DUST Search - Shield Tanks vs Armor Tanks and tanks in general

All Channels

General Discussions

Shield Tanks vs Armor Tanks and tanks in general

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ilkazar Inner.Hell 1	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:11:00 - [1] - Quote Hello everyone this is just to give my opinion on the current tanking situation, I have 22 million SP in tanks/vehicles so I think its safe to say I can test almost all the features of them. TL;DR- Shield tanks are now viable, and the weapons are balanced IMO, the only change should be to increase the resistance values on armor hardeners. CCP please move on to reintroducing more vehicles As we all saw in hot-fix Bravo armor tanks took a huge hit to their rep systems and there were changes to both blaster and rail turrets, as well as their damage amplifying modules. First off I think that this patch brought significant balance back to the Tank vs Tank combat, as I have experienced since the Patch I can now actually destroy armor tanks with a shield tank fitted with a blaster. This is a major improvement over last patch in which armor tanks were practically invincible using more than one armor rep system. This makes shield tanking a completely viable option now, where as last patch they were used almost 90% for only glass cannons paired with a railgun and three damage mods to two shot anything on the map. This brings me to the next point: railgun changes. What I have noticed so far with the railgun is that it isn't meant for close quarters any more, where as last patch you could activate your damage mods drive up close to the enemy tank and pop them before most had a chance to react. Now if you go up to another tank you will most likely overheat before being able to kill them, or they will destroy you before you have a chance to. Forcing the railgun into its role of long range AV with damage mods and low health. I think that this patch brought some great balance to the overhaul of changes that happened to the vehicles in their latest rework, and that after some fine tweaking they should be solid in their roles. I do believe that armor hardeners should be more resistant with longer cool downs now that the reps have had their changes done. And now I hope that CCP can now move on to bringing us more vehicles since infantry have proto AV why do we not get proto vehicles. I hate listening to people complain that the vehicles are too weak compared to AV I believe that this is balanced because proto av should be able to kill Basic vehicles or severely damage them without too much trouble. What are your thoughts on the new changes and where CCP should take things?
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9802	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:13:00 - [2] - Quote Ilkazar wrote: the only change should be to increase the resistance values on armor hardeners. No, because that would break AV vs Vehicle balance. I want SLAVs, not SLAVEs. "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND
Ilkazar Inner.Hell 1	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:18:00 - [3] - Quote Atiim wrote: Ilkazar wrote: the only change should be to increase the resistance values on armor hardeners. No, because that would break AV vs Vehicle balance. Not if the change was balanced I am only talking bring the value from 30% to around 35% maybe 40% and increasing the cool down from 50 to 65 to counteract this making them more viable for absorbing damage for short bursts of time
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone Psychotic Alliance 1394	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:20:00 - [4] - Quote I think hardeners need to go back to their old values and have a fitting restriction of one per vehicle. Calmanndo user with nova knives: Because someone has to do it.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11124	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:24:00 - [5] - Quote Cause screw your proto tanks until I get my AMARR HAV! " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
Tectonic Fusion 1768	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:26:00 - [6] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think hardeners need to go back to their old values and have a fitting restriction of one per vehicle. Of make the stacking penalty more severe.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11124	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:26:00 - [7] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think hardeners need to go back to their old values and have a fitting restriction of one per vehicle. Screw that noise, modules I wish would go back to pre 1.6 where variety was possible and the ability to fit my HAV for whatever role or tanking type I wanted to was plausible and did not have lame and arbitrary restrictions on it. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
Ilkazar Inner.Hell 1	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:33:00 - [8] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think hardeners need to go back to their old values and have a fitting restriction of one per vehicle. Screw that noise, modules I wish would go back to pre 1.6 where variety was possible and the ability to fit my HAV for whatever role or tanking type I wanted to was plausible and did not have lame and arbitrary restrictions on it. I do agree with you that vehicles were in better shape pre 1.6
Alena Ventrallis The Neutral Zone Psychotic Alliance 1394	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:37:00 - [9] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think hardeners need to go back to their old values and have a fitting restriction of one per vehicle. Screw that noise, modules I wish would go back to pre 1.6 where variety was possible and the ability to fit my HAV for whatever role or tanking type I wanted to was plausible and did not have lame and arbitrary restrictions on it. I'd take that if we could, but I think that'd need a client side update. So server side, return old hardeners and restrict them to one per vehicle. Calmanndo user with nova knives: Because someone has to do it.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11125	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:38:00 - [10] - Quote Ilkazar wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think hardeners need to go back to their old values and have a fitting restriction of one per vehicle. Screw that noise, modules I wish would go back to pre 1.6 where variety was possible and the ability to fit my HAV for whatever role or tanking type I wanted to was plausible and did not have lame and arbitrary restrictions on it. I do agree with you that vehicles were in better shape pre 1.6 They were closer to and more like fitting an EVE ship IMO. Plenty of Options, progression, flexibility, with unlimited potential. I mean if I had my old 2 High 4 Lows on an Amarr HAV and pre 1.6 modules back Amarr HAV hull Amarr Large Turret 2x Amarr Small Turrets 1x Poly Crystalline 180mm 2x Carapace Hardeners or 2x Adapative Nano Plating 1x Heavy Repairer 2x Heat Sink or 1x Heat Sink 1x Damage Control BAM AMARR HAV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WANT IT! " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11125	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:39:00 - [11] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think hardeners need to go back to their old values and have a fitting restriction of one per vehicle. Screw that noise, modules I wish would go back to pre 1.6 where variety was possible and the ability to fit my HAV for whatever role or tanking type I wanted to was plausible and did not have lame and arbitrary restrictions on it. I'd take that if we could, but I think that'd need a client side update. So server side, return old hardeners and restrict them to one per vehicle. Restricting things is never the solution. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9806	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:57:00 - [12] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: True Adamance wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think hardeners need to go back to their old values and have a fitting restriction of one per vehicle. Screw that noise, modules I wish would go back to pre 1.6 where variety was possible and the ability to fit my HAV for whatever role or tanking type I wanted to was plausible and did not have lame and arbitrary restrictions on it. I'd take that if we could, but I think that'd need a client side update. So server side, return old hardeners and restrict them to one per vehicle. The vehicles and modules still exist in the client, so it could be done tomorrow if the DEVs really wanted to. I want SLAVs, not SLAVEs. "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9806	Posted - 2014.06.24 22:58:00 - [13] - Quote Ilkazar wrote: Not if the change was balanced I am only talking bring the value from 30% to around 35% maybe 40% and increasing the cool down from 50 to 65 to counteract this making them more viable for absorbing damage for short bursts of time The Armor Hardeners used to be at 40%. This was the result. Absorbing damage for short amounts of time is already done by the Shield Hardeners, and 36s is not a short amount of time in an FPS game. Alena Ventrallis wrote: I think hardeners need to go back to their old values and have a fitting restriction of one per vehicle. Hardeners are supposed make your vehicle stronger, not invincible. I want SLAVs, not SLAVEs. "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 11126	Posted - 2014.06.24 23:06:00 - [14] - Quote I think the 20, 22, 25 % Progression was fine with the player deciding how many active to fit vs passive armour resistance modules. " Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well." -Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
Lynn Beck NoGameNoLife 1914	Posted - 2014.06.24 23:29:00 - [15] - Quote Atiim, that was a dropship, and they had innate 55% resists built into their hulls. I see no problems with simply making Gunny/Maddy's have 5/2 slot layout, and makin Armor Hardeners grant 30% resist, while shield hardeners grant 40%. Example numbers: Armor repairs are same as current(tanks can't infinite tank anymore, and tanks that wanna Quintuple rep are going to be alpha'd by all but swarm launchers. Armor plates honestly need a buff in some sort, as they donmt give that much compared to Shield extenders(1300+ shield on a Cx Heavy, which is 50% of a Gunny's tank., while a Cx plate is like, 1500? That's 1/3rd) Shield boosters need few changes, if any. Example fitting: Breach Gunnlogi 2x Complex Shield extender 1x Complex Hardener 1x nitrous 1x Cru Blaster turret Another example, for armor: Assault Madrugar Nitrous module Scanner 2x Complex hardener 1 x plate 2x enhanced heavy rep I will admit, currently tanks seem a little underwhelming, as noted by my swarm launcher just demolishing all of these tankers. Although, idon't run PC, so it might be way off. I just wish tanks could actually tank things, but didn't have oober high regeneration, that's infantry's thing. General John Ripper -BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse. This message was approved by the 'Nobody Loved You' Foundation
Atiim NoGameNoLife 9806	Posted - 2014.06.24 23:32:00 - [16] - Quote Lynn Beck wrote: Atiim, that was a dropship, and they had innate 55% resists built into their hulls. At 10:16 (hope I didn't screw up the link), he's referring to Madrugars. I want SLAVs, not SLAVEs. "Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..." -HAND

Pages: 1 :: [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.