DUST Search - Alright, I'll bite. Tank post here

All Channels

General Discussions

Alright, I'll bite. Tank post here

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2044	Posted - 2014.04.26 15:36:00 - [1] - Quote So, I've been feeling for a little while now that MLT gear is very nearly on par with PRO gear. My Madrugar + particle cannon and a single damage does slightly more damage than a Sica + MLT railgun and 2 damage mods. I don't have the game on and I'm terrible at math so I can't do the numbers. Despite the experience I have, more times than I'd like, I barely come out on top against someone protecting their redline by camping behind it. I take them on as a way of teaching them a lesson. Those people are also the reason the railgun range was nerfed. Now I need to put myself further into enemy controlled territory to deal with them. Blaster is basically the same thing. My Madrugar + ion cannon vs a Soma + MLT blaster will barely do more damage. Yet, even when I have a hardener on, a MLT blaster will whittle away my armor, yet my ion cannon won't beat out a MLT heavy rep. I don't have a problem with missile because it's the hardest turret to use. I have some solutions surrounding damage mods that I feel could bring them down a notch, rather than enabling their turret to be the Fist of God that they are now. - Slightly increase spool-up time of rail guns. This shouldn't be anything big at all, but the number should be in tenths of a percent, WHILE the damage mod is active. - Leave the fire rate as-is. This will complicate things for my third point. - Increase heat build-up as shots are fired WHILE a damage mod is active. As it stands, any rail can fire 5 rounds without overheating, and the 6th round causes an overheat. With one damage mod active, 4 rounds causes an overheat, and with 2 damage mods active, 2 rounds causes an overheat. If you have 3 damages, well, there's no hope for you and you may as well roll around in a LAV with 27,000 damage worth of REs, because you're just that bad. I don't have problems with the other turrets and damage mods, though I do laugh every time I see a tank that has a damage mod with a blaster. My big sore point - glass Gunnlogis that only come out when a tank is near. These people basically ruined tanking in Dust. Before the railgun range nerf, these people were the ones that camped the redline, and never dared to come out to brawl. They put 3 damage mods on a Gunnlogi, particle cannon, an armor hardener and the best plate they could fit. They would wait on a mountain, and shoot at everything that came in range, from infantry, to tankers like me that went to chase them away and/or kill them if possible. Now, they have to leave their redline, but it's for only the briefest amount of time, only as long as it takes to dispose of any enemy tanks. They sometimes don't help the team because they'll stay away from anywhere that may have 2 tanks + any AV. But any stray tank that goes towards their redline is fair game to them. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. It's just the worst and most scrubby tank tactic I've ever seen in a shooter with vehicles. The only thing that takes the cake is suicide LAVs, but as I predicted, it's now working as intended and CCP has no plans to change it. They've single-handedly ruined tanking, garnering the range nerf (those that complained about tanks in ambush have nothing to stand on, because they kept doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, knowing that tanks were the single biggest force in ambush, yet continuing to queue for it all day and every day, and they've finally succeeded in getting the maximum number of vehicles in ambush nerfed hard from 7 to 2. You haven't a leg to stand on. I'll never know why CCP chooses to listen to you over actual vehicle users). Oh, and lol @ two of the biggest anti-tankers on the forums trying to use tanks. You truly are terrible in all aspects of Dust. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1653	Posted - 2014.04.26 15:54:00 - [2] - Quote Damage mods need to revert back to low slot passive modules with no more than 10% damage bonus. Railguns can get balanced without nerfing any of their attributes by giving them an optimal range window similar to the laser rifle. Railguns are meant to be used at range, but they are too good currently at CQC. This is why they are the go-to turret of choice for AV because it performs the best at any range. Balancing the Large Turrets "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
ZDub 303 TeamPlayers Dirt Nap Squad. 2560	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:17:00 - [3] - Quote Low slot damage mods and high slot heat sinks... We also desperately need racial parity with vehicles.
Hakyou Brutor G0DS AM0NG MEN Dirt Nap Squad. 252	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:21:00 - [4] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Low slot damage mods and high slot heat sinks... We also desperately need racial parity with vehicles. Heat sinks! Woo! I loved my old heat sink... I'm a logi now! :D
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7267	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:22:00 - [5] - Quote Quote: Oh, and lol @ two of the biggest anti-tankers on the forums trying to use tanks. You truly are terrible in all aspects of Dust. Is this aimed at me? Because if so, then lol at the fact that Morte sent you sprinting to the redline with a Blaster Maddy, lol at the fact that an AVer who was there for 10min got more kills than you as tanker the entire match Also, lol at the fact that the only way you could kill me was by syncing Taka's Railgun and an OB. How's the view from that redline btw? HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Crimson ShieId Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 369	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:26:00 - [6] - Quote Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Nova Knives are OP! Nerf em before you lose all your proto suits!
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7270	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:28:00 - [7] - Quote Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Cat Merc Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad. 9015	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:30:00 - [8] - Quote Proto blaster has 30% more damage than it's STD version. AKA a damage mod. Overlord of all humans CAT MERC
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:35:00 - [9] - Quote Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Who also never bothered to squad with a tanker, and left all AV work to randoms that they didn't know? AKA mostly Judge? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:36:00 - [10] - Quote Harpyja wrote: Damage mods need to revert back to low slot passive modules with no more than 10% damage bonus. Railguns can get balanced without nerfing any of their attributes by giving them an optimal range window similar to the laser rifle. Railguns are meant to be used at range, but they are too good currently at CQC. This is why they are the go-to turret of choice for AV because it performs the best at any range. Balancing the Large Turrets Shields would still be king of high alpha platforms, and armor would become useless if you want to be able to roll around dealing enough damage, and being able to stay in the fight until you need more ammo. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:37:00 - [11] - Quote ZDub 303 wrote: Low slot damage mods and high slot heat sinks... We also desperately need racial parity with vehicles. But infantry will not allow it, because it would offer more choices for vehicles than we currently have. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:39:00 - [12] - Quote Atiim wrote: Quote: Oh, and lol @ two of the biggest anti-tankers on the forums trying to use tanks. You truly are terrible in all aspects of Dust. Is this aimed at me? Because if so, then lol at the fact that Morte sent you sprinting to the redline with a Blaster Maddy and how an AVer who was there for 10min got more kills than you as tanker the entire match. So I should stupidly expose myself to a second tank, knowing it's there? There's a difference between bravely charging in to help someone, and bashing your head against a brick wall. You don't know the different yet. Also, lol at the fact that the only way you could kill me while in my tank was by syncing Taka's Railgun and an OB. Wait, what's that? Someone admitting that tankers use teamwork? How's the view from that redline btw? Just fine when I'm looking for a place to send down a strike. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7270	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:42:00 - [13] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Who also never bothered to squad with a tanker, and left all AV work to randoms that they didn't know? AKA mostly Judge? Did you squad with AVers to deal with AV back then? HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:42:00 - [14] - Quote Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. It's a tank with enough output to power both its mode of transportation, modules and turrets vs a weapon with what's basically a hand-held power pack. The two cannot ever be the same. Also funny how infantry finds it unfair that the best way to deal with a tank is a railgun. It's an AV turret. The better operators can use it for AI. How is it not fair that a rail can so easily turn a tank into a pile of ash? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:43:00 - [15] - Quote Atiim wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Who also never bothered to squad with a tanker, and left all AV work to randoms that they didn't know? AKA mostly Judge? Did you squad with AVers to deal with AV back then? I squad with 2 guys that have access to PRO AV. They had it a while ago as well. Who needs handheld AV when you roll with 4 tankers? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 825	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:49:00 - [16] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Yet, even when I have a hardener on, **** joke anybody? Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 16:52:00 - [17] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Yet, even when I have a hardener on, **** joke anybody? ............................................................ no I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 826	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:03:00 - [18] - Quote I run that triple damage modded fit you speak of, and also a double modded speed fit. Scrubby? Hah, you think I hide in the redline? No mister scrub tanker, I get up on a high point and watch you. I learn your route, I determine your fit. I check for other tanks on the field and do the same. Once I have you scouted, I make my move. Ambushing you from behind or the side, dropping you in two shots. Then I move on the other tanks, wiping them out. Depending on what's happening in the match, I proceed to camp YOUR redline. Dropping bolas's AND their cargo. I get it though, you think being sneaky is cheap and scrubby. You think a person that uses an unbalanced mechanic (damage mods) to gain the advantage over another is wrong. But it IS there, and if you don't use it, someone else will. I don't deny it because I find it wrong, I use it just like anyone else. For real man, DAMAGE MODS ARE FAR TOO POWERFUL. That's one of the biggest issues with tanks atm. Nuff said. I do sometimes feel that soma's and sica's are too much on par with their STD counterparts, but then again, I blow those up all day with the rare loss every now and again, IN ALL MY FITS. See, I've been driving a tanks since June of last year so I know how to drive and position myself. So I guess what I'm saying is "GET GUD" Tanks - Balancing Turrets
keno trader Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation 157	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:05:00 - [19] - Quote Ah, so you want a buff to an already OP setup? Go home, you're drunk. *1.8* --- Still getting spawntrapped by boxes. *1.8* --- Smart deployment = letting a 2 year old handle spawns.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:06:00 - [20] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: I run that triple damage modded fit you speak of, and also a double modded speed fit. Scrubby? Hah, you think I hide in the redline? No mister scrub tanker, I get up on a high point and watch you. I learn your route, I determine your fit. I check for other tanks on the field and do the same. Once I have you scouted, I make my move. Ambushing you from behind or the side, dropping you in two shots. Then I move on the other tanks, wiping them out. Depending on what's happening in the match, I proceed to camp YOUR redline. Dropping bolas's AND their cargo. I get it though, you think being sneaky is cheap and scrubby. You think a person that uses an unbalanced mechanic (damage mods) to gain the advantage over another is wrong. But it IS there, and if you don't use it, someone else will. I don't deny it because I find it wrong, I use it just like anyone else. For real man, DAMAGE MODS ARE FAR TOO POWERFUL. That's one of the biggest issues with tanks atm. Nuff said. I do sometimes feel that soma's and sica's are too much on par with their STD counterparts, but then again, I blow those up all day with the rare loss every now and again, IN ALL MY FITS. See, I've been driving a tanks since June of last year so I know how to drive and position myself. So I guess what I'm saying is "GET GUD" So you're admitting to using trash tactics. Glad we got that out of the way. Obvious you can't brawl. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 826	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:07:00 - [21] - Quote Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 826	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:11:00 - [22] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: I run that triple damage modded fit you speak of, and also a double modded speed fit. Scrubby? Hah, you think I hide in the redline? No mister scrub tanker, I get up on a high point and watch you. I learn your route, I determine your fit. I check for other tanks on the field and do the same. Once I have you scouted, I make my move. Ambushing you from behind or the side, dropping you in two shots. Then I move on the other tanks, wiping them out. Depending on what's happening in the match, I proceed to camp YOUR redline. Dropping bolas's AND their cargo. I get it though, you think being sneaky is cheap and scrubby. You think a person that uses an unbalanced mechanic (damage mods) to gain the advantage over another is wrong. But it IS there, and if you don't use it, someone else will. I don't deny it because I find it wrong, I use it just like anyone else. For real man, DAMAGE MODS ARE FAR TOO POWERFUL. That's one of the biggest issues with tanks atm. Nuff said. I do sometimes feel that soma's and sica's are too much on par with their STD counterparts, but then again, I blow those up all day with the rare loss every now and again, IN ALL MY FITS. See, I've been driving a tanks since June of last year so I know how to drive and position myself. So I guess what I'm saying is "GET GUD" So you're admitting to using trash tactics. Glad we got that out of the way. Obvious you can't brawl. Do you really just run around in one fit? Hell, I can brawl with a glass cannon fit, while you hide behind your buffer fit and still come out on top. But haha, brawl. So basically I need to let you acknowledge my presence so that you may react at the same time, the end result coming down to who has the best buffer or damage. Haha, ok. I play to win, sorry you can't be the sneak I am. You like it simple, and I like that you like it simple. Love free tank kills Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:13:00 - [23] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: I run that triple damage modded fit you speak of, and also a double modded speed fit. Scrubby? Hah, you think I hide in the redline? No mister scrub tanker, I get up on a high point and watch you. I learn your route, I determine your fit. I check for other tanks on the field and do the same. Once I have you scouted, I make my move. Ambushing you from behind or the side, dropping you in two shots. Then I move on the other tanks, wiping them out. Depending on what's happening in the match, I proceed to camp YOUR redline. Dropping bolas's AND their cargo. I get it though, you think being sneaky is cheap and scrubby. You think a person that uses an unbalanced mechanic (damage mods) to gain the advantage over another is wrong. But it IS there, and if you don't use it, someone else will. I don't deny it because I find it wrong, I use it just like anyone else. For real man, DAMAGE MODS ARE FAR TOO POWERFUL. That's one of the biggest issues with tanks atm. Nuff said. I do sometimes feel that soma's and sica's are too much on par with their STD counterparts, but then again, I blow those up all day with the rare loss every now and again, IN ALL MY FITS. See, I've been driving a tanks since June of last year so I know how to drive and position myself. So I guess what I'm saying is "GET GUD" So you're admitting to using trash tactics. Glad we got that out of the way. Obvious you can't brawl. Do you really just run around in one fit? Hell, I can brawl with a glass cannon fit, while you hide behind your buffer fit and still come out on top. But haha, brawl. So basically I need to let you acknowledge my presence so that you may react at the same time, the end result coming down to who has the best buffer or damage. Haha, ok. I play to win, sorry you can't be the sneak I am. You like it simple, and I like that you like it simple. Love free tank kills I bet you're going to be like everyone else and assume I use MLT tanks too. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 826	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:17:00 - [24] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: I bet you're going to be like everyone else and assume I use MLT tanks too. No, I'm going to assume you have the skills of a MLT tank driver. With the way you go around bashing everyone else. You have to talk big to cover up your own inadequacies. I mean you really think playing tactically is scrubby to your "Brawling". You never answered that fella. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 810	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:21:00 - [25] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. Which is just as dumb as the former. I bet you've used the catch phrase "because we are tanks" as well.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 3486	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:31:00 - [26] - Quote Atiim wrote: Quote: Oh, and lol @ two of the biggest anti-tankers on the forums trying to use tanks. You truly are terrible in all aspects of Dust. Is this aimed at me? Because if so, then lol at the fact that Morte sent you sprinting to the redline with a Blaster Maddy and how an AVer who was there for 10min got more kills than you as tanker the entire match. Also, lol at the fact that the only way you could kill me while in my tank was by syncing Taka's Railgun and an OB. How's the view from that redline btw? Actually in that game i basically 2 shot you while i had 3 other tanks fire at me while i took you out The 2nd time was when the other 3 surviving tanks pushed up and i was in the redline caling mine in while dodging rail shots from 2 other tanks Both times you jumped out of your tank before it died and both times you didnt even a lay a shot on me before your tank was dead
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 826	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:32:00 - [27] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. Which is just as dumb as the former. I bet you've used the catch phrase "because we are tanks" as well. LoL, no. If you only knew. Here you take it out of context. This was before 1.6. Tanks - Balancing Turrets
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:34:00 - [28] - Quote Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. With how fast FGs were firing before, they might as well have been automatic. Heh. Atiim for worst memory award?
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 810	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:35:00 - [29] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. Which is just as dumb as the former. I bet you've used the catch phrase "because we are tanks" as well. LoL, no. If you only knew. Here you take it out of context. This was before 1.6. When it took 8 ishukone shots to kill a well fit tank, and 2 to kill any MLT tank. I know, I was here, and you are still dumb.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:37:00 - [30] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. This guy get's it. We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank). Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?).

DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 26	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:40:00 - [31] - Quote a hardener always out performs a dmg mod in a 1v1, so my dual hardener 1 extender rail fit with a 120mm plate and a repper will never die to a dual or even triple dmg mod tank as long as i see them coming. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 813	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:40:00 - [32] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. This guy get's it. We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank). Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?). A forge gun was unlikely to wrack up 30 kills against infantry that had no counter each match.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:41:00 - [33] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: When it took 8 ishukone shots to kill a well fit tank, and 2 to kill any MLT tank. I know, I was here, and you are still dumb. Depends whether or not the tanker prepared for this by having all his mods available before the first shot, which was rarely the case. No mods active = 3 shots to die (even with passive hardeners) with what, 1.6 second charge times? Combine that with invincible logi LAVs, you have an aver on your ass consistently that is almost invincible, Also hilarious considering the only time a tanker could engage was when he had his repper available, which lasted like 15 seconds tops (iirc). Funny how tanks before had more of a wave of opportunity gameplay
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:42:00 - [34] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. This guy get's it. We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank). Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?). A forge gun was unlikely to wrack up 30 kills against infantry that had no counter each match. Neither would a railtank. You want to pull that argument? Because a railgun is basically the AV counterpart of tanks.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:46:00 - [35] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. Which is just as dumb as the former. I bet you've used the catch phrase "because we are tanks" as well. Yes, because we have a huge power plant, opposed to a forge having its own, tiny by comparison, power plant. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 813	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:48:00 - [36] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Duran Lex wrote: When it took 8 ishukone shots to kill a well fit tank, and 2 to kill any MLT tank. I know, I was here, and you are still dumb. Depends whether or not the tanker prepared for this by having all his mods available before the first shot, which was rarely the case. No mods active = 3 shots to die (even with passive hardeners) with what, 1.6 second charge times? Combine that with invincible logi LAVs, you have an aver on your ass consistently that is almost invincible, Also hilarious considering the only time a tanker could engage was when he had his repper available, which lasted like 15 seconds tops (iirc). Funny how tanks before had more of a wave of opportunity gameplay Funny how tankers seem to ignore the fact that math exists in the world. How am I going to 3 shot a 20k ehp tank that has 40% passive resist? Oh wait, it's literally impossible.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:48:00 - [37] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. Which is just as dumb as the former. I bet you've used the catch phrase "because we are tanks" as well. Yes, because we have a huge power plant, opposed to a forge having its own, tiny by comparison, power plant. It's not even that. It's the same logic behind heavies; larger, less agile, easier to detect, restrictive but with better armour and weapons.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:49:00 - [38] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Duran Lex wrote: When it took 8 ishukone shots to kill a well fit tank, and 2 to kill any MLT tank. I know, I was here, and you are still dumb. Depends whether or not the tanker prepared for this by having all his mods available before the first shot, which was rarely the case. No mods active = 3 shots to die (even with passive hardeners) with what, 1.6 second charge times? Combine that with invincible logi LAVs, you have an aver on your ass consistently that is almost invincible, Also hilarious considering the only time a tanker could engage was when he had his repper available, which lasted like 15 seconds tops (iirc). Funny how tanks before had more of a wave of opportunity gameplay Funny how tankers seem to ignore the fact that math exists in the world. How am I going to 3 shot a 20k ehp tank that has 40% passive resist? Oh wait, it's literally impossible. You really are throwing up numbers now aren't you. Notice how I didn't say whether or not it was fully passive, hybrid, shield or armour? Go back to the playground and cool your head off, kiddie.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 814	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:50:00 - [39] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. Which is just as dumb as the former. I bet you've used the catch phrase "because we are tanks" as well. Yes, because we have a huge power plant, opposed to a forge having its own, tiny by comparison, power plant. I don't care if you had an entire nuclear power facility strapped to your back. This a game where balance matters, not a science non - fiction movie.
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 43	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:51:00 - [40] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. Which is just as dumb as the former. I bet you've used the catch phrase "because we are tanks" as well. Yes, because we have a huge power plant, opposed to a forge having its own, tiny by comparison, power plant. Neither actually has a power plant at all. Pixels in a video game, that's what you both have and, in a game, balance > simulated "realism".

Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:52:00 - [41] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: I don't care if you had an entire nuclear power facility strapped to your back. This a game where balance matters, not a science non - fiction movie. And this is why you don't use that argument, because someone like this will always default to the same assumption.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 814	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:52:00 - [42] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Duran Lex wrote: When it took 8 ishukone shots to kill a well fit tank, and 2 to kill any MLT tank. I know, I was here, and you are still dumb. Depends whether or not the tanker prepared for this by having all his mods available before the first shot, which was rarely the case. No mods active = 3 shots to die (even with passive hardeners) with what, 1.6 second charge times? Combine that with invincible logi LAVs, you have an aver on your ass consistently that is almost invincible, Also hilarious considering the only time a tanker could engage was when he had his repper available, which lasted like 15 seconds tops (iirc). Funny how tanks before had more of a wave of opportunity gameplay Funny how tankers seem to ignore the fact that math exists in the world. How am I going to 3 shot a 20k ehp tank that has 40% passive resist? Oh wait, it's literally impossible. You really are throwing up numbers now aren't you. Notice how I didn't say whether or not it was fully passive, hybrid, shield or armour? Go back to the playground and cool your head off, kiddie. This were pre 1.6 gunlogis. Armor tanks had less ehp but still rocked 40% resists after 15 mil invested SP. it's okay if you were unaware.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7276	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:53:00 - [43] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This guy get's it. We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank). Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?). Except that man portable hand cannon also has a capacitor, and is vulnerable to every weapon in the game, as opposed to the vehicle cannon being vulnerable to only 3. 1/20th the cost? If you were running a vehicle costing 3,726,300 ISK you deserved the ISK loss. Size doesn't mean anything. Do you see heavies QQ when a Shotgun or Nova Knife kills them? HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:55:00 - [44] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Duran Lex wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Duran Lex wrote: When it took 8 ishukone shots to kill a well fit tank, and 2 to kill any MLT tank. I know, I was here, and you are still dumb. Depends whether or not the tanker prepared for this by having all his mods available before the first shot, which was rarely the case. No mods active = 3 shots to die (even with passive hardeners) with what, 1.6 second charge times? Combine that with invincible logi LAVs, you have an aver on your ass consistently that is almost invincible, Also hilarious considering the only time a tanker could engage was when he had his repper available, which lasted like 15 seconds tops (iirc). Funny how tanks before had more of a wave of opportunity gameplay Funny how tankers seem to ignore the fact that math exists in the world. How am I going to 3 shot a 20k ehp tank that has 40% passive resist? Oh wait, it's literally impossible. You really are throwing up numbers now aren't you. Notice how I didn't say whether or not it was fully passive, hybrid, shield or armour? Go back to the playground and cool your head off, kiddie. This were pre 1.6 gunlogis. Armor tanks had less ehp but still rocked 40% resists after 15 mil invested SP. it's okay if you were unaware. You are still saying unrelated and random things, but that's okay if you need someone to dish your tank hate out on. I can tank all that you throw at me . Also, while you're at it, try rereading the post where I said I'd never mentioned any of that (specifically). Then, try posting again.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:03:00 - [45] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This guy get's it. We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank). Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?). Except that man portable hand cannon also has a capacitor, and is vulnerable to every weapon in the game, as opposed to the vehicle cannon being vulnerable to only 3. 1/20th the cost? If you were running a vehicle costing 3,726,300 ISK you deserved the ISK loss. Size doesn't mean anything. Do you see heavies QQ when a Shotgun or Nova Knife kills them? You're in your own little world Atiim. If size doesn't matter, then why does the military use SPGs when they could just spam man portable mortars instead? Why don't snipers snipe with scoped pistols instead of rifles? Your logic is stunning as usual, friend.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7278	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:03:00 - [46] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You are still saying unrelated and random things, but that's okay if you need someone to dish your tank hate out on. I can tank all that you throw at me . Also, while you're at it, try rereading the post where I said I'd never mentioned any of that (specifically). Then, try posting again. Well you've failed to disprove Duran's assertion, so he pretty much won the argument. Though I kinda expected better from you Alpha. Usually you last a good 3-4 pages before failing. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 43	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:08:00 - [47] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This guy get's it. We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank). Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?). Except that man portable hand cannon also has a capacitor, and is vulnerable to every weapon in the game, as opposed to the vehicle cannon being vulnerable to only 3. 1/20th the cost? If you were running a vehicle costing 3,726,300 ISK you deserved the ISK loss. Size doesn't mean anything. Do you see heavies QQ when a Shotgun or Nova Knife kills them? You're in your own little world Atiim. If size doesn't matter, then why does the military use SPGs when they could just spam man portable mortars instead? Why don't snipers snipe with scoped pistols instead of rifles? Your logic is stunning as usual, friend. Real life =/= balanced game mechanics
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:08:00 - [48] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You are still saying unrelated and random things, but that's okay if you need someone to dish your tank hate out on. I can tank all that you throw at me . Also, while you're at it, try rereading the post where I said I'd never mentioned any of that (specifically). Then, try posting again. Well you've failed to disprove Duran's assertion, so he pretty much won the argument. Though I kinda expected better from you Alpha. Usually you last a good 3-4 pages before failing. You really are a funny guy. Self proclaimed credibility, just by forcing yourself at the forums with your loud mouthed pandering. Your opinion means nothing to me, you pretentious whiner.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7281	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:11:00 - [49] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You're in your own little world Atiim. If size doesn't matter, then why does the military use SPGs when they could just spam man portable mortars instead? Why don't snipers snipe with scoped pistols instead of rifles? Your logic is stunning as usual, friend. Well the military uses Javelins when they could simply use a tank themselves, and last time I checked the Javelin is much smaller than the tank itself; so I'm pretty sure size doesn't always matter to the military. Snipers use rifles because it's the most practical, not simply because it's bigger. My logic seems to be a lot better than someone who finds it logical to use real-life examples as an argument for video game balance. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:11:00 - [50] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This guy get's it. We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank). Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?). Except that man portable hand cannon also has a capacitor, and is vulnerable to every weapon in the game, as opposed to the vehicle cannon being vulnerable to only 3. 1/20th the cost? If you were running a vehicle costing 3,726,300 ISK you deserved the ISK loss. Size doesn't mean anything. Do you see heavies QQ when a Shotgun or Nova Knife kills them? You're in your own little world Atiim. If size doesn't matter, then why does the military use SPGs when they could just spam man portable mortars instead? Why don't snipers snipe with scoped pistols instead of rifles? Your logic is stunning as usual, friend. Real life =/= balanced game mechanics There's nothing stopping real life mechanics from being transferable to a game. Unless you poorly implement them. Don't disregard possibilities because of some stupid fallacy you heard of on the forums.

Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7281	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:14:00 - [51] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: There's nothing stopping real life mechanics from being transferable to a game. Unless you poorly implement them. Don't disregard possibilities because of some stupid fallacy you heard of on the forums. So then why can't my Swarm Launcher OHK vehicles like it would in real life? HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:15:00 - [52] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You're in your own little world Atiim. If size doesn't matter, then why does the military use SPGs when they could just spam man portable mortars instead? Why don't snipers snipe with scoped pistols instead of rifles? Your logic is stunning as usual, friend. Well the military uses Javelins when they could simply use a tank themselves, and last time I checked the Javelin is much smaller than the tank itself; so I'm pretty sure size doesn't always matter to the military. Snipers use rifles because it's the most practical, not simply because it's bigger. My logic seems to be a lot better than someone who finds it logical to use real-life examples as an argument for video game balance. Javelins are in a whole different area of their own, with their own pros and cons. If the situation called for a tank, they would use a tank. Can a tank use countermeasures against a shell being fired at them at a speed faster than they can react? I don't think so.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7281	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:15:00 - [53] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You really are a funny guy. Self proclaimed credibility, just by forcing yourself at the forums with your loud mouthed pandering. Your opinion means nothing to me, you pretentious whiner. Well what I said was true. You haven't said anything that disproves Duran's assertion, so he won the argument. Your a tanker who did nothing but QQ before 1.7. Not only is that statement hypocritical, it's meaning is less than nothing. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:16:00 - [54] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: There's nothing stopping real life mechanics from being transferable to a game. Unless you poorly implement them. Don't disregard possibilities because of some stupid fallacy you heard of on the forums. So then why can't my Swarm Launcher OHK vehicles like it would in real life? Because then we would have countermeasures to prevent that from happening. Please think before you post.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:17:00 - [55] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You really are a funny guy. Self proclaimed credibility, just by forcing yourself at the forums with your loud mouthed pandering. Your opinion means nothing to me, you pretentious whiner. Well what I said was true. You haven't said anything that disproves Duran's assertion, so he won the argument. Your a tanker who did nothing but QQ before 1.7. Not only is that statement hypocritical, it's meaning is less than nothing. Did I QQ, or was I arguing for balance? I don't consider someone credible when he thinks a weapon that's inherently flawed for being so easy to use, means it takes skill -> i.e. the swarm launcher. Now **** off.
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 48	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:20:00 - [56] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This guy get's it. We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank). Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?). Except that man portable hand cannon also has a capacitor, and is vulnerable to every weapon in the game, as opposed to the vehicle cannon being vulnerable to only 3. 1/20th the cost? If you were running a vehicle costing 3,726,300 ISK you deserved the ISK loss. Size doesn't mean anything. Do you see heavies QQ when a Shotgun or Nova Knife kills them? You're in your own little world Atiim. If size doesn't matter, then why does the military use SPGs when they could just spam man portable mortars instead? Why don't snipers snipe with scoped pistols instead of rifles? Your logic is stunning as usual, friend. Real life =/= balanced game mechanics There's nothing stopping real life mechanics from being transferable to a game. Unless you poorly implement them. Don't disregard possibilities because of some stupid fallacy you heard of on the forums. Except that real-life mechanics completely disregard balance as it applies to a video game and the sense of "fairness" and enjoyment for all players, not just the one's with the best stuff. These are the things that make a game successful and enjoyable.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 819	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:24:00 - [57] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You really are a funny guy. Self proclaimed credibility, just by forcing yourself at the forums with your loud mouthed pandering. Your opinion means nothing to me, you pretentious whiner. Well what I said was true. You haven't said anything that disproves Duran's assertion, so he won the argument. Your a tanker who did nothing but QQ before 1.7. Not only is that statement hypocritical, it's meaning is less than nothing. Did I QQ, or was I arguing for balance? I don't consider someone credible when he thinks a weapon that's inherently flawed for being so easy to use, means it takes skill -> i.e. the swarm launcher. Now **** off. So an HAV is what? Or does having the largest ehp in game, the most destructive power, with having the fewest weaknesses = skill now? It was cute for awhile, but now you are simply grasping at straws.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7282	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:25:00 - [58] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Because then we would have countermeasures to prevent that from happening. Please think before you post. Fair enough. However, what about the giant cannon with a Micro-Capacitor firing kinetic slugs faster than 7m/s? How well do you think that would fare against a Dropship in real life? Now let's take a look at infantry weapons, mainly the HMG. If we were balancing things around real life, then wouldn't the HMG have an effective range of 1800m? And lets not get started on what an 80GJ Railgun would truly do... HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:26:00 - [59] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: Except that real-life mechanics completely disregard balance as it applies to a video game and the sense of "fairness" and enjoyment for all players, not just the one's with the best stuff. These are the things that make a game successful and enjoyable. I can agree with that. But not everything falls into that category at the same time.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:30:00 - [60] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Because then we would have countermeasures to prevent that from happening. Please think before you post. Fair enough. However, what about the giant cannon with a Micro-Capacitor firing kinetic slugs faster than 7m/s? How well do you think that would fare against a Dropship in real life? Now let's take a look at infantry weapons, mainly the HMG. If we were balancing things around real life, then wouldn't the HMG have an effective range of 1800m? And lets not get started on what an 80GJ Railgun would truly do... That's a problem with the game's lore. Lore can be changed to suit a logic. It shouldn't be the other way around. Maybe some sort of Geneva convention stating that weapons cannot be above a certain power lest they flatten an entire planet in one blow. There also isn't anything inherently wrong with an HMG having a long range. That's an engine performance concern more than anything. You'd also expect the armour and shielding of a dropship to evolve to the point of being able to withstand such a blow.

Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 820	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:34:00 - [61] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Because then we would have countermeasures to prevent that from happening. Please think before you post. Fair enough. However, what about the giant cannon with a Micro-Capacitor firing kinetic slugs faster than 7m/s? How well do you think that would fare against a Dropship in real life? Now let's take a look at infantry weapons, mainly the HMG. If we were balancing things around real life, then wouldn't the HMG have an effective range of 1800m? And lets not get started on what an 80GJ Railgun would truly do... That's a problem with the game's lore. Lore can be changed to suit a logic. It shouldn't be the other way around. Maybe some sort of Geneva convention stating that weapons cannot be above a certain power lest they flatten an entire planet in one blow. There also isn't anything inherently wrong with an HMG having a long range. That's an engine performance concern more than anything. You'd also expect the armour and shielding of a dropship to evolve to the point of being able to withstand such a blow. Yes, I'm sure when the HMG was dominating infantry at 60 meters out, it was complaints about the games performance that got it nerfed to a shorter optimal. You lost all credibility with such a ridiculous statement.
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 50	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:34:00 - [62] - Quote In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers?
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:34:00 - [63] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You really are a funny guy. Self proclaimed credibility, just by forcing yourself at the forums with your loud mouthed pandering. Your opinion means nothing to me, you pretentious whiner. Well what I said was true. You haven't said anything that disproves Duran's assertion, so he won the argument. Your a tanker who did nothing but QQ before 1.7. Not only is that statement hypocritical, it's meaning is less than nothing. Did I QQ, or was I arguing for balance? I don't consider someone credible when he thinks a weapon that's inherently flawed for being so easy to use, means it takes skill -> i.e. the swarm launcher. Now **** off. So an HAV is what? Or does having the largest ehp in game, the most destructive power, with having the fewest weaknesses = skill now? It was cute for awhile, but now you are simply grasping at straws. It was pretty hefty in the skill department before, but tanking as it is now is braindead. I've been a tanker since chrome, tanked through the dark ages of uprising, fully maxed out missiles after 1.7 and for what? To be 2 shotted by morons who can use railguns and damage mods. At least I can hide in a safe place when I use my forgegun now. I only bring my tanks out to make the game a safer place for infantry, I can't stand tanks as they are now. I spend more time on foot now than ever before.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7284	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:35:00 - [64] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Did I QQ, or was I arguing for balance? I don't consider someone credible when he thinks a weapon that's inherently flawed for being so easy to use, means it takes skill -> i.e. the swarm launcher. Now **** off. Man, it's hard tapping/holding R1 and managing my modules. And that Active Scanner that showed me where every infantry unit was within 50m? So difficult right? - The life of a Tanker Now compare that, to a weapon which has no AP capabilities, an AI about as reliable as my corpmates during drunk night, a stock of 2 clips, and leaves the user vulnerable to everything because he has to maintain his focus onto the target or risk having his shots miss completely. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:36:00 - [65] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? I would prefer to have tank crews actually, so no. Having even 2 people operate a tank would cut the tank spam in half. If you incorporate realism, you have to cover all angles. Unless you want to miss out on an important factor.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:38:00 - [66] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Did I QQ, or was I arguing for balance? I don't consider someone credible when he thinks a weapon that's inherently flawed for being so easy to use, means it takes skill -> i.e. the swarm launcher. Now **** off. Man, it's hard tapping/holding R1 and managing my modules. And that Active Scanner that showed me where every infantry unit was within 50m? So difficult right? - The life of a Tanker Now compare that, to a weapon which has no AP capabilities, an AI about as reliable as my corpmates during drunk night, a stock of 2 clips, and leaves the user vulnerable to everything because he has to maintain his focus onto the target or risk having his shots miss completely. Tanking is dead as it is now and swarms on their own never will take skill. If you're having problems managing with a sidearm, use a commando instead.
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 51	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:40:00 - [67] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? I would prefer to have tank crews actually, so no. Having even 2 people operate a tank would cut the tank spam in half. If you incorporate realism, you have to cover all angles. Unless you want to miss out on an important factor. This is probably the most intelligent thing you've posted in this entire thread.
Zaaeed Massani RisingSuns Dark Taboo 351	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:41:00 - [68] - Quote This thread has devolved into petty bickering, nothing constructive whatsoever. All of you, back in your cages! Minmatar & Gallente A.R.C. Program Instructor / Do you even lift?
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 475	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:42:00 - [69] - Quote Duran Lex wrote: Yes, I'm sure when the HMG was dominating infantry at 60 meters out, it was complaints about the games performance that got it nerfed to a shorter optimal. You lost all credibility with such a ridiculous statement. Very shortsighted of you. Clearly, there couldn't have been any other way to balance the HMG. Just make it a heavy peashooter until 1.8, that's all that could be done. Some examples to balance the HMG with range More recoil (since it's handheld after all) Speed penalty while having the weapon equipped (making the suit more clumsy) Speed penalty while firing (~50%) More heat buildup Just off of the top of my head
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 475	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:43:00 - [70] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? I would prefer to have tank crews actually, so no. Having even 2 people operate a tank would cut the tank spam in half. If you incorporate realism, you have to cover all angles. Unless you want to miss out on an important factor. This is probably the most intelligent thing you've posted in this entire thread. Don't patronize me, but thanks anyway.

Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7286	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:46:00 - [71] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: That's a problem with the game's lore. Lore can be changed to suit a logic. It shouldn't be the other way around. Maybe some sort of Geneva convention stating that weapons cannot be above a certain power lest they flatten an entire planet in one blow. There also isn't anything inherently wrong with an HMG having a long range. That's an engine performance concern more than anything. You'd also expect the armour and shielding of a dropship to evolve to the point of being able to withstand such a blow. CCP is not going to change it's lore, especially to break the balance of a game as irrelevant as DUST 514. I'm pretty sure the problem the HMG having a longer range is the fact that it would remove the one drawback stopping it from becoming overpowered; not UE3 Performance. Quote: [...] penetrate even augmented armor systems. As you were saying? HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Lynn Beck Wake N' Bake Inc Top Men. 1270	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:47:00 - [72] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Atiim wrote: Crimson ShieId wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. It's a tank with enough output to power both its mode of transportation, modules and turrets vs a weapon with what's basically a hand-held power pack. The two cannot ever be the same. Also funny how infantry finds it unfair that the best way to deal with a tank is a railgun. It's an AV turret. The better operators can use it for AI. How is it not fair that a rail can so easily turn a tank into a pile of ash? Because a Militia railgun can kill a Ion Cannon within 30m, faster than te ion cannon can break maddy shields. Rails are not "the AV turret" they're long-range AV. A blaster needs to blatantly out-DPS a rail within 30-80 meters. My ONLY problem withrails is their ridiculous DPS(which is the bane of all DSes AND tanks) I propose a 100-200 point damage nerf. Couple that with increasing spool time, and making it's refire rate lower by 25-30%. It's a railgun. Not a machine-gun of 1hko's. General John Ripper Like ALL the things!!!
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7286	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:48:00 - [73] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Very shortsighted of you. Clearly, there couldn't have been any other way to balance the HMG. Just make it a heavy peashooter until 1.8, that's all that could be done. Some examples to balance the HMG with range More recoil (since it's handheld after all) Speed penalty while having the weapon equipped (making the suit more clumsy) Speed penalty while firing (~50%) More heat buildup Just off of the top of my head And then it looses it's CQC capabilities, which is what the weapon is designed for. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 475	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:49:00 - [74] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: That's a problem with the game's lore. Lore can be changed to suit a logic. It shouldn't be the other way around. Maybe some sort of Geneva convention stating that weapons cannot be above a certain power lest they flatten an entire planet in one blow. There also isn't anything inherently wrong with an HMG having a long range. That's an engine performance concern more than anything. You'd also expect the armour and shielding of a dropship to evolve to the point of being able to withstand such a blow. CCP is not going to change it's lore, especially to break the balance of a game as irrelevant as DUST 514. I'm pretty sure the problem the HMG having a longer range is the fact that it would remove the one drawback stopping it from becoming overpowered; not UE3 Performance. Quote: [...] penetrate even augmented armor systems. As you were saying? Ambiguous quote and more poor assumptions, great job. I'll put that in the pile of stuff to look at later.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 475	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:49:00 - [75] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Very shortsighted of you. Clearly, there couldn't have been any other way to balance the HMG. Just make it a heavy peashooter until 1.8, that's all that could be done. Some examples to balance the HMG with range More recoil (since it's handheld after all) Speed penalty while having the weapon equipped (making the suit more clumsy) Speed penalty while firing (~50%) More heat buildup Just off of the top of my head And then it looses it's CQC capabilities, which is what the weapon is designed for. Source?
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 820	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:56:00 - [76] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Very shortsighted of you. Clearly, there couldn't have been any other way to balance the HMG. Just make it a heavy peashooter until 1.8, that's all that could be done. Some examples to balance the HMG with range More recoil (since it's handheld after all) Speed penalty while having the weapon equipped (making the suit more clumsy) Speed penalty while firing (~50%) More heat buildup Just off of the top of my head And then it looses it's CQC capabilities, which is what the weapon is designed for. Source? The game you claim to play. I suppose I'm done. You are continuing to spout nonsense and disregard logic when it suits you. Enjoy your menial intelligence.
Kane Fyea 2634	Posted - 2014.04.26 19:08:00 - [77] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Very shortsighted of you. Clearly, there couldn't have been any other way to balance the HMG. Just make it a heavy peashooter until 1.8, that's all that could be done. Some examples to balance the HMG with range More recoil (since it's handheld after all) Speed penalty while having the weapon equipped (making the suit more clumsy) Speed penalty while firing (~50%) More heat buildup Just off of the top of my head And then it looses it's CQC capabilities, which is what the weapon is designed for. Source? /facepalm. Why is anyone even replying to this dumbass anymore.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.27 15:59:00 - [78] - Quote Mojo XXXIII wrote: In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? It's a video game. Show me one video game that has tanks that REQUIRES 4 people to operate the tank in that video game. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7335	Posted - 2014.04.27 16:01:00 - [79] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? It's a video game. Show me one video game that has tanks that REQUIRES 4 people to operate the tank in that video game. Right after you show me a 16v16 FPS that requires more than 1 person to destroy a tank, while also having AV as a primary. Proposed Mobile CRU Changes -HAND
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.27 16:01:00 - [80] - Quote Zaaeed Massani wrote: This thread has devolved into petty bickering, nothing constructive whatsoever. All of you, back in your cages! That's what happens when people that get nosebleeds when you talk about tanks, start commenting about tanks and how they know how they should operate. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 481	Posted - 2014.04.27 16:01:00 - [81] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? It's a video game. Show me one video game that has tanks that REQUIRES 4 people to operate the tank in that video game. Arma Red Orchestra Any tank sim Any game involving vehicles that isn't arcade like BF or CoD
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.27 16:02:00 - [82] - Quote Atiim wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? It's a video game. Show me one video game that has tanks that REQUIRES 4 people to operate the tank in that video game. Right after you show me a 16v16 FPS that requires more than 1 person to destroy a tank, while also having AV as a primary. It doesn't work both ways. Show me a game that requires more than one person to operate a tank. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.27 16:03:00 - [83] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? It's a video game. Show me one video game that has tanks that REQUIRES 4 people to operate the tank in that video game. Arma Red Orchestra Any tank sim Any game involving vehicles that isn't arcade like BF or CoD Tank sim? Like World of Tanks? No, just one person. Usually, links are also provided. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7335	Posted - 2014.04.27 16:14:00 - [84] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Source? Edit: No really, I have eyes and can see what goes on in the game I play. I'm looking for a quote for that from CCP though. Nice quips though, stay mad. Here you go. CCP Remnant wrote: [..] The HMG's optimal range is up to 30m and max. effective range caps out at 50m. (This is currently a hard cap - all weapons stop doing any damage beyond their max range - but we're going to be fixing this soon. Like soon soon, not SOON(tm).) What it needs is not a damage buff (it kills just fine) but a gentler damage falloff curve so that it can be used as an effective suppression weapon in the 50-70m range. As an attacker, right now it's too easy to shrug off the hits and close the gap between yourself and the person wielding the HMG so that's something I'd like to address as soon as possible. Now I'm not too familiar with the metric system, but when you compare the range of CQC weapons such as the Ishukone Assault SMG (50.4m effective range) to Long Ranged Weapons such as the Kaalakiota Rail Rifle (102m effective range); 50-70m is indeed CQC. Proposed Mobile CRU Changes -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 482	Posted - 2014.04.27 16:32:00 - [85] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Source? Edit: No really, I have eyes and can see what goes on in the game I play. I'm looking for a quote for that from CCP though. Nice quips though, stay mad. Here you go. CCP Remnant wrote: [..] The HMG's optimal range is up to 30m and max. effective range caps out at 50m. (This is currently a hard cap - all weapons stop doing any damage beyond their max range - but we're going to be fixing this soon. Like soon soon, not SOON(tm).) What it needs is not a damage buff (it kills just fine) but a gentler damage falloff curve so that it can be used as an effective suppression weapon in the 50-70m range. As an attacker, right now it's too easy to shrug off the hits and close the gap between yourself and the person wielding the HMG so that's something I'd like to address as soon as possible. Now I'm not too familiar with the metric system, but when you compare the range of CQC weapons such as the Ishukone Assault SMG (50.4m effective range) to Long Ranged Weapons such as the Kaalakiota Rail Rifle (102m effective range); 50-70m is indeed CQC. I'd say that's mid range. That's the style of Minmatar after all. 70 is just below the mean of 152, which is 76. I'd say CQC is more along the lines of 30m (AR optimal) Though let's remember that this topic isn't about the hmg, sorry for bringing it up.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 482	Posted - 2014.04.27 16:33:00 - [86] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? It's a video game. Show me one video game that has tanks that REQUIRES 4 people to operate the tank in that video game. Arma Red Orchestra Any tank sim Any game involving vehicles that isn't arcade like BF or CoD Tank sim? Like World of Tanks? No, just one person. Usually, links are also provided. World of tanks is not a tank sim. It's an arcade game with tank sim elements, though I'd take that shitstain over the tank gameplay we have right now.
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 73	Posted - 2014.04.27 16:57:00 - [87] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Atiim wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Mojo XXXIII wrote: In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks. Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? It's a video game. Show me one video game that has tanks that REQUIRES 4 people to operate the tank in that video game. Right after you show me a 16v16 FPS that requires more than 1 person to destroy a tank, while also having AV as a primary. It doesn't work both ways. Show me a game that requires more than one person to operate a tank. But it DOES work both ways. It has to, in order to be balanced and fair. You are looking for a double standard, where "realism" only applies when it benefits the tanker. You can't play the "realism" card, but only have it apply to one side, and not the other. You want "realism" in that it should take multiple players, working together, to take out a tank, then that same "realism" HAS TO apply to operating a tank, as well. Otherwise you're just looking for "easy mode", where you can hide safely inside your tin can, take no damage from most of the weapons in the game, and mow through infantry like tissue paper. You want all of the benefits of a "realistic" tank, but none of the drawbacks. That is not balance by any stretch of the imagination, that is God Mode.
Tebu Gan Dem Durrty Boyz Dirt Nap Squad. 835	Posted - 2014.04.27 17:07:00 - [88] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Tebu Gan wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Yet, even when I have a hardener on, **** joke anybody? ............................................................ no ........................................................... Yes Tanks - Balancing Turrets


Pages: 1 2 3 :: [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.