DUST Search - so it's pretty obvious that everyone hates tanks

All Channels

General Discussions

so it's pretty obvious that everyone hates tanks

» 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)
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 143	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:07:00 - [1] - Quote right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you.
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 2059	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:13:00 - [2] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. Entitled little shitass, arn't you? "You see those red dots over there? Go and shoot them until you see a +50 on the screen" - Arkena Wyrnspire
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10975	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:16:00 - [3] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. I think mores the point from an EVE player is what do you infantry do and why should we keep you.....? However I will properly answer your question once I can put I into a persuasive and coherent argument. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 145	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:20:00 - [4] - Quote Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. Entitled little shitass, arn't you? I'm only mirroring the sentiment I perceive of the community. I assure you I assume no entitlement.
Michael Arck 4814	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:22:00 - [5] - Quote GEKs were the red headed child of Dust Logibros doing anything but support and gaining WPs were the red headed step child of Dust Rail Rifles were the red headed step child of Dust. What should we do with tankers? The same thing we do about infantry and any other opposition-destroy them. The crazy, entitled playerbase of the PS3 never ceases to amaze. Archistrategos *Where the fear has gone there will be nothing....only I will remain*
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9707	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:30:00 - [6] - Quote Michael Arck wrote: The crazy, entitled playerbase of the PS3 never ceases to amaze. Implying that this behavior is found only in PS3 titles. -Insert Clever Statement Here- "The Snack That Smiles Back; Amarr Suits" -HAND
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 145	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:32:00 - [7] - Quote Michael Arck wrote: GEKs were the red headed child of Dust Logibros doing anything but support and gaining WPs were the red headed step child of Dust Rail Rifles were the red headed step child of Dust. What should we do with tankers? The same thing we do about infantry and any other opposition-destroy them. The crazy, entitled playerbase of the PS3 never ceases to amaze. yes its true... there are quite a few gingers in the dust family....is there anything we can all agree on in dust that we should keep as is?
HowDidThatTaste Paladin Survey Force Amarr Empire 5020	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:33:00 - [8] - Quote As much as tanks anoy me. I would never want to seem them eliminated from dust. Nerfed to crap maybe.. I'm just kidding. In a few weeks everyone will have adjusted their play style and this game will take on a new level. Their was a time in the E3 build where tanks where everywhere, drop ship pilots were battling overhead and you had to fight in your little area not able to run circles around the maps like we do today. Those battles were epic. Its where most of us first started using comma together (although sometimes it was the enemy you were talking to) Welcome the challenge folks I hate tanks as much as anyone but I don't want them gone.
Michael Arck 4816	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:41:00 - [9] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Michael Arck wrote: GEKs were the red headed child of Dust Logibros doing anything but support and gaining WPs were the red headed step child of Dust Rail Rifles were the red headed step child of Dust. What should we do with tankers? The same thing we do about infantry and any other opposition-destroy them. The crazy, entitled playerbase of the PS3 never ceases to amaze. yes its true... there are quite a few gingers in the dust family....is there anything we can all agree on in dust that we should keep as is? I wish it could be 95 percent of it. This game would have been in a different place if the community weren't so hell bent on changing things in this game based on public match results and "competition". The vision got lost in the whambulance Archistrategos *Where the fear has gone there will be nothing....only I will remain*
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9707	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:46:00 - [10] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. Tankers provide infantry suppression, on-board spawning systems, and Anti-Aircraft capabilities.There are also builds that increase the Anti-Infantry efficiency of your team as well. In the right hands, they're basically makeshift APCs. Why should they stay? Well that's an interesting question. Would could also ask why DUST isn't better without the conventional rifles, Sentinels, and nearly every item in the game. The removal of HAVs would cause a negative impact on the AV Community, as we'd only have LAVs and DSs to fight. While this may seem beneficial to Infantry who aren't AV, it would essentially make the time and loads of SP spent into maxing out your AV skill and build worthless. That's like having a Logistics unit, but removing Sentinels and Basic Heavy Frames. What are they supposed to do know? -Insert Clever Statement Here- "The Snack That Smiles Back; Amarr Suits" -HAND

Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 146	Posted - 2014.06.22 06:58:00 - [11] - Quote Atiim wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. Tankers provide infantry suppression, on-board spawning systems, and Anti-Aircraft capabilities.There are also builds that increase the Anti-Infantry efficiency of your team as well. In the right hands, they're basically makeshift APCs. Why should they stay? Well that's an interesting question. Would could also ask why DUST isn't better without the conventional rifles, Sentinels, and nearly every item in the game. The removal of HAVs would cause a negative impact on the AV Community, as we'd only have LAVs and DSs to fight. While this may seem beneficial to Infantry who aren't AV, it would essentially make the time and loads of SP spent into maxing out your AV skill and build worthless. That's like having a Logistics unit, but removing Sentinels and Basic Heavy Frames. What are they supposed to do know? this is great hypothetical reasoning here, but we all know the only tank we ever see is the slayer, be it rail or blaster or missle. rarely if ever do I see one with a CRU. more often than not I see tanks without a dropship in the sky and when they are present, ignored 1/2 the time by these tankers. infantry suppression sounds good, however in a city they cant do much, and what they do accomplish a skilled heavy does just as well as it is AV is sub par, and most people don't want to bother with it to begin with, those who do are cursed with inefficient weapons all but the highest tiered and most costly. a logi can still support the team without heavies, providing reps, sticks hives, links...etc etc, but the tank just seems to be a 3rd wheel, a thorn in the average players side, or their crutch.... am I far from the truth?
Reign Omega BurgezzE.T.F General Tso's Alliance 472	Posted - 2014.06.22 07:10:00 - [12] - Quote Tanks? I love those guys! Giant Twinkies rolling around the field.... what could I possibly use my forge gun for if they leave? Lavs and dropships present almost no challenge.... Observe the public trust. Protect the innocent. Uphold the law.
Lynn Beck NoGameNoLife 1874	Posted - 2014.06.22 07:50:00 - [13] - Quote I believe CRU's aren't used more often (they are, i've seen it) is because there is NO reward, for a (quite serious) risk- you lose out on a Combat module, or utility much better suited to destroying that Glass Cannon that just turned the corner. First off- i believe tanks should go back to being 5/2 slot layout, and keeping Actives how they are now(as in, not requiring 3 hardeners to hit 40% resist, remember that?), make Armor Reps a active mod, and bring back all of the ol Low Slots, along with a Shield Regulator or a 'shield threshold release' which increases the damage threshold. Cru's would be in an even better spot under this new system, only taking 20% of a potential Hp Pool, rather than 33%. Of course, this is considering from a Gunnlogi's PoV. A Maddy is pretty much unaffected when it comes to CRU fitting, except that it now has 5 lows. Imagine a maddy rocking 2 plates, 2 hardeners, and a Rep with a Cru up top and a nitro. You now have a proper 'breach' Hav, designed to infiltrate a building, spawn in a squad, destroy a few people, an then Nitro it out of there. Or imagine a Gunnlogi with 2 Shield Boosters, a Damage mod, 1 Shield hardener, and a Nitro- you have a AV platform designed to withstand multiple engagements and keep coming. None of that is possible under the current system. General John Ripper Like ALL the things!!!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10979	Posted - 2014.06.22 07:51:00 - [14] - Quote Lets be honest here....HAV have no dedicated role..... in fact quite frankly they don't have a lot of anything to them right now. Since the CCP Wolfman HAV "fixes" tanks have had no specific role on the ground, not customisation, no reason to exist other than to make the lives of infantry miserable. As they are.....well Seymour you are right. We don't need tanks like this. Vehicles that have their power curve based on the hull of the vehicle and not the players supporting skills, and or their skills as a player. What HAV could be is what we should be considering. I have always found that in Dust, as they were tanks provided a tactical objective/diversion for the enemy players. When an HAV was present on a map it was a threat, and one that forced players to look outside of their own small infantry run and gun sphere and at the wider battlefield. It forces players to consider the location, capabilities of the pilot, their own squads position, and our course their load out dictating a change to heavier weapons. Also more importantly HAV and all vehicles really escalate the engagement. While HAV do a reasonable job of achieving these battlefield changes it is their lack of a true role that caused them to receive so much hatred. They are durable, fast, and have heavy fire power all in one package, with powerful statistics as a basis and able to be improved a few skills that really sell for less SP than they deserve. As I said before its what HAV could be that we should be considering. HAV should be a choice, a highly SP invested unit and high ISK cost unit which provides and unparalleled platform for Anti Vehicle firepower over large ranges while being impervious to small arms.....but of course weak to hand held AV fire and installations. Additionally HAV should have their generalist hulls broken down into more specific roles, increasing the number of hulls per race and also diversifying and specialising the roles an HAV can achieve in the field. Pre- 1.7 a tanker could specifically fit out a tank to fulfil any battlefield role. Pre 1.7 I was fitting our Heavy Armour Combat Madrugars with massive HP values and active resistances, I also had fast moving light scouting tanks with low HP a scanner and a heat sink. TL;DR Tanks as they are lack focus, lack a role, and lack balance. This is because they achieve everything in a generalist way to a high standard and do so with minimal SP investment. What the HAV could be is something that adds a great tactical element to combat if done properly, something that few other games can and will achieve. Just to add my own personal notes to this....... I also feel like if the player base is so hell bent on removing HAV and vehicle from the game then they do not want an FPS set in New Eden and probably should focus on other games then. I still have faith in CCP's vision if not their staff barring of course some of them, and do not want to see Dust casualised for the sake of making another crappy and generalist sci fi shooter when it could be so much more.. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 830	Posted - 2014.06.22 08:25:00 - [15] - Quote Last I checked, tanks made people who rely on their suit stats, instead of skill, upset. In other words, groups of players who attempt to protostomp by value of their gear alone were greatly deterred by tanks... but that was before the blaster was changed so it cannot hit a strafing STD heavy at 30 M out. Only people who dislike tanks are those who cannot play the field. Tanks have several HUGE giveaway notations, including, being visible from the map, changing the lighting in an area, and making a lot of noise that also indicates direction. You can simply ignore tanks 90% of the time as infantry, unless it happens to be blocking your particular doorway. There is more than enough cover to do so on almost any map. http://youtu.be/dtXupQg77SU Dust to Dust, theme
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1653	Posted - 2014.06.22 08:32:00 - [16] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Last I checked, tanks made people who rely on their suit stats, instead of skill, upset. In other words, groups of players who attempt to protostomp by value of their gear alone were greatly deterred by tanks... but that was before the blaster was changed so it cannot hit a strafing STD heavy at 30 M out. Only people who dislike tanks are those who cannot play the field. Tanks have several HUGE giveaway notations, including, being visible from the map, changing the lighting in an area, and making a lot of noise that also indicates direction. You can simply ignore tanks 90% of the time as infantry, unless it happens to be blocking your particular doorway. There is more than enough cover to do so on almost any map. This reply deserves a lot more credit than I think it's going to get. Very well said.
Pvt Numnutz Watchdoge Explosives 1524	Posted - 2014.06.22 08:37:00 - [17] - Quote Yeah let's remove more vehicles! Infantry master race! I fly dropships and operate missile tanks and they are lots of fun! Y u no want fun?!
Booby Tuesdays Ahrendee Mercenaries 578	Posted - 2014.06.22 08:46:00 - [18] - Quote I blame Wolfman. He did too good of a job buffing vehicles, and it went unchecked for the better part of a year. The end result is pure unadulterated hate towards vehicles and their pilots. Especially since heavies can drive them. Melee Weapon of Choice: Nokia-3310 Prof. V
Iron Wolf Saber Den of Swords 15579	Posted - 2014.06.22 08:54:00 - [19] - Quote HAVs are just seriously missing a role. CPM 0 Secretary Omni-Soldier, Forum Warrior, Annoying Artist \\= Advanced Gallente Logistics =// Unlocked
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10981	Posted - 2014.06.22 08:58:00 - [20] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: HAVs are just seriously missing a role. And IWS what do you believe that role should be. I have made it no secret that I consider HAV the battleships of Dust, designed to target other large assets and have tougher times targeting small units. But what do you think about HAV? " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III

Pvt Numnutz Watchdoge Explosives 1525	Posted - 2014.06.22 09:07:00 - [21] - Quote True Adamance wrote: [...] TL;DR Tanks as they are lack focus, lack a role, and lack balance. This is because they achieve everything in a generalist way to a high standard and do so with minimal SP investment. What the HAV could be is something that adds a great tactical element to combat if done properly, something that few other games can and will achieve. Just to add my own personal notes to this....... I also feel like if the player base is so hell bent on removing HAV and vehicle from the game then they do not want an FPS set in New Eden and probably should focus on other games then. I still have faith in CCP's vision if not their staff barring of course some of them, and do not want to see Dust casualised for the sake of making another crappy and generalist sci fi shooter when it could be so much more.. Well said, +1. I think tiercide was a bad idea for vehicles, so much diversity was lost. I spend the better part of a year flying and dying to get my perfect dropship fit, took hundreds of skyshark and millions of isk and sp but I made one hell of a fit. I'm not so proud of my current dropship fit, as its so limited. Same goes for my missile tank, though I'm a little more proud of my gunni boy. Ever since chromosome I have tried to use my tank for more than what it was intended. My favorite tactic is being an advancing tool for infantry. While my missiles aren't very good at killing enemy infantry they do cause a lot of panic and keep them suppressed. A good place to do this is places with limited cover that infantry have to cross pretty exposed to reach an objective. For example the 'C' CRU on line harvest. When I see a group of blues struggling to make any advance towards C I maneuver my tank in front of them to give some cover, then I start a slow advance making sure to keep my speed down and acting as a mobile shield wall to help them advance. I'll walk them right up to the door step at C while keeping the reds pinned so they have the offensive. Sadly very few blues see what I'm doing for them and run out in the open anyway and get gunned down, or break cover too early, or I get blown up by a rail tank. But when it does work its epic as hell and feels extremely rewarding even though I didn't get any kills. I felt like I made a difference and the blues on my team can appreciate my tank and how I used it. When I get into a vehicle I don't want blues to remember "that numnutz guy was so good at killing everything!" I want them to think "with out that tank/dropship support this battle might have gone really bad! Sure am glad he helped us out there." That's worth a thousand kills to me.
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 148	Posted - 2014.06.22 09:20:00 - [22] - Quote Iron Wolf Saber wrote: HAVs are just seriously missing a role. I actually liked your post... you and true adamance are right.... wonder why ccp didn't give them a role?
CHANCEtheChAn 0uter.Heaven 431	Posted - 2014.06.22 09:45:00 - [23] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: HAVs are just seriously missing a role. I actually liked your post... you and true adamance are right.... wonder why ccp didn't give them a role? Tanks have a role According to the keynotes Blaster turrets are infantry suppression Rail turrets are tank and vehicle suppression And missile turrets are installation suppression Which is balanced kinda But as tankers you get no WP for being "Support" So it basically bogged down to Triple rep Maddy's ruining everyone's life and militia 60k tanks running vampant across the field (Also blasters did need a slight Nerf) But instead CCP nerfed all reppers instead of giving them stacking penalties, destroyed the blaster so only the most skilled pilots can use it, and nerfed the rail and all damage output of the rail (Really? ROF, DAMAGE, AND HEAT BUILD UP NERF?PLUS damage mod Nerf WTF?) Militia tanks needed huge nerfs or skilled pilots needed huge SP sink skills that allowed them to beat other tanks but not infantry ESPECIALLY right now, a simple 5x-8x skill that does "5% less dispersion to blasters per level" and a 5x-8x skill that "10% damage mod increase in efficacy for railguns" would be much appreciated If you think I'm being a douche, and you haven't tried many tanks since Beta dropped Go into your friendly neighborhood Skirm or Dom match and drop a few somas and Sicas Your whole outlook at tanks might go inside out in one whole match Hmmm. The Meta is strong with this one...
Moonracer2000 Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 810	Posted - 2014.06.22 10:26:00 - [24] - Quote One big problem with vehicle balance to me has always been the maps. They just are not designed well to balance infantry and vehicle gameplay. Look at maps in the Battlefield series (which this is heavily influenced by). Buildings have interiors ( and exterior obstacles) that allow troop movement and cover. Open areas have foliage, rocks and other obstacles that allow running from cover to cover. Dust maps are barren wastelands in comparison. Wide open areas where infantry must cross with no cover. Most maps have almost no vertical cover either. Large city sockets are the exception. Vehicle and infantry combat feels fun and balanced in those city locations (to me). but those and a few other sockets (like the pyramid) generally make up a small portion of any map. I hear a lot of people counter this saying Dust is supposed to be like this and we are supposed to use vehicles as transport, but in practice that doesn't happen. It either isn't fun or isn't effective or both. That role was not designed well into the game (other than the need). It isn't just the balance of vehicles vs infantry vs AV. The type of game mode and the map design needs to accommodate that gameplay.
castba Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 492	Posted - 2014.06.22 10:37:00 - [25] - Quote We need them for variety and challenge. HAVs out if ambush is excellent. HAVs in OMS, Dom & skirmish is excellent. *note I am not a tanker
anaboop Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 103	Posted - 2014.06.22 10:50:00 - [26] - Quote Most of the tank battles after bravo hit are cat and mouse, Rail if they miss u a couple times they run, sometimes if you get to close they run Missile if you dont do enough damage to scare them you run, if u get hit first by anything you run Blasters unless u can get close enough you run, otherwise go for infantry if u can get close enough or yeah run :p Hit by forge, unless u spot them, again you run. Swarms you try to kill them if not you run Infantry spamming av nades you run Cloaky trying to put REs on you, you run if u hear or spot them. HAV's should be earned in battle before being able to deploy them, much like an OB but by other means not 2500wp. Maps with those tank factory looking things, pilot suit required to build the HAV, search for items in your own redline once found, x amount of time to build it. HAV skills that increase time to create, and reduce items required to make blah blah. Sounded good in my mind lol thought I would throw it out there. Same could be done with lavs and dropships, helipads and lavs could be anywhere. Fully sick Anaboop trading card
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 606	Posted - 2014.06.22 10:55:00 - [27] - Quote Personally I think AV and vehicles are in a rather good spot right now. The issue is just that I absolutely hate doing AV. Yet it's what I have to do almost 50% of my playtime. Here's how most of my playsessions go down: 1. Log in to fry some people with my laser rifle. 2. Madrugar tears up the place. 3. Switch to Forgegun and shoo away HAV. 4. Blap some people with my FG while I follow the HAV around. 5. End of match, go to step 1, repeat until bored. The crux is that the HAV driver is annoyed that he can't be effective and I'm annoyed because I can't do something more fun. None of us is having fun. Maybe one way of fixing it would be to make HAVs much cheaper and tune them down so you are expected to lose a couple of them each match. The AVer gets to see pretty explosions and the HAV can get a thrill out of defying the AV.
GeneralButtNaked Fatal Absolution 1184	Posted - 2014.06.22 11:10:00 - [28] - Quote Huge nerf to tanks, remove them from Ambush, and the poor little infantry STILL can't do anything? Yeah, this community sucks. Not as people, but as gamers. Knowing that you guys are the ones giving CCP feedback, and not the year plus of solid feedback from real FPS players, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Legion is going to suck balls. I would say get good, but clearly, even with years of practice, most of you still couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hand. Real AV doesn't stop until all the tanks are dead.
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. 1778	Posted - 2014.06.22 11:12:00 - [29] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Lets be honest here....HAV have no dedicated role..... in fact quite frankly they don't have a lot of anything to them right now. Since the CCP Wolfman HAV "fixes" tanks have had no specific role on the ground, not customisation, no reason to exist other than to make the lives of infantry miserable. As they are.....well Seymour you are right. We don't need tanks like this. Vehicles that have their power curve based on the hull of the vehicle and not the players supporting skills, and or their skills as a player. What HAV could be is what we should be considering. I have always found that in Dust, as they were tanks provided a tactical objective/diversion for the enemy players. When an HAV was present on a map it was a threat, and one that forced players to look outside of their own small infantry run and gun sphere and at the wider battlefield. It forces players to consider the location, capabilities of the pilot, their own squads position, and our course their load out dictating a change to heavier weapons. Also more importantly HAV and all vehicles really escalate the engagement. While HAV do a reasonable job of achieving these battlefield changes it is their lack of a true role that caused them to receive so much hatred. They are durable, fast, and have heavy fire power all in one package, with powerful statistics as a basis and able to be improved a few skills that really sell for less SP than they deserve. As I said before its what HAV could be that we should be considering. HAV should be a choice, a highly SP invested unit and high ISK cost unit which provides and unparalleled platform for Anti Vehicle firepower over large ranges while being impervious to small arms.....but of course weak to hand held AV fire and installations. Additionally HAV should have their generalist hulls broken down into more specific roles, increasing the number of hulls per race and also diversifying and specialising the roles an HAV can achieve in the field. Pre- 1.7 a tanker could specifically fit out a tank to fulfil any battlefield role. Pre 1.7 I was fitting our Heavy Armour Combat Madrugars with massive HP values and active resistances, I also had fast moving light scouting tanks with low HP a scanner and a heat sink. TL;DR Tanks as they are lack focus, lack a role, and lack balance. This is because they achieve everything in a generalist way to a high standard and do so with minimal SP investment. What the HAV could be is something that adds a great tactical element to combat if done properly, something that few other games can and will achieve. Just to add my own personal notes to this....... I also feel like if the player base is so hell bent on removing HAV and vehicle from the game then they do not want an FPS set in New Eden and probably should focus on other games then. I still have faith in CCP's vision if not their staff barring of course some of them, and do not want to see Dust casualised for the sake of making another crappy and generalist sci fi shooter when it could be so much more.. lack of choices and a CCP HTFU attitude of let the infantry endure the vehicles in every game mode created the vehicles hate not that any of this matters in light of newer games TL, DR: Shes dead, Jim. and what will your Destiny be?
Schecter 666 72	Posted - 2014.06.22 11:38:00 - [30] - Quote Atiim wrote: Michael Arck wrote: The crazy, entitled playerbase of the PS3 never ceases to amaze. Implying that this behavior is found only in PS3 titles. or perhaps because he read a post from somebody from the PS3 community on a PS3 game's forums, hmm... The Struggle...is tolerating DUST for even 1 match without flushing your own foot down the toilet in a fit of rage.

Takahashi Kashuken Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 13	Posted - 2014.06.22 11:38:00 - [31] - Quote Why dont you just delete vehicles No i agree Ive given up totally on DUST espc where vehicles are concerned CCP cant balance them and they have had 2+ years at it but then again you cant balance when infantry **** and moan consistantly about them anyways Now vehicles are out of ambush - But thats not good enough, they now need to be out of OMS and Skirmish and Domination Infantry are not happy because vehicles still exist and they lack the IQ to kill them effectively Vehicles used to have adv/proto tanks but they got deleted Vehicles used to have useful skill bonuses now we have basically none Vehicles had a choice of useful modules now we have barely any and if they are useful infantry want them nerfed Just delete them, i dont care got 55mil SP but im too busy playing PS2 to care, at least vehicles are damn good and useful in that game
Baal Omniscient Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 1771	Posted - 2014.06.22 14:14:00 - [32] - Quote In a perfect world we would have gates up in roadways with high HP that tanks could knock down to allow infantry through, AI or capsuleer operated drones would be flying around attacking the other team's infantry that the tanks could fight against, and limits would be put on where vehicles could be spawned to prevent tower rail sniping. Objectives would hold strategic value. Points would not only control Null cannons, but also operate weaponry that auto-fired on troops moving up, requiring a tank to push in on it, using itself as a shield for troops hiding behind it! And other points would control AV weaponry that required infantry to push on it so that vehicles could get close and crash in the gate for them! Towers would scrape the sky and the capture point would be in the center, allowing you to push from the bottom or fly to the top and fight your way down! Battles on seas of lava set up on huge harvesting rigs where the battlefield breaks apart under you as you fight to gain control of the rig for you alliance's harvesting rights! Perhaps those of you moving to Legion might see all of that one day... PSN ID: AlbelNox2569 Cross Atu for CPM1
anaboop Dem Durrty Boyz General Tso's Alliance 105	Posted - 2014.06.22 14:23:00 - [33] - Quote Down with legion :) hope it crashes and burns Fully sick Anaboop trading card
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 521	Posted - 2014.06.22 14:37:00 - [34] - Quote GeneralButtNaked wrote: Huge nerf to tanks, remove them from Ambush, and the poor little infantry STILL can't do anything? Yeah, this community sucks. Not as people, but as gamers. Knowing that you guys are the ones giving CCP feedback, and not the year plus of solid feedback from real FPS players, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Legion is going to suck balls. I would say get good, but clearly, even with years of practice, most of you still couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hand. This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. All the pubbies had to do was not stick their heads into the barrel of the blaster tank and everything would've been fine.
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9718	Posted - 2014.06.22 14:42:00 - [35] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. A game-mode that is irrelevant to nearly 80% of the playerbase should never hold priority over anything. "Balance for PC" is a myth, as the problems that exist with imbalanced items is a result of how they correlate with others, not which game-mode they're in. Director of NGNL "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND
GeneralButtNaked Fatal Absolution 1190	Posted - 2014.06.22 15:08:00 - [36] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. A game-mode that is irrelevant to nearly 80% of the playerbase should never hold priority over anything. "Balance for PC" is a myth, as the problems that exist with imbalanced items is a result of how they correlate with others, not which game-mode they're in. Here is why you are wrong: Pub players suck. Solo players play pubs. There is no matchmaking(or there wasn't for the longest time) You could never design a game that is supossed to feature teamwork if you balance it around that mode. You need to balance around the only mode in the game where teams are all of a sort and ready to work together. If the min/maxers find a hole in your balance, it will be found their first. Look at the general incompetency of the people who pretend to be AV. If they were not so bad at what they think they are pro at, then vehicles wouldn't have needed to get hit so hard with the nerf hammer. CCP should have listened to the competitive crowd before they all got driven off by CCP being tools. Real AV doesn't stop until all the tanks are dead.
Heimdallr69 Nyain San 2624	Posted - 2014.06.22 15:11:00 - [37] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. Why should we keep you infantry? You are not needed in ambush. Removed inappropriate content - CCP Logibro
deezy dabest Sacred Initiative of Combat Killers 660	Posted - 2014.06.22 15:41:00 - [38] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. LOL you obviously read the forums much more than you play. Laser focused in a room full of mirrors. Everything you ever wanted coming SoonGäó just keep buying boosters.
Baal Omniscient Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 1775	Posted - 2014.06.22 16:06:00 - [39] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. LOL you obviously read the forums much more than you play. You'd be surprised, Seymor is on for at least 4 hours daily from my experience. PSN ID: AlbelNox2569 Cross Atu for CPM1
deezy dabest Sacred Initiative of Combat Killers 660	Posted - 2014.06.22 16:27:00 - [40] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: deezy dabest wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. LOL you obviously read the forums much more than you play. You'd be surprised, Seymor is on for at least 4 hours daily from my experience. Then I stand corrected. Most of our squads that we run have no huge issue with tanks anymore for a couple of reasons. a) We usually have our own proto tanker. b) We have worked extensively on using cover to let tanks get bored or left vulnerable to AV while trying to hit us. b.1) This includes sticking close to new players and setting rally points and showing them first hand how to "tease" the tanks. c) Everyone has a "mauler" suit or the equivelant non AUR militia fitting. Having 4 people spawn on a roof with double damage mod militia forges will clear out any tank. d) We generally have our sniper with us that does nothing but call out locations of vehicles and infantry so we generally have time to prepare before the tanks arrive. At this point tanks are just an easy way to get an extra orbital. Between damage points and points from revives / spawns / triage of blueberries, a tank coming out is an easy 1500 points in the first few minutes he is around. The real issue with them as someone pointed out in another thread earlier is map layouts. There are several map / socket combos that leave infantry totally vulnerable to tanks while making AV extremely difficult thanks to little high ground and wide open areas so tankers can quickly retreat and recharge. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tanker and the only tank fit I own is a militia rail with 2 damage mods in case thats what it comes to. Laser focused in a room full of mirrors. Everything you ever wanted coming SoonGäó just keep buying boosters.

Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 886	Posted - 2014.06.22 16:51:00 - [41] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. First off, you should be disgusted with yourself for your blatant and callous derogatory comments about those of the ginger persuasion. When will we ever have justice? Second, I hate tanks, I want them in every match so I can didplay my hatred with a forge gun. I don't want them removed or limited, I wsnt them burning. Third, it is completely unfair that a whole class of player should get eliminated or restricted because you don't like how they play. Because, that's why.
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 886	Posted - 2014.06.22 17:15:00 - [42] - Quote GeneralButtNaked wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. A game-mode that is irrelevant to nearly 80% of the playerbase should never hold priority over anything. "Balance for PC" is a myth, as the problems that exist with imbalanced items is a result of how they correlate with others, not which game-mode they're in. Here is why you are wrong: Pub players suck. Solo players play pubs. There is no matchmaking(or there wasn't for the longest time) You could never design a game that is supossed to feature teamwork if you balance it around that mode. You need to balance around the only mode in the game where teams are all of a sort and ready to work together. If the min/maxers find a hole in your balance, it will be found their first. Look at the general incompetency of the people who pretend to be AV. If they were not so bad at what they think they are pro at, then vehicles wouldn't have needed to get hit so hard with the nerf hammer. CCP should have listened to the competitive crowd before they all got driven off by CCP being tools. There are many reasons why you are wrong, but I'll mention the most obvious one. Dust failed because of new player attrition. Two of the primary reasons for that attrition are protostomping and vehicles slaughtering people. It failed not because CCP didn't take PC players opinions into account but because it did. If you have a team, experience, SP and ISK you can adapt to just about anything, new players have none of those things but you think that it is they who should have to adapt to your preferences, not the other way around. It is you who needs to HTFU, not them. Because, that's why.
GeneralButtNaked Fatal Absolution 1195	Posted - 2014.06.22 17:25:00 - [43] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: There are many reasons why you are wrong, but I'll mention the most obvious one. Dust failed because of new player attrition. Two of the primary reasons for that attrition are protostomping and vehicles slaughtering people. It failed not because CCP didn't take PC players opinions into account but because it did. If you have a team, experience, SP and ISK you can adapt to just about anything, new players have none of those things but you think that it is they who should have to adapt to your preferences, not the other way around. It is you who needs to HTFU, not them. Vehicles were not slaughtering people between 1.0 and 1.6. Yet player numbers still declined. Telling me to HTFU, after I tanked all the way through the tough times, is a joke. Thanks for not contributing. Carebear. Real AV doesn't stop until all the tanks are dead.
Onesimus Tarsus NoGameNoLife 2153	Posted - 2014.06.22 17:39:00 - [44] - Quote Kdr/wpdr matchmaking fixes this. Ask for it by name. K/D(r) WP/D(r) matchmaking fixes the whole game. Period.
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 522	Posted - 2014.06.22 17:43:00 - [45] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. A game-mode that is irrelevant to nearly 80% of the playerbase should never hold priority over anything. "Balance for PC" is a myth, as the problems that exist with imbalanced items is a result of how they correlate with others, not which game-mode they're in. Are you kidding me? The competitive scene is always relevant as it uses the most useful strategies and ignores weak ones. It also shows the potentials of weapons and how they stack up to others without needing to consider whether or not the person using it is the most skillful as possible. It's just higher quality info in general. Not to mention that if we balance for PC, all weapons would have a potential to be used in the competitive scene rather than "pub only" weapons like the shotgun. Saying that it's irrelevant is a half baked statement. Just because people don't participate in it doesn't make it irrelevant. They're playing the same game and using the same weapons, aren't they? You can guarantee that CCP wouldn't be chasing their own tails and making blind nerfs if they balanced at the very top and let the changes dribble down to the masses.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1081	Posted - 2014.06.22 17:47:00 - [46] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: In a perfect world we would have gates up in roadways with high HP that tanks could knock down to allow infantry through, AI or capsuleer operated drones would be flying around attacking the other team's infantry that the tanks could fight against, and limits would be put on where vehicles could be spawned to prevent tower rail sniping. Objectives would hold strategic value. Points would not only control Null cannons, but also operate weaponry that auto-fired on troops moving up, requiring a tank to push in on it, using itself as a shield for troops hiding behind it! And other points would control AV weaponry that required infantry to push on it so that vehicles could get close and crash in the gate for them! Towers would scrape the sky and the capture point would be in the center, allowing you to push from the bottom or fly to the top and fight your way down! Battles on seas of lava set up on huge harvesting rigs where the battlefield breaks apart under you as you fight to gain control of the rig for you alliance's harvesting rights! Perhaps those of you moving to Legion might see all of that one day... This is a great vision. Too bad it seems to be left to the 'perfect world' you mention. :-S
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 522	Posted - 2014.06.22 17:49:00 - [47] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. A game-mode that is irrelevant to nearly 80% of the playerbase should never hold priority over anything. "Balance for PC" is a myth, as the problems that exist with imbalanced items is a result of how they correlate with others, not which game-mode they're in. Here is why you are wrong: Pub players suck. Solo players play pubs. There is no matchmaking(or there wasn't for the longest time) You could never design a game that is supossed to feature teamwork if you balance it around that mode. You need to balance around the only mode in the game where teams are all of a sort and ready to work together. If the min/maxers find a hole in your balance, it will be found their first. Look at the general incompetency of the people who pretend to be AV. If they were not so bad at what they think they are pro at, then vehicles wouldn't have needed to get hit so hard with the nerf hammer. CCP should have listened to the competitive crowd before they all got driven off by CCP being tools. There are many reasons why you are wrong, but I'll mention the most obvious one. Dust failed because of new player attrition. Two of the primary reasons for that attrition are protostomping and vehicles slaughtering people. It failed not because CCP didn't take PC players opinions into account but because it did. If you have a team, experience, SP and ISK you can adapt to just about anything, new players have none of those things but you think that it is they who should have to adapt to your preferences, not the other way around. It is you who needs to HTFU, not them. I can assure you that no player would mind the difficulty of going up against higher level equipped players if the game actually functioned well (hitdetection, framerate, bugs) and had a NPE that taught new players to avoid or engage with caution, rather than run straight into the meatgrinder without knowing why they died. Dust really isn't a bad game, but the bugs and such is what makes the game frustrating to play and drives away players.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 1081	Posted - 2014.06.22 18:11:00 - [48] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: ((Very good stuff quoted above)) I would add some ideas - Logistic vehicles with most powerful scans but with very limited arc - Pre-defined (or maybe user defined) minefields to limit areas of HAV operation - Predefined anti-infantry minefields onto assault obective which specially fitted HAV could clear for infantry Example - AA vehicles if aerial warfare ever gets updated (Legion?) gonna continue this at later date... :-S
Baal Omniscient Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 1777	Posted - 2014.06.22 19:18:00 - [49] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: ((Very good stuff quoted above)) I would add some ideas - Logistic vehicles with most powerful scans but with very limited arc - Pre-defined (or maybe user defined) minefields to limit areas of HAV operation - Predefined anti-infantry minefields onto assault obective which specially fitted HAV could clear for infantry Example - AA vehicles if aerial warfare ever gets updated (Legion?) gonna continue this at later date... I'm thinking of making a "My Vision of Dust 514" thread, just don't have the energy to put into it right now. =P PSN ID: AlbelNox2569 Cross Atu for CPM1
Izlare Lenix Last VenDetta. Dark Taboo 714	Posted - 2014.06.22 19:28:00 - [50] - Quote I absolutely hate tanks. I like that they were removed from ambush but I don't want them removed from the game. Not everyone can be a slayer. Like snipers, logis and hmg heavies, tanks offer another route for players that want to contribute to the team but don't have the best gun game. And tanks add a complexity to the game that has to be overcome in order to win. Dust would be less fun without vehicles. Gun control is not about guns...it's about control. The only way to ensure freedom is by having the means to defend it.

Adipem Nothi Nos Nothi 2157	Posted - 2014.06.22 19:31:00 - [51] - Quote I don't mind tanks so long as pilots don't mind infantry being equipped to counter them. From an AV standpoint, Bravo's odds feels pretty good. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. Shoot scout with yes... - Ripley Riley
Toby Flenderson research lab 547	Posted - 2014.06.22 19:43:00 - [52] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. Entitled little shitass, arn't you? I'm only mirroring the sentiment I perceive of the community. I assure you I assume no entitlement. I've never seen anyone suggest that tanks be removed from the game entirely. I'd say assault suits are more in line with the "worthless/needless" role that you seem to be assigning to tanks, at least from a community perspective. IMHO tanks serve as the motivators for pushing forward into objectives. There's nothing more annoying than trying to take an objective by yourself and being outnumbered. Tanks serve as a temporary/surprising push that allows for infantry to follow. They are able to suppress infantry in the process but don't directly take control of objectives. As it stands (post beta), it doesn't seem like tanks are as OP and game deciding as they once were so I think "temporary" was a good choice of wording. That being said, I don't see kill hoarding tankers as very interesting roles. I place them in the same grouping as thale's snipers. These tankers do not contribute directly to the success of the team, rather than to their own WP. I get that people are generally more concerned with WP, but I think this role is unmotivated by victory almost entirely. I don't know, I hate coming up against strong tanks that take multiple people to take out as much as the next person, but to suggest that the burden is on them to defend their right to play is what makes the OP seem entitled. May as well ask why assault suits need to be in the game.
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9732	Posted - 2014.06.22 20:13:00 - [53] - Quote GeneralButtNaked wrote: Here is why you are wrong: Pub players suck. Solo players play pubs. This assertion would be valid if you've actually taken the time to sample every single player who plays Public Contracts to determine whether or not they "suck". Since you haven't however, that is a fallacy. Though there are a lot of players in PC who suck as well, so there's not much merit to this statement. GeneralButtNaked wrote: There is no matchmaking(or there wasn't for the longest time) There still isn't, and I doubt their will ever be. That still has nothing to do with item balance. GeneralButtNaked wrote: You could never design a game that is supposed to feature teamwork if you balance it around that mode. You need to balance around the only mode in the game where teams are all of a sort and ready to work together. I'm not really sure why (or how) you would balance things for one game-mode an not the other, as opposed to balancing items around each-other; but balancing around a game-mode that most of the players don't play guarantees that most of the game itself is unplayable, as there would be a lack of balance there. Though looking at things that way, the HAV would still be imbalanced. GeneralButtNaked wrote: If the min/maxers find a hole in your balance, it will be found their first. And that supports your assertion, how? GeneralButtNaked wrote: Look at the general incompetency of the people who pretend to be AV. If they were not so bad at what they think they are pro at, then vehicles wouldn't have needed to get hit so hard with the nerf hammer. CCP should have listened to the competitive crowd before they all got driven off by CCP being tools. Vehicles were hit with the nerf-bat because there was actual proof presented showing why they needed to be nerfed. Your pathetic and unoriginal attempt at insulting people ~~won't~~ can't change that. Listening to players the players in PC isn't any more productive than listening to those who present actual data, which would be valid regardless of game-mode. There is no competitive crowd in the game, but good attempt at trolling. "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND
H0riz0n Unlimit Nexus Balusa Horizon 57	Posted - 2014.06.22 20:19:00 - [54] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. It sounds like: "i can't kill a tank also if a lai dai granade remove half of a madrugar basic armor..."it s ok remove tank from ambush but if tankers are hated is not because they are good only at it Appena rilogghi ti metto quei cingoli come apparecchio per i denti. Cit.Von Shulz
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 991	Posted - 2014.06.22 20:32:00 - [55] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Lets be honest here....HAV have no dedicated role..... in fact quite frankly they don't have a lot of anything to them right now. Since the CCP Wolfman HAV "fixes" tanks have had no specific role on the ground, not customisation, no reason to exist other than to make the lives of infantry miserable. As they are.....well Seymour you are right. We don't need tanks like this. Vehicles that have their power curve based on the hull of the vehicle and not the players supporting skills, and or their skills as a player. What HAV could be is what we should be considering. I have always found that in Dust, as they were tanks provided a tactical objective/diversion for the enemy players. When an HAV was present on a map it was a threat, and one that forced players to look outside of their own small infantry run and gun sphere and at the wider battlefield. It forces players to consider the location, capabilities of the pilot, their own squads position, and our course their load out dictating a change to heavier weapons. Also more importantly HAV and all vehicles really escalate the engagement. While HAV do a reasonable job of achieving these battlefield changes it is their lack of a true role that caused them to receive so much hatred. They are durable, fast, and have heavy fire power all in one package, with powerful statistics as a basis and able to be improved a few skills that really sell for less SP than they deserve. As I said before its what HAV could be that we should be considering. HAV should be a choice, a highly SP invested unit and high ISK cost unit which provides and unparalleled platform for Anti Vehicle firepower over large ranges while being impervious to small arms.....but of course weak to hand held AV fire and installations. Additionally HAV should have their generalist hulls broken down into more specific roles, increasing the number of hulls per race and also diversifying and specialising the roles an HAV can achieve in the field. Pre- 1.7 a tanker could specifically fit out a tank to fulfil any battlefield role. Pre 1.7 I was fitting our Heavy Armour Combat Madrugars with massive HP values and active resistances, I also had fast moving light scouting tanks with low HP a scanner and a heat sink. TL;DR Tanks as they are lack focus, lack a role, and lack balance. This is because they achieve everything in a generalist way to a high standard and do so with minimal SP investment. What the HAV could be is something that adds a great tactical element to combat if done properly, something that few other games can and will achieve. Just to add my own personal notes to this....... I also feel like if the player base is so hell bent on removing HAV and vehicle from the game then they do not want an FPS set in New Eden and probably should focus on other games then. I still have faith in CCP's vision if not their staff barring of course some of them, and do not want to see Dust casualised for the sake of making another crappy and generalist sci fi shooter when it could be so much more.. Sadly your are right. Ans what sadens me even more is that this won't change in DUST as this would require way more changes to the game than CCP is willing to make. May be in Legion we will see roles for HAVs with poroper maps. But I am afraid we won't see any major changes in HAV roles. What CCP will most probably do ist shifting the balance more in favour for AV but hen HAV pilots will complain again and we will start all over again....
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 156	Posted - 2014.06.22 20:46:00 - [56] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Huge nerf to tanks, remove them from Ambush, and the poor little infantry STILL can't do anything? Yeah, this community sucks. Not as people, but as gamers. Knowing that you guys are the ones giving CCP feedback, and not the year plus of solid feedback from real FPS players, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Legion is going to suck balls. I would say get good, but clearly, even with years of practice, most of you still couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hand. This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. All the pubbies had to do was not stick their heads into the barrel of the blaster tank and everything would've been fine. the sad truth is, if you don't have balance at the lowest tier, you wont have balance at the highest. you cant make the roof of a building before you construct the foundation.
TIGER SHARK1501 The Phoenix Federation Dark Taboo 23	Posted - 2014.06.22 21:20:00 - [57] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. I'm the guy who uses my blaster to push enemy infantry back so my teammates can push forward to take the objective. I'm the guy that uses my railguns to shoot at the drop ship harassing you so your not worried about dying while you move or spawn. Much like anything every play style has its role just as Logis, Heavies, Drop ship pilots. If we remove or Nerf any role too much this game is just another unmentionable first person shooter. I played this game for a month and I made the decision to move into tanking because it was fun and I wanted to play a folks where my team mates knew I'd watch their back. I could play any number of FPS games to run around with a gun and shoot. This game provided me with something different. Take certain things away and this game is only going to die faster than it has been since fan fest. I would never ask for the removal of drop ships or forge guns because of what they add to the game.
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 156	Posted - 2014.06.22 21:29:00 - [58] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. A game-mode that is irrelevant to nearly 80% of the playerbase should never hold priority over anything. "Balance for PC" is a myth, as the problems that exist with imbalanced items is a result of how they correlate with others, not which game-mode they're in. Here is why you are wrong: Pub players suck. Solo players play pubs. There is no matchmaking(or there wasn't for the longest time) You could never design a game that is supossed to feature teamwork if you balance it around that mode. You need to balance around the only mode in the game where teams are all of a sort and ready to work together. If the min/maxers find a hole in your balance, it will be found their first. Look at the general incompetency of the people who pretend to be AV. If they were not so bad at what they think they are pro at, then vehicles wouldn't have needed to get hit so hard with the nerf hammer. CCP should have listened to the competitive crowd before they all got driven off by CCP being tools. There are many reasons why you are wrong, but I'll mention the most obvious one. Dust failed because of new player attrition. Two of the primary reasons for that attrition are protostomping and vehicles slaughtering people. It failed not because CCP didn't take PC players opinions into account but because it did. If you have a team, experience, SP and ISK you can adapt to just about anything, new players have none of those things but you think that it is they who should have to adapt to your preferences, not the other way around. It is you who needs to HTFU, not them. since at least open beta, the most experienced players actually were calling for a better new player experience (NPE) ccp eventually introduced the academy, and then proceeded to nerf it into utter uselessness. the vets also pointed out many bugs, exploits, and imbalances... ccp did a halfassed job of fixing these while always introducing more issues....so you are both wrong to a degree. dust failed because CCP's upper management failed to allocate the appropriate resources to the development team, and then constantly ripped the floor out from under them by redirecting dust teams to other priorities before finishing the original jobs they were directed to do. vehicles were a huge part of upper management's failure to follow through. legion will fail for the same reason if they don't follow rattati's example and expand upon this line of development and customer interaction.
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 523	Posted - 2014.06.22 22:18:00 - [59] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Huge nerf to tanks, remove them from Ambush, and the poor little infantry STILL can't do anything? Yeah, this community sucks. Not as people, but as gamers. Knowing that you guys are the ones giving CCP feedback, and not the year plus of solid feedback from real FPS players, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Legion is going to suck balls. I would say get good, but clearly, even with years of practice, most of you still couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hand. This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. All the pubbies had to do was not stick their heads into the barrel of the blaster tank and everything would've been fine. the sad truth is, if you don't have balance at the lowest tier, you wont have balance at the highest. you cant make the roof of a building before you construct the foundation. What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game?
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11007	Posted - 2014.06.22 22:43:00 - [60] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Huge nerf to tanks, remove them from Ambush, and the poor little infantry STILL can't do anything? Yeah, this community sucks. Not as people, but as gamers. Knowing that you guys are the ones giving CCP feedback, and not the year plus of solid feedback from real FPS players, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Legion is going to suck balls. I would say get good, but clearly, even with years of practice, most of you still couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hand. This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. All the pubbies had to do was not stick their heads into the barrel of the blaster tank and everything would've been fine. the sad truth is, if you don't have balance at the lowest tier, you wont have balance at the highest. you cant make the roof of a building before you construct the foundation. What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game? You assume that players of PC have valuable things to say. Given the chance Sota would lobby for the inclusion of Hatsune Miku in Dust and your prescious PC battles would see beams of energy, Gundam, and Magical Girls everywhere. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III

Atiim NoGameNoLife 9738	Posted - 2014.06.22 23:20:00 - [61] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game? Nothing. In fact, that is the foundation of a balanced game. Why do you think they nerfed HAVs? "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND
jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 31	Posted - 2014.06.22 23:37:00 - [62] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. we provide flavor to the game as we bear down upon the raspberry we make the red team think twice about crossing that empty stretch of land. we make players stick inside, we are a distraction that the other team want to kill and so the pull swarms or forge guns leting infantry take them out we provide installation removal services we suppress the other team we create a fallback point for blues we smash red proto formations make them scatter so they can be picked off we shoot thale guys in the face back up and support infantry and 3 tanks act like a wrecking ball formation. we can save you from the guy that is killing you or repulse an attack we an bottle-neck the battlefield preventing enemy movement over a large area we can transport 2 players across the map more safely then a lav we help you the orbitals with our war-points and many others that i have not listed here "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 31	Posted - 2014.06.22 23:39:00 - [63] - Quote Atiim wrote: Michael Arck wrote: The crazy, entitled playerbase of the PS3 never ceases to amaze. Implying that this behavior is found only in PS3 titles. iv sen similar behavior in eve "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 31	Posted - 2014.06.22 23:47:00 - [64] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Atiim wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. Tankers provide infantry suppression, on-board spawning systems, and Anti-Aircraft capabilities.There are also builds that increase the Anti-Infantry efficiency of your team as well. In the right hands, they're basically makeshift APCs. Why should they stay? Well that's an interesting question. Would could also ask why DUST isn't better without the conventional rifles, Sentinels, and nearly every item in the game. The removal of HAVs would cause a negative impact on the AV Community, as we'd only have LAVs and DSs to fight. While this may seem beneficial to Infantry who aren't AV, it would essentially make the time and loads of SP spent into maxing out your AV skill and build worthless. That's like having a Logistics unit, but removing Sentinels and Basic Heavy Frames. What are they supposed to do know? this is great hypothetical reasoning here, but we all know the only tank we ever see is the slayer, be it rail or blaster or missle. rarely if ever do I see one with a CRU. more often than not I see tanks without a dropship in the sky and when they are present, ignored 1/2 the time by these tankers. infantry suppression sounds good, however in a city they cant do much, and what they do accomplish a skilled heavy does just as well as it is AV is sub par, and most people don't want to bother with it to begin with, those who do are cursed with inefficient weapons all but the highest tiered and most costly. a logi can still support the team without heavies, providing reps, sticks hives, links...etc etc, but the tank just seems to be a 3rd wheel, a thorn in the average players side, or their crutch.... am I far from the truth? 1. we dont put them on because blue berries steal 300k tanks, shot the turret you sneaking up on so that is try's to kill use and many other reasons including the cru takes away some abiltiy to fight other tanks 2. some tanks are not built to fight dropships 3. while we cant do mich indoors we also keep them in inside 4. tank are designed so that it will take more then one guy to kill a tank as it is after all a tank and entales all that that intails. 5. take away heavys and logis lose most of there support and income witch will lead to A slayer logisor B no logis in 2 mins i destroyed your arguments bro think outside the box "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 32	Posted - 2014.06.22 23:57:00 - [65] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Iron Wolf Saber wrote: HAVs are just seriously missing a role. I actually liked your post... you and true adamance are right.... wonder why ccp didn't give them a role? they had a role the ccp decided cheap milita need to run the show i have 3 million invested in tanks and i better off using that soma "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
GeneralButtNaked Fatal Absolution 1204	Posted - 2014.06.22 23:58:00 - [66] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game? Nothing. In fact, that is the foundation of a balanced game. Why do you think they nerfed HAVs? Because of scrubs like you. Unable to get it done on the ground, you cried. I knew CCP was family oriented, but I thought that was in their workplace, not their development. Hardcore Eve became mild, watered down dust. Thanks Atiim. Real AV doesn't stop until all the tanks are dead.
jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 33	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:01:00 - [67] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Personally I think AV and vehicles are in a rather good spot right now. The issue is just that I absolutely hate doing AV. Yet it's what I have to do almost 50% of my playtime. Here's how most of my playsessions go down: 1. Log in to fry some people with my laser rifle. 2. Madrugar tears up the place. 3. Switch to Forgegun and shoo away HAV. 4. Blap some people with my FG while I follow the HAV around. 5. End of match, go to step 1, repeat until bored. The crux is that the HAV driver is annoyed that he can't be effective and I'm annoyed because I can't do something more fun. None of us is having fun. Maybe one way of fixing it would be to make HAVs much cheaper and tune them down so you are expected to lose a couple of them each match. The AVer gets to see pretty explosions and the HAV can get a thrill out of defying the AV. DO YOU WANT TANKS TO COST AS MUCH AS AN INFANTRY SUIT!!!!!! ARE YOU CRAZY!!!! tanks need to be more powerful but cost a lot more again "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
TIGER SHARK1501 The Phoenix Federation Dark Taboo 23	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:02:00 - [68] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game? Nothing. In fact, that is the foundation of a balanced game. Why do you think they nerfed HAVs? Because the player base whines about anything that they aren't willing to skill into to combat. A forge gun works wonders. At one point people complained about the war points that logis would accrue when assault style players felt they deserved more when a guy with no kills could be higher on the leader boards. At that time they failed to realize the logi play style supplied ammo, brought drop uplinks, scanned, rep tools, and nanite injectors to revive their fallen teammates to ensure victory. More and more I feel like the remaining player base just complains about anything and everything.
TIGER SHARK1501 The Phoenix Federation Dark Taboo 23	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:09:00 - [69] - Quote jaksol JAK darnson wrote: Stefan Stahl wrote: Personally I think AV and vehicles are in a rather good spot right now. The issue is just that I absolutely hate doing AV. Yet it's what I have to do almost 50% of my playtime. Here's how most of my playsessions go down: 1. Log in to fry some people with my laser rifle. 2. Madrugar tears up the place. 3. Switch to Forgegun and shoo away HAV. 4. Blap some people with my FG while I follow the HAV around. 5. End of match, go to step 1, repeat until bored. The crux is that the HAV driver is annoyed that he can't be effective and I'm annoyed because I can't do something more fun. None of us is having fun. Maybe one way of fixing it would be to make HAVs much cheaper and tune them down so you are expected to lose a couple of them each match. The AVer gets to see pretty explosions and the HAV can get a thrill out of defying the AV. DO YOU WANT TANKS TO COST AS MUCH AS AN INFANTRY SUIT!!!!!! ARE YOU CRAZY!!!! tanks need to be more powerful but cost a lot more again Agreed. It was when 1.8 dropped that this game endured gratuitous tank spam by dropping cost and making militia tanks more feasible reducing skill needed to make a vehicle more effective. It used to be that the more you specced into vehicle skills that pilot had better effectiveness and higher chances of survival based on passive skills, fittings and pilot skill. Now its all been reduced to militia is cheap and effective since anyone can run it.
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9741	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:11:00 - [70] - Quote GeneralButtNaked wrote: Because of scrubs like you. Unable to get it done on the ground, you cried. I knew CCP was family oriented, but I thought that was in their workplace, not their development. Hardcore Eve became mild, watered down dust. Thanks Atiim. No they got nerfed because vehicles were proven to be near Immune to Swarm Launchers and pretty much every AV weapon other than a PRO Forge Gun. See for yourself. So your thanking me for campaigning against vehicle pilots with actual math abd logic as to why their "iWIN" button should be removed while leaving pilots in the DUST due to a lack of factual evidence? Thanks Attorney. <3 "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND

jaksol JAK darnson Kameira Lodge Amarr Empire 34	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:12:00 - [71] - Quote Atiim wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Here is why you are wrong: Pub players suck. Solo players play pubs. This assertion would be valid if you've actually taken the time to sample every single player who plays Public Contracts to determine whether or not they "suck". Since you haven't however, that is a fallacy. Though there are a lot of players in PC who suck as well, so there's not much merit to this statement. There still isn't, and I doubt their will ever be. That still has nothing to do with item balance. GeneralButtNaked wrote: You could never design a game that is supposed to feature teamwork if you balance it around that mode. You need to balance around the only mode in the game where teams are all of a sort and ready to work together. I'm not really sure why (or how) you would balance things for one game-mode an not the other, as opposed to balancing items around each-other; but balancing around a game-mode that most of the players don't play guarantees that most of the game itself is unplayable, as there would be a lack of balance there. Though looking at things that way, the HAV would still be imbalanced. GeneralButtNaked wrote: If the min/maxers find a hole in your balance, it will be found their first. And that supports your assertion, how? GeneralButtNaked wrote: Look at the general incompetency of the people who pretend to be AV. If they were not so bad at what they think they are pro at, then vehicles wouldn't have needed to get hit so hard with the nerf hammer. CCP should have listened to the competitive crowd before they all got driven off by CCP being tools. Vehicles were hit with the nerf-bat because there was actual proof presented showing why they needed to be nerfed. Your pathetic and unoriginal attempt at insulting people ~~won't~~ can't change that. Listening to players the players in PC isn't any more productive than listening to those who present actual data, which would be valid regardless of game-mode. There is no competitive crowd in the game, but good attempt at trolling. were was the proof? all i saw was ccp making shield tanks more obsolete and armor tank more solidly on top now my particle accelerator cant take out a soma with hardners with out using 3 adv damage mods and almost all 9 shots and a overheat cycle. "Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you."
TIGER SHARK1501 The Phoenix Federation Dark Taboo 23	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:18:00 - [72] - Quote jaksol JAK darnson wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Atiim wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. Tankers provide infantry suppression, on-board spawning systems, and Anti-Aircraft capabilities.There are also builds that increase the Anti-Infantry efficiency of your team as well. In the right hands, they're basically makeshift APCs. Why should they stay? Well that's an interesting question. Would could also ask why DUST isn't better without the conventional rifles, Sentinels, and nearly every item in the game. The removal of HAVs would cause a negative impact on the AV Community, as we'd only have LAVs and DSs to fight. While this may seem beneficial to Infantry who aren't AV, it would essentially make the time and loads of SP spent into maxing out your AV skill and build worthless. That's like having a Logistics unit, but removing Sentinels and Basic Heavy Frames. What are they supposed to do know? this is great hypothetical reasoning here, but we all know the only tank we ever see is the slayer, be it rail or blaster or missle. rarely if ever do I see one with a CRU. more often than not I see tanks without a dropship in the sky and when they are present, ignored 1/2 the time by these tankers. infantry suppression sounds good, however in a city they cant do much, and what they do accomplish a skilled heavy does just as well as it is AV is sub par, and most people don't want to bother with it to begin with, those who do are cursed with inefficient weapons all but the highest tiered and most costly. a logi can still support the team without heavies, providing reps, sticks hives, links...etc etc, but the tank just seems to be a 3rd wheel, a thorn in the average players side, or their crutch.... am I far from the truth? 1. we dont put them on because blue berries steal 300k tanks, shot the turret you sneaking up on so that is try's to kill use and many other reasons including the cru takes away some abiltiy to fight other tanks 2. some tanks are not built to fight dropships 3. while we cant do mich indoors we also keep them in inside 4. tank are designed so that it will take more then one guy to kill a tank as it is after all a tank and entales all that that intails. 5. take away heavys and logis lose most of there support and income witch will lead to A slayer logisor B no logis in 2 mins i destroyed your arguments bro think outside the box I never use a CRU because it takes up space and PG/CPU that provides for a more survivable fitting. Also as JAK pointed out nothing drives me crazy like some thieving blueberry stealing my vehicle. Why would I spend months of SP and isk to drop a half a million tank that some foolish blueberry without the SP into skills making my vehicle effective and survivable so they could steal it and blow it up? Its people like that who make tankers hesitant to bring out their best fitting.
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 159	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:39:00 - [73] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Huge nerf to tanks, remove them from Ambush, and the poor little infantry STILL can't do anything? Yeah, this community sucks. Not as people, but as gamers. Knowing that you guys are the ones giving CCP feedback, and not the year plus of solid feedback from real FPS players, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Legion is going to suck balls. I would say get good, but clearly, even with years of practice, most of you still couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hand. This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. All the pubbies had to do was not stick their heads into the barrel of the blaster tank and everything would've been fine. the sad truth is, if you don't have balance at the lowest tier, you wont have balance at the highest. you cant make the roof of a building before you construct the foundation. What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game? nothing... but high quality feedback doesn't come just from top tiered players.... take fox gaden as a prime example. he is not very good at playing dust, but he understands dust mechanics better than most top tiered players ever will.
GeneralButtNaked Fatal Absolution 1206	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:40:00 - [74] - Quote Atiim wrote: This assertion would be valid if you've actually taken the time to sample every single player who plays Public Contracts to determine whether or not they "suck". Since you haven't however, that is a fallacy. You need to learn what a fallacy is before you start trying to sound smart. An opinion cannot be fallacious doubly so when it is obviously anecdotal. I of course can only speak of the pubs that I have stomped, but the skill level in those games is awful. Atiim wrote: Though there are a lot of players in PC who suck as well, so there's not much merit to this statement. Yeah, I heard you had gotten into a couple of PCs and went negative. Hope that taught you something. Atiim wrote: I'm not really sure why (or how) you would balance things for one game-mode an not the other, as opposed to balancing items around each-other; but balancing around a game-mode that most of the players don't play guarantees that most of the game itself is unplayable, as there would be a lack of balance there. Though looking at things that way, the HAV would still be imbalanced. You are being intentionally dense. You do not balance for one mode and not the other. That is obvious. But you prioritize the data from PC matches, as there is more valuable data there. Atiim wrote: Vehicles were hit with the nerf-bat because there was actual proof presented showing why they needed to be nerfed. Your pathetic and unoriginal attempt at insulting people ~~won't~~ can't change that. Listening to players the players in PC isn't any more productive than listening to those who present actual data, which would be valid regardless of game-mode. There is no competitive crowd in the game, but good attempt at trolling. Interesting that that video only covers your beloved swarms you fire and forget scrub. Of course, Judge is quite happy with the changes to rail tanks because he can now fly unmolested. Real AV doesn't stop until all the tanks are dead.
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 159	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:41:00 - [75] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Huge nerf to tanks, remove them from Ambush, and the poor little infantry STILL can't do anything? Yeah, this community sucks. Not as people, but as gamers. Knowing that you guys are the ones giving CCP feedback, and not the year plus of solid feedback from real FPS players, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Legion is going to suck balls. I would say get good, but clearly, even with years of practice, most of you still couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hand. This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. All the pubbies had to do was not stick their heads into the barrel of the blaster tank and everything would've been fine. the sad truth is, if you don't have balance at the lowest tier, you wont have balance at the highest. you cant make the roof of a building before you construct the foundation. What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game? You assume that players of PC have valuable things to say. Given the chance Sota would lobby for the inclusion of Hatsune Miku in Dust and your prescious PC battles would see beams of energy, Gundam, and Magical Girls everywhere. ROFL! I when my main and other alts get off ban I will like this post as many times as I can.
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9744	Posted - 2014.06.23 01:05:00 - [76] - Quote GeneralButtNaked wrote: You need to learn what a fallacy is before you start trying to sound smart. An opinion cannot be fallacious doubly so when it is obviously anecdotal. I of course can only speak of the pubs that I have stomped, but the skill level in those games is awful. Oh yes, my mistake. I've gotten so used to people using facts as opposed to subjective clams that I didn't really take a good look at what you were saying. Atiim wrote: Yeah, I heard you had gotten into a couple of PCs and went negative. Hope that taught you something. I went negative, but I placed first so yeah it taught me that I'm a good logi. Thanks GeneralButtNaked wrote: You are being intentionally dense. You do not balance for one mode and not the other. That is obvious. But you prioritize the data from PC matches, as there is more valuable data there. More valuable data? Such as what? If we took data from PC Matches, and then looked at the success rate of Vehicle Pilots against Swarm Launcher users, then there would already be a blatant imbalance. On a side note, are you saying that vehicles were balanced in PC matches? GeneralButtNaked wrote: Interesting that that video only covers your beloved swarms you fire and forget scrub. Of course, Judge is quite happy with the changes to rail tanks because he can now fly unmolested. Fire and Forget scrub? Because it's so hard camping a tower with a Forge Gun on suits that have about 1000 HP, ensuring that the only things that will ever kill you are maxed out ADSs or Orbital Strikes right? No, parking on a hill with a few thousand HP and a Particle Cannon with some Damage Amps and 2-3HKing everything in sight is the obvious "Hard-Mode" AV. I want SLAVs, not SLAVEs. "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND
TIGER SHARK1501 The Phoenix Federation Dark Taboo 23	Posted - 2014.06.23 02:02:00 - [77] - Quote Atiim wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Because of scrubs like you. Unable to get it done on the ground, you cried. I knew CCP was family oriented, but I thought that was in their workplace, not their development. Hardcore Eve became mild, watered down dust. Thanks Atiim. No they got nerfed because vehicles were proven to be near Immune to Swarm Launchers and pretty much every AV weapon other than a PRO Forge Gun. See for yourself. So your thanking me for campaigning against vehicle pilots with actual math abd logic as to why their "iWIN" button should be removed while leaving pilots in the DUST due to a lack of factual evidence? Thanks Attorney. <3 Perhaps you forgot how swarm launchers got nerfed because everyone in vehicles complained about them especially drop ship pilots.
Operative 1125 Lokaas True Companion Planetary Requisitions 239	Posted - 2014.06.23 03:57:00 - [78] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. I think mores the point from an EVE player is what do you infantry do and why should we keep you.....? However I will properly answer your question once I can put I into a persuasive and coherent argument. Lol, yeah. I remember the EVE forums pretty much giving a collective FU to even having ground troops. This post only proves that small turrets on tanks need to be made viable and useful. Then we'd have a reason to be on the field against infantry. Oh, right. We already had that with the large blaster turret and you TANKOPHOBES complained. Well, maybe tanks should exist because this is a game about ground warfare and not a console arena game. I say go ahead and put more content in the game or pull the plug. With new content we could get more heavy weapons that would be anti-tank capable and give heavies an actual job too rather than just easy mode kills. No amount of short term rebalancing is going to make this game work. THIS IS THE VOICE OF RÁN
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 160	Posted - 2014.06.23 06:57:00 - [79] - Quote Operative 1125 Lokaas wrote: True Adamance wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: right? nobody wants them in ambush, no one wants to play OMS (because tanks) some have begun talk of limiting them or removing them altogether from dom... it seems to me, with well over a year of failing to balance AV/tanks, ccp has no idea what to do with them. let me just say what we are all thinking; tanks are the red headed step children of dust. tankers, please tell us, why should we miss you when you're gone? if there are no tanks on the field, what role do you serve that is uniquely yours? LAVs and dropships are great transports, and infantry hack objectives. what do you do, tankers? tell us why we should keep you, tell us why we need you, why dust isn't better without you. I think mores the point from an EVE player is what do you infantry do and why should we keep you.....? However I will properly answer your question once I can put I into a persuasive and coherent argument. Lol, yeah. I remember the EVE forums pretty much giving a collective FU to even having ground troops. This post only proves that small turrets on tanks need to be made viable and useful. Then we'd have a reason to be on the field against infantry. Oh, right. We already had that with the large blaster turret and you TANKOPHOBES complained. Well, maybe tanks should exist because this is a game about ground warfare and not a console arena game. I say go ahead and put more content in the game or pull the plug. With new content we could get more heavy weapons that would be anti-tank capable and give heavies an actual job too rather than just easy mode kills. No amount of short term rebalancing is going to make this game work. you're right this game is about ground warfare.... those 16 man armies really portray warfare accurately eh? maybe if we had 300 v 300 and much larger maps we would have room for tanks. yes? no?
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 524	Posted - 2014.06.23 08:44:00 - [80] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Huge nerf to tanks, remove them from Ambush, and the poor little infantry STILL can't do anything? Yeah, this community sucks. Not as people, but as gamers. Knowing that you guys are the ones giving CCP feedback, and not the year plus of solid feedback from real FPS players, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Legion is going to suck balls. I would say get good, but clearly, even with years of practice, most of you still couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hand. This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. All the pubbies had to do was not stick their heads into the barrel of the blaster tank and everything would've been fine. the sad truth is, if you don't have balance at the lowest tier, you wont have balance at the highest. you cant make the roof of a building before you construct the foundation. What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game? You assume that players of PC have valuable things to say. Given the chance Sota would lobby for the inclusion of Hatsune Miku in Dust and your prescious PC battles would see beams of energy, Gundam, and Magical Girls everywhere. They wouldn't even need to ask them, they could just track what is being destroyed in them and use that. In all honesty I wouldn't trust that grotesque weeaboo myself

Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 524	Posted - 2014.06.23 08:45:00 - [81] - Quote Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: GeneralButtNaked wrote: Huge nerf to tanks, remove them from Ambush, and the poor little infantry STILL can't do anything? Yeah, this community sucks. Not as people, but as gamers. Knowing that you guys are the ones giving CCP feedback, and not the year plus of solid feedback from real FPS players, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Legion is going to suck balls. I would say get good, but clearly, even with years of practice, most of you still couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag with scissors in your hand. This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. All the pubbies had to do was not stick their heads into the barrel of the blaster tank and everything would've been fine. the sad truth is, if you don't have balance at the lowest tier, you wont have balance at the highest. you cant make the roof of a building before you construct the foundation. What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game? nothing... but high quality feedback doesn't come just from top tiered players.... take fox gaden as a prime example. he is not very good at playing dust, but he understands dust mechanics better than most top tiered players ever will. He is an exception to the rule. Also remember I'm saying that stats or statistics, not necessarily feedback. A good player doesn't necessarily mean a good arguer.
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 524	Posted - 2014.06.23 08:47:00 - [82] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game? Nothing. In fact, that is the foundation of a balanced game. Why do you think they nerfed HAVs? To the ridiculous that is the current large blaster? Because people whined loudly enough.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11043	Posted - 2014.06.23 08:56:00 - [83] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: He is an exception to the rule. Also remember I'm saying that stats or statistics, not necessarily feedback. A good player doesn't necessarily mean a good arguer. And I know FW mechanics better than most players in this game as well, I have plenty to say on the subject...... your point is meaningless. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
Alpha 443-6732 BurgezzE.T.F 524	Posted - 2014.06.23 09:05:00 - [84] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: He is an exception to the rule. Also remember I'm saying that stats or statistics, not necessarily feedback. A good player doesn't necessarily mean a good arguer. And I know FW mechanics better than most players in this game as well, I have plenty to say on the subject...... your point is meaningless. I'm talking more about weapon and vehicle use more than gamemode mechanics. I'm talking about the data they generate when CCP says they are tracking the use of weapons. What you know is irrelevant to what I'm saying.
Yeeeuuuupppp 363	Posted - 2014.06.23 11:05:00 - [85] - Quote Who else is going to cover you while you back the objective in skirmish while you're squad mate dies? Who else is going to kill the lavs who try to run you over? Who else is going to annoy you by stealing your kills? Who else is going to run over your lav that you're using to hit and run with an hmg? Lastly, who else is going to make a big explosion when they get blown up? (My post means nothing. Just a bunch of nonsense from your truly) but seriously, I love tanks, but only in skirmish, where I think they belong.well, actually it's a love hate relationship. I hate tanks when they kill me (my precious kd man). I love tanks when I go,20+/0 Rage Proficiency V Mic status: Muted Storage Wars Champion.
Seymour KrelbornX Holdfast Syndicate Amarr Empire 165	Posted - 2014.06.23 16:48:00 - [86] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Seymour KrelbornX wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This is why PC stats should've always taken priority. All the pubbies had to do was not stick their heads into the barrel of the blaster tank and everything would've been fine. the sad truth is, if you don't have balance at the lowest tier, you wont have balance at the highest. you cant make the roof of a building before you construct the foundation. What's stopping high quality feedback from being the foundation of a balanced game? nothing... but high quality feedback doesn't come just from top tiered players.... take fox gaden as a prime example. he is not very good at playing dust, but he understands dust mechanics better than most top tiered players ever will. He is an exception to the rule. Also remember I'm saying that stats or statistics, not necessarily feedback. A good player doesn't necessarily mean a good arguer. ... um you said... high quality feedback... look at your previous post....
Baal Omniscient Krusual Covert Operators Minmatar Republic 1786	Posted - 2014.06.23 16:55:00 - [87] - Quote The tanker butthurt is strong in this thread. There is only one thing that can make you feel better at this point. I hope this helps. <3 PSN ID: AlbelNox2569 Cross Atu for CPM1
Monkey MAC Rough Riders.. 2898	Posted - 2014.06.23 17:59:00 - [88] - Quote We don't HATE tanks, we don't like overpowered that use to have unbelievable accuracy, and limited downsides that could turn 450 DPS into 10 DPS or repped at a rate of 500. What we HATE are the self obsessed ***holes who believe they are righteously entitled to the power because they spent an extra 50,000 SP. The desicion to take all vehicles, not just tanks out of ambush is because it is incredibly close quarters, there simply no need to turn every ambush match into tank spam as it so previously was. Tanks are a large part of warfare just as any other vehicle, they provide many function, mainly the breaking of fortified posistions. They work as heavy firepower that can supress large swathes of the enemy simultaneously. The problem is their are people who want tanks to be overpowered and require entire squadrons to take them down, while their are also those who love to seek tanks destroyed from a single swarm. As such the opinions of those of us who want a zero-sum (balanced) are either twisted, ignored or down right insulted. At the end of the day though, DUST and Legion are advertised as FPS games as such you should expect the majority of action to be capable of taking place on foot. The soilders are the main part of this game and making so that tanks can carve through entire squadrons of well placed mercs ALL the time, is not a good idea. Looks like its back to FPS Military Shooter 56 Monkey Mac - Just another pile of discarded ashes on the battlefield!


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.