rep rate? Hardeners were viable when they gave 40%. Then you had to choose from either doubling your rep rate or almost doubling your EHP. Edit: you can also say that two reppers will undoubtedly let your recover from swarms much more quickly than a single rep. Whereas with a single rep you'd be forced to eventually retreat, with double reps you'd almost never have to retreat to a single swarm. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2609	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:50:00 - [22] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: How about 1x Plate 1x Repper 1x Hardner On an armour tank that's enough EHP to survive a whole magazine volley of swarms passively, a hardner will allow you to sponge 2 before requiring a retreat and the repers mean you don't need to recall it everytime someond puts a dent in it. You still get a decent amount of reps that means you don't have to be out of the fight long, you have longer to defend against suprise attacks. Then in the high slots you fit an afterburner or scanner in 1 slot and an MCRU in the other. Then you use the remaing PG/CPU to fit the best weapons you can. Et voila, now not only are you a decent tank dealing moderate amounts of damage, you are the spearhead for your force, providing cover and an FOB to yourmfellow mercs, who will actually appreciate your exsistance instead of just being another scrub tanker, looking to slauhter enemies for the sake of KDR and your own twisted enjoyment. At this point, a repper is better than a hardener. Why give up a slot for 25% more resistance when you can DOUBLE your rep rate? Hardeners were viable when they gave 40%. Then you had to choose from either doubling your rep rate or almost doubling your EHP. Edit: you can also say that two reppers will undoubtedly let your recover from swarms much more quickly than a single rep. Whereas with a single rep you'd be forced to eventually retreat, with double reps you'd almost never have to retreat to a single swarm. Quite true, I was going for the smart alec answer, the OPsaid no stacking. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 509	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:50:00 - [23] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. Why? I'm not complaining about how you fit your tank, I'm complaining about the results. This is for CCP to change, not you. Because, that's why.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 3567	Posted - 2014.04.22 14:57:00 - [24] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. Why? I'm not complaining about how you fit your tank, I'm complaining about the results. This is for CCP to change, not you. Yes, but when it gets nerfed due to your incessant crying he will have nothing viable, so he is asking you what he should fit that IS viable. Since obviously you are an expert on tanks.
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 445	Posted - 2014.04.22 15:01:00 - [25] - Quote Atiim wrote: Well here's one. I'd make two more, but it's not worth my time. It was you guys were crying tears of joy for the changes, so now it's you guys who get to live with a monotonous playstyle. Careful what you wish for. 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. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
Denn Maell PIanet Express Canis Eliminatus Operatives 323	Posted - 2014.04.22 15:15:00 - [26] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Nothing Certain wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. Why? I'm not complaining about how you fit your tank, I'm complaining about the results. This is for CCP to change, not you. Yes, but when it gets nerfed due to your incessant crying he will have nothing viable, so he is asking you what he should fit that IS viable. Since obviously you are an expert on tanks. He made a fair point. Balancing content in a multiplayer game is a very difficult and important task. The responsibility falls to the developers not the players, since its the Dev's game in the first place and players would have a conflict of interest. The most OP weapon on the Dust Battle Field: One good logi, one rep tool, and a heavy.
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 13034	Posted - 2014.04.22 15:18:00 - [27] - Quote 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 My Music Videos & Fan Fiction Anti-Social Solo Merc
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 445	Posted - 2014.04.22 15:23:00 - [28] - Quote 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? R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2610	Posted - 2014.04.22 16:14:00 - [29] - Quote 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 Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 511	Posted - 2014.04.22 16:20:00 - [30] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Nothing Certain wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. Why? I'm not complaining about how you fit your tank, I'm complaining about the results. This is for CCP to change, not you. Yes, but when it gets nerfed due to your incessant crying he will have nothing viable, so he is asking you what he should fit that IS viable. Since obviously you are an expert on tanks. I know almost nothing about tanking. I don't expect tankers to take my advice. Again, it is about results and it is up to CCP to fix. If you would like to make suggestions about what makes a "viable fit" without making OP results, do so. Why ask me to? Because, that's why.

Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 589	Posted - 2014.04.22 16:28:00 - [31] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: Atiim wrote: Well here's one. I'd make two more, but it's not worth my time. It was you guys were crying tears of joy for the changes, so now it's you guys who get to live with a monotonous playstyle. Careful what you wish for. 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. It's funny how you seen the writing on the wall , while most was applauding the changes . I don't know how many post that I wrote in opposition to the changes but I knew that it was nothing that I could do because I didn't have any support because most loved what they were doing . That's why I just can't throw out a bunch of numbers , like I see a lot of players doing . I just flash back to the announcement where most seen the numbers and loved it . It's different once it's implemented and I knew that it wouldn't go over well and there would be a lot of QQing . They had a great thing going and didn't have to break vehicle's down the way that they did ... but whatever . I miss the skill tree and everything else , it was so much better and made me feel like my SP's actually made a difference . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
JIMvc2 UNREAL WARRIORS 95	Posted - 2014.04.22 16:30:00 - [32] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: shaman oga wrote: 3 PG mods on the right 1 afterburner on the left 1 damage mod (for a turret different to yours) Ah, gotcha. Dexter307 wrote: 3 pg mods and 2 afterburners Even better. You really cant put 2 after burners = ristricted = not allowed. If you run proto gear, prepare to suffer the consequences. You've been warned.
Himiko Kuronaga Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 3572	Posted - 2014.04.22 16:31:00 - [33] - Quote Denn Maell wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Nothing Certain wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. Why? I'm not complaining about how you fit your tank, I'm complaining about the results. This is for CCP to change, not you. Yes, but when it gets nerfed due to your incessant crying he will have nothing viable, so he is asking you what he should fit that IS viable. Since obviously you are an expert on tanks. He made a fair point. Balancing content in a multiplayer game is a very difficult and important task. The responsibility falls to the developers not the players, since its the Dev's game in the first place and players would have a conflict of interest. Then you should have no issue with an alteration to the EULA that requires all players shut up about balance and never complain about anything? Cool!
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 450	Posted - 2014.04.22 16:38:00 - [34] - 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 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. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
DaNizzle4shizle Pradox One Proficiency V. 803	Posted - 2014.04.22 16:40:00 - [35] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. how about you take off all mods and let us AV people destroy you so we can conserve more ammo for other tanks Desire means never quit.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui The Containment Unit 589	Posted - 2014.04.22 16:47:00 - [36] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: 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 This is just not true . I run heavy and use vehicles . I run heavy because I had that sig since they announced the suit drop and just enjoy the support factor . I would have been a medi-logi but with the changes , Caldari logi's would not be best suited for that role and now the SP's that I have in injectors and rep tools are useless because of a racial bonus that compartmentalized the functions of each races logi . I use tanks , again because I like the support factor . Tankers don't see tanks as a win button like I see most in the community imply . That's just a bad attitude and I really don't see tankers give negative input on the role's of others , actually I see them defending the role's of others .. while they get screwed by these same players that they speak up for . If you drove during 1.6 you would know that tankers don't mind dying as long as they can insure that they can support their squad and help to bring about a win . During 1.6 , tanks were borderline underpowered slash almost in a right place and now most believe that they are overpowered . I feel that they are almost in a good spot because CCP didn't have to break them down the way that they did but that wasn't for me to decide . Swarms are getting better and FG's are nice . The Plasma Cannon isn't that useful . Can't really say much because I just don't want to get drawn into the til for tat argument that most indulge themselves in . If they can't and don't get it their way then they don't want you to either and that gets nothing positive done . Everyone knows that extra HP's doesn't mean that you will come out on top but it's how you play the game and the role . Stop asking for tiercide , your killing variety and the fun of this game at the same dam time .
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3458	Posted - 2014.04.22 17:44:00 - [37] - Quote 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. Here you go Part 1: Engineering & Capacitors Part 2: Armor & Shield Part 3: Modules & Skills Part 4: Vehicles Part 5: Overview
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7090	Posted - 2014.04.22 17:57:00 - [38] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Unfortunately it was the AV community who wanted these changes. Really? I'm looking back through some old threads, and I'm having trouble locating a dedicated AVer who was cheering 1.7's changes on. Would you care to link some for me? HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1629	Posted - 2014.04.22 18:00:00 - [39] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: Harpyja wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: How about 1x Plate 1x Repper 1x Hardner On an armour tank that's enough EHP to survive a whole magazine volley of swarms passively, a hardner will allow you to sponge 2 before requiring a retreat and the repers mean you don't need to recall it everytime someond puts a dent in it. You still get a decent amount of reps that means you don't have to be out of the fight long, you have longer to defend against suprise attacks. Then in the high slots you fit an afterburner or scanner in 1 slot and an MCRU in the other. Then you use the remaing PG/CPU to fit the best weapons you can. Et voila, now not only are you a decent tank dealing moderate amounts of damage, you are the spearhead for your force, providing cover and an FOB to yourmfellow mercs, who will actually appreciate your exsistance instead of just being another scrub tanker, looking to slauhter enemies for the sake of KDR and your own twisted enjoyment. At this point, a repper is better than a hardener. Why give up a slot for 25% more resistance when you can DOUBLE your rep rate? Hardeners were viable when they gave 40%. Then you had to choose from either doubling your rep rate or almost doubling your EHP. Edit: you can also say that two reppers will undoubtedly let your recover from swarms much more quickly than a single rep. Whereas with a single rep you'd be forced to eventually retreat, with double reps you'd almost never have to retreat to a single swarm. Quite true, I was going for the smart alec answer, the OPsaid no stacking. 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. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Jastad D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 723	Posted - 2014.04.22 18:11:00 - [40] - Quote Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Atiim wrote: Well here's one. I'd make two more, but it's not worth my time. It was you guys were crying tears of joy for the changes, so now it's you guys who get to live with a monotonous playstyle. Careful what you wish for. Yes. And 1.7 tank v tank was pretty much fine except for railguns. Unfortunately it was the AV community who wanted these changes. Still can't hack it, though. Sorry, but don't blame the AV community for this. AV-users were correct that AV/VE fight was not so balanced. Specifically shield tank need a look at. Armor tank were somehow fine. We see this message to CCP: Tank must be cheaper OR Be harder to destroy. give them DPS but LOW ammo OR Moderate DPS with no ammo.. Give them more resistance OR nerf AV weapon DMG. CCP did THIS: Spot the difference and find Waldo. Tank must be cheaper AND Be harder to destroy. give them HUGE DPS WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT ammo.. Give them more resistance AND nerf AV weapon DMG. Cal.Heavy-Min.Heavy-Amarr.Heavy Believe in the FORGE, young padawans SoloDoloreSuCharlie

Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7092	Posted - 2014.04.22 18:13:00 - [41] - Quote 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. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7092	Posted - 2014.04.22 18:16:00 - [42] - Quote 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? HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Denn Maell PIanet Express Canis Eliminatus Operatives 324	Posted - 2014.04.22 18:19:00 - [43] - Quote Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Denn Maell wrote: Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Nothing Certain wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. Why? I'm not complaining about how you fit your tank, I'm complaining about the results. This is for CCP to change, not you. Yes, but when it gets nerfed due to your incessant crying he will have nothing viable, so he is asking you what he should fit that IS viable. Since obviously you are an expert on tanks. He made a fair point. Balancing content in a multiplayer game is a very difficult and important task. The responsibility falls to the developers not the players, since its the Dev's game in the first place and players would have a conflict of interest. Then you should have no issue with an alteration to the EULA that requires all players shut up about balance and never complain about anything? Cool! No, but a forum rule that blocks players for a time who make ad-hominem attacks, complains about complaints, and generally offer no insightful criticism, would not be amiss. The most OP weapon on the Dust Battle Field: One good logi, one rep tool, and a heavy.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 753	Posted - 2014.04.22 18:57:00 - [44] - Quote Atiim wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Unfortunately it was the AV community who wanted these changes. Really? I'm looking back through some old threads, and I'm having trouble locating a dedicated AVer who was cheering 1.7's changes on. Would you care to link some for me? Pre 1.7 : Tankers - AV is too strong, we get 2 shot far too easily! Smart AVers - No, only standard MLT tanks get 2 shot. A Player with over 15mil SP that properly fits his tank can easily take around 8 assault FG shots to take down. This is a huge gap that will force tankers to play for months before becoming viable. This is terrible design flaw and needs to be addressed. Tankers - We cost WAY too much money. When i die, it takes over 4 games to recover from the loss. Smart AVers - You also dominate the field when properly fit, hence the extreme cost of your HAV. 30/0 or 30/1 consistently each game is nothing to overlook. Post 1.7 : Tankers - AV isn't strong enough? Well, duh...you aren't using teamwork. USE TEAMWORK scrub! S AVers - But you never had to use teamwork to excel before, and you still don't need to now. What? Why only us? Tankers - Dying is unacceptable. we cost 500k, That's more then a proto dropsuit, and the reason we are supposed to be hard to kill and can easily destroy everything that moves in the game. S Avers - But....Your cost was reduced for the sole purpose of not breaking your wallet when you die. You wanted to keep your effectiveness from pre 1.7, AV to get nerfed AND get a cost reduction? How does that even make sense? S Avers - How do you want balance in a game if you ; A - Want it to be extremely hard to be killed, B - Be affordable C - have the same presence and force multiplier that you already had? Tankers - Because we are TANKS. Nutshell complete.
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro PAND3M0N1UM Top Men. 350	Posted - 2014.04.22 19:03:00 - [45] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Atiim wrote: Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: Unfortunately it was the AV community who wanted these changes. Really? I'm looking back through some old threads, and I'm having trouble locating a dedicated AVer who was cheering 1.7's changes on. Would you care to link some for me? Pre 1.7 : Tankers - AV is too strong, we get 2 shot far too easily! Smart AVers - No, only standard MLT tanks get 2 shot. A Player with over 15mil SP that properly fits his tank can easily take around 8 assault FG shots to take down. This is a huge gap that will force tankers to play for months before becoming viable. This is terrible design flaw and needs to be addressed. Tankers - We cost WAY too much money. When i die, it takes over 4 games to recover from the loss. Smart AVers - You also dominate the field when properly fit, hence the extreme cost of your HAV. 30/0 or 30/1 consistently each game is nothing to overlook. Post 1.7 : Tankers - AV isn't strong enough? Well, duh...you aren't using teamwork. USE TEAMWORK scrub! S AVers - But you never had to use teamwork to excel before, and you still don't need to now. What? Why only us? Tankers - Dying is unacceptable. we cost 500k, That's more then a proto dropsuit, and the reason we are supposed to be hard to kill and can easily destroy everything that moves in the game. S Avers - But....Your cost was reduced for the sole purpose of not breaking your wallet when you die. You wanted to keep your effectiveness from pre 1.7, AV to get nerfed AND get a cost reduction? How does that even make sense? S Avers - How do you want balance in a game if you ; A - Want it to be extremely hard to be killed, B - Be affordable C - have the same presence and force multiplier that you already had? Tankers - Because we are TANKS. Nutshell complete. It is not easy I guess. A very difficult thing to balance. FAME Click for Vehicle Support Click for Recruitment
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2617	Posted - 2014.04.22 22:27:00 - [46] - Quote 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. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2617	Posted - 2014.04.22 22:31:00 - [47] - Quote 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 Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2617	Posted - 2014.04.22 22:34:00 - [48] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Monkey MAC wrote: 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 This is just not true . I run heavy and use vehicles . I run heavy because I had that sig since they announced the suit drop and just enjoy the support factor . I would have been a medi-logi but with the changes , Caldari logi's would not be best suited for that role and now the SP's that I have in injectors and rep tools are useless because of a racial bonus that compartmentalized the functions of each races logi . I use tanks , again because I like the support factor . Tankers don't see tanks as a win button like I see most in the community imply . That's just a bad attitude and I really don't see tankers give negative input on the role's of others , actually I see them defending the role's of others .. while they get screwed by these same players that they speak up for . If you drove during 1.6 you would know that tankers don't mind dying as long as they can insure that they can support their squad and help to bring about a win . During 1.6 , tanks were borderline underpowered slash almost in a right place and now most believe that they are overpowered . I feel that they are almost in a good spot because CCP didn't have to break them down the way that they did but that wasn't for me to decide . Swarms are getting better and FG's are nice . The Plasma Cannon isn't that useful . Can't really say much because I just don't want to get drawn into the tit for tat argument that most indulge themselves in . If they can't and don't get it their way then they don't want you to either and that gets nothing positive done . Everyone knows that extra HP's doesn't mean that you will come out on top but it's how you play the game and the role . May I reference you to Spkr4thedead, yes, that takes care of that argument. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 777	Posted - 2014.04.22 23:06:00 - [49] - Quote Monkey MAC wrote: May I reference you to Spkr4thedead, yes, that takes care of that argument. That was a pretty funny joke.
Benjamin Ciscko Fatal Absolution 2052	Posted - 2014.04.22 23:15:00 - [50] - Quote 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. ISK Donuts are delicious Q_Q Moar

Henchmen21 Planet Express LLC 981	Posted - 2014.04.22 23:18:00 - [51] - Quote I don't recall the AV community calling for anything that CCP actually changed. In classic CCP fashion they "listened" to the community then just did what ever the hell they felt like. I know all I ever asked for was slower acceleration and a buff and/or removal of the warning for prox mines. And don't act like CCP didn't do their level best to screw infantry AV with the grenade and damage mod nerfs. Your game f'ing sucks, but I'll still play it.... damn you! Henchmen21: Infantry Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2618	Posted - 2014.04.22 23:25:00 - [52] - Quote 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. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 124	Posted - 2014.04.23 00:31:00 - [53] - Quote Atiim wrote: Well here's one. I'd make two more, but it's not worth my time. It was you guys were crying tears of joy for the changes, so now it's you guys who get to live with a monotonous playstyle. Careful what you wish for. Well, the low slots aren't much of an issue since it wouldn't survive without the injector. The blaster is though since it wouldn't be able to fight any tank other than another, lower tiered, blaster.
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 124	Posted - 2014.04.23 00:45:00 - [54] - Quote 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....
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1629	Posted - 2014.04.23 01:27:00 - [55] - Quote 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). "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Chunky Munkey Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4000	Posted - 2014.04.23 01:46:00 - [56] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. So you're complaining that the other two armour modules aren't OP too!? No.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9643	Posted - 2014.04.23 01:49:00 - [57] - Quote Chunky Munkey wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. So you're complaining that the other two armour modules aren't OP too!? How are the other two Armour Modules OP? How? "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 780	Posted - 2014.04.23 01:54:00 - [58] - Quote 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.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7126	Posted - 2014.04.23 01:57:00 - [59] - Quote 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? 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 02:00:00 - [60] - 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. 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. "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 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.

MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 457	Posted - 2014.04.23 06:59:00 - [91] - Quote Monkey MAC 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. 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. I said no stacking because whenever we stack any modules the AV community cries OP and unfair. Often times the only way to deal with those deep-in-the-redline cowards is to go out there and kill yourself and hopefully take them with you. If I don't go out there, they will just stay there pounding our team safely from the distance with no risk and all reward. So you think I'm stupid because I take care of the guy that is hated by the whole community? I may be stupid, yes, but I do it out of willingness to try to help. But yes, I'm stupid, if I was smart, I would only play for my own enjoyment, not anyone else's. When you are using AV, you cannot expect to go take the HAV head on, you gotta use the environment as your cover. And I was in a match yesterday where there was ADV minmando pounding my friend's triple rep Maddy (I don't use triple rep myself) with swarms and he made the observation that if that minmando would ever get 5 volleys off, it would kill him, but fortunately that minmando was stupid enough to stay out in the open every single time, so he was dead before he could fire 5 times. If he had taken elevated position, he could have easily gotten 5 shots off if my friend would have remained within his range. So if you engage the HAV where it is at it's strongest, you are expected to lose. Engage it where the HAV is at it's weakest and you will come out on top almost every time. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
NAV HIV The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1540	Posted - 2014.04.23 12:26:00 - [92] - Quote I see you guys are still arguing... Nothing wrong with tanks atm, may be some of the skill trees could give some bonuses other than just being means to get Adv and Proto items... FG works great 90% of the time now... Shots seem to register... Swarms however should be in a different thread... Seriously, those things are waste of ISK
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 20	Posted - 2014.04.23 12:50:00 - [93] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: Monkey MAC 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. 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. I said no stacking because whenever we stack any modules the AV community cries OP and unfair. Often times the only way to deal with those deep-in-the-redline cowards is to go out there and kill yourself and hopefully take them with you. If I don't go out there, they will just stay there pounding our team safely from the distance with no risk and all reward. So you think I'm stupid because I take care of the guy that is hated by the whole community? I may be stupid, yes, but I do it out of willingness to try to help. But yes, I'm stupid, if I was smart, I would only play for my own enjoyment, not anyone else's. When you are using AV, you cannot expect to go take the HAV head on, you gotta use the environment as your cover. And I was in a match yesterday where there was ADV minmando pounding my friend's triple rep Maddy (I don't use triple rep myself) with swarms and he made the observation that if that minmando would ever get 5 volleys off, it would kill him, but fortunately that minmando was stupid enough to stay out in the open every single time, so he was dead before he could fire 5 times. If he had taken elevated position, he could have easily gotten 5 shots off if my friend would have remained within his range. So if you engage the HAV where it is at it's strongest, you are expected to lose. Engage it where the HAV is at it's weakest and you will come out on top almost every time. The reduced lock-on range almost forces a Swarmer to take the HAV on head-on, whether he wants to or not. Against any kind of skilled HAV driver, he will inevitably have to stray out in the open in order to re-aquire the lock after each volley, particularly if the HAV is making any effort whatsoever to evade. If the HAV bolts or tries to take cover, the AV with the Swarms HAS to chase him in order to keep the damage up before he has a chance to repair, otherwise his time, effort, and ammo has been essentially wasted, while the HAV returns at full strength, like nothing happened. And, unlike your friend in the HAV, the AV with the Swarms is very vulnerable to regular Infantry, Snipers, Cloaked Shotty Scouts, etc. (and his first volley pinpoints his location to all them) so taking an elevated position is not necessarily the wisest course of action, and would only have really worked if you're friend in the HAV remained within his range (which is unlikely). Sure, engaging an HAV where it is at it's weakest is good advice, but it is also easier said than done, usually requiring the AV to put himself in harms way, with a weapon that is useless against the majority of the enemy team (i.e. the other 15 guys that AREN'T inside the HAV he's trying to take down). In their current state, I'd say that Swarms are little more than a nuisance to anyone but the worst driver in the crappiest of vehicles, and nowhere near worth the investment of SP or ISK required to even give them a chance at being a viable form of AV.
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 458	Posted - 2014.04.23 13:36:00 - [94] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: The reduced lock-on range almost forces a Swarmer to take the HAV on head-on, whether he wants to or not. Against any kind of skilled HAV driver, he will inevitably have to stray out in the open in order to re-aquire the lock after each volley, particularly if the HAV is making any effort whatsoever to evade. If the HAV bolts or tries to take cover, the AV with the Swarms HAS to chase him in order to keep the damage up before he has a chance to repair, otherwise his time, effort, and ammo has been essentially wasted, while the HAV returns at full strength, like nothing happened. And, unlike your friend in the HAV, the AV with the Swarms is very vulnerable to regular Infantry, Snipers, Cloaked Shotty Scouts, etc. (and his first volley pinpoints his location to all them) so taking an elevated position is not necessarily the wisest course of action, and would only have really worked if you're friend in the HAV remained within his range (which is unlikely). Sure, engaging an HAV where it is at it's weakest is good advice, but it is also easier said than done, usually requiring the AV to put himself in harms way, with a weapon that is useless against the majority of the enemy team (i.e. the other 15 guys that AREN'T inside the HAV he's trying to take down). In their current state, I'd say that Swarms are little more than a nuisance to anyone but the worst driver in the crappiest of vehicles, and nowhere near worth the investment of SP or ISK required to even give them a chance at being a viable form of AV. The reduced lock-on range is an unfortunate side effect of CCP not knowing how to fix rendering, Swarms are invisible yet again from 100m and farther away. When 1.7 deployed they were only invisible at the most extreme ranges (170m+). Until such a time that CCP fixes Swarm rendering the range cannot go up, unfortunately, because I too think it's not enough, but is it fair when you don't even know you are about to get hit and have no idea from which direction? If the HAV goes for cover, it means it's not posing any threat, you have effectively eliminated that threat from that particular area assuming you are in a position where you cannot be easily killed by infantry. If the tanker tries to do anything useful, he will have to come and put him/herself under fire. Same goes for infantry, if you make an infantry guy run for his life, you have eliminated that threat until such a time that he/she comes back with full health. Snipers are an issue, but we do have Rails as a similar issue as well. Dropships even have Large Missiles as an issue with their unlimited range. Well, if you are high up in a building inside a compound and a tank decides to enter the compound, now, your highest advantage here is that you know which routes that tank has to take and you use that advantage wisely. If you get killed by infantry, that means your infantry is not doing their job and it's not the tanker's fault because there's very little that tanks can do inside compounds. Swarms are quite a bit more than "little more than a nuisance" to most vehicles, maybe not without damage mods and maybe not without minmando, but they can be extremely dangerous in the right hands. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 20	Posted - 2014.04.23 14:10:00 - [95] - Quote Sorry, allow me to clarify: Anything less than Proto Swarms, with full stacked Damage Mods, the extra damage bonus from a Minmando Suit, and the assistance of two or three other Dedicated AV, all working together against an inexperienced, unskilled driver in anything less than an Advanced HAV, is little more than a nuisance, and simply not worth the SP or ISK investment. To use Swarms in their current state, a player has not choice to go fully Modded and optimized Proto (just to have a chance at maybe, possibly taking on a lesser tier HAV, but only under absolutely ideal circumstances), or they might as well not bother speccing into them at all.
Django Quik Dust2Dust. 2949	Posted - 2014.04.23 14:25:00 - [96] - Quote The state of tanks since their reboot in 1.7 has been very sad. The way CCP keeps going about things leaves only one viable way to tank at a time. What they need to do is make every style of tank viable. A dual hardened tank should not be the obvious choice over everything else. A triple repping tank should not be the obvious choice over everything else. Every style should have an area to excel in but not stomp over ALL. A jack of all trades tank (1 x hardener, 1 x repper, 1 x plate) should be useful in many situations but not great at any. It's really not all that different to infantry but even there we have problems with bricktanking being the go-to fit for everything. We need more rock paper scissors situations in all areas of this game and between tanks vs tanks, ADS vs ADS and infantry vs infantry as well as everything inbetween. I'm not crying about triple reppers or dual hardeners or anything like that. It's just saddening seeing one type of vehicle out there and must be boring for those players who are running the same thing every single game. I wished they'd not nerfed hardeners like they did but applied a repping penalty to them instead. I wish they'd bring back active reppers at the strength of current passive reppers and make passive repping much lower. I don't want anything to be obviously weaker than anything else - I want everything to have its place and be useful in the right situations; not ALL situations and not NONE either. Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot Scout community is the nuts
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 460	Posted - 2014.04.23 14:36:00 - [97] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: Sorry, allow me to clarify: Anything less than Proto Swarms, with full stacked Damage Mods, the extra damage bonus from a Minmando Suit, and the assistance of two or three other Dedicated AV, all working together against an inexperienced, unskilled driver in anything less than an Advanced HAV, is little more than a nuisance, and simply not worth the SP or ISK investment. To use Swarms in their current state, a player has not choice to go fully Modded and optimized Proto (just to have a chance at maybe, possibly taking on a lesser tier HAV, but only under absolutely ideal circumstances), or they might as well not bother speccing into them at all. We have no choice to go for anything more than STD so I guess the game has to be balanced in a stupid way... And I don't agree with it, they need to bring out everything first and then balance around that, not balance around what we have now and then completely break the balance when more powerful stuff is released... R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 460	Posted - 2014.04.23 14:40:00 - [98] - Quote Django Quik wrote: The state of tanks since their reboot in 1.7 has been very sad. The way CCP keeps going about things leaves only one viable way to tank at a time. What they need to do is make every style of tank viable. A dual hardened tank should not be the obvious choice over everything else. A triple repping tank should not be the obvious choice over everything else. Every style should have an area to excel in but not stomp over ALL. A jack of all trades tank (1 x hardener, 1 x repper, 1 x plate) should be useful in many situations but not great at any. It's really not all that different to infantry but even there we have problems with bricktanking being the go-to fit for everything. We need more rock paper scissors situations in all areas of this game and between tanks vs tanks, ADS vs ADS and infantry vs infantry as well as everything inbetween. I'm not crying about triple reppers or dual hardeners or anything like that. It's just saddening seeing one type of vehicle out there and must be boring for those players who are running the same thing every single game. I wished they'd not nerfed hardeners like they did but applied a repping penalty to them instead. I wish they'd bring back active reppers at the strength of current passive reppers and make passive repping much lower. I don't want anything to be obviously weaker than anything else - I want everything to have its place and be useful in the right situations; not ALL situations and not NONE either. I agree with everything except active reppers being the only as strong as current passive reppers... I think active reppers need to be considerably more powerful but at the same time have long cooldowns and for that to work we might need slightly stronger plates to survive at all before having to activate repper. I used to rely heavily on remote reppers and shield transporters but we don't have those anymore... R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2631	Posted - 2014.04.23 15:19:00 - [99] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: Monkey MAC 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. 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. I said no stacking because whenever we stack any modules the AV community cries OP and unfair. Often times the only way to deal with those deep-in-the-redline cowards is to go out there and kill yourself and hopefully take them with you. If I don't go out there, they will just stay there pounding our team safely from the distance with no risk and all reward. So you think I'm stupid because I take care of the guy that is hated by the whole community? I may be stupid, yes, but I do it out of willingness to try to help. But yes, I'm stupid, if I was smart, I would only play for my own enjoyment, not anyone else's. When you are using AV, you cannot expect to go take the HAV head on, you gotta use the environment as your cover. And I was in a match yesterday where there was ADV minmando pounding my friend's triple rep Maddy (I don't use triple rep myself) with swarms and he made the observation that if that minmando would ever get 5 volleys off, it would kill him, but fortunately that minmando was stupid enough to stay out in the open every single time, so he was dead before he could fire 5 times. If he had taken elevated position, he could have easily gotten 5 shots off if my friend would have remained within his range. So if you engage the HAV where it is at it's strongest, you are expected to lose. Engage it where the HAV is at it's weakest and you will come out on top almost every time. This has been debunked as requiring 12 shots for a triple rep, also you have to consider you need line of sight to lock on with a swarm launcher, as such to get the required DPS to dispose of a tank you need to vunerable for a large amount of time. Hence death and lots of it. If you expect an AVer to die only twice a match there is no way, he could possibly do his job effectively. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Django Quik Dust2Dust. 2952	Posted - 2014.04.23 15:47:00 - [100] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: Django Quik wrote: The state of tanks since their reboot in 1.7 has been very sad. The way CCP keeps going about things leaves only one viable way to tank at a time. What they need to do is make every style of tank viable. A dual hardened tank should not be the obvious choice over everything else. A triple repping tank should not be the obvious choice over everything else. Every style should have an area to excel in but not stomp over ALL. A jack of all trades tank (1 x hardener, 1 x repper, 1 x plate) should be useful in many situations but not great at any. It's really not all that different to infantry but even there we have problems with bricktanking being the go-to fit for everything. We need more rock paper scissors situations in all areas of this game and between tanks vs tanks, ADS vs ADS and infantry vs infantry as well as everything inbetween. I'm not crying about triple reppers or dual hardeners or anything like that. It's just saddening seeing one type of vehicle out there and must be boring for those players who are running the same thing every single game. I wished they'd not nerfed hardeners like they did but applied a repping penalty to them instead. I wish they'd bring back active reppers at the strength of current passive reppers and make passive repping much lower. I don't want anything to be obviously weaker than anything else - I want everything to have its place and be useful in the right situations; not ALL situations and not NONE either. I agree with everything except active reppers being the only as strong as current passive reppers... I think active reppers need to be considerably more powerful but at the same time have long cooldowns and for that to work we might need slightly stronger plates to survive at all before having to activate repper. I used to rely heavily on remote reppers and shield transporters but we don't have those anymore... Yeah, I'd agree to that - when I've talked of this elsewhere I've said at least as powerful as current passive reppers. I don't think you could make them 'considerably stronger' though because then you'd get people stacking multiple active reppers and have the same constant super repping effect. The principle is all there anyway - just needs fine tuning (no CCP, put down that sledge! ) Dedicated sidearm scout - Watch out for that headshot Scout community is the nuts

NAV HIV The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1548	Posted - 2014.04.23 16:40:00 - [101] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: Sorry, allow me to clarify: Anything less than Proto Swarms, with full stacked Damage Mods, the extra damage bonus from a Minmando Suit, and the assistance of two or three other Dedicated AV, all working together against an inexperienced, unskilled driver in anything less than an Advanced HAV, is little more than a nuisance, and simply not worth the SP or ISK investment. To use Swarms in their current state, a player has not choice to go fully Modded and optimized Proto (just to have a chance at maybe, possibly taking on a lesser tier HAV, but only under absolutely ideal circumstances), or they might as well not bother speccing into them at all. I think Wyrkomi costs 77k each =< Soma/Sica
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 462	Posted - 2014.04.23 16:56:00 - [102] - Quote Django Quik wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: Django Quik wrote: The state of tanks since their reboot in 1.7 has been very sad. The way CCP keeps going about things leaves only one viable way to tank at a time. What they need to do is make every style of tank viable. A dual hardened tank should not be the obvious choice over everything else. A triple repping tank should not be the obvious choice over everything else. Every style should have an area to excel in but not stomp over ALL. A jack of all trades tank (1 x hardener, 1 x repper, 1 x plate) should be useful in many situations but not great at any. It's really not all that different to infantry but even there we have problems with bricktanking being the go-to fit for everything. We need more rock paper scissors situations in all areas of this game and between tanks vs tanks, ADS vs ADS and infantry vs infantry as well as everything inbetween. I'm not crying about triple reppers or dual hardeners or anything like that. It's just saddening seeing one type of vehicle out there and must be boring for those players who are running the same thing every single game. I wished they'd not nerfed hardeners like they did but applied a repping penalty to them instead. I wish they'd bring back active reppers at the strength of current passive reppers and make passive repping much lower. I don't want anything to be obviously weaker than anything else - I want everything to have its place and be useful in the right situations; not ALL situations and not NONE either. I agree with everything except active reppers being the only as strong as current passive reppers... I think active reppers need to be considerably more powerful but at the same time have long cooldowns and for that to work we might need slightly stronger plates to survive at all before having to activate repper. I used to rely heavily on remote reppers and shield transporters but we don't have those anymore... Yeah, I'd agree to that - when I've talked of this elsewhere I've said at least as powerful as current passive reppers. I don't think you could make them 'considerably stronger' though because then you'd get people stacking multiple active reppers and have the same constant super repping effect. The principle is all there anyway - just needs fine tuning (no CCP, put down that sledge! ) We used to have 5 slots. Higher active reps than current triple passive reps. Who stacked them? No one. The fitting cost was set just right. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
buzzzzzzz killllllllll TRA1LBLAZERS 439	Posted - 2014.04.23 17:00:00 - [103] - Quote i fit my maddies with 1 heavy rep, some pre 1.7 torque mods that are no longer on the market, a fuel injector, and a scanner. any infantry i touch gets roadkilled Dedicated heavy through the hard times, still supporter of A FULL 1.8 respec and MOAR HEAVY WEAPONS!
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 25	Posted - 2014.04.23 18:01:00 - [104] - Quote NAV HIV wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: Sorry, allow me to clarify: Anything less than Proto Swarms, with full stacked Damage Mods, the extra damage bonus from a Minmando Suit, and the assistance of two or three other Dedicated AV, all working together against an inexperienced, unskilled driver in anything less than an Advanced HAV, is little more than a nuisance, and simply not worth the SP or ISK investment. To use Swarms in their current state, a player has not choice to go fully Modded and optimized Proto (just to have a chance at maybe, possibly taking on a lesser tier HAV, but only under absolutely ideal circumstances), or they might as well not bother speccing into them at all. I think Wyrkomi costs 77k each =< Soma/Sica Wyrkomi Swarms, plus Damage Mods, plus the Proto Suit costs 150k+ each (anything less is ineffective and basically pointless). Probably about half as much as a tanker's suit + tank but, then again, that tanker's basically got an extra life. Think of it as the necessary expense to wear what is essentially two suits. One (the tank) that has an insane amount of hitpoints and firepower compared to my AV suit, that you can jump out of just before it is destroyed and continue playing, and the other (your Dropsuit), that you can continue to be effective in once your tank is gone. If I take even a fraction of the damage that your HAV does, I'm dead and respawning. You can take a ton of damage and hop out, still at full health and ready to continue fighting, at which point you should have zero difficulty finishing me off, since I'm standing there with a weapon that doesn't work against Infantry. HAV pilots also have a ton more survivability compared to their AV counterparts. They have a ton of hitpoints, tons of firepower that can be effective against Infantry AND other vehicles, and are immune to one-hit killers like Snipers or SG Scouts, while the AV is vulnerable to everything on the field while their attention is on the HAV. AV tend to die much more than the HAV pilot so, if I had to guess, I'd say that our overall per-match expenses are close to, if not more than, that of the HAV, while our end-of-match payout is significantly less. When was the last time you saw an AV go 10-1, or 15-2, or 20-0 in a match? When was the last time you saw a tanker top the scoreboard?
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1641	Posted - 2014.04.23 18:29:00 - [105] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: 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. I also don't want tanks to be able to dominate infantry while they are tank hunting. But you're looking at the situation from the wrong perspective. Tanks in general are not problematic. It's a certain type of tank that's being problematic: the blaster tank. The blaster tank can pick off infantry much easier than the missile and railgun turrets. A blaster tank can also deal considerable damage to other vehicles. This is a side-effect of the hardener nerf. Before hardeners could help negate a large portion of blaster DPS, making blaster tanks weak at AV. Now though, they barely give up any AV abilities in exchange for far superior AI abilities. This is what's causing the problems, and blasters need a 33% damage nerf. Do that first and we'll see how everything plays out, because I believe that that will help solve this problem. Now, I disagree with making HAVs AV focused. It's not the hull that should determine its role, but rather its turret type, not size either for that matter. A blaster turret (and pulse lasers and autocannons when they come out) will be able to hit infantry far more easily than missiles, railguns, beam lasers, and artillery. It's because of this fact that turrets should be focused for either AI or AV, where they give up abilities in one in exchange for the other. Would it make sense if HMGs could only kill heavies, combat rifles only medium suits, and SMG's only light suits? After all, they are all projectiles, but their size varies. No; size doesn't determine role, and neither should it for turrets. Sniper rifles and rail rifles are both hybrid-railgun and are the same size, but that doesn't mean they have the same roles. One is automatic while the other is semi-automatic with a tiny clip size. One has much greater range than the other. Weapon type determines role, not size or even the dropsuit it's on. Therfore, turret type should play the largest factor when defining a vehicle's role. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1641	Posted - 2014.04.23 18:36:00 - [106] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: NAV HIV wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: Sorry, allow me to clarify: Anything less than Proto Swarms, with full stacked Damage Mods, the extra damage bonus from a Minmando Suit, and the assistance of two or three other Dedicated AV, all working together against an inexperienced, unskilled driver in anything less than an Advanced HAV, is little more than a nuisance, and simply not worth the SP or ISK investment. To use Swarms in their current state, a player has not choice to go fully Modded and optimized Proto (just to have a chance at maybe, possibly taking on a lesser tier HAV, but only under absolutely ideal circumstances), or they might as well not bother speccing into them at all. I think Wyrkomi costs 77k each =< Soma/Sica Wyrkomi Swarms, plus Damage Mods, plus the Proto Suit costs 150k+ each (anything less is ineffective and basically pointless). Probably about half as much as a tanker's suit + tank but, then again, that tanker's basically got an extra life. Think of it as the necessary expense to wear what is essentially two suits. One (the tank) that has an insane amount of hitpoints and firepower compared to my AV suit, that you can jump out of just before it is destroyed and continue playing, and the other (your Dropsuit), that you can continue to be effective in once your tank is gone. If I take even a fraction of the damage that your HAV does, I'm dead and respawning. You can take a ton of damage and hop out, still at full health and ready to continue fighting, at which point you should have zero difficulty finishing me off, since I'm standing there with a weapon that doesn't work against Infantry. HAV pilots also have a ton more survivability compared to their AV counterparts. They have a ton of hitpoints, tons of firepower that can be effective against Infantry AND other vehicles, and are immune to one-hit killers like Snipers or SG Scouts, while the AV is vulnerable to everything on the field while their attention is on the HAV. AV tend to die much more than the HAV pilot so, if I had to guess, I'd say that our overall per-match expenses are close to, if not more than, that of the HAV, while our end-of-match payout is significantly less. When was the last time you saw an AV go 10-1, or 15-2, or 20-0 in a match? When was the last time you saw a tanker top the scoreboard? Only scrubs who value their precious KDR jump out of their tanks before they blow up. Tanks are not disposable dropsuits; they are a role to be skilled into, just like any other dropsuit. Also, KDR is not the be-all end-all statistic. I often top the scoreboard with less than 10 kills. It's because I'm a missile Gunnlogi, so destroying other vehicles is my primary focus which nets WPs more so than KDR. Logibros can also top the scoreboard without getting any kills. Does that mean though that they are ineffective if they didn't get any kills? An AV'er does not need to go 10-1 or something high like that. They get much more WP for damaging and destroying vehicles than killing infantry. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 30	Posted - 2014.04.23 18:48:00 - [107] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: NAV HIV wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: Sorry, allow me to clarify: Anything less than Proto Swarms, with full stacked Damage Mods, the extra damage bonus from a Minmando Suit, and the assistance of two or three other Dedicated AV, all working together against an inexperienced, unskilled driver in anything less than an Advanced HAV, is little more than a nuisance, and simply not worth the SP or ISK investment. To use Swarms in their current state, a player has not choice to go fully Modded and optimized Proto (just to have a chance at maybe, possibly taking on a lesser tier HAV, but only under absolutely ideal circumstances), or they might as well not bother speccing into them at all. I think Wyrkomi costs 77k each =< Soma/Sica Wyrkomi Swarms, plus Damage Mods, plus the Proto Suit costs 150k+ each (anything less is ineffective and basically pointless). Probably about half as much as a tanker's suit + tank but, then again, that tanker's basically got an extra life. Think of it as the necessary expense to wear what is essentially two suits. One (the tank) that has an insane amount of hitpoints and firepower compared to my AV suit, that you can jump out of just before it is destroyed and continue playing, and the other (your Dropsuit), that you can continue to be effective in once your tank is gone. If I take even a fraction of the damage that your HAV does, I'm dead and respawning. You can take a ton of damage and hop out, still at full health and ready to continue fighting, at which point you should have zero difficulty finishing me off, since I'm standing there with a weapon that doesn't work against Infantry. HAV pilots also have a ton more survivability compared to their AV counterparts. They have a ton of hitpoints, tons of firepower that can be effective against Infantry AND other vehicles, and are immune to one-hit killers like Snipers or SG Scouts, while the AV is vulnerable to everything on the field while their attention is on the HAV. AV tend to die much more than the HAV pilot so, if I had to guess, I'd say that our overall per-match expenses are close to, if not more than, that of the HAV, while our end-of-match payout is significantly less. When was the last time you saw an AV go 10-1, or 15-2, or 20-0 in a match? When was the last time you saw a tanker top the scoreboard? Only scrubs who value their precious KDR jump out of their tanks before they blow up. Tanks are not disposable dropsuits; they are a role to be skilled into, just like any other dropsuit. Also, KDR is not the be-all end-all statistic. I often top the scoreboard with less than 10 kills. It's because I'm a missile Gunnlogi, so destroying other vehicles is my primary focus which nets WPs more so than KDR. Logibros can also top the scoreboard without getting any kills. Does that mean though that they are ineffective if they didn't get any kills? An AV'er does not need to go 10-1 or something high like that. They get much more WP for damaging and destroying vehicles than killing infantry. It was not a point of KDR, but more profit versus loss. Top of the scoreboard = higher payout. For example: If an HAV costs 300k, plus another 100k for the driver's dropsuit, for a total of 400k... and my Proto AV suit, including Proto Swarms cost 150k... and I die 5 times in a match while trying to take out the HAV, but manage to eventually take him out in the process... but, in the meantime that HAV racks up 10 kills... He'll probably be awarded more WP, and a higher ISK payout than I will at the end of the match, for going 10-1 than I will for going 1-5 (even with damage points). His total expenditure = 400k ISK. My total expenditure = 750k ISK. It just isn't cost-effective, with regard to SP required to specialize and ISK awarded at the end of the match, to specialize in AV, not when there are so many easier, more rewarding alternatives (Logi, for example).
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 464	Posted - 2014.04.23 18:56:00 - [108] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: Harpyja wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: NAV HIV wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: Sorry, allow me to clarify: Anything less than Proto Swarms, with full stacked Damage Mods, the extra damage bonus from a Minmando Suit, and the assistance of two or three other Dedicated AV, all working together against an inexperienced, unskilled driver in anything less than an Advanced HAV, is little more than a nuisance, and simply not worth the SP or ISK investment. To use Swarms in their current state, a player has not choice to go fully Modded and optimized Proto (just to have a chance at maybe, possibly taking on a lesser tier HAV, but only under absolutely ideal circumstances), or they might as well not bother speccing into them at all. I think Wyrkomi costs 77k each =< Soma/Sica Wyrkomi Swarms, plus Damage Mods, plus the Proto Suit costs 150k+ each (anything less is ineffective and basically pointless). Probably about half as much as a tanker's suit + tank but, then again, that tanker's basically got an extra life. Think of it as the necessary expense to wear what is essentially two suits. One (the tank) that has an insane amount of hitpoints and firepower compared to my AV suit, that you can jump out of just before it is destroyed and continue playing, and the other (your Dropsuit), that you can continue to be effective in once your tank is gone. If I take even a fraction of the damage that your HAV does, I'm dead and respawning. You can take a ton of damage and hop out, still at full health and ready to continue fighting, at which point you should have zero difficulty finishing me off, since I'm standing there with a weapon that doesn't work against Infantry. HAV pilots also have a ton more survivability compared to their AV counterparts. They have a ton of hitpoints, tons of firepower that can be effective against Infantry AND other vehicles, and are immune to one-hit killers like Snipers or SG Scouts, while the AV is vulnerable to everything on the field while their attention is on the HAV. AV tend to die much more than the HAV pilot so, if I had to guess, I'd say that our overall per-match expenses are close to, if not more than, that of the HAV, while our end-of-match payout is significantly less. When was the last time you saw an AV go 10-1, or 15-2, or 20-0 in a match? When was the last time you saw a tanker top the scoreboard? Only scrubs who value their precious KDR jump out of their tanks before they blow up. Tanks are not disposable dropsuits; they are a role to be skilled into, just like any other dropsuit. Also, KDR is not the be-all end-all statistic. I often top the scoreboard with less than 10 kills. It's because I'm a missile Gunnlogi, so destroying other vehicles is my primary focus which nets WPs more so than KDR. Logibros can also top the scoreboard without getting any kills. Does that mean though that they are ineffective if they didn't get any kills? An AV'er does not need to go 10-1 or something high like that. They get much more WP for damaging and destroying vehicles than killing infantry. It was not a point of KDR, but more profit versus loss. Top of the scoreboard = higher payout. For example: If an HAV costs 300k, plus another 100k for the driver's dropsuit, for a total of 400k... and my Proto AV suit, including Proto Swarms cost 150k... and I die 5 times in a match while trying to take out the HAV, but manage to eventually take him out in the process... but, in the meantime that HAV racks up 10 kills... He'll probably be awarded more WP, and a higher ISK payout than I will at the end of the match, for going 10-1 than I will for going 1-5 (even with damage points). His total expenditure = 400k ISK. My total expenditure = 700 ISK. It just isn't cost-effective, with regard to SP required to specialize and ISK awarded at the end of the match, to specialize in AV, not when there are so many easier, more rewarding alternatives (Logi, for example). If you want to bring ISK into the argument I can tell you that tank vs tank fights are even less profitable. I can roam around in my 700K ISK tank with 2 gunners and get 2 shotted down by a 70K Sica. So, 1 death = 700K... how many times can you die for that price? R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7137	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:02:00 - [109] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: If you want to bring ISK into the argument I can tell you that tank vs tank fights are even less profitable. I can roam around in my 700K ISK tank with 2 gunners and get 2 shotted down by a 70K Sica. So, 1 death = 700K... how many times can you die for that price? If your loosing 700k ISK per tank death, it's your own fault. Just about every vehicle module in the game yields little to no benefits across higher tiers, meaning you could run the basic with no issues in performance. Though at 700k, I could die about 2-3 times depending on my fit. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7137	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:05:00 - [110] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Mechanics should then benefit players who fit for squad based activities not rewards those who selfishly fit tanks for their solo benefits. Here's a start. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND

Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 30	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:14:00 - [111] - Quote NAV HIV is the one who brought ISK into the argument, not me. I just pointed out that running an EFFECTIVE dedicated AV is not a profitable venture, by any means (potentially less so in the long run than running an HAV). Sure I can run a cheaper fit, but I'll probably only make a few damage points. I certainly doubt I'll be destroying anything less than militia LAV's with basic swarms, but I might turn a small profit at the end of the match (nowhere near what the slayers or Logis or HAV drivers will, though). But, if I want to even have a chance at putting a dent in any significant HAV, I'll have to put full Proto on the line every time and, considering how many threats there are to me while I'm shooting at the HAV, the risk just isn't worth the potential reward and, while I might cost that HAV driver msome money, I'll also be losing money myself in the process.
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 465	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:19:00 - [112] - Quote Atiim wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: If you want to bring ISK into the argument I can tell you that tank vs tank fights are even less profitable. I can roam around in my 700K ISK tank with 2 gunners and get 2 shotted down by a 70K Sica. So, 1 death = 700K... how many times can you die for that price? If your loosing 700k ISK per tank death, it's your own fault. Just about every vehicle module in the game yields little to no benefits across higher tiers, meaning you could run the basic with no issues in performance. Though at 700k, I could die about 2-3 times depending on my fit. Uh... Proto turrets =/= STD turrets... R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1642	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:19:00 - [113] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Mechanics should then benefit players who fit for squad based activities not rewards those who selfishly fit tanks for their solo benefits. Here's a start. I'm starting to think that tanks need to be required to fit small turrets again. There's too much personal gain from not fitting small turrets, and the fitting resources cannot be balanced for both solo and crewed HAVs. It's a breeze to fit all proto without any small turrets, but I need near max skills and fittting enhancements to fit all proto and two advanced small turrets, and in the end I actually have 1 free PG left, not joking. Not requiring small turrets was the lazy way around implementing vehicle locks, and it has created this side-effect of boosting personal gain. The fitting resources are balanced for having small turrets, but not putting them on throws away that balance. It's the reason I'm able to fit a triple rep militia fit Madrugar without any armor fitting optimization skill. I can't fit even one small turret if I wanted to. Requiring small turrets might be the or one of the "nerfs" needed without actually nerfing tanks. Those of us that already fit small turrets won't get penalized for those that take advantage of that extra fitting ability. "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 465	Posted - 2014.04.23 19:28:00 - [114] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: NAV HIV is the one who brought ISK into the argument, not me. I just pointed out that running an EFFECTIVE dedicated AV is not a profitable venture, by any means (potentially less so in the long run than running an HAV). Sure I can run a cheaper fit, but I'll probably only make a few damage points. I certainly doubt I'll be destroying anything less than militia LAV's with basic swarms, but I might turn a small profit at the end of the match (nowhere near what the slayers or Logis or HAV drivers will, though). But, if I want to even have a chance at putting a dent in any significant HAV, I'll have to put full Proto on the line every time and, considering how many threats there are to me while I'm shooting at the HAV, the risk just isn't worth the potential reward and, while I might cost that HAV driver msome money, I'll also be losing money myself in the process. HAV drivers only make profit in ambush.... Unless you use a Soma or Sica all the time... R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
Chunky Munkey Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4003	Posted - 2014.04.23 23:18:00 - [115] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Chunky Munkey wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So, low slot: we have Armor Plate, Armor Hardener and Armor Repair modules. What do you want us to fit? Armor Plates don't give enough EHP in comparison to how much the hull already has. Armor Hardener doesn't do any good anymore against anything unless you stack 2 of them. Armor Repairs don't do any good when there's only one of them. So, uh...? Can you, the AV community, please, give us tankers a few viable options on how to fit Maddies? At least 3, please. Oh, and please, don't stack any modules cause that would be OP, right? Edit: Remember, the Madrugar has 2 high and 3 low slots. So you're complaining that the other two armour modules aren't OP too!? How are the other two Armour Modules OP? How? Read again pls. No.
NAV HIV The Generals General Tso's Alliance 1552	Posted - 2014.04.24 12:44:00 - [116] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: NAV HIV is the one who brought ISK into the argument, not me. I just pointed out that running an EFFECTIVE dedicated AV is not a profitable venture, by any means (potentially less so in the long run than running an HAV). Sure I can run a cheaper fit, but I'll probably only make a few damage points. I certainly doubt I'll be destroying anything less than militia LAV's with basic swarms, but I might turn a small profit at the end of the match (nowhere near what the slayers or Logis or HAV drivers will, though). But, if I want to even have a chance at putting a dent in any significant HAV, I'll have to put full Proto on the line every time and, considering how many threats there are to me while I'm shooting at the HAV, the risk just isn't worth the potential reward and, while I might cost that HAV driver msome money, I'll also be losing money myself in the process. HAV drivers only make profit in ambush.... Unless you use a Soma or Sica all the time... My Scout suit = 186k Total EHP 240 My Maddy Blaster 172k lol HAV drivers only make ISK in Ambush ?! lol If i run my tank i can make 1.5 - 2 mil in 4 rounds... Without losing any ISK... If i run my scout suit for 4 rounds, i'll be surely losing a mil or two... I deleted my Swarm fitting. SOMA with MLT Rail Turret and Damage mods is still 1 third of the Cost of my AV suit...
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 468	Posted - 2014.04.24 16:09:00 - [117] - Quote NAV HIV wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: NAV HIV is the one who brought ISK into the argument, not me. I just pointed out that running an EFFECTIVE dedicated AV is not a profitable venture, by any means (potentially less so in the long run than running an HAV). Sure I can run a cheaper fit, but I'll probably only make a few damage points. I certainly doubt I'll be destroying anything less than militia LAV's with basic swarms, but I might turn a small profit at the end of the match (nowhere near what the slayers or Logis or HAV drivers will, though). But, if I want to even have a chance at putting a dent in any significant HAV, I'll have to put full Proto on the line every time and, considering how many threats there are to me while I'm shooting at the HAV, the risk just isn't worth the potential reward and, while I might cost that HAV driver msome money, I'll also be losing money myself in the process. HAV drivers only make profit in ambush.... Unless you use a Soma or Sica all the time... My Scout suit = 186k Total EHP 240 My Maddy Blaster 172k lol HAV drivers only make ISK in Ambush ?! lol If i run my tank i can make 1.5 - 2 mil in 4 rounds... Without losing any ISK... If i run my scout suit for 4 rounds, i'll be surely losing a mil or two... I deleted my Swarm fitting. SOMA with MLT Rail Turret and Damage mods is still 1 third of the Cost of my AV suit... You must tell me your secrets of not running into enemy vehicles (stronger than your STD/MLT Blaster). Also you must tell me how you earn 375-500k per round without risking much. I usually make like 200-300k with 3000-4000 WP and 0 deaths and being on top of the leaderboard while risking 500-700k myself. It's very rare to get 450k+ anymore these days and that requires lots of vehicles destroyed, no amount of proto suits killed yield that much. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
Commander Tzu L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 126	Posted - 2014.04.24 17:25:00 - [118] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Mechanics should then benefit players who fit for squad based activities not rewards those who selfishly fit tanks for their solo benefits. Here's a start. I'm starting to think that tanks need to be required to fit small turrets again. There's too much personal gain from not fitting small turrets, and the fitting resources cannot be balanced for both solo and crewed HAVs. It's a breeze to fit all proto without any small turrets, but I need near max skills and fittting enhancements to fit all proto and two advanced small turrets, and in the end I actually have 1 free PG left, not joking. Not requiring small turrets was the lazy way around implementing vehicle locks, and it has created this side-effect of boosting personal gain. The fitting resources are balanced for having small turrets, but not putting them on throws away that balance. It's the reason I'm able to fit a triple rep militia fit Madrugar without any armor fitting optimization skill. I can't fit even one small turret if I wanted to. Requiring small turrets might be the or one of the "nerfs" needed without actually nerfing tanks. Those of us that already fit small turrets won't get penalized for those that take advantage of that extra fitting ability. They absolutely have to implement vehicle locks. I don't want small turrets being required until they do. When 1.7 first came out I tried running squad support tanks. Then you and your gunners clear an objective, gunner hops out to hack and a blueberry gets in and does nothing but shoot at the enemy mcc with a small missle. Or worse, in faction warfare I had people get into my tank and shoot my own god damn tank trying to kill it, I lost two tanks because my gunner was shooting my tank and damaging it so I only had 50% HP when I found another tank or AV. After those incidents I just quit fitting small turrets.


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

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

SoloDoloreSuCharlie