DUST Search - No railgun, no vehicle balance

All Channels

General Discussions

No railgun, no vehicle balance

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Slim Winning 0uter.Heaven Academy 116	Posted - 2014.06.22 17:00:00 - [1] - Quote You realize the only balance to vehicles was the railgun, right? You keep nerfing the ONLY ADS and HAV counter in this game, and you're right back at square one. No vehicle in this game should be able to eat 4 blasts from an RG.
Takahashi Kashuken Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation 15	Posted - 2014.06.22 17:13:00 - [2] - Quote You realize infantry pushed and pushed and pushed for all these changes to vehicles
Derrith Erador 2133	Posted - 2014.06.22 17:18:00 - [3] - Quote Look, 8213, I know that we've had our little scuffles, and it seems that we've grown further apart, but I seem to remember we both liked breakfast foods. Wait a minute, what was the thread about? Betty White, the worlds hottest grandma.
Scheneighnay McBob Cult of Gasai 5363	Posted - 2014.06.22 17:33:00 - [4] - Quote lolno I'm still finding railguns to be fine, and I only really use MLT ones. My missile launchers, in the mean time, are more than capable AA, due to their high-as-**** alpha. Railguns are still perfectly viable if you didn't need to use the old stats as a crutch. pé¦pâ+pé¦pâ½pâäpâ¬pâ¦pé¦pâ¼pâ+pâêpü»sñ¬S+ïpéè
Pvt Numnutz Watchdoge Explosives 1527	Posted - 2014.06.22 19:44:00 - [5] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: lolno I'm still finding railguns to be fine, and I only really use MLT ones. My missile launchers, in the mean time, are more than capable AA, due to their high-as-**** alpha. Railguns are still perfectly viable if you didn't need to use the old stats as a crutch. I'd like to see missile turrets become the main AA large turret
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 10996	Posted - 2014.06.22 19:52:00 - [6] - Quote Slim Winning wrote: You realize the only balance to vehicles was the railgun, right? You keep nerfing the ONLY ADS and HAV counter in this game, and you're right back at square one. No vehicle in this game should be able to eat 4 blasts from an RG. I find the new railgun nerfs to be very balanced against HAV, they now have a balanced DPS, especially at short range and tanks cant be insta destroyed. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
pegasis prime PROTO WOLVES 1769	Posted - 2014.06.22 20:00:00 - [7] - Quote I think CCP has actually naild balance between blaster and rail turrets . The only thing CCPneeds to do now to finish balancing tturrets is yo give large missiles a little more elevation say 20-¦ Proud Gunlogi pilot and forge gunner since August 2012. I fought and bled for the State on Caldari prime.
Scheneighnay McBob Cult of Gasai 5366	Posted - 2014.06.22 20:26:00 - [8] - Quote Pvt Numnutz wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: lolno I'm still finding railguns to be fine, and I only really use MLT ones. My missile launchers, in the mean time, are more than capable AA, due to their high-as-**** alpha. Railguns are still perfectly viable if you didn't need to use the old stats as a crutch. I'd like to see missile turrets become the main AA large turret The alpha lets them OHK most dropships if you aim well, more easily with gunners to help you out. If you've noticed, CCP labeled them as SAM turrets, so their intended purpose is clear. pé¦pâ+pé¦pâ½pâäpâ¬pâ¦pé¦pâ¼pâ+pâêpü»sñ¬S+ïpéè
Everything Dies Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 774	Posted - 2014.06.22 21:53:00 - [9] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Slim Winning wrote: You realize the only balance to vehicles was the railgun, right? You keep nerfing the ONLY ADS and HAV counter in this game, and you're right back at square one. No vehicle in this game should be able to eat 4 blasts from an RG. I find the new railgun nerfs to be very balanced against HAV, they now have a balanced DPS, especially at short range and tanks cant be insta destroyed. In my opinion, the only thing that's really holding back rail guns at this point is the overheating after 4 shots; given the increased firing delay, I think rails should be given one or two more shots before overheating to give them a chance in a tank v tank fight. Mike Patton is the greatest singer in music. Proof: Listen
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11003	Posted - 2014.06.22 21:54:00 - [10] - Quote Everything Dies wrote: True Adamance wrote: Slim Winning wrote: You realize the only balance to vehicles was the railgun, right? You keep nerfing the ONLY ADS and HAV counter in this game, and you're right back at square one. No vehicle in this game should be able to eat 4 blasts from an RG. I find the new railgun nerfs to be very balanced against HAV, they now have a balanced DPS, especially at short range and tanks cant be insta destroyed. In my opinion, the only thing that's really holding back rail guns at this point is the overheating after 4 shots; given the increased firing delay, I think rails should be given one or two more shots before overheating to give them a chance in a tank v tank fight. Do we have a calculation for sustained DPS? " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III

Slim Winning 0uter.Heaven Academy 116	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:48:00 - [11] - Quote When everyone talks vehicle balance, its always about tanks. People forget that their are 3 types of vehicles in this game. ADS are the most dangerous and lethal vehicle in this game, because of their lack of counters. You think getting blaster spammed was bad? Wait until XT-1s rain down on you 24/7 because RGs can't keep them in check. And even tanks fear ADSes, because of the fact they have 99% of the airspace unchallenged. Now we are back to where we started before 1.7. The Large Blaster is the do-all tank.
Operative 1125 Lokaas True Companion Planetary Requisitions 238	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:53:00 - [12] - Quote Slim Winning wrote: You realize the only balance to vehicles was the railgun, right? You keep nerfing the ONLY ADS and HAV counter in this game, and you're right back at square one. No vehicle in this game should be able to eat 4 blasts from an RG. And why would we use anything else? That's what it was coming to, FOTM rail or GTFO. The rail shouldn't rule the field either. THIS IS THE VOICE OF RÁN
Beld Errmon 1696	Posted - 2014.06.23 00:54:00 - [13] - Quote Slim Winning wrote: When everyone talks vehicle balance, its always about tanks. People forget that their are 3 types of vehicles in this game. ADS are the most dangerous and lethal vehicle in this game, because of their lack of counters. You think getting blaster spammed was bad? Wait until XT-1s rain down on you 24/7 because RGs can't keep them in check. And even tanks fear ADSes, because of the fact they have 99% of the airspace unchallenged. Now we are back to where we started before 1.7. The Large Blaster is the do-all tank. You should try flying one before insisting they are unchallenged, railtanks can still down ADS, its just not pisseasy/scrub friendly anymore. Pilot - Tanker - FOTM (insert here)
Slim Winning 0uter.Heaven Academy 116	Posted - 2014.06.23 01:51:00 - [14] - Quote Beld Errmon wrote: Slim Winning wrote: When everyone talks vehicle balance, its always about tanks. People forget that their are 3 types of vehicles in this game. ADS are the most dangerous and lethal vehicle in this game, because of their lack of counters. You think getting blaster spammed was bad? Wait until XT-1s rain down on you 24/7 because RGs can't keep them in check. And even tanks fear ADSes, because of the fact they have 99% of the airspace unchallenged. Now we are back to where we started before 1.7. The Large Blaster is the do-all tank. You should try flying one before insisting they are unchallenged, railtanks can still down ADS, its just not pisseasy/scrub friendly anymore. Pretty sure an Incubi can sponge the most powerful shots in the game, and a Python has 4 shots to get away. I fly ADSes and I shhot them. Both are not as easy as the other side makes them look. Try walking in both shoes, you one-sideed f*ck. People like you are why BALANCE can't happen. Everyone just wants their turn being FoTM.
BL4CKST4R Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 2838	Posted - 2014.06.23 01:54:00 - [15] - Quote Everything Dies wrote: True Adamance wrote: Slim Winning wrote: You realize the only balance to vehicles was the railgun, right? You keep nerfing the ONLY ADS and HAV counter in this game, and you're right back at square one. No vehicle in this game should be able to eat 4 blasts from an RG. I find the new railgun nerfs to be very balanced against HAV, they now have a balanced DPS, especially at short range and tanks cant be insta destroyed. In my opinion, the only thing that's really holding back rail guns at this point is the overheating after 4 shots; given the increased firing delay, I think rails should be given one or two more shots before overheating to give them a chance in a tank v tank fight. Or stay at long range and take your shots carefully :) supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution 954	Posted - 2014.06.23 02:12:00 - [16] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: lolno I'm still finding railguns to be fine, and I only really use MLT ones. Because militia one are broken. You can get more damage per overheat cycle with a militia railgun than with a particle cannon. The Amarr scout bonus is like the old Amarr sentinel bonus. No one needed 25% reduction to overheat damage on a heavy;_;
Thumb Green The Valyrian Guard 1095	Posted - 2014.06.23 02:21:00 - [17] - Quote Takahashi Kashuken wrote: You realize infantry pushed and pushed and pushed for all these changes to vehicles It always amazes me how asinine the things you say can be Taka; seriously what deranged world are you living in? Can't say I'm all that surprised. I've been drinking and may be drunk.... probably like most dust players.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11024	Posted - 2014.06.23 02:26:00 - [18] - Quote Thumb Green wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: You realize infantry pushed and pushed and pushed for all these changes to vehicles It always amazes me how asinine the things you say can be Taka; seriously what deranged world are you living in? it really was a combination of HAV operators wanting to not be as squishy against pre 1.6 AV (and undeniably they sure as **** were) and AV adamant arguments that their Armour clad counter parts needed drastic alterations of increased durability was given. The result mixed with CCP's changes, made with good intentions, saw the power gap wider in favour of HAV....and the horrific age of Armour we have just experienced. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
Thumb Green The Valyrian Guard 1095	Posted - 2014.06.23 02:36:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Thumb Green wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: You realize infantry pushed and pushed and pushed for all these changes to vehicles It always amazes me how asinine the things you say can be Taka; seriously what deranged world are you living in? it really was a combination of HAV operators wanting to not be as squishy against pre 1.6 AV (and undeniably they sure as **** were) and AV adamant arguments that their Armour clad counter parts needed drastic alterations of increased durability was given. The result mixed with CCP's changes, made with good intentions, saw the power gap wider in favour of HAV....and the horrific age of Armour we have just experienced. No it really wasn't. There were a few AV'er saying vehicles needed to be tougher but it was overwhelmingly vehicle users that were demanding changes. Infantry sure as hell didn't ask for vehicles to be buffed into demigod mode while at the same time nerfing AV to near uselessness. Infantry didn't ask for the only effective AV against basic vehicles to be proto AV or for the rail turret to be nerfed at all either. Vehicles are how they are now because of vehicle users. Can't say I'm all that surprised. I've been drinking and may be drunk.... probably like most dust players.
Leovarian L Lavitz Last VenDetta. Dark Taboo 1105	Posted - 2014.06.23 02:37:00 - [20] - Quote New Breach 80gj Railgun, 15 second charge up, 1 shot, 8,000 damage. The tank cannot move while charging and for 10 seconds after charging or firing the main turret. The turret has two shots with a 5 second fire interval. Omni-Soldier Few are my equal in these specialties, none compare in all of them

Slim Winning 0uter.Heaven Academy 116	Posted - 2014.06.23 03:00:00 - [21] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: I think CCP has actually naild balance between blaster and rail turrets . The only thing CCPneeds to do now to finish balancing tturrets is yo give large missiles a little more elevation say 20-¦ A Fuel injector will pretty much guarantee a win for a blaster vs railgun now. Just like pre-1.7. I just got out of a PC tonight. I popped 8 HAVs and lost ZERO. They were all using RGs, and I was in a blaster. I was slow to adapt to the railgun changes, but now Im back to using easy-mode blaster. Im devastating to HAVs, Infantry, and even ADSes more so. As far as my RG tank goes, the ONLY turret that can kill it is a triple modded Particle Cannon and all 4 shots have to land. And its even more of a coffin against an ADS now, because I can't get enough shots to land on them. A Python takes 3 shots, and and Incubi takes all 4. Now, what competent ADS pilot would stick around for a 3rd or 4th RG shot to hit them? It was hard enough trying to get them out of the sky considering they can hover 1mm above my maximum turret angle. The high ISK and SP investment an ADS takes should not be the "iWIN" button for this patch. Especially now that 20GJ railguns got buffed (which they didn't need) I'm not the kind of tanker that's going to sit (hide) in my redline and watch my team get slaughtered by ADSes.
Ld Collins Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 153	Posted - 2014.06.23 04:30:00 - [22] - Quote Slim Winning wrote: You realize the only balance to vehicles was the railgun, right? You keep nerfing the ONLY ADS and HAV counter in this game, and you're right back at square one. No vehicle in this game should be able to eat 4 blasts from an RG. I took out 3 pythons and a viper today in a dom with a saga 2 and particle cannon. use your small rails with a basic damage mod or above and its game over for a dropship.
Void Echo Total Extinction 2610	Posted - 2014.06.23 05:43:00 - [23] - Quote Thumb Green wrote: True Adamance wrote: Thumb Green wrote: Takahashi Kashuken wrote: You realize infantry pushed and pushed and pushed for all these changes to vehicles It always amazes me how asinine the things you say can be Taka; seriously what deranged world are you living in? it really was a combination of HAV operators wanting to not be as squishy against pre 1.6 AV (and undeniably they sure as ** were) and AV adamant arguments that their Armour clad counter parts needed drastic alterations of increased durability was given. The result mixed with CCP's changes, made with good intentions, saw the power gap wider in favour of HAV....and the horrific age of Armour we have just experienced. No it really wasn't. There were a few AV'er saying vehicles needed to be tougher but it was overwhelmingly vehicle users that were demanding changes. Infantry sure as hell didn't ask for vehicles to be buffed into demigod mode while at the same time nerfing AV to near uselessness. Infantry didn't ask for the only effective AV against basic vehicles to be proto AV or for the rail turret to be nerfed at all either. Vehicles are how they are now because of vehicle users. That is actually a mostly false statement. The Forum War between Tankers and Infantry that lasted for a year was because Tanks were almost impractical to use in battle other than to around with. In Corp battles they weren't even used as a main battle force, they were pulled out to destroy whatever vehicles the enemy brought in. This escalated when Uprising build hit and Tanking was nearly made extinct because of the lack of survivability and usefulness that CCP forced upon us because infantry wanted a Dust 514 to be a futuristic version of Call of Duty. When Uprising hit Tanks lost their survivability and ended up being destroyed so easily that they made scouts look like heavies. You could set up a nanohive behind a wall and wait for the tank to get next to it and just spam 3 AV grenades and that would be it. The Assault forge gun could fire FASTER and with MORE DAMAGE than the most advanced prototype Large Rail Gun Turret, leaving tanks to hid behind the redline. Our survivability had been severely cut down to lower than that of a scout suit going up against a squad of heavies. Redline Railing (one of the most infamous playstyles of Dust 514) was born as a result of Tankers scrambling to find a way to survive and still hit hard with their tanks. Not to mention the severe crippling weight of ISK a single tank would cost, almost 1.5 Million ISK used to be the cost of a standard fitted tank and that wouldn't even stand a chance against a single AVer. When 1.7 hit, I retired as a Tanker because my job was done with that class, I managed along with some support to bring Tanks back from the brink of extinction. So you cant say that I am a tanker scrub because I haven't been a Tanker since 1.7 hit. Tankers were here on the forums trying to get back their survivability, we NEVER, NEVER said or hinted that we wanted Tanking to be a Godlike class (at least not those of us that the community actually listened to seriously). The ONLY thing we ever wanted, our survivability returned to us, we got back a little more than what we had in mind. You can even ask other Real Tankers, we never wanted Tanking to be the easy mode it became when 1.7 hit, nor did we want it to go extinct like it almost was since Uprising came. We wanted to be a viable and reliable class that is survivable from AV that shouldn't be able to kill us with a single shot that people wanted on their team. You see now? Tankers aren't the main cause of what happened when 1.7 hit and the backlash were seeing now, the original problem that caused this all was the old ****** Infantry players that wanted Dust 514 to be a copy of Call of Duty (Some vocal players still want that and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so). Closed Beta Vet. Playstation 4 or nothing CCP. Only the strongest can do good and the weakest do evil. - Void Echo
Thumb Green The Valyrian Guard 1096	Posted - 2014.06.23 07:02:00 - [24] - Quote Void Echo wrote: That is actually a mostly false statement. No it isn't and nothing you said shows that it is because you are talking about how tanks were while I was talking about how vehicles are. Void Echo wrote: Tankers were here on the forums trying to get back their survivability, we NEVER, NEVER said or hinted that we wanted Tanking to be a Godlike class (at least not those of us that the community actually listened to seriously). Perhaps, but the community weren't the ones in charge of making the game. Can't say I'm all that surprised. I've been drinking and may be drunk.... probably like most dust players.
Jack Galen Vanguardian Remnant 3	Posted - 2014.06.23 08:54:00 - [25] - Quote Before anyone can even begin to balance railguns, rendering needs fixing! I'm all for careful positioning to take down a vehicle, but when you are effectively invisible? Well, it's just not cricket.
Void Echo Total Extinction 2612	Posted - 2014.06.23 16:02:00 - [26] - Quote Thumb Green wrote: Void Echo wrote: That is actually a mostly false statement. No it isn't and nothing you said shows that it is because you are talking about how tanks were while I was talking about how vehicles are. Void Echo wrote: Tankers were here on the forums trying to get back their survivability, we NEVER, NEVER said or hinted that we wanted Tanking to be a Godlike class (at least not those of us that the community actually listened to seriously). Perhaps, but the community weren't the ones in charge of making the game. actually it is, because whether you want to care or not all of this is the result of the confrontations in the past. Closed Beta Vet. Playstation 4 or nothing CCP. Only the strongest can do good and the weakest do evil. - Void Echo
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9768	Posted - 2014.06.23 16:19:00 - [27] - Quote @Void Echo Is it really? Let's break down his post shall we? Thumb Green wrote: No it really wasn't. There were a few AV'er saying vehicles needed to be tougher but it was overwhelmingly vehicle users that were demanding changes. This is true, as the vast majority of the players calling for buffs to HAVs and A/DSs were indeed vehicle pilots. Thumb Green wrote: Infantry sure as hell didn't ask for vehicles to be buffed into demigod mode while at the same time nerfing AV to near uselessness. This is also true. The vast majority (if not all) of Infantry & AV users didn't ask for vehicles to become overpowered, and even exclaimed with disapproval at the changes. Thumb Green wrote: Infantry didn't ask for the only effective AV against basic vehicles to be proto AV or for the rail turret to be nerfed at all either. This is indeed true. There wasn't a single player who primarily uses Infantry and/or AV who asked for AV to only be effective at the PRO tier, and while there were Infantry & AVers who openly stated that the 80GJ Railguns were overpowered, the vast majority of players calling for it's nerf were vehicle pilots Thumb Green wrote: Vehicles are how they are now because of vehicle users. This is also true in the sense that vehicle pilots were primarily the one who called for changes to the V/AV environment. Try again? I want SLAVs, not SLAVEs. "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND
Void Echo Total Extinction 2612	Posted - 2014.06.23 16:23:00 - [28] - Quote Atiim wrote: @Void Echo Is it really? Let's break down his post shall we? Thumb Green wrote: No it really wasn't. There were a few AV'er saying vehicles needed to be tougher but it was overwhelmingly vehicle users that were demanding changes. This is true, as the vast majority of the players calling for buffs to HAVs and A/DSs were indeed vehicle pilots. Thumb Green wrote: Infantry sure as hell didn't ask for vehicles to be buffed into demigod mode while at the same time nerfing AV to near uselessness. This is also true. The vast majority (if not all) of Infantry & AV users didn't ask for vehicles to become overpowered, and even exclaimed with disapproval at the changes. Thumb Green wrote: Infantry didn't ask for the only effective AV against basic vehicles to be proto AV or for the rail turret to be nerfed at all either. This is indeed true. There wasn't a single player who primarily uses Infantry and/or AV who asked for AV to only be effective at the PRO tier, and while there were Infantry & AVers who openly stated that the 80GJ Railguns were overpowered, the vast majority of players calling for it's nerf were vehicle pilots Thumb Green wrote: Vehicles are how they are now because of vehicle users. This is also true in the sense that vehicle pilots were primarily the one who called for changes to the V/AV environment. Try again? the falsehood of his statement of which im referring to is that his statement is blaming tankers for the entirety of the situation at hand and hes not putting the blame on anyone else but tankers. not to mention that he gave false statements. (Bolded statements are the ones that are false because tankers didnt advocate for them either). If you remember any of us advocating for that, it was probably spkr or takashiro (whatever the **** his name is). Closed Beta Vet. Playstation 4 or nothing CCP. Only the strongest can do good and the weakest do evil. - Void Echo
Thumb Green The Valyrian Guard 1099	Posted - 2014.06.23 18:27:00 - [29] - Quote Actually I said vehicle users, not just tankers and in fact this is my 1st post to use the word 'tankers' in this thread. Also my posts have been to counter Taka's assertion that "infantry pushed and pushed and pushed for all these changes to vehicles" because that one actually is false. Now I'm not saying infantry isn't to blame for making vehicle users angry enough demand some of the changes (buffing vehicles and useless AV at the same time) however that's a completely different discussion. What I'm saying is infantry didn't push for vehicles to be how they are now and they sure as hell didn't ask for the rail turret to be nerfed because that would be shooting themselves in the foot with the rail having been the most effective AV for a long time. Can't say I'm all that surprised. I've been drinking and may be drunk.... probably like most dust players.
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9768	Posted - 2014.06.23 18:45:00 - [30] - Quote Void Echo wrote: the falsehood of his statement of which im referring to is that his statement is blaming tankers for the entirety of the situation at hand and hes not putting the blame on anyone else but tankers. not to mention that he gave false statements. (Bolded statements are the ones that are false because tankers didnt advocate for them either). While you may not agree with the statement, his assignment of guilt has nothing to do with the fact that each statement he made was indeed factual, and could be supported with evidence; which is the perquisites of a statement being "True". Void Echo wrote: If you remember any of us advocating for that, it was probably spkr or takashiro (whatever the **** his name is). I remember the vast majority of pilots (yourself included) advocating for changes so that you could win everytime against an AVer, so in a way yes you did indeed advocate these changes. I want SLAVs, not SLAVEs. "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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