DUST Search - A question to the tanker community

All Channels

General Discussions

A question to the tanker community

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Thumb Green The Valyrian Guard 1047	Posted - 2014.04.30 19:48:00 - [121] - Quote Void Echo wrote: [ then implement a stacking penalty on rep modules for vehicles and dropsuits. simple as that Yes sir, I'll get right on that. Support Orbital Spawns
SoTa PoP Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 4735	Posted - 2014.04.30 20:19:00 - [122] - Quote Guys, it's a tank that nothing any single infantry can possibly do about. There is no other fitting in this entire game to do this, the forge is designed to be a hard counter, while the swarms is more the way for infantry to give a light counter. A hard counter should NEVER EVER ***** BE RENDERED USELESS AGAINST ITS INTDED *** TARGET. ARE YOU ***** STUPID?!?! Thank you for listening. :) n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++ I watch anime for the plot
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7508	Posted - 2014.04.30 20:28:00 - [123] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: Guys, it's a tank that nothing any single infantry can possibly do about. There is no other fitting in this entire game to do this, the forge is designed to be a hard counter, while the swarms is more the way for infantry to give a light counter. A hard counter should NEVER EVER ***** BE RENDERED USELESS AGAINST ITS INTDED *** TARGET. ARE YOU ***** STUPID?!?! Thank you for listening. :) I'd argue that the Swarm Launcher is an even greater Hard Counter than the FG due to being an explosive weapon, and still a primary at the same time. But even they are useless against them. Proposed Mobile CRU Changes -HAND
SoTa PoP Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 4736	Posted - 2014.04.30 20:30:00 - [124] - Quote Atiim wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Guys, it's a tank that nothing any single infantry can possibly do about. There is no other fitting in this entire game to do this, the forge is designed to be a hard counter, while the swarms is more the way for infantry to give a light counter. A hard counter should NEVER EVER ***** BE RENDERED USELESS AGAINST ITS INTDED *** TARGET. ARE YOU ***** STUPID?!?! Thank you for listening. :) I'd argue that the Swarm Launcher is an even greater Hard Counter than the FG due to being an explosive weapon, and still a primary at the same time. But even they are useless against them. I wouldn't, they don't have the stats to back that theory. It's a light counter weapon, that deals extra armor damage to deal with the speedier armor tanks forges struggle to deal with. n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++ I watch anime for the plot
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7508	Posted - 2014.04.30 20:33:00 - [125] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: Atiim wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Guys, it's a tank that nothing any single infantry can possibly do about. There is no other fitting in this entire game to do this, the forge is designed to be a hard counter, while the swarms is more the way for infantry to give a light counter. A hard counter should NEVER EVER ***** BE RENDERED USELESS AGAINST ITS INTDED *** TARGET. ARE YOU ***** STUPID?!?! Thank you for listening. :) I'd argue that the Swarm Launcher is an even greater Hard Counter than the FG due to being an explosive weapon, and still a primary at the same time. But even they are useless against them. I wouldn't, they don't have the stats to back that theory. It's a light counter weapon, that deals extra armor damage to deal with the speedier armor tanks forges struggle to deal with. I mean against Armored HAVs, or at least supposed to be... Proposed Mobile CRU Changes -HAND
SoTa PoP Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 4736	Posted - 2014.04.30 20:37:00 - [126] - Quote Atiim wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Atiim wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Guys, it's a tank that nothing any single infantry can possibly do about. There is no other fitting in this entire game to do this, the forge is designed to be a hard counter, while the swarms is more the way for infantry to give a light counter. A hard counter should NEVER EVER ***** BE RENDERED USELESS AGAINST ITS INTDED *** TARGET. ARE YOU ***** STUPID?!?! Thank you for listening. :) I'd argue that the Swarm Launcher is an even greater Hard Counter than the FG due to being an explosive weapon, and still a primary at the same time. But even they are useless against them. I wouldn't, they don't have the stats to back that theory. It's a light counter weapon, that deals extra armor damage to deal with the speedier armor tanks forges struggle to deal with. I mean against Armored HAVs, or at least supposed to be... It isn't even as SP expensive as the Forge. Another sign of a 'light' counter weapon. If it had the ability to actually take ANY sort of vehicle above MLT in this game, I would give it up to you. But my Saga II quite literally ignores swarms as flea bites. If swarms can't even hard counter LAV - then what makes you think they could be considered one for HAV's? If anything, there real purpose is anti-air, or, actually, not even that. Would need a longer lock on range lol n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++ I watch anime for the plot
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 520	Posted - 2014.04.30 20:55:00 - [127] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: Atiim wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Atiim wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Guys, it's a tank that nothing any single infantry can possibly do about. There is no other fitting in this entire game to do this, the forge is designed to be a hard counter, while the swarms is more the way for infantry to give a light counter. A hard counter should NEVER EVER ***** BE RENDERED USELESS AGAINST ITS INTDED *** TARGET. ARE YOU ***** STUPID?!?! Thank you for listening. :) I'd argue that the Swarm Launcher is an even greater Hard Counter than the FG due to being an explosive weapon, and still a primary at the same time. But even they are useless against them. I wouldn't, they don't have the stats to back that theory. It's a light counter weapon, that deals extra armor damage to deal with the speedier armor tanks forges struggle to deal with. I mean against Armored HAVs, or at least supposed to be... It isn't even as SP expensive as the Forge. Another sign of a 'light' counter weapon. If it had the ability to actually take ANY sort of vehicle above MLT in this game, I would give it up to you. But my Saga II quite literally ignores swarms as flea bites. If swarms can't even hard counter LAV - then what makes you think they could be considered one for HAV's? If anything, there real purpose is anti-air, or, actually, not even that. Would need a longer lock on range lol But but but... the knock... you know, the knock, who needs to damage a dropship when you can just knock it into stuff without dealing any damage yourself? R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
Godin Thekiller OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 2108	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:02:00 - [128] - Quote Ah, you children only wanting a binary fight. No fun at all......... click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9980	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:29:00 - [129] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So... 1. You want tankers to give up Large Blaster Turrets or make them ineffective against infantry. 2. You want to be able to kill HAVs just as easily and fast as you kill other infantry. So, in return... 1. Can we tankers have the ability to fit small turrets as main turret for our HAVs? 2. Can we tankers have the ability to drive HAVs indoors and in tight spaces generally? 3. Can we tankers have the ability to hack points and deploy/use equipment with our HAVs? 4. Can we tankers have the ability to turn our turrets and hulls as fast as you can turn your dropsuits and aim to all directions? Or do you just want to take everything and give nothing in return? So, which thing do you want us to give up and what are you willing to give back in return? Pick 1-2 from each category (but the same amount of options from both). Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? Somethings I agree with, others not so much. We do cost too little for too much efficiency. No a Tank should not go down too easily, or be too durable or their value diminishes and disappears, they become OP, respectively. But Tanks need a purpose on the field and I feel most players are simply too frustrated or biased to even begin considering more than "NERF IT". What I want HAV to be are proper tanks, with powerful main cannons designed to deal with other ground vehicles and HAV, with gunners, or co-axial turrets to engage infantry (can be split up into seats if required). Now HAV should be durable units either through passive armour/shield, or active modules, but solo-able none the less. I don't like large blasters, even though I like using them Tank Vs Tank, as they fundamentally unbalance infantry combat.....however let tanks keep their durability and shift their focus to anti vehicle combat I believe we will see much more diverse and skilled vehicle users, more lighter frame vehicles and in future MAV and MTAC. However if AV want to talk balancing tweaks they need to come to the table not demanding, or they get unreasonable response, they need to come saying "Tanks are fundamentally broken, however they do this right.... let them keep doing that, but instead of X they should now do Y" "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Harpyja Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1697	Posted - 2014.04.30 21:37:00 - [130] - Quote True Adamance wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So... 1. You want tankers to give up Large Blaster Turrets or make them ineffective against infantry. 2. You want to be able to kill HAVs just as easily and fast as you kill other infantry. So, in return... 1. Can we tankers have the ability to fit small turrets as main turret for our HAVs? 2. Can we tankers have the ability to drive HAVs indoors and in tight spaces generally? 3. Can we tankers have the ability to hack points and deploy/use equipment with our HAVs? 4. Can we tankers have the ability to turn our turrets and hulls as fast as you can turn your dropsuits and aim to all directions? Or do you just want to take everything and give nothing in return? So, which thing do you want us to give up and what are you willing to give back in return? Pick 1-2 from each category (but the same amount of options from both). Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? Somethings I agree with, others not so much. We do cost too little for too much efficiency. No a Tank should not go down too easily, or be too durable or their value diminishes and disappears, they become OP, respectively. But Tanks need a purpose on the field and I feel most players are simply too frustrated or biased to even begin considering more than "NERF IT". What I want HAV to be are proper tanks, with powerful main cannons designed to deal with other ground vehicles and HAV, with gunners, or co-axial turrets to engage infantry (can be split up into seats if required). Now HAV should be durable units either through passive armour/shield, or active modules, but solo-able none the less. I don't like large blasters, even though I like using them Tank Vs Tank, as they fundamentally unbalance infantry combat.....however let tanks keep their durability and shift their focus to anti vehicle combat I believe we will see much more diverse and skilled vehicle users, more lighter frame vehicles and in future MAV and MTAC. However if AV want to talk balancing tweaks they need to come to the table not demanding, or they get unreasonable response, they need to come saying "Tanks are fundamentally broken, however they do this right.... let them keep doing that, but instead of X they should now do Y" I still believe that all large turrets should have some form of "ratio" between AI and AV capabilities. There has to be trade-offs; if a turret is to be good for AI, it should be horrible at AV. Namely, the blaster turret should be AI, due to the way that it functions. As such its AV should be severely limited, but it doesn't suffer from that currently. The fact that people want to bring blasters into tank fights shows that they are imbalanced. A blaster should be outright horrible when it comes to fighting another tank or vehicle in general. The blaster needs something like a 33% damage nerf and see where that takes it. I believe that will take us much closer to finding balance. Balancing the Large Turrets "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32

Awry Barux Ametat Security Amarr Empire 2428	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:03:00 - [131] - Quote True Adamance wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So... 1. You want tankers to give up Large Blaster Turrets or make them ineffective against infantry. 2. You want to be able to kill HAVs just as easily and fast as you kill other infantry. So, in return... 1. Can we tankers have the ability to fit small turrets as main turret for our HAVs? 2. Can we tankers have the ability to drive HAVs indoors and in tight spaces generally? 3. Can we tankers have the ability to hack points and deploy/use equipment with our HAVs? 4. Can we tankers have the ability to turn our turrets and hulls as fast as you can turn your dropsuits and aim to all directions? Or do you just want to take everything and give nothing in return? So, which thing do you want us to give up and what are you willing to give back in return? Pick 1-2 from each category (but the same amount of options from both). Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? Somethings I agree with, others not so much. We do cost too little for too much efficiency. No a Tank should not go down too easily, or be too durable or their value diminishes and disappears, they become OP, respectively. But Tanks need a purpose on the field and I feel most players are simply too frustrated or biased to even begin considering more than "NERF IT". What I want HAV to be are proper tanks, with powerful main cannons designed to deal with other ground vehicles and HAV, with gunners, or co-axial turrets to engage infantry (can be split up into seats if required). Now HAV should be durable units either through passive armour/shield, or active modules, but solo-able none the less. I don't like large blasters, even though I like using them Tank Vs Tank, as they fundamentally unbalance infantry combat.....however let tanks keep their durability and shift their focus to anti vehicle combat I believe we will see much more diverse and skilled vehicle users, more lighter frame vehicles and in future MAV and MTAC. However if AV want to talk balancing tweaks they need to come to the table not demanding, or they get unreasonable response, they need to come saying "Tanks are fundamentally broken, however they do this right.... let them keep doing that, but instead of X they should now do Y" The issue is that right now, HAVs have no possible role other than chewing up infantry or preventing enemy HAVs from doing the same. There is no Y, and X is only "kill infantry". Yes, when MAVs and MTACs appear, HAVs can have a proper AV niche, but that's a long way away. In the mean time, the most durable unit on the field is also the one with the most anti-infantry power, and that's just a recipe for (justified) rage. IMO, the solution is to make tanks very fragile while equalizing their cost to that of equivalently-tiered AV dropsuits. STD tank with a STD turret and STD modules? 10-15k ISK. A maxed-out AVer vs a maxed-out HAV should be just as even of a toe-to-toe battle as two maxed-out HMG heavies coming face to face- tactics and gun game will determine the victor, and ISK lost on death on each side is equal. The current system of a proto turret tank costing 2-3 matches of ISK payout creates huge balance issues- tanks, justifiably, demand that they should be durable, yet this means that in the hands of a competent player, the tank is nearly invincible- if they can survive two matches in a row, there's nothing to stop them from surviving 100 in a row. We've tried having fragile, expensive tanks- that sucked. We've tried having cheap, durable tanks- that sucks. The solution, therefore, is extremely cheap, fragile tanks. When the vehicle lineup gets rounded out appropriately, HAVs can return to being extremely durable, and be appropriately specialized as AV platforms. Until then, I don't see any good balance option other than what I've suggested above. Nerdier than thou
Shion Typhon Intara Direct Action Caldari State 518	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:20:00 - [132] - Quote MarasdF Loron wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? Well, sure, increase our price and increase the effectiveness of AV, just at the same time increase the price of those STD suits that infantry uses to go 30-80/0-4 day in and day out. Margin that is beyond reach for tanks. So lets see, if a tank does 30/1 in his/her best game for the day, and this infantry slayer does 65/3. Tanker spent most likely 250-500k doing that while the infantry slayer did that in 10k-15k STD suit costing him/her a total of 30k-45k. By that logic it should cost the tanker 750k-1.5M and the slayer it should be 1.6M-3.2M. Well, I wouldn't go balance anything around ISK. But then again I wouldn't go crying if Swarms OHK'd me for the cost of 0 ISK as long as those Swarms rendered. 80-0??? 65-3??? The made up numbers on these boards just get more and more outlandish every day. Let's balance something with the presumption your average guy in a standard suit can kill half the enemy's clones with no deaths. Seriously ...
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 9981	Posted - 2014.04.30 22:24:00 - [133] - Quote Shion Typhon wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? Well, sure, increase our price and increase the effectiveness of AV, just at the same time increase the price of those STD suits that infantry uses to go 30-80/0-4 day in and day out. Margin that is beyond reach for tanks. So lets see, if a tank does 30/1 in his/her best game for the day, and this infantry slayer does 65/3. Tanker spent most likely 250-500k doing that while the infantry slayer did that in 10k-15k STD suit costing him/her a total of 30k-45k. By that logic it should cost the tanker 750k-1.5M and the slayer it should be 1.6M-3.2M. Well, I wouldn't go balance anything around ISK. But then again I wouldn't go crying if Swarms OHK'd me for the cost of 0 ISK as long as those Swarms rendered. 80-0??? 65-3??? The made up numbers on these boards just get more and more outlandish every day. Let's balance something with the presumption your average guy in a standard suit can kill half the enemy's clones with no deaths. Seriously ... Meh I went 52/1 back in 1.6 when tanks were pretty AV because I was becoming a good tanker....... what most people have to realise is that there will always be people who will pilot tanks and go 30/1 or better because they are good at what they do, just like there are infantrymen who go 30/0, or dropshippers who go 40/0. The HAV, while admittedly is pretty powerful this build, is simply a big target frustrated people can pin all their anger and frustration on as an excuse for bad games, losses, etc. "Get thine Swag out of my face! Next you'll be writing #YOLOswagforJamyl in all your posts!" -Dagger Two
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 567	Posted - 2014.04.30 23:39:00 - [134] - Quote Maximos Forcus wrote: NAV HIV wrote: Ridire Greine wrote: Forge Guns are actually great sources of AV, anyone who says otherwise doesn't use them. The thing that makes them great is that unlike other sources of AV you can target a tank's weakspot for a 160% Damage rating, nerfing tanks would only make tank Vs tank battles even worse. PLC needs a buff, and the SL needs a slight buff, and REs are great at what they do. RE's are not for Tanks... The fact that JLAV is the best AV right now, explains the balance between AV vs Tanks... I found a Madrugar last night, some blue dot left it there... I jumped in, pushed towards the redline... 3 guys were swarming it... After being hit 3 times, i jumped out and went to shoot the swarmers... With the help of other team mates i we killed those swarmers... Got back in the tank with FULL hp on it... Some balance that is... ...so it had reppers. What is the point you are trying to make? I once got shot in my MLT heavy suit, hid behind cover a while, and everything was back to 100%. Unbalanced? if you got shot, didn't go to cover and kept getting shot and didn't die, then yes, unbalanced. That didn't happen though while with tanks it is routine. Because, that's why.
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 567	Posted - 2014.04.30 23:44:00 - [135] - Quote Void Echo wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Void Echo wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Void Echo wrote: really, even one of the biggest trolls has gotten serious for once to talk about tanking? this issue has gotten worse than before is sota poop is putting his 2 cents in it. Has it not gone stupid? Tankers, you're hurting NPE. Quit your **** and pick one. I should of mentioned I only speak of lower tiered tank prices. That's what's harmful with tanks right now. There ratio of effectiveness with AV drastically goes higher at proto - but so what? That's the point. In strategic game modes they aren't a huge factor anyways, they can hold outside point 'sometimes' they're easily countered. So they're considered balanced. But MLT is NOT. Tankers aren't hurting the game, its the people that want them gone and to turn this into gall of duty that are hurting this game. the universe doesn't revolve around infantry. MLT tanks I couldn't care less about, they require nothing to use and should be treated and like such. they should have their effectiveness cut down because they are the lowest tier available. price remains the same but effectiveness is cut. Tanks are completely fine regarding anything out of MLT. Besides rep tank maddys - that's a little dumb. Well, that's the fitting that is surviving, you can't expect everyone to change to a fitting that will let you kill them in less than 5 seconds or so. come one that's unreasonable. Dropsuits can have up to 3 self rep modules and nobody is complaining about that, why should tanks be any different? That's like saying dropsuits shouldn't be able to have multiple rep modules fitted on them because it takes to long to kill them with an SMG What percentage of total armor per second will 3 rep modules get you on a dropsuit? How about a tank? Do the math and you will see the difference. If rep modules gave you 100 HP/sec in a dropsuit that would need changing. Because, that's why.
Lorhak Gannarsein Science For Death 3140	Posted - 2014.05.01 00:22:00 - [136] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: Yoma Carrim wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? Cheap? Cheap? How is a 518k Gunnlogi Cheap? Now if we're talking MLT tanks I'll give it to you, but SP intensive tanks aren't cheap. Your 518k tank Are you saying you refuse to use MLT tanks, just because? You can be just as effective in Soma or Sica at half the price, Why are you throwing away ISK then trying to claim tanks are balanced for it? Get out of my thread with this terrible logic. Yeah, I don't know these guys. Got my Rail Fitting 5 and Missile Fitting 3, but my two fave fittings are usable by literally anybody - I checked. ak.0 // 4 LYFE I am the Lorhak // I speak for the trees. Jason Person for CMP!
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2721	Posted - 2014.05.01 00:47:00 - [137] - Quote Another tank thread? Azura give me strength, you know what just use the search button if you want my opinion, even feel free to place it in here, I just can't be bothered fighting the same nethandric logic again and again and again. Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work. Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
Scheneighnay McBob T.R.I.A.D Ushra'Khan 4984	Posted - 2014.05.01 00:51:00 - [138] - Quote Atiim wrote: Soldner VonKuechle wrote: Meh, as long as i keep seeing +75+75+50(+50)+150 for shooting tanks I don't care what they or I end up having to do. Vehicle Damage points made me give a siht about shooting tanks again. It's a good thing you don't participate in competitive game-modes. You being a FC would guarantee that your team gets cloned. It's a good thing there are no truly competitive game modes, besides maybe minmatar vs amarr FW. And if you can do enough damage to get +75 repeatedly, you're probably pushing that HAV out, which is better than what everyone else is doing. /timetravel Best thread of all time
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 524	Posted - 2014.05.01 09:21:00 - [139] - Quote Shion Typhon wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? Well, sure, increase our price and increase the effectiveness of AV, just at the same time increase the price of those STD suits that infantry uses to go 30-80/0-4 day in and day out. Margin that is beyond reach for tanks. So lets see, if a tank does 30/1 in his/her best game for the day, and this infantry slayer does 65/3. Tanker spent most likely 250-500k doing that while the infantry slayer did that in 10k-15k STD suit costing him/her a total of 30k-45k. By that logic it should cost the tanker 750k-1.5M and the slayer it should be 1.6M-3.2M. Well, I wouldn't go balance anything around ISK. But then again I wouldn't go crying if Swarms OHK'd me for the cost of 0 ISK as long as those Swarms rendered. 80-0??? 65-3??? The made up numbers on these boards just get more and more outlandish every day. Let's balance something with the presumption your average guy in a standard suit can kill half the enemy's clones with no deaths. Seriously ... My troll was in vain I see... deaths were supposed to scale with kills in that example. Although I have seen on very rare occasions people go 80+ with 0 deaths. And you infantry players are assuming that your "average" tanker can go 30+/0-1 consistently, where it's really nothing like that or every tanker would have stats like Duna who roflstomps ambush (which takes no skill tbh). R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.
MarasdF Loron Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad. 524	Posted - 2014.05.01 09:34:00 - [140] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: What percentage of total armor per second will 3 rep modules get you on a dropsuit? How about a tank? Do the math and you will see the difference. If rep modules gave you 100 HP/sec in a dropsuit that would need changing. On Gallente Logistics you can get 9.22% of armor repaired per second. On Madrugar you can get 12.8% of armor repaired per second. There's three differences though. First: on the dropsuit you can still fit lots of other stuff unlike on the HAV. Second: the suit repair rate doesn't save you even from the lowest dps weapons in the game. Three: dropsuit and HAV play very differently. R.I.P. Pre-1.7 Vehicles & AV, you will be missed.

Baal Omniscient L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1402	Posted - 2014.05.01 10:31:00 - [141] - Quote No comment on the thread, just popping in to say hi to SoTa. Hi SoTa! MAG ~ Raven I GÖú puppies.
Zaaeed Massani RisingSuns Dark Taboo 423	Posted - 2014.05.01 15:12:00 - [142] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: wait, what? REMOVE BLASTERS? Are you AV guys INSANE???????? Certifiably. Problem? Minmatar & Gallente A.R.C. Program Instructor / Do you even lift?
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2050	Posted - 2014.05.01 15:27:00 - [143] - Quote Atiim wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Give me a proto vehicles first After you nerf just about every vehicle module, and buff AV; sure. Lol Some "tanker" you call yourself. 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. 2050	Posted - 2014.05.01 15:32:00 - [144] - Quote Galvan Nized wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: NAV HIV wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Give me a proto vehicles first Give me a Proto AV to Counter that Proto Vehicle First You already have that Proto breach/assault FG Same with swarms/RE/PE/PLC Did you seriously just consider Proxies and Plasma Cannons as viable ways to combat Pro tanks? Do tankers seriously believe this crap? You'd be surprised what the national corps can do to destroy tanks. Proxy traps, plus a whole squad going AV. They never send me a GG, or "stop tanking," or anything like that. They also don't resort to using suicide LAVs. Why? BECAUSE THEY DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND DON'T COMPLAIN. I have a hell of a lot more respect for someone that I can't talk to who does whatever needs to be done to succeed, than I ever will for someone whose first language is English and complains that he can't destroy the best with less than minimal effort. Wait, we're not even talking about the best. We're talking about people that don't know how to tank using MLT tanks. Well, looks like you lot are pretty damn bad. 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. 2050	Posted - 2014.05.01 15:54:00 - [145] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So... 1. You want tankers to give up Large Blaster Turrets or make them ineffective against infantry. 2. You want to be able to kill HAVs just as easily and fast as you kill other infantry. So, in return... 1. Can we tankers have the ability to fit small turrets as main turret for our HAVs? 2. Can we tankers have the ability to drive HAVs indoors and in tight spaces generally? 3. Can we tankers have the ability to hack points and deploy/use equipment with our HAVs? 4. Can we tankers have the ability to turn our turrets and hulls as fast as you can turn your dropsuits and aim to all directions? Or do you just want to take everything and give nothing in return? So, which thing do you want us to give up and what are you willing to give back in return? Pick 1-2 from each category (but the same amount of options from both). Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? You're really going to take that seriously? Don't you have some pubs to stomp as a 6-man we-never-use-ADV-only-PRO squad against a team of fresh academy graduates? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Void Echo Total Extinction 2492	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:37:00 - [146] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Void Echo wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Void Echo wrote: yeah, I haven't tanked since the end of 1.6 so you cant put me in the same crowd as the scrub tankers. Jihad jeeps are ***** funny even for tankers they kill. We weren't crying because we weren't invulnerable, we never wanted that (Minus those 2 tankers we all know from the forums). The reason tanks were overhauled to our wants was because they weren't worth their prices BECAUSE they were destroyed far too quickly and easily, basically tanks were rarely seen on the battlefield outside of those of us that were already here since closed beta mainly because they were nearly worthless. Well yeah, a hard counter should destroy you quickly and honestly this isnt even getting to how good tankers actually have it in this game as compared to others even back in the dark days you complain about it For instance I cant blast your treads immobilizing you like I can in battlefield, how hard would you cry if that happened here Thats not mentioning your argument essentially boils down to "I payed a lot of isk so I shouldnt be super hard to kill" which is some pay to win bullshit So the real question is why do you support pay to win and doesnt this clash with your point of pride in being a tanker surviving against insurmountable odds despite already having a significant advantage in size speed firepower and health with a very limited vulnerability? Oh and since I get the feeling you might bring it up, why were you mad are people sitting on roof tops firing at you, why didnt you like that AV were smart enough to use that to their advantage? 1. a hard counter is not meant to completely eliminate all use for a specific class, its there to fight back if the situation calls for it. AV before 1.7 hit was making tanks become useless they weren't fight back, they were eliminating us. theres a fine line that shows the difference between fighting back and eliminating. 2. ISK isn't that big of a deal to me, I get unlimited of it because of pubs, SP is the major point of whether or not something is OP or UP. 3. I don't support P2W if there is real world currency involved IE: the U.S Dollar, the Euro, and whatever else is used to pay for ** in the real world. When it comes to in game currency being used, there is no issue. 4. There was literally no way to counter a tower forge or swarmer, they were out of the ranges of railguns and anything that came close to them was blown out of the sky by a forge not to mentioned that tactic locked down the map to where tanks couldn't roll 5 feet out of the redline without being hit by shots coming fro the sky, the only way to get rid of people on a roof like that is with an orbital which caused a major problem for gameplay and strategy. Your number 3 point invalidates anything you ever have to say concerning balance, why should anyone listen to a pay to win scrub? If using ISK to win matches makes me a scrub, then every single player in Dust514 is a scrub. I dont use real money in this game, iv only ever bought 3 boosters and that was over a year ago. Claiming that i am a P2W scrub because i use in game currency is claiming that you yoursel are that too because you also use ISK. Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction
Void Echo Total Extinction 2492	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:41:00 - [147] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: What percentage of total armor per second will 3 rep modules get you on a dropsuit? How about a tank? Do the math and you will see the difference. If rep modules gave you 100 HP/sec in a dropsuit that would need changing. to compare tanks to dropsuits for armor rep is comepletely sutpid, for obvious reasons. plus i havent been on the game in half a year. so i wouldnt know anymore Youtube Closed Beta Vet CEO: Total Extinction
NAV HIV Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 1660	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:45:00 - [148] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So... 1. You want tankers to give up Large Blaster Turrets or make them ineffective against infantry. 2. You want to be able to kill HAVs just as easily and fast as you kill other infantry. So, in return... 1. Can we tankers have the ability to fit small turrets as main turret for our HAVs? 2. Can we tankers have the ability to drive HAVs indoors and in tight spaces generally? 3. Can we tankers have the ability to hack points and deploy/use equipment with our HAVs? 4. Can we tankers have the ability to turn our turrets and hulls as fast as you can turn your dropsuits and aim to all directions? Or do you just want to take everything and give nothing in return? So, which thing do you want us to give up and what are you willing to give back in return? Pick 1-2 from each category (but the same amount of options from both). Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? You're really going to take that seriously? Don't you have some pubs to stomp as a 6-man we-never-use-ADV-only-PRO squad against a team of fresh academy graduates? What are you Crying over this time ?! Did he touch you in the wrong places ?!
SoTa PoP Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 4761	Posted - 2014.05.01 17:53:00 - [149] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So... 1. You want tankers to give up Large Blaster Turrets or make them ineffective against infantry. 2. You want to be able to kill HAVs just as easily and fast as you kill other infantry. So, in return... 1. Can we tankers have the ability to fit small turrets as main turret for our HAVs? 2. Can we tankers have the ability to drive HAVs indoors and in tight spaces generally? 3. Can we tankers have the ability to hack points and deploy/use equipment with our HAVs? 4. Can we tankers have the ability to turn our turrets and hulls as fast as you can turn your dropsuits and aim to all directions? Or do you just want to take everything and give nothing in return? So, which thing do you want us to give up and what are you willing to give back in return? Pick 1-2 from each category (but the same amount of options from both). Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? You're really going to take that seriously? Don't you have some pubs to stomp as a 6-man we-never-use-ADV-only-PRO squad against a team of fresh academy graduates? Is a tanker really calling someone out on proto stomping? Really?? Is that how dumb this community has gotten? Or is it just Spkr being Spkr? n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++ I watch anime for the plot
Soldner VonKuechle SAM-MIK General Tso's Alliance 669	Posted - 2014.05.01 18:00:00 - [150] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: MarasdF Loron wrote: So... 1. You want tankers to give up Large Blaster Turrets or make them ineffective against infantry. 2. You want to be able to kill HAVs just as easily and fast as you kill other infantry. So, in return... 1. Can we tankers have the ability to fit small turrets as main turret for our HAVs? 2. Can we tankers have the ability to drive HAVs indoors and in tight spaces generally? 3. Can we tankers have the ability to hack points and deploy/use equipment with our HAVs? 4. Can we tankers have the ability to turn our turrets and hulls as fast as you can turn your dropsuits and aim to all directions? Or do you just want to take everything and give nothing in return? So, which thing do you want us to give up and what are you willing to give back in return? Pick 1-2 from each category (but the same amount of options from both). Do you really believe this crap? I've been gone, away from the debates, but, really? You guys know you cost way too little for your effectiveness, what defense could you possibly say? If you want to stay cheap - then buff AV. One or the other, pick. Which is it? You're really going to take that seriously? Don't you have some pubs to stomp as a 6-man we-never-use-ADV-only-PRO squad against a team of fresh academy graduates? Is a tanker really calling someone out on proto stomping? Really?? Is that how dumb this community has gotten? Or is it just Sperger being Sperger? fixed that for Ya. Variety is already dead; you either proto to fight/stomp or BPO to grind isk. If not, you're lying.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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