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.

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'd like to see missile turrets become the main AA large turret

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.

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.

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.

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.

lolno
I'm still finding railguns to be fine, and I only really use MLT ones.

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.

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-¦

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.

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.

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).

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.

@Void Echo

Is it really? Let's break down his post shall we?

---

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


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).

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 think what you have to realise Atiim is yes vehicle pilots called for buffs....... this iteration of HAV is not what we were expecting and, in hindsight, not what we wanted.

We just wanted tanks to be more durable...... perhaps that could have be achieved by keeping takes as they were and reintroducing marauders.

It is correct to identify those who called for the buffs, yet not fair to blame them for what they could not percieve....I mean no one could have predicted Wolfman's changes, nor the huge imbalances in their wake.

There were a lot of people calling for buffs to vehicles while at the same time calling for nerfs to AV;

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.

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).

You know I'm more inclinded to suggest a lot of this bulls **** is because neither side has been willing to sit down on skype and discuss it in a less biased manner.

And before the AVers start yelling "I'm unbiased and the preacher of balance".....lets be honest....nope...you aren't and neither am I.

I'm more inclined now to take tanks back to those UP days than keep them as they are.....tanks are boring now, way too easy, and not challenging or satisfying enough to skill into.

Charlotte O'Dell proposed an idea that we all go on Skype, and a lot of people agreed with the idea. Unfortunately, it never happened. Not sure why though.

It always amazes me how asinine the things you say can be Taka; seriously what deranged world are you living in?

I know I was so looking forwards to that.

For everyone's information I'm not against AV being effective against HAV. I'm all for it, but its a fine line between effective and..... loltankdead.......

I also want tanks to have a specific role on the map, my ideal one being the highest tier AV vehicle available to players, and require skill, ISK, and SP investment to operate efficiently.

I was looking towards it too. It may have finally put the V/AV argument to rest too.

Well besides the Skill-Staking ADSs, HAVs already are the highest tier AV vehicle available. Now all they need is the whole skill, ISK, and SP investment. But how does one go about making that a reality while keeping things balanced at both the low and high-end tiers.