| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
330
   |
Posted - 2014.06.29 13:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q
& justice for all
|
Jaran Vilktar
The Gauldar Tactical Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 13:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion.
I will say that I'm not much of a Vehicle Pilot myself but from what I've experienced with Tanks these last few weeks I have to agree with you on this. The Blaster Turrets (Large and Small) should get a reduction to that obscene dispersion or a Sharpshooter skill added to their skill lists (Or why not both? I like both  ).
DUST 514 Is the first FPS I played actively for the PS3 and is my favorite FPS to this very day. :)
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
332
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 14:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jaran Vilktar wrote:"Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion" I will say that I'm not much of a Vehicle Pilot myself but from what I've experienced with Tanks these last few weeks I have to agree with you on this. The Blaster Turrets (Large and Small) should get a reduction to that obscene dispersion or a Sharpshooter skill added to their skill lists (Or why not both? I like both ).
see even the average pilot agrees not just the "elitists".
& justice for all
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
569
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 14:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Blasters I'll agree with you there. Dispersion needs reigned in a bit. I like the notion of a very small base tightening and adding a Sharpshooter skill at the same time.
As far as your railgun QQ is concerned, the triple nerf was steep, but not unwarranted. I think adding a little range (back up to 400-450m) wouldn't be remiss. And as far as the Damage Mods are concerned, they can go die in a fire. For so damn long have I had ADSs shot down because they were retardedly high +% and no stacking penalties. What DMods are like now is absolutely fine: people just got used to them being OP for so long that the crutch being taken away causes an even harder fall. |
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
332
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 15:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Blasters I'll agree with you there. Dispersion needs reigned in a bit. I like the notion of a very small base tightening and adding a Sharpshooter skill at the same time.
As far as your railgun QQ is concerned, the triple nerf was steep, but not unwarranted. I think adding a little range (back up to 400-450m) wouldn't be remiss. And as far as the Damage Mods are concerned, they can go die in a fire. For so damn long have I had ADSs shot down because they were retardedly high +% and no stacking penalties. What DMods are like now is absolutely fine: people just got used to them being OP for so long that the crutch being taken away causes an even harder fall.
Too much is too much. Only so much BS people can take. The consensus here seems to be that changes are needed to bring back power to vehicles.
& justice for all
|
Apothecary Za'ki
Biomass Positive
127
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
if you want anti personnel equip the small turrets too. the large ones are for AV only really so quite your belly aching
Minmatar Logibro in training. Rusty needles anyone?
No Mic and no time for "Squeekers"
Nerf scout cloak+shotgun
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
333
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Apothecary Za'ki wrote:if you want anti personnel equip the small turrets too. the large ones are for AV only really so quite your belly aching
silence peasant! In PC matches there is no available manpower to man the miny rails. Dont expect a noob to understand the complexities of PC however.
& justice for all
|
Hakyou Brutor
G0DS AM0NG MEN
799
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
F*cking thank you! Just make variations of turrets like they had before CCP screwed vehicles in 1.7.
Make a skill for blaster dispersion: 5% less dispersion on blaster per level.
Scattered Blasters - Higher damage per shot at the cost of a higher dispersion.
Stabilized Blasters - Much less damage per shot with more range and far less dispersion, useful vs infantry.
Compressed Blasters - Very high damage per shot at the cost of a big RoF nerf.
Also, bring back heatsinks!
"I never pull out" ~Ace Boone, 2014.
|
Ghost Kaisar
The Last of DusT.
General Tso's Alliance
5595
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:53:00 -
[9] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Apothecary Za'ki wrote:if you want anti personnel equip the small turrets too. the large ones are for AV only really so quite your belly aching silence peasant! In PC matches there is no available manpower to man the miny rails. Dont expect a noob to understand the complexities of PC however.
In PC, tanks shouldn't be targeting infantry anyways.
You have more important things to do, such as keeping those damn dropships from swooping in on us.
Swooping is bad.
That Crazy Minmatar Fanatic
Stabbing Heavies for the Republic since Uprising 1.1
PSN: EVL_Elgost105
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
334
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:53:00 -
[10] - Quote
Hakyou Brutor wrote:F*cking thank you! Just make variations of turrets like they had before CCP screwed vehicles in 1.7.
Make a skill for blaster dispersion: 5% less dispersion on blaster per level.
Scattered Blasters - Higher damage per shot at the cost of a higher dispersion.
Stabilized Blasters - Much less damage per shot with more range and far less dispersion, useful vs infantry.
Compressed Blasters - Very high damage per shot at the cost of a big RoF nerf.
Also, bring back heatsinks!
You seriously think CCP can deploy that kind of a fix and not fuk up the game?
First off i just want Rattati to see that the consensus is that change is necessary. Then we can work out the specifics. I dont expect changes over night, but 32 mil SP & a year into the game.......you bet i wont stand by and get trampled just because i represent the vehicle specialists/minority.
& justice for all
|
|
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
334
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ghost Kaisar wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Apothecary Za'ki wrote:if you want anti personnel equip the small turrets too. the large ones are for AV only really so quite your belly aching silence peasant! In PC matches there is no available manpower to man the miny rails. Dont expect a noob to understand the complexities of PC however. In PC, tanks shouldn't be targeting infantry anyways. You have more important things to do, such as keeping those damn dropships from swooping in on us. Swooping is bad.
lawl, not my fault Z never thought you guys how to use mandos
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11333
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 20:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q
To be fair Large Turrets shouldn't be designed to takedown infantry...... I wish the Large Blaster was a Semi Auto plasma cannon.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
334
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:02:00 -
[13] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q To be fair Large Turrets shouldn't be designed to takedown infantry...... I wish the Large Blaster was a Semi Auto plasma cannon.
lol if tanks cant take out infantry, then there wont be a need for infantry to dial 911 and get a rail on the field. No need for rail then just play infantry. Your stupid sentence just killed a entire vehicle dynamic.
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11333
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q To be fair Large Turrets shouldn't be designed to takedown infantry...... I wish the Large Blaster was a Semi Auto plasma cannon. lol if tanks cant take out infantry, then there wont be a need for infantry to dial 911 and get a rail on the field. No need for rail then just play infantry. Your stupid sentence just killed a entire vehicle dynamic.
I'm not saying tanks shouldn't take out infantry.
That is why we have small turrets mounted. We can't just expect to be able to stack a main gun and destroy everything.
HAV should be the top tier Anti Vehicle platform on the field, deployed sparsely with heavy SP and ISK investment ( 500K currently is a fair investment) to attain vehicle dominance and clear all enemy vehicles from the field.
If HAV want to destroy infantry or be protected from them then we need to either work with our squads more closely or mount gunner slots.
Perhaps We could ask CCP if we could cycle between out large and small turrets. I mean modern tanks fit co-axial machine guns and CROWS for a reason.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
336
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:18:00 -
[15] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q To be fair Large Turrets shouldn't be designed to takedown infantry...... I wish the Large Blaster was a Semi Auto plasma cannon. lol if tanks cant take out infantry, then there wont be a need for infantry to dial 911 and get a rail on the field. No need for rail then just play infantry. Your stupid sentence just killed a entire vehicle dynamic. I'm not saying tanks shouldn't take out infantry. That is why we have small turrets mounted. We can't just expect to be able to stack a main gun and destroy everything. HAV should be the top tier Anti Vehicle platform on the field, deployed sparsely with heavy SP and ISK investment ( 500K currently is a fair investment) to attain vehicle dominance and clear all enemy vehicles from the field. If HAV want to destroy infantry or be protected from them then we need to either work with our squads more closely or mount gunner slots. Perhaps We could ask CCP if we could cycle between out large and small turrets. I mean modern tanks fit co-axial machine guns and CROWS for a reason.
Modern tanks pack 120mm cannons with HE rounds that obliterate tha fuk out of anything within 15 meters. & in competitive setting there's just not enough manpower for small turrets to be effective enough to justify taking a rifleman out of the battle.
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11333
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:34:00 -
[16] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q To be fair Large Turrets shouldn't be designed to takedown infantry...... I wish the Large Blaster was a Semi Auto plasma cannon. lol if tanks cant take out infantry, then there wont be a need for infantry to dial 911 and get a rail on the field. No need for rail then just play infantry. Your stupid sentence just killed a entire vehicle dynamic. I'm not saying tanks shouldn't take out infantry. That is why we have small turrets mounted. We can't just expect to be able to stack a main gun and destroy everything. HAV should be the top tier Anti Vehicle platform on the field, deployed sparsely with heavy SP and ISK investment ( 500K currently is a fair investment) to attain vehicle dominance and clear all enemy vehicles from the field. If HAV want to destroy infantry or be protected from them then we need to either work with our squads more closely or mount gunner slots. Perhaps We could ask CCP if we could cycle between out large and small turrets. I mean modern tanks fit co-axial machine guns and CROWS for a reason. Modern tanks pack 120mm cannons with HE rounds that obliterate tha fuk out of anything within 15 meters. & in competitive setting there's just not enough manpower for small turrets to be effective enough to justify taking a rifleman out of the battle.
Indeed so single shot AoE rounds make more sense that firing a giant machine gun that shoots plasma and does not adequately represent Gallente Blaster Tech at all.
Remember of course that real tanks are crewed by numerous people. Lets be honest this isn't about what a tanker wants this is about achieving balance for everyone and HAV pilots like us cannot and should not be able to solo tank with impunity. Small turrets should be encouraged and incentivised over selfish solo tanking.
The easiest way to do this is play on the concept of tracking speeds and turret sizes in EVE. A Battleships Large Lasers cannot easily target and cannot hit close range fast moving targets, but if that same battleship used small turrets it could more easily hit its target.
TL;DR
Large Turrets = Vehicle and Anti Vehicle turrets
Small Turrets= Anti Infantry Turrets
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
338
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:39:00 -
[17] - Quote
I am all for sensible changes. 6 OP tanks in ambush was ridiculous and not fun for anyone, but having infantry in proto gear dance 40 meters in front of you while bombarding you with AV and your blaster cant seem to hit sh!t....that's not balance. Not 32 million SP and half a million ISK war machine gets outdone by one 150k infantry.
Remember tanks are very situational. They cant take points or invade effectively in urban combat.
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11333
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:47:00 -
[18] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:I am all for sensible changes. 6 OP tanks in ambush was ridiculous and not fun for anyone, but having infantry in proto gear dance 40 meters in front of you while bombarding you with AV and your blaster cant seem to hit sh!t....that's not balance. Not 32 million SP and half a million ISK war machine gets outdone by one 150k infantry.
Remember tanks are very situational. They cant take points or invade effectively in urban combat.
I know..... I have been tanking for a very long time......
And I have in my mind a role for HAV since we currently don't have one. And it is what I has stated. However I think that an HAV pilot should be able to switch between control of a Large turret for AV fire, and a Light Turret for anti infantry fire (( basically finding reasons for HAV pilots to fill up turret slots and stop fitting HAV for pure tank)).
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT.
General Tso's Alliance
2391
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:55:00 -
[19] - Quote
Changes I would like to see
A passive skill for tighter dispersion and/or nonstupid dispersion decay
The rail range buffed and heat build up buffed so that it can fire 5 consecutive shots without overheat
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
338
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 21:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Changes I would like to see
A passive skill for tighter dispersion and/or nonstupid dispersion decay
The rail range buffed and heat build up buffed so that it can fire 5 consecutive shots without overheat
It would make vehicle pilots feel.....like specialists. Like SP investment mattered. Good points all around.
& justice for all
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11333
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 22:05:00 -
[21] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Changes I would like to see
A passive skill for tighter dispersion and/or nonstupid dispersion decay
The rail range buffed and heat build up buffed so that it can fire 5 consecutive shots without overheat It would make vehicle pilots feel.....like specialists. Like SP investment mattered. Good points all around.
There are actually a dozen skills we could add to the vehicle tree one of my personal favourites being Armour/ Shield (insert Damage type) Compensation which adds resistances % increases to resistance plating/ward fields and Hardeners.
E.G- they only apply bonuses to the modules efficiecy not the hulls resistances.
Also have you guys ever considered that the very notion than the hull itself, especially in the case of old assets like Marauders and Enforcers did not have inherant racial resistance profiles was odd?
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT.
General Tso's Alliance
2393
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 22:36:00 -
[22] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Changes I would like to see
A passive skill for tighter dispersion and/or nonstupid dispersion decay
The rail range buffed and heat build up buffed so that it can fire 5 consecutive shots without overheat It would make vehicle pilots feel.....like specialists. Like SP investment mattered. Good points all around.
I miss meaningful core skills hell I don't even have damage mods to 5 because 3 was high enough for the longest time unless it was a complete glass cannon and I felt points into speed hacking and links was more useful now that their kinda pointless to run on most fits I might bot even get that to 5
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
339
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 23:02:00 -
[23] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Changes I would like to see
A passive skill for tighter dispersion and/or nonstupid dispersion decay
The rail range buffed and heat build up buffed so that it can fire 5 consecutive shots without overheat It would make vehicle pilots feel.....like specialists. Like SP investment mattered. Good points all around. I miss meaningful core skills hell I don't even have damage mods to 5 because 3 was high enough for the longest time unless it was a complete glass cannon and I felt points into speed hacking and links was more useful now that their kinda pointless to run on most fits I might not even get that to 5.
you dream big. CCP wont introduce new meaningfull skills. All i can hope for is a buff to blaster to create the demand for rail, and have rail rof back to where it was.
With the games lifespan expected to end after DESTINY, i doubt they would spend much energy in creating skills. Keep your expectations realistic.
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11338
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 23:18:00 -
[24] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Changes I would like to see
A passive skill for tighter dispersion and/or nonstupid dispersion decay
The rail range buffed and heat build up buffed so that it can fire 5 consecutive shots without overheat It would make vehicle pilots feel.....like specialists. Like SP investment mattered. Good points all around. I miss meaningful core skills hell I don't even have damage mods to 5 because 3 was high enough for the longest time unless it was a complete glass cannon and I felt points into speed hacking and links was more useful now that their kinda pointless to run on most fits I might not even get that to 5. you dream big. CCP wont introduce new meaningfull skills. All i can hope for is a buff to blaster to create the demand for rail, and have rail rof back to where it was. With the games lifespan expected to end after DESTINY, i doubt they would spend much energy in creating skills. Keep your expectations realistic.
Depends on how good Destiny is.
So far is looks like a more detailed and pretty version of Borderlands....... if that's all it is it will never be able to retain an audience.....
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
1966
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 23:22:00 -
[25] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q
This guy gets it.
Large Blasters need to be a threat to infantry, not a "suppressant" as Rattati puts it. Vehicles need some form of an effective counter to infantry, and large blasters are it. Blaster tanks get used to kill infantry and missile/railgun tanks are pulled out to eliminate the blaster tanks and AV does its best to push off or destroy these missile/railgun tanks.
Now, there's little reason to run blaster tanks, if any at all, if there's any proto AV on the field. Blaster tanks cannot kill infantry beyond 30 meters and anything beyond that is just pure luck. If blaster tanks aren't used, then neither are missile/railgun tanks.
All of my SP is into vehicles and I'm disappointed that blasters got the nerf, because most of my pay came from destroying blaster tanks with my missile Gunnlogi. The only time I encounter blaster tanks is because my blueberries don't have anything skilled beyond standard so they get stomped by protos and blaster tanks run unopposed. Otherwise, I feel like my Gunnlogi now acts as bait just so that another tank shows up so I have something juicy to shoot at.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
--
"Scouts should fart repeatedly while cloaked"- TechMechMeds
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1243
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 00:22:00 -
[26] - Quote
I drive vehicles, a lot.
The vehicular anti-infantry should be relegated to Small Guns mounted on the tank, not the main turret.
There are still plenty of reasons to bat phone in rails. an infantry team being 'suppressed' by a Blaster Tank can't effectively move from one objective to another, so needs the tank removed. It would be the same if the blaster tank could hit and kill them, they'd find another way, or call in a Rail / Missile Tank to deal with the pesky Blaster Tank.
You want Tanks to multi-function? Run multiple people. Then, with 2 people in the HAV, you WILL wreck the opposing team... with 3, you'll do it even more if you set up and run the HAV right. If you want a single driver / commander to fulfil multiple roles, then expect those multiple roles to be reduced in effectiveness so that you don't get OP again.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
340
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 00:34:00 -
[27] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote:I drive vehicles, a lot.
The vehicular anti-infantry should be relegated to Small Guns mounted on the tank, not the main turret.
There are still plenty of reasons to bat phone in rails. an infantry team being 'suppressed' by a Blaster Tank can't effectively move from one objective to another, so needs the tank removed. It would be the same if the blaster tank could hit and kill them, they'd find another way, or call in a Rail / Missile Tank to deal with the pesky Blaster Tank.
You want Tanks to multi-function? Run multiple people. Then, with 2 people in the HAV, you WILL wreck the opposing team... with 3, you'll do it even more if you set up and run the HAV right. If you want a single driver / commander to fulfil multiple roles, then expect those multiple roles to be reduced in effectiveness so that you don't get OP again.
Ahem, well im not talking about in pubs farming noobs in militia at 30m. Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments.
1 ADS can effectively destroy a tank. 1 cloaked scout using proto packed AV nades and proto swarms can challenge a tank.
The massive SP and ISK gap is obvious. Your telling me i need more people in a tank to deal with 1 150k ISK scout who has AV? While i spend 32 million SP and 520k per war machine.
Oh not to mention how much teamwork and coordination it takes to get a blaster tank out. Have to push enemy rails back, secure high ground from forge gunners, set up anti aircraft net and then voila! You have 1 blaster tank that gets sh!t on by 1 Scout. Dude suppression is stupid. I need the ability to kill. Get your nose out of dom for a change.
& justice for all
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
340
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 00:35:00 -
[28] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q This guy gets it. Large Blasters need to be a threat to infantry, not a "suppressant" as Rattati puts it. Vehicles need some form of an effective counter to infantry, and large blasters are it. Blaster tanks get used to kill infantry and missile/railgun tanks are pulled out to eliminate the blaster tanks and AV does its best to push off or destroy these missile/railgun tanks. Now, there's little reason to run blaster tanks, if any at all, if there's any proto AV on the field. Blaster tanks cannot kill infantry beyond 30 meters and anything beyond that is just pure luck. If blaster tanks aren't used, then neither are missile/railgun tanks. All of my SP is into vehicles and I'm disappointed that blasters got the nerf, because most of my pay came from destroying blaster tanks with my missile Gunnlogi. The only time I encounter blaster tanks is because my blueberries don't have anything skilled beyond standard so they get stomped by protos and blaster tanks run unopposed. Otherwise, I feel like my Gunnlogi now acts as bait just so that another tank shows up so I have something juicy to shoot at.
Blasters have 1 role....kill infantry. EZ
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11345
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 00:49:00 -
[29] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Harpyja wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q This guy gets it. Large Blasters need to be a threat to infantry, not a "suppressant" as Rattati puts it. Vehicles need some form of an effective counter to infantry, and large blasters are it. Blaster tanks get used to kill infantry and missile/railgun tanks are pulled out to eliminate the blaster tanks and AV does its best to push off or destroy these missile/railgun tanks. Now, there's little reason to run blaster tanks, if any at all, if there's any proto AV on the field. Blaster tanks cannot kill infantry beyond 30 meters and anything beyond that is just pure luck. If blaster tanks aren't used, then neither are missile/railgun tanks. All of my SP is into vehicles and I'm disappointed that blasters got the nerf, because most of my pay came from destroying blaster tanks with my missile Gunnlogi. The only time I encounter blaster tanks is because my blueberries don't have anything skilled beyond standard so they get stomped by protos and blaster tanks run unopposed. Otherwise, I feel like my Gunnlogi now acts as bait just so that another tank shows up so I have something juicy to shoot at. Blasters have 1 role....kill infantry. EZ
Why do you assume that has to be their role?....when Dust Blasters don't resemble EVE Tech or are so game breakingly powerful against infantry that they have to be nerfed......
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11345
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 00:51:00 -
[30] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:
Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments.
Lol thinks PC corp gives him the right to talk down to other players........
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1039
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 00:54:00 -
[31] - Quote
Jaran Vilktar wrote:"Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion"
Decreasing the time it takes to reset I think would do wonders. As it stands you have to fire once like every 5 seconds to maintain a decent dispersion. Other wise that circle keeps getting wider, and wider and wider!
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1039
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 00:56:00 -
[32] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments.
Lol thinks PC corp gives him the right to talk down to other players........
I know right, must be a new guy. He just doesn't realize that I've smacked down my fair share of outer heaven "tankers". Don't worry OH, DDB is bringin tha tankin thunda. Me and my boy kami are BACK!
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
340
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 00:57:00 -
[33] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments.
Lol thinks PC corp gives him the right to talk down to other players........
lol your being hyper sensitive. PC is balance in its purest form. Strategy, experience and prototype vs prototype hardware. Achieve true balance there and it will trickle down to the pub matches. If you have no PC experience, how can you provide valuable input?
& justice for all
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
340
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:00:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments.
Lol thinks PC corp gives him the right to talk down to other players........ I know right, must be a new guy. He just doesn't realize that I've smacked down my fair share of outer heaven "tankers". Don't worry OH, DDB is bringin tha tankin thunda. Me and my boy kami are BACK!
lawl how bout u actually get some districts first, and show up to your battles with full 16 DDB, then you can come derail my thread with your irrelevancy. Keep your drama to the war room.
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11345
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:11:00 -
[35] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments.
Lol thinks PC corp gives him the right to talk down to other players........ lol your being hyper sensitive. PC is balance in its purest form. Strategy, experience and prototype vs prototype hardware. Achieve true balance there and it will trickle down to the pub matches. If you have no PC experience, how can you provide valuable input?
Been in PC, hated it as it was grenade spam, lack of valuable tactics as each team tried to our abuse the other with nade spams, CR's, and FOTM, watched PC footage....nothing special...... no different from how FW plays out between two stacked corps, no meaning in PC....... being is PC is one aspect of the game......it only a single view point no better or worse than any other......but that's besides the point.
@ Tebu.... yeah I smacked around Tiberius when he tried to Tank...... just like he smacked me down when I tried to Commando him. Also have beaten OH teams every now and then, great fights all the time....but being in PC is not a reflection of skill, just that you have ISK want to regularly have organised fights.
If you want a real war FW is where its at. All attrition, all the time......I just wish we could choose where we deployed.
ANYWHO BACK TO HAV and how we disagree about their roles.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1243
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:26:00 -
[36] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:I drive vehicles, a lot.
The vehicular anti-infantry should be relegated to Small Guns mounted on the tank, not the main turret.
There are still plenty of reasons to bat phone in rails. an infantry team being 'suppressed' by a Blaster Tank can't effectively move from one objective to another, so needs the tank removed. It would be the same if the blaster tank could hit and kill them, they'd find another way, or call in a Rail / Missile Tank to deal with the pesky Blaster Tank.
You want Tanks to multi-function? Run multiple people. Then, with 2 people in the HAV, you WILL wreck the opposing team... with 3, you'll do it even more if you set up and run the HAV right. If you want a single driver / commander to fulfil multiple roles, then expect those multiple roles to be reduced in effectiveness so that you don't get OP again. Ahem, well im not talking about in pubs farming noobs in militia at 30m. Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments. 1 ADS can effectively destroy a tank. 1 cloaked scout using proto packed AV nades and proto swarms can challenge a tank. The massive SP and ISK gap is obvious. Your telling me i need more people in a tank to deal with 1 150k ISK scout who has AV? While i spend 32 million SP and 520k per war machine. Oh not to mention how much teamwork and coordination it takes to get a blaster tank out. Have to push enemy rails back, secure high ground from forge gunners, set up anti aircraft net and then voila! You have 1 blaster tank that gets sh!t on by 1 Scout. Dude suppression is stupid. I need the ability to kill. Get your nose out of dom for a change.
I played PC from Uprising 1.0 until now. Because YOU haven't seen me, doesn't mean I'm not in PC.
That being aside... in PC, you're using a Tank to mow down infantry solo, you SHOULD be able to be killed solo by the very targets you are mowing down. If you are required to have 2 people in your tank to simultaneously deal with both Vehicles and Infantry, then the power of the HAV can be increased exponentially so that 1 AV cannot be as effective against you.
Oh, and that guy in your turret, he's also fitted for battle, so you know, he can jump out, kill some guys, hack a turret, and get back in. You're talking as if he is completely confined within that zone, when he's not. Only the Commander is constrained to that extent to prevent enemies taking the HAV, or a team mate jumping into the wrong seat.
In effect you are using your HAV to multiply his effectiveness too. He can move faster, do more damage without wasting his own weapon's clip, and be protected inside your hull. All for giving up some manoeuvrability. With the option to get out, shoot people in the face as required.
Concerned about that pesky Dropship also? Hey, a Small Rail Turret on top actually deals with them very well. So a three-man HAV can have the ability to Take out other Tanks, Suppress Infantry, Kill infantry, and take out Aerial Targets in one package. And possibly require the use of multiple AV to eliminate the threat due to it's requirement of having 3 people inside.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
341
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:28:00 -
[37] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:I drive vehicles, a lot.
The vehicular anti-infantry should be relegated to Small Guns mounted on the tank, not the main turret.
There are still plenty of reasons to bat phone in rails. an infantry team being 'suppressed' by a Blaster Tank can't effectively move from one objective to another, so needs the tank removed. It would be the same if the blaster tank could hit and kill them, they'd find another way, or call in a Rail / Missile Tank to deal with the pesky Blaster Tank.
You want Tanks to multi-function? Run multiple people. Then, with 2 people in the HAV, you WILL wreck the opposing team... with 3, you'll do it even more if you set up and run the HAV right. If you want a single driver / commander to fulfil multiple roles, then expect those multiple roles to be reduced in effectiveness so that you don't get OP again. Ahem, well im not talking about in pubs farming noobs in militia at 30m. Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments. 1 ADS can effectively destroy a tank. 1 cloaked scout using proto packed AV nades and proto swarms can challenge a tank. The massive SP and ISK gap is obvious. Your telling me i need more people in a tank to deal with 1 150k ISK scout who has AV? While i spend 32 million SP and 520k per war machine. Oh not to mention how much teamwork and coordination it takes to get a blaster tank out. Have to push enemy rails back, secure high ground from forge gunners, set up anti aircraft net and then voila! You have 1 blaster tank that gets sh!t on by 1 Scout. Dude suppression is stupid. I need the ability to kill. Get your nose out of dom for a change. I played PC from Uprising 1.0 until now. Because YOU haven't seen me, doesn't mean I'm not in PC. That being aside... in PC, you're using a Tank to mow down infantry solo, you SHOULD be able to be killed solo by the very targets you are mowing down. If you are required to have 2 people in your tank to simultaneously deal with both Vehicles and Infantry, then the power of the HAV can be increased exponentially so that 1 AV cannot be as effective against you. Oh, and that guy in your turret, he's also fitted for battle, so you know, he can jump out, kill some guys, hack a turret, and get back in. You're talking as if he is completely confined within that zone, when he's not. Only the Commander is constrained to that extent to prevent enemies taking the HAV, or a team mate jumping into the wrong seat. In effect you are using your HAV to multiply his effectiveness too. He can move faster, do more damage without wasting his own weapon's clip, and be protected inside your hull. All for giving up some manoeuvrability. With the option to get out, shoot people in the face as required.
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
& justice for all
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1244
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:33:00 -
[38] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets...
the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away.
What I'm advocating, in fact, is that a HAV can be made stronger if it was required to have more people to fulfil multiple roles, rather than being a 'better slayer' than an infantry guy with little to no drawbacks.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11347
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:36:00 -
[39] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote:
I played PC from Uprising 1.0 until now. Because YOU haven't seen me, doesn't mean I'm not in PC.
That being aside... in PC, you're using a Tank to mow down infantry solo, you SHOULD be able to be killed solo by the very targets you are mowing down. If you are required to have 2 people in your tank to simultaneously deal with both Vehicles and Infantry, then the power of the HAV can be increased exponentially so that 1 AV cannot be as effective against you.
Oh, and that guy in your turret, he's also fitted for battle, so you know, he can jump out, kill some guys, hack a turret, and get back in. You're talking as if he is completely confined within that zone, when he's not. Only the Commander is constrained to that extent to prevent enemies taking the HAV, or a team mate jumping into the wrong seat.
In effect you are using your HAV to multiply his effectiveness too. He can move faster, do more damage without wasting his own weapon's clip, and be protected inside your hull. All for giving up some manoeuvrability. With the option to get out, shoot people in the face as required.
Concerned about that pesky Dropship also? Hey, a Small Rail Turret on top actually deals with them very well. So a three-man HAV can have the ability to Take out other Tanks, Suppress Infantry, Kill infantry, and take out Aerial Targets in one package. And possibly require the use of multiple AV to eliminate the threat due to it's requirement of having 3 people inside.
Been running my HAV like that for a long time. My particular build was nothing special against other tanks when it was just me...... but put Aero and Humble Seeker in my turrets and no enemy tank could take us down unless I did something utter ridiculous.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
341
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:37:00 -
[40] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets... the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away.
Current small turrets are too ineffective VS competent infantry. Buff the small turrets to make them more effective on a tank hull vs infantry, but that could create a imbalance when they are fitted to the ADS. Right now its impossible to justify the extra seat, ISK cost, SP cost, fitting cost and man power cost for a almost useless small turret.
& justice for all
|
|
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
341
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:38:00 -
[41] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:
I played PC from Uprising 1.0 until now. Because YOU haven't seen me, doesn't mean I'm not in PC.
That being aside... in PC, you're using a Tank to mow down infantry solo, you SHOULD be able to be killed solo by the very targets you are mowing down. If you are required to have 2 people in your tank to simultaneously deal with both Vehicles and Infantry, then the power of the HAV can be increased exponentially so that 1 AV cannot be as effective against you.
Oh, and that guy in your turret, he's also fitted for battle, so you know, he can jump out, kill some guys, hack a turret, and get back in. You're talking as if he is completely confined within that zone, when he's not. Only the Commander is constrained to that extent to prevent enemies taking the HAV, or a team mate jumping into the wrong seat.
In effect you are using your HAV to multiply his effectiveness too. He can move faster, do more damage without wasting his own weapon's clip, and be protected inside your hull. All for giving up some manoeuvrability. With the option to get out, shoot people in the face as required.
Concerned about that pesky Dropship also? Hey, a Small Rail Turret on top actually deals with them very well. So a three-man HAV can have the ability to Take out other Tanks, Suppress Infantry, Kill infantry, and take out Aerial Targets in one package. And possibly require the use of multiple AV to eliminate the threat due to it's requirement of having 3 people inside.
Been running my HAV like that for a long time. My particular build was nothing special against other tanks when it was just me...... but put Aero and Humble Seeker in my turrets and no enemy tank could take us down unless I did something utter ridiculous.
Please remember im talking about PC NOT pubs. I know the small turrets can be pretty effective in pubs.
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11347
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:45:00 -
[42] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets... the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away. Current small turrets are too ineffective VS competent infantry. Buff the small turrets to make them more effective on a tank hull vs infantry, but that could create a imbalance when they are fitted to the ADS. Right now its impossible to justify the extra seat, ISK cost, SP cost, fitting cost and man power cost for a almost useless small turret.
DPS dude.
Small Railguns effectively nullify either Reps or Hardeners meaning I am applying the full damage of my main gun despite you using actives of heavy reps.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
341
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:49:00 -
[43] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets... the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away. Current small turrets are too ineffective VS competent infantry. Buff the small turrets to make them more effective on a tank hull vs infantry, but that could create a imbalance when they are fitted to the ADS. Right now its impossible to justify the extra seat, ISK cost, SP cost, fitting cost and man power cost for a almost useless small turret. DPS dude. Small Railguns effectively nullify either Reps or Hardeners meaning I am applying the full damage of my main gun despite you using actives of heavy reps.
opportunity cost dude, those 2 dudes in your tank are needed in the urban combat inside the city. Small rails have 200m range. Hostile tank has 100m in which your "advantage" is useless. & you gimped your tank fitting those 2 miny rails. GG
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11348
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:50:00 -
[44] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets... the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away. Current small turrets are too ineffective VS competent infantry. Buff the small turrets to make them more effective on a tank hull vs infantry, but that could create a imbalance when they are fitted to the ADS. Right now its impossible to justify the extra seat, ISK cost, SP cost, fitting cost and man power cost for a almost useless small turret. DPS dude. Small Railguns effectively nullify either Reps or Hardeners meaning I am applying the full damage of my main gun despite you using actives of heavy reps. opportunity cost dude, those 2 dudes in your tank are needed in the urban combat inside the city. Small rails have 200m range. Hostile tank has 100m in which your "advantage" is useless. & you gimped your tank fitting those 2 miny rails. GG
If you can rapidly deploy those 2 men to an objective, destroy an HAV, and cover them as they hack.....
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
341
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:57:00 -
[45] - Quote
Hypothetical, not battle proven concept.
& justice for all
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3892
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:01:00 -
[46] - Quote
Works for me.
I can hit people well enough from 50m; just take it slowly, do it carefully.
CCP Rattati Best Dev
AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5
CalLogi, you're next!
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
341
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:04:00 -
[47] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Works for me.
I can hit people well enough from 50m; just take it slowly, do it carefully.
Lol yeah shooting at stationary militia noobs is EZ.
& justice for all
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3892
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:04:00 -
[48] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets... the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away. Current small turrets are too ineffective VS competent infantry. Buff the small turrets to make them more effective on a tank hull vs infantry, but that could create a imbalance when they are fitted to the ADS. Right now its impossible to justify the extra seat, ISK cost, SP cost, fitting cost and man power cost for a almost useless small turret. DPS dude. Small Railguns effectively nullify either Reps or Hardeners meaning I am applying the full damage of my main gun despite you using actives of heavy reps.
You basically nullify that advantage by doing it on a Madrugar; your fitting abilities are too low for that to be effective at a competitive level, and he's right, there's no room for small turret gunners in PC.
I might consider fitting a 20GJ Particle Accelerator for some glorified LAV work, though.
That said though, I think blasters are fine.
I can pull a 20 kill match where once upon a time (like as in 1.6; I barely used blasters through 1.7) I'd have scored 30-40.
I don't see the problem here.
CCP Rattati Best Dev
AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5
CalLogi, you're next!
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3892
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:07:00 -
[49] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Works for me.
I can hit people well enough from 50m; just take it slowly, do it carefully. Lol yeah shooting at stationary militia noobs is EZ.
Yep, definitely those stationary strafing militia proto 1500 EHP AFG noobs.
Time your shots. Hold down the trigger and expect to miss. Short bursts, maybe even single shots. Or just QQ, I guess.
CCP Rattati Best Dev
AmLogi 5 GÇó AmAss 5 GÇó AmSent 4 GÇó CalScout 5
CalLogi, you're next!
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
341
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:09:00 -
[50] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Works for me.
I can hit people well enough from 50m; just take it slowly, do it carefully. Lol yeah shooting at stationary militia noobs is EZ. Yep, definitely those stationary strafing militia proto 1500 EHP AFG noobs. Time your shots. Hold down the trigger and expect to miss. Short bursts, maybe even single shots. Or just QQ, I guess.
or just brag bout playing on Oceania server. Its ok tho, one day you might make it in a high end PC match and see how its done.
& justice for all
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11349
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:10:00 -
[51] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Hypothetical, not battle proven concept.
Been doing it for months now it rarely fails.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
341
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:13:00 -
[52] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Hypothetical, not battle proven concept. Been doing it for months now it rarely fails.
got proof?
http://www.dustcharts.com/ cuz clearly 0.H's tank core has been doing something right.
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11351
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:19:00 -
[53] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Hypothetical, not battle proven concept. Been doing it for months now it rarely fails. got proof? http://www.dustcharts.com/ cuz clearly 0.H's tank core has been doing something right.
You like throwing that around a lot.
I shall away to ask yon Tiberius if I could join OH if I wanted to...... probably could..... I have too much respect of Lea and Tiberius as Amarr FW buddies to make comments about OH though.
In the end you either do or don't believe me. It does work, it wins matches before they even begin.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
341
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:25:00 -
[54] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Hypothetical, not battle proven concept. Been doing it for months now it rarely fails. got proof? http://www.dustcharts.com/ cuz clearly 0.H's tank core has been doing something right. You like throwing that around a lot. I shall away to ask yon Tiberius if I could join OH if I wanted to...... probably could..... I have too much respect of Lea and Tiberius as Amarr FW buddies to make comments about OH though. In the end you either do or don't believe me. It does work, it wins matches before they even begin.
Its called proof. I really don't believe you, and you really have no evidence. Therefore your point is invalid and small rail turrets as they are, become insufficient in their effectiveness in order to justify their cost. Point closed.
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11353
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:29:00 -
[55] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Hypothetical, not battle proven concept. Been doing it for months now it rarely fails. got proof? http://www.dustcharts.com/ cuz clearly 0.H's tank core has been doing something right. You like throwing that around a lot. I shall away to ask yon Tiberius if I could join OH if I wanted to...... probably could..... I have too much respect of Lea and Tiberius as Amarr FW buddies to make comments about OH though. In the end you either do or don't believe me. It does work, it wins matches before they even begin. Its called proof. I really don't believe you, and you really have no evidence. Therefore your point is invalid and small rail turrets as they are, become insufficient in their effectiveness in order to justify their cost. Point closed.
You haven't disproved my statement though......only thrown fallacious logic at it.......
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1244
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:46:00 -
[56] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets... the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away. Current small turrets are too ineffective VS competent infantry. Buff the small turrets to make them more effective on a tank hull vs infantry, but that could create a imbalance when they are fitted to the ADS. Right now its impossible to justify the extra seat, ISK cost, SP cost, fitting cost and man power cost for a almost useless small turret.
Small Railguns currently do enough damage to hurt vehicles.
STD Railgun is 334 Damage per shot. Firing a shot every .7 s, for a DPS of 477.14 (rounded). For 9-10 shot until overheat.
9 shots is 3006 Damage in 13 (rounded) seconds.
10 Shots is 3340 Damage in 14 (rounded) seconds.
Compared to the STD Forge gun (No Damage Mods).
1200 Damage per shot, with a charge Time of 4 seconds, for 300 DPS. With a max shot count of 4 in the clip.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
342
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:51:00 -
[57] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets... the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away. Current small turrets are too ineffective VS competent infantry. Buff the small turrets to make them more effective on a tank hull vs infantry, but that could create a imbalance when they are fitted to the ADS. Right now its impossible to justify the extra seat, ISK cost, SP cost, fitting cost and man power cost for a almost useless small turret. Small Railguns currently do enough damage to hurt vehicles. STD Railgun is 334 Damage per shot. Firing a shot every .7 s, for a DPS of 477.14 (rounded). For 9-10 shot until overheat. 9 shots is 3006 Damage in 13 (rounded) seconds. 10 Shots is 3340 Damage in 14 (rounded) seconds. Compared to the STD Forge gun (No Damage Mods). 1200 Damage per shot, with a charge Time of 4 seconds, for 300 DPS. With a max shot count of 4 in the clip.
Wheres the anti infantry capability? lol and brah no FC spares two men to man the miny rails. If that TSOLE tactic then it explains ur low district count. Dont care how much DPS the small turrets have, imagine those 2 being tanks themselves.....ya ur "DPS" out the window.
& justice for all
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1246
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 03:02:00 -
[58] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets... the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away. Current small turrets are too ineffective VS competent infantry. Buff the small turrets to make them more effective on a tank hull vs infantry, but that could create a imbalance when they are fitted to the ADS. Right now its impossible to justify the extra seat, ISK cost, SP cost, fitting cost and man power cost for a almost useless small turret. Small Railguns currently do enough damage to hurt vehicles. STD Railgun is 334 Damage per shot. Firing a shot every .7 s, for a DPS of 477.14 (rounded). For 9-10 shot until overheat. 9 shots is 3006 Damage in 13 (rounded) seconds. 10 Shots is 3340 Damage in 14 (rounded) seconds. Compared to the STD Forge gun (No Damage Mods). 1200 Damage per shot, with a charge Time of 4 seconds, for 300 DPS. With a max shot count of 4 in the clip. Wheres the anti infantry capability? lol and brah no FC spares two men to man the miny rails. If that TSOLE tactic then it explains ur low district count. Dont care how much DPS the small turrets have, imagine those 2 being tanks themselves.....ya ur "DPS" out the window.
The idea is that they man the rail or small turrets en route to the objective.. they then.. get this...
hop out... shock horror they can do that...
then run hack the point, drop uplinks etc, then get... get this
back into the HAV...
They trade some mobility in working around the area... for much greater speed, and extra buffer, and extra damage output capability that doesn't detract from their own reserves. It's shocking that you think 'urban combat' is restricted ONLY to people who stay on foot the entire game, where you can use HAVs as cover, damage dealers, and more IN ADDITION to their urban combat duties.
So you look at it like this.. It adds an 'extra role' on top of the person Infantry as well as the HAV.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
345
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 03:11:00 -
[59] - Quote
Lol so you would reduce the HAV to a glorified taxi. Scrub move. I can see the headlines already! WANNABCPM Jackal deprives the community of a healthy vehicle dynamic!
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11359
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 03:16:00 -
[60] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Lol so you would reduce the HAV to a glorified taxi. Scrub move. I can see the headlines already! WANNABCPM Jackal deprives the community of a healthy vehicle dynamic!
No he wants to make the HAV a powerful AV platform, and when manned, a powerful anti infantry platform.
MAV will fulfil the role of APC.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
|
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1247
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 03:21:00 -
[61] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Lol so you would reduce the HAV to a glorified taxi. Scrub move. I can see the headlines already! WANNABCPM Jackal deprives the community of a healthy vehicle dynamic!
No, I want HAVs to have a role as well.
HAVs are currently 'more focused' on Anti-Vehicle Duties due to their Large Turrets. The Smaller Turrets are a bit more varied with AI and AV turrets that can 'enhance' the roles of the guys inside.
To outline an example, I run a Caldari assault with RR, Locus Grenades etc, but no AV capability.. but pair me with a HAV driver who fits a Large Blaster and a Small Rail, suddenly I have the capacity in addition to my Anti-Infantry Capabilities as an Infanrty, the ability to Effectively anti-vehicle as well, and have somewhere I can 'bunker' to repair / heal.
Also, the ability to move faster from objective a to b to c.
This isn't a glorified taxi, it's considered a 'Force Multiplier', same as a Logistics suit with a Repair Tool could be a 'Glorified Mechanic', but are actually force multipliers when paired with a Heavy Armor-Tanked Suit.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
Quasar Storm
0uter.Heaven
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 03:53:00 -
[62] - Quote
Shadow is right. Blaster tanks are not worth a bucket of ****, Much less isk & SP to put them together. When I'm on my main, I can stand in front of an enemy blaster, Dodge the first shot, And stand still to dodge the rest. For real guys, Thats all you need to do. By calling out a blaster tank out you officially say, "Hey, I don't want to kill anything."
As for rail tanks.... Don't even get me started. |
Quasar Storm
0uter.Heaven
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 04:09:00 -
[63] - Quote
Oh, & btw Shadow, I've never laughed so hard at a forum post. This is really excellent stuff. lol
The Weather Man, Making sure the skies are clear.
|
Quasar Storm
0uter.Heaven
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 08:07:00 -
[64] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Lol so you would reduce the HAV to a glorified taxi. Scrub move. I can see the headlines already! WANNABCPM Jackal deprives the community of a healthy vehicle dynamic! No, I want HAVs to have a role as well. HAVs are currently 'more focused' on Anti-Vehicle Duties due to their Large Turrets. The Smaller Turrets are a bit more varied with AI and AV turrets that can 'enhance' the roles of the guys inside. To outline an example, I run a Caldari assault with RR, Locus Grenades etc, but no AV capability.. but pair me with a HAV driver who fits a Large Blaster and a Small Rail, suddenly I have the capacity in addition to my Anti-Infantry Capabilities as an Infanrty, the ability to Effectively anti-vehicle as well, and have somewhere I can 'bunker' to repair / heal. Also, the ability to move faster from objective a to b to c. This isn't a glorified taxi, it's considered a 'Force Multiplier', same as a Logistics suit with a Repair Tool could be a 'Glorified Mechanic', but are actually force multipliers when paired with a Heavy Armor-Tanked Suit.
Having a gunner the entire time in PC will not happen in PC. You can do raids with a gunner seat, But as far as 2 guys in one tank watching a point with the way tanks are these days, Its not happening. All the enemy has to do is 2v1 you with Sicas and its over and that is being nice about it. If you're going to have a gunner in anything, It would be best inside of a dropship.
Sure tank gunners are nice, But they belong in pubs. The full-time use just isn't solid enough for PC. I've been tanking in PCs for awhile now, And I can point out that you don't need them to have vehicle dominance or to become any more tactically inclined.
On another note though, Blasters do need a tweak. The dispersion is way too intense & for PCs they have become a no-go. Why? You can't kill seasoned PC players with them. The lack of blaster tanks means no real need for rail support. The only reason rails get called out today is to act as a AA for enemy ADS. THERE IS REALLY NO OTHER REASON. If there's no ADS then now, At this point, We just call rails to fight other rails. Its stupid and a waste of boots. So, I feel like if you feel you've made your rail tank have some better purpose, Thats awesome.
For the changes made for rail tanks, CCP needs to unnerf something. Give us range back or give us RoF back. Having everything nerfed makes rail tanks almost absolutely pointless. If CCP did cut down the dispersion on blasters, I believe Rail tanks would be deemed null effectiveness for taking them out & only seasoned rail pilots will stand a chance.
The Weather Man, Making sure the skies are clear.
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
367
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 10:47:00 -
[65] - Quote
Proper compromise is required to achieve a sensible solution.
Blaster dispersion tightened or removed, and RoF given back to the rails.
& justice for all
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11379
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 11:11:00 -
[66] - Quote
Quasar Storm wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Lol so you would reduce the HAV to a glorified taxi. Scrub move. I can see the headlines already! WANNABCPM Jackal deprives the community of a healthy vehicle dynamic! No, I want HAVs to have a role as well. HAVs are currently 'more focused' on Anti-Vehicle Duties due to their Large Turrets. The Smaller Turrets are a bit more varied with AI and AV turrets that can 'enhance' the roles of the guys inside. To outline an example, I run a Caldari assault with RR, Locus Grenades etc, but no AV capability.. but pair me with a HAV driver who fits a Large Blaster and a Small Rail, suddenly I have the capacity in addition to my Anti-Infantry Capabilities as an Infanrty, the ability to Effectively anti-vehicle as well, and have somewhere I can 'bunker' to repair / heal. Also, the ability to move faster from objective a to b to c. This isn't a glorified taxi, it's considered a 'Force Multiplier', same as a Logistics suit with a Repair Tool could be a 'Glorified Mechanic', but are actually force multipliers when paired with a Heavy Armor-Tanked Suit. Having a gunner the entire time in PC will not happen in PC. You can do raids with a gunner seat, But as far as 2 guys in one tank watching a point with the way tanks are these days, Its not happening. All the enemy has to do is 2v1 you with Sicas and its over and that is being nice about it. If you're going to have a gunner in anything, It would be best inside of a dropship. Sure tank gunners are nice, But they belong in pubs. The full-time use just isn't solid enough for PC. I've been tanking in PCs for awhile now, And I can point out that you don't need them to have vehicle dominance or to become any more tactically inclined. On another note though, Blasters do need a tweak. The dispersion is way too intense & for PCs they have become a no-go. Why? You can't kill seasoned PC players with them. The lack of blaster tanks means no real need for rail support. The only reason rails get called out today is to act as a AA for enemy ADS. THERE IS REALLY NO OTHER REASON. If there's no ADS then now, At this point, We just call rails to fight other rails. Its stupid and a waste of boots. So, I feel like if you feel you've made your rail tank have some better purpose, Thats awesome. For the changes made for rail tanks, CCP needs to unnerf something. Give us range back or give us RoF back. Having everything nerfed makes rail tanks almost absolutely pointless. If CCP did cut down the dispersion on blasters, I believe Rail tanks would be deemed null effectiveness for taking them out & only seasoned rail pilots will stand a chance.
Lol PC arbitrary 16 vs 16 fights....... I'mma love when you guys are exposed to real New Eden conflict.....
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1247
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 11:39:00 -
[67] - Quote
Quasar Storm wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Lol so you would reduce the HAV to a glorified taxi. Scrub move. I can see the headlines already! WANNABCPM Jackal deprives the community of a healthy vehicle dynamic! No, I want HAVs to have a role as well. HAVs are currently 'more focused' on Anti-Vehicle Duties due to their Large Turrets. The Smaller Turrets are a bit more varied with AI and AV turrets that can 'enhance' the roles of the guys inside. To outline an example, I run a Caldari assault with RR, Locus Grenades etc, but no AV capability.. but pair me with a HAV driver who fits a Large Blaster and a Small Rail, suddenly I have the capacity in addition to my Anti-Infantry Capabilities as an Infanrty, the ability to Effectively anti-vehicle as well, and have somewhere I can 'bunker' to repair / heal. Also, the ability to move faster from objective a to b to c. This isn't a glorified taxi, it's considered a 'Force Multiplier', same as a Logistics suit with a Repair Tool could be a 'Glorified Mechanic', but are actually force multipliers when paired with a Heavy Armor-Tanked Suit. Having a gunner the entire time in PC will not happen in PC. You can do raids with a gunner seat, But as far as 2 guys in one tank watching a point with the way tanks are these days, Its not happening. All the enemy has to do is 2v1 you with Sicas and its over and that is being nice about it. If you're going to have a gunner in anything, It would be best inside of a dropship. Sure tank gunners are nice, But they belong in pubs. The full-time use just isn't solid enough for PC. I've been tanking in PCs for awhile now, And I can point out that you don't need them to have vehicle dominance or to become any more tactically inclined. On another note though, Blasters do need a tweak. The dispersion is way too intense & for PCs they have become a no-go. Why? You can't kill seasoned PC players with them. The lack of blaster tanks means no real need for rail support. The only reason rails get called out today is to act as a AA for enemy ADS. THERE IS REALLY NO OTHER REASON. If there's no ADS then now, At this point, We just call rails to fight other rails. Its stupid and a waste of boots. So, I feel like if you feel you've made your rail tank have some better purpose, Thats awesome. For the changes made for rail tanks, CCP needs to unnerf something. Give us range back or give us RoF back. Having everything nerfed makes rail tanks almost absolutely pointless. If CCP did cut down the dispersion on blasters, I believe Rail tanks would be deemed null effectiveness for taking them out & only seasoned rail pilots will stand a chance.
I have actually pointed out that 'having gunners' all match is not the aim... but using the HAV as a force multiplier is. Faster transport, protection, and added arsenal on top of the normal role are added benefits. And they also benefit the HAV driver by giving them 'something else.'
Now onto the 2v1 Sicas... this is an issue, but it's not with the idea of gunners in PC matches, it's with the ability to drive a Sica and fit a sica, and utilise a sica at the drop of a hat. And 2 tanks will almost always 'annihilate' a single tank.. except through good skill, that would happen whether you had a gunner or not, Force Multiplier doesn't mean 2x for the same role, it's about role diversity as much as anything else.
The idea is that a Tank, with 2 gunners, can handle multiple roles, while a tank with just the driver, should not be able to.
Those gunners also 'get out' of the HAV to complete Infantry Objectives, such as hacking, placing uplinks etc. before getting back in.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1040
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 13:38:00 -
[68] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments.
Lol thinks PC corp gives him the right to talk down to other players........ I know right, must be a new guy. He just doesn't realize that I've smacked down my fair share of outer heaven "tankers". Don't worry OH, DDB is bringin tha tankin thunda. Me and my boy kami are BACK! lawl how bout u actually get some districts first, and show up to your battles with full 16 DDB, then you can come derail my thread with your irrelevancy. Keep your drama to the war room.
From you complaints, all I have for you is HTFU, get gud scrub. It's a failure on your part and not so much the mechanics.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1040
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 13:40:00 -
[69] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Proper compromise is required to achieve a sensible solution.
Blaster dispersion tightened or removed, and RoF given back to the rails.
OMG no, why don't you get it. Rails are fine and sure dispersion needs a little tweaking but not removed. Sorry that blasters work better at infantry suppression than straight up killing.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2289
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 14:12:00 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:LB was never supposed to be anti-infantry.
Didn't your weekly KDR average 30.0 or so before the blaster fix?
Or was it 50.0?
Can you not see how your Ambush farming caused problems?
Spare us your moaning. This isn't a single-player game.
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
|
|
Quasar Storm
0uter.Heaven
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 15:52:00 -
[71] - Quote
The Black Jackal wrote:Quasar Storm wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Lol so you would reduce the HAV to a glorified taxi. Scrub move. I can see the headlines already! WANNABCPM Jackal deprives the community of a healthy vehicle dynamic! No, I want HAVs to have a role as well. HAVs are currently 'more focused' on Anti-Vehicle Duties due to their Large Turrets. The Smaller Turrets are a bit more varied with AI and AV turrets that can 'enhance' the roles of the guys inside. To outline an example, I run a Caldari assault with RR, Locus Grenades etc, but no AV capability.. but pair me with a HAV driver who fits a Large Blaster and a Small Rail, suddenly I have the capacity in addition to my Anti-Infantry Capabilities as an Infanrty, the ability to Effectively anti-vehicle as well, and have somewhere I can 'bunker' to repair / heal. Also, the ability to move faster from objective a to b to c. This isn't a glorified taxi, it's considered a 'Force Multiplier', same as a Logistics suit with a Repair Tool could be a 'Glorified Mechanic', but are actually force multipliers when paired with a Heavy Armor-Tanked Suit. Having a gunner the entire time in PC will not happen in PC. You can do raids with a gunner seat, But as far as 2 guys in one tank watching a point with the way tanks are these days, Its not happening. All the enemy has to do is 2v1 you with Sicas and its over and that is being nice about it. If you're going to have a gunner in anything, It would be best inside of a dropship. Sure tank gunners are nice, But they belong in pubs. The full-time use just isn't solid enough for PC. I've been tanking in PCs for awhile now, And I can point out that you don't need them to have vehicle dominance or to become any more tactically inclined. On another note though, Blasters do need a tweak. The dispersion is way too intense & for PCs they have become a no-go. Why? You can't kill seasoned PC players with them. The lack of blaster tanks means no real need for rail support. The only reason rails get called out today is to act as a AA for enemy ADS. THERE IS REALLY NO OTHER REASON. If there's no ADS then now, At this point, We just call rails to fight other rails. Its stupid and a waste of boots. So, I feel like if you feel you've made your rail tank have some better purpose, Thats awesome. For the changes made for rail tanks, CCP needs to unnerf something. Give us range back or give us RoF back. Having everything nerfed makes rail tanks almost absolutely pointless. If CCP did cut down the dispersion on blasters, I believe Rail tanks would be deemed null effectiveness for taking them out & only seasoned rail pilots will stand a chance. I have actually pointed out that 'having gunners' all match is not the aim... but using the HAV as a force multiplier is. Faster transport, protection, and added arsenal on top of the normal role are added benefits. And they also benefit the HAV driver by giving them 'something else.' Now onto the 2v1 Sicas... this is an issue, but it's not with the idea of gunners in PC matches, it's with the ability to drive a Sica and fit a sica, and utilise a sica at the drop of a hat. And 2 tanks will almost always 'annihilate' a single tank.. except through good skill, that would happen whether you had a gunner or not, Force Multiplier doesn't mean 2x for the same role, it's about role diversity as much as anything else. The idea is that a Tank, with 2 gunners, can handle multiple roles, while a tank with just the driver, should not be able to. Those gunners also 'get out' of the HAV to complete Infantry Objectives, such as hacking, placing uplinks etc. before getting back in.
No I completely agree with making them force multipliers & I completely agree using gunner seats to hold infantry to help raid points. But its a situational use.
The Weather Man, Making sure the skies are clear.
|
Quasar Storm
0uter.Heaven
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 15:55:00 -
[72] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments.
Lol thinks PC corp gives him the right to talk down to other players........ I know right, must be a new guy. He just doesn't realize that I've smacked down my fair share of outer heaven "tankers". Don't worry OH, DDB is bringin tha tankin thunda. Me and my boy kami are BACK! lawl how bout u actually get some districts first, and show up to your battles with full 16 DDB, then you can come derail my thread with your irrelevancy. Keep your drama to the war room. From you complaints, all I have for you is HTFU, get gud scrub. It's a failure on your part and not so much the mechanics.
You have zero room to talk and calling others scrub, Because your team cries when we attack you.
The Weather Man, Making sure the skies are clear.
|
Quasar Storm
0uter.Heaven
6
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 15:58:00 -
[73] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Lol PC arbitrary 16 vs 16 fights....... I'mma love when you guys are exposed to real New Eden conflict.....
Not gonna give two ***** about New Eden once this game dies mate. o/
The Weather Man, Making sure the skies are clear.
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
370
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 17:27:00 -
[74] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:I know you ... Posted: 2014.05.17 22:44
Weekly Statistics
DUNA2002 - 2,637 kills, 9 deaths
Shadow of War88 - 462 kills, 6 deaths^ Though this week was an exceptionally good week for farming infantry, right? Do you think these numbers mean that you and Duna are good or that something is broken? Can you not see how risk-free farming and PvE-like statistics might cause problems? After months on end of button mashing, how is it that you and your ilk did not become bored? CCP Rattati wrote:LB was never supposed to be anti-infantry.
The peasant will be farmed regardless. By rifle, nade or blade they will die off due to the nature of the game. In PC that blaster is useless.
& justice for all
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1093
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 17:48:00 -
[75] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q
Chill out a bit.
L Blaster WAS stupendously effective infantry mass-slaying turret with surgical precision.
Current new model is better but not perfect
True, the random dispersion when firing full auto is mind-boggling and makes it impossible to hit infantry.
However, try tapping the trigger; you DO get accurate shots. With high damage of L Blaster that can still be used to kill infantry.
The problem with that is the very slow stabilization time (the speed for the reticle to re-tighten).
For that there's some good news: CCP aims to make it better. Source
:-S
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT.
General Tso's Alliance
2393
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 17:49:00 -
[76] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Changes I would like to see
A passive skill for tighter dispersion and/or nonstupid dispersion decay
The rail range buffed and heat build up buffed so that it can fire 5 consecutive shots without overheat It would make vehicle pilots feel.....like specialists. Like SP investment mattered. Good points all around. I miss meaningful core skills hell I don't even have damage mods to 5 because 3 was high enough for the longest time unless it was a complete glass cannon and I felt points into speed hacking and links was more useful now that their kinda pointless to run on most fits I might not even get that to 5. you dream big. CCP wont introduce new meaningfull skills. All i can hope for is a buff to blaster to create the demand for rail, and have rail rof back to where it was. With the games lifespan expected to end after DESTINY, i doubt they would spend much energy in creating skills. Keep your expectations realistic.
It wouldn't be to difficult to add 2% efficiency to shield hardeners to an existing skill. I'm not wishing for huge changes but small doable ones like those would be nice.
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT.
General Tso's Alliance
2393
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 17:49:00 -
[77] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Proper compromise is required to achieve a sensible solution.
Blaster dispersion tightened or removed, and RoF given back to the rails. OMG no, why don't you get it. Rails are fine and sure dispersion needs a little tweaking but not removed. Sorry that blasters work better at infantry suppression than straight up killing.
Are we playing the same game?
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2297
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 18:03:00 -
[78] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:I know you ... Posted: 2014.05.17 22:44
Weekly Statistics
DUNA2002 - 2,637 kills, 9 deaths
Shadow of War88 - 462 kills, 6 deaths^ Though this week was an exceptionally good week for farming infantry, right? Do you think these numbers mean that you and Duna are good or that something is broken? Can you not see how risk-free farming and PvE-like statistics might cause problems? After months on end of button mashing, how is it that you and your ilk did not become bored? CCP Rattati wrote:LB was never supposed to be anti-infantry. The peasant will be farmed regardless. By rifle, nade or blade they will die off due to the nature of the game. In PC that blaster is useless.
At least those "peasants" have a chance to fight back against infantry.
Tanker Mentality:
If they're gonna be farmed anyway, why not let me farm them without the slightest risk or threat of recourse?
Give me back my win-button so I can farm peasants.
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1040
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 18:18:00 -
[79] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Proper compromise is required to achieve a sensible solution.
Blaster dispersion tightened or removed, and RoF given back to the rails. OMG no, why don't you get it. Rails are fine and sure dispersion needs a little tweaking but not removed. Sorry that blasters work better at infantry suppression than straight up killing. Are we playing the same game?
Yes, I clearly have a different opinion of it than yourself. I'm still advocating though for a bit more variety on turrets and modules for vehicles.
But I do believe they have done a fine job improving the TTK among tanks. Which was the goal from the git go. I didn't like it at first but I've adjusted to it since then and realized things are a gloom and doom as everyone is saying.
For maddies yes though, I feel sorry. AV eats them for lunch, gunnlogis are the way to go now overall I think which certainly needs addressed.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
SteelDark Knight
Ancient Exiles.
General Tso's Alliance
477
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 18:18:00 -
[80] - Quote
In the past there was a role that REQUIRED gunners to be effective. It was the DropShip pre-ADS and it was horrible. The ultimate goal of any DS pilot was to go 0/0. For many, many months this issue was bitterly complained about from pilots and eventually the ADS was created to at least allow some participation by the pilot himself.
I'd really rather not repeat the mistakes of the past here.
There are many arguments about a "role" that tanks should play. Sadly, unless there is some hidden design team within CCP working on these things we likely won't see anything for Dust 514. For now the role has to be killing infantry because killing infantry is the basis for everything else such as ground AV and counter tanking roles. If a tank cannot kill infantry even with just the driver than there is no reason for all of these other roles as the game stands now.
I have heard many complaints about the large blaster. However, the problem was much more multifaceted than just calling out this one item. The fact is that a large part of the problem was that tanks were mostly invincible from infantry based AV. It took both of these things to be in place to create the recent tank issues we had. If AV had been more effective than Large Blaster complaints would have been much less.
Now, we have a situation were AV has been empowered via bug fixes, buffs, and damage profile corrections. At the same time we have nerfs to Vehicle repair, range, and turret damage and accuracy. In addition there are reports from CPM that acceleration is being looked at. All of these have swung the scales of balance in the opposite direction. Being a pilot is far from being an invincible killing machine now (which is as it should be) and I would argue not so fun and frustrating. Not because you get blown up but because your role has been taken away and on top of that you have very poor means to counter those whose roles are to counter you.
|
|
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1040
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 18:22:00 -
[81] - Quote
Quasar Storm wrote:
You have zero room to talk and calling others scrub, Because your team cries when we attack you.
:) Actually, we smile now
It is good to see though that you guys come out in force to protect / help one of your own. Guess you aren't THAT evil. Enjoy space though, things are gonna get rough up there for ya wink wink.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
376
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 19:44:00 -
[82] - Quote
SteelDark Knight wrote:In the past there was a role that REQUIRED gunners to be effective. It was the DropShip pre-ADS and it was horrible. The ultimate goal of any DS pilot was to go 0/0. For many, many months this issue was bitterly complained about from pilots and eventually the ADS was created to at least allow some participation by the pilot himself.
I'd really rather not repeat the mistakes of the past here.
There are many arguments about a "role" that tanks should play. Sadly, unless there is some hidden design team within CCP working on these things we likely won't see anything for Dust 514. For now the role has to be killing infantry because killing infantry is the basis for everything else such as ground AV and counter tanking roles. If a tank cannot kill infantry even with just the driver than there is no reason for all of these other roles as the game stands now.
I have heard many complaints about the large blaster. However, the problem was much more multifaceted than just calling out this one item. The fact is that a large part of the problem was that tanks were mostly invincible from infantry based AV. It took both of these things to be in place to create the recent tank issues we had. If AV had been more effective than Large Blaster complaints would have been much less.
Now, we have a situation were AV has been empowered via bug fixes, buffs, and damage profile corrections. At the same time we have nerfs to Vehicle repair, range, and turret damage and accuracy. In addition there are reports from CPM that acceleration is being looked at. All of these have swung the scales of balance in the opposite direction. Being a pilot is far from being an invincible killing machine now (which is as it should be) and I would argue not so fun and frustrating. Not because you get blown up but because your role has been taken away and on top of that you have very poor means to counter those whose roles are to counter you.
Its never changes in small portions with CCP. & is there a particular solution you would like to propose?
& justice for all
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1543
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 20:28:00 -
[83] - Quote
perhaps the issue is the lack of a medium turret and defining turret roles
small = highly effective ap at close range with little av effectiveness
medium = medium effective ap but at medium ranges, medium av at medium ranges
large = long range av with very low ap effectiveness
the choice is in the players hands then on where and how they fight and what if any contingency they carry. using smalls leaves you open to tanks and large leaves you open to light av. medium gives you a balance but ultimately less effective than the specific turret for the job
All Hail Legion
|
Quasar Storm
0uter.Heaven
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 23:58:00 -
[84] - Quote
SteelDark Knight wrote:In the past there was a role that REQUIRED gunners to be effective. It was the DropShip pre-ADS and it was horrible. The ultimate goal of any DS pilot was to go 0/0. For many, many months this issue was bitterly complained about from pilots and eventually the ADS was created to at least allow some participation by the pilot himself.
I'd really rather not repeat the mistakes of the past here.
There are many arguments about a "role" that tanks should play. Sadly, unless there is some hidden design team within CCP working on these things we likely won't see anything for Dust 514. For now the role has to be killing infantry because killing infantry is the basis for everything else such as ground AV and counter tanking roles. If a tank cannot kill infantry even with just the driver than there is no reason for all of these other roles as the game stands now.
I have heard many complaints about the large blaster. However, the problem was much more multifaceted than just calling out this one item. The fact is that a large part of the problem was that tanks were mostly invincible from infantry based AV. It took both of these things to be in place to create the recent tank issues we had. If AV had been more effective than Large Blaster complaints would have been much less.
Now, we have a situation were AV has been empowered via bug fixes, buffs, and damage profile corrections. At the same time we have nerfs to Vehicle repair, range, and turret damage and accuracy. In addition there are reports from CPM that acceleration is being looked at. All of these have swung the scales of balance in the opposite direction. Being a pilot is far from being an invincible killing machine now (which is as it should be) and I would argue not so fun and frustrating. Not because you get blown up but because your role has been taken away and on top of that you have very poor means to counter those whose roles are to counter you.
I salute you good sir! o7
The Weather Man, Making sure the skies are clear.
|
Quasar Storm
0uter.Heaven
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 00:08:00 -
[85] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Quasar Storm wrote:
You have zero room to talk and calling others scrub, Because your team cries when we attack you.
:) Actually, we smile now It is good to see though that you guys come out in force to protect / help one of your own. Guess you aren't THAT evil. Enjoy space though, things are gonna get rough up there for ya wink wink.
We were never evil. Actually we try our best to enjoy what is left of the game. But even at our best, You just can't enjoy it. We press on, Though, And just have fun. It is a game afterall.
Enjoy space? lulz When Destiny is out, Fuk this game and all of its Q_Q.
Back in Chrome, I had such high hopes for Dust. I had expected it to become a beast. Didn't expect it to become a baby sucking on a bottle of glue.
The Weather Man, Making sure the skies are clear.
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
General Tso's Alliance
1040
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 00:18:00 -
[86] - Quote
Quasar Storm wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Quasar Storm wrote:
You have zero room to talk and calling others scrub, Because your team cries when we attack you.
:) Actually, we smile now It is good to see though that you guys come out in force to protect / help one of your own. Guess you aren't THAT evil. Enjoy space though, things are gonna get rough up there for ya wink wink. We were never evil. Actually we try our best to enjoy what is left of the game. But even at our best, You just can't enjoy it. We press on, Though, And just have fun. It is a game afterall. Enjoy space? lulz When Destiny is out, Fuk this game and all of its Q_Q. Back in Chrome, I had such high hopes for Dust. I had expected it to become a beast. Didn't expect it to become a baby sucking on a bottle of glue.
I hear ya on destiny. I once had some high hopes for this game but it seems they decided to **** can it for this new game legion.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Zatara Rought
General Tso's Alliance
3458
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 00:49:00 -
[87] - Quote
Until CCP gives a definitive statement about what the purpose of large blaster turrets are, I feel like I can't assert that LBT's need less dispersion (whether through a skill or some other way). I spoke with a couple other tanks and they agreed with your sentiment that a scout can outstrafe blasters. But like I said, if blasters are supposed to be ineffective against infantry, then thats significant. However I do believe blasters need to be anti infantry effective. I think personally tanks need to have a purpose beyond destroying the the extremely effective anti infantry ADS and killing enemy tanks/lav's.
I for one would not be opposed to tanks getting a major buff to DPS in exchange for them losing out on their ability to traverse the battlefield quickly.
I for one do not know why rails need splash damage, at all. I have been VERY frustrated at times hacking a point only to be hit 4 times by spalsh damage that only required the ral to hit the point lazily. Min/maxing they don't do enough DPS IMO. And the range nerf was 2 strong, I hear tanks seriously concerned about the viability of rail tanking as opposed to forging, mobility being the only advantage. I personally view rails to be snipers of sorts.
I've spoken with tank pilots they would prefer tanks required more skill required of them in order to obtain a greater advantage over easier to use fits. Specifically I spoke with a few that preferred when tankers were required to be responsible for a lot of diverse modules as opposed to hitting all the damage mods or hardeners and then recalling when they ran out.
I humbly ask you support my candidacy for CPM1
CEO of FA Skype: Zatara.Rought
|
Gavr1Io Pr1nc1p
690
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 00:54:00 -
[88] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Apothecary Za'ki wrote:if you want anti personnel equip the small turrets too. the large ones are for AV only really so quite your belly aching silence peasant! In PC matches there is no available manpower to man the miny rails. Dont expect a noob to understand the complexities of PC however.
Then use your tank how its supposed to be used in PC...taking out ADS's....scrub
"Goddamn it! I have to take out my plasma cannon to kill him cause I can't kill him with my flay lock!"
-Buzz Kill
|
Takahashi Kashuken
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 12:40:00 -
[89] - Quote
Infantry wanted this
Players like Atiim wanted this
Its actually worse than 1.0 since vehicles now have less options in modules/hulls/skills/turrets |
Adipem Nothi
Nos Nothi
2304
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 14:22:00 -
[90] - Quote
Takahashi Kashuken wrote:Infantry wanted this
Players like Atiim wanted this
Its actually worse than 1.0 since vehicles now have less options in modules/hulls/skills/turrets
And what did you want, Taki?
Shoot scout with yes...
- Ripley Riley
|
|
|
Takahashi Kashuken
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
71
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 15:28:00 -
[91] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Takahashi Kashuken wrote:Infantry wanted this
Players like Atiim wanted this
Its actually worse than 1.0 since vehicles now have less options in modules/hulls/skills/turrets And what did you want, Taki?
Basically a copy and paste of EVE
Capacitors and all the mods you see in EVE brought into DUST for vehicles and infantry use, same with the skills and bonuses
Even without capacitors alot of the mods can be brought into DUST
Also a return to a 5/2 slot layout, maraders and enforcers can always be tweeked like the ADS was |
DontChimpOut
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 15:43:00 -
[92] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Takahashi Kashuken wrote:Infantry wanted this
Players like Atiim wanted this
Its actually worse than 1.0 since vehicles now have less options in modules/hulls/skills/turrets And what did you want, Taki?
Not-useless vehicles that have been nerfed 10 times before they can be used.
Not such useless vehicles that some nobody could say "YOLO" and run after it with nuclear baseballs and REs. That's just trash. |
Tread Loudly 2
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
6
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 16:49:00 -
[93] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry, that your better off using a rifle. They cloak, run, dance in front of you with a forge, jihad jeep you, so on. The ISK gap is enormous. These tanks are laughable. All you can do is spray and pray hoping for a random head-shot....Its just not fun. So unresponsive. You can tell CCP dosent play test. They stare at charts all day and corse random militia noobs get farmed by tanks. Then you go up against a competent squad and your useless.
No need for rail tanks if there's nothing killing off the infantry. CCP slaughtered tank specialists like never before. Ive spent 32 million SP in tanks and i never felt more useless in my entire DUST career. Im blessed to have a awesome corporation funding me, but i can only imagine what the average tank pilot must be dealing with.
Return the blaster to where it was or at least introduce a skill that tightens the dispersion. I often overheat before killing the scout strafing and throwing AV grenades. Rattati ever drive a tank? Sad thing is that CCP never does anything in a sensible manner. You swing the pendulum from OP to UP and so on. Baby steps when it comes to balance. "uhm ya we better fuk the rai l overheat, the damage, and how bout the damage mods too"....."yep that sounds good"......."oh wait we better slow down its rate of fire too". Fukin blaster is like a little kid taking his first **** on his own. Cant control that thing and it sprays everywhere.
When CCP introduces something, it will be the in its most OP state, then after a few full moons its rendered a lot more useless. Never in moderation with u ppl. End of Q.Q
Finally someone understands my pain ;_; I may have never used damage mods because I didn't like them.
However my rails are next to useless with the Militia 80GJ Railgun being able to do 7,830 HP of damage, while the Particle can only do 6,822 HP of damage before over heating.
My blaster well I dumped a clip and a half into a forge gunning heavy and let's just say I didn't make it out (I tried bursting with it but the dispersion couldn't reduce itself fast enough).
As for Missiles they are still relatively useless in terms of being able to fight infantry/shield tanks I understand the shield tank portion but infantry well c'mon it's a large missile with less blast radius than a flaylock which makes no sense.
I Like Tanks, ADS's, and Ion Pistols!
|
Cyrius Li-Moody
0uter.Heaven
5952
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 17:09:00 -
[94] - Quote
Blasters both small and large are terrible. I'm not even a full time tanker and I know this. AV has made quite a come back infantry wise so tanks are not as ridiculous killing machines as they used to be.
My Min commando can kill just about any tank after a single reload. My adv forge gun can kill a tank after a single reload. There's no more of this tanks repping through damage anymore.
Tanks have plenty of viable counters now a days. There's just been too many nerfs, fixes, and buffs that happened at the same time.
Youtuber. Your friendly neighborhood whiskey-fueled merc.
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
378
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 18:01:00 -
[95] - Quote
Cyrius Li-Moody wrote:Blasters both small and large are terrible. I'm not even a full time tanker and I know this. AV has made quite a come back infantry wise so tanks are not as ridiculous killing machines as they used to be.
My Min commando can kill just about any tank after a single reload. My adv forge gun can kill a tank after a single reload. There's no more of this tanks repping through damage anymore.
Tanks have plenty of viable counters now a days. There's just been too many nerfs, fixes, and buffs that happened at the same time.
I might pay you to make a video highlighting the ridiculous imbalance. I feel youtube would be a more powerful medium than the forums.
& justice for all
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT.
General Tso's Alliance
2407
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 18:10:00 -
[96] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:Until CCP gives a definitive statement about what the purpose of large blaster turrets are, I feel like I can't assert that LBT's need less dispersion (whether through a skill or some other way). I spoke with a couple other tanks and they agreed with your sentiment that a scout can outstrafe blasters. But like I said, if blasters are supposed to be ineffective against infantry, then thats significant. However I do believe blasters need to be anti infantry effective. I think personally tanks need to have a purpose beyond destroying the the extremely effective anti infantry ADS and killing enemy tanks/lav's.
I for one would not be opposed to tanks getting a major buff to DPS in exchange for them losing out on their ability to traverse the battlefield quickly.
I for one do not know why rails need splash damage, at all. I have been VERY frustrated at times hacking a point only to be hit 4 times by spalsh damage that only required the ral to hit the point lazily. Min/maxing they don't do enough DPS IMO. And the range nerf was 2 strong, I hear tanks seriously concerned about the viability of rail tanking as opposed to forging, mobility being the only advantage. I personally view rails to be snipers of sorts.
I've spoken with tank pilots they would prefer tanks required more skill required of them in order to obtain a greater advantage over easier to use fits. Specifically I spoke with a few that preferred when tankers were required to be responsible for a lot of diverse modules as opposed to hitting all the damage mods or hardeners and then recalling when they ran out.
The biggest problem I see is that they are not effective enough at their roles. Blaster tanks are good for two things killing infantry up close and since infantry are not likely to stand around 5m from your tank it's only really good for point coverage but when you can sit 200m+ away on a hill and do this which is especially potent on both HP's on the bridge map. It's other niche is killing rails CQC if a blaster gets in close your pretty screwed. What their lacking effective area denial, past a certain range which is not that far it's useless for it's intended role and if it can't kill you then it can't suppress you (or at least suppression is what I assume it's role was meant to be)
The rail is only really effective in point coverage which it shouldn't be and perhaps killing missile tanks. It has neither the damage nor the range or elevation to be truly effective at killing ADS because it takes around 2 at max 4 shots to kill one so if fit properly an ADS can just AB away after the first or second shot and if the ADS comes after you and you have no support your screwed. It needs to be a more effective ADS killer, because the forge gun does about the same damage with higher elevation and ability to get places tanks can't being more effective than an entire role..
The missiles niche is ROFL stomping armor tanks which they are good at and makes sense but the killing power it has on ADS doesn't it's arguably and in my opinion better at killing ADS's then rails. Missiles do all there damage in 2 seconds not giving the ADS pilot an opportunity to react and have the bonus of knocking it around a lot so if the 6,000+ burst damage doesn't kill it the collision damage from being knocked into a wall will. I don't even know for this one, though I would like to have more splash radius not less than a flaylock.
If the intention was Rails>Missiles>Blasters>Rails>ADS and the rails are not effective enough at killing ADS and it revolves around the rails and there killing power of ADS and to some regard missiles then the whole premise crumbles.
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
CHANCEtheChAn
0uter.Heaven
472
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 19:34:00 -
[97] - Quote
I agree and disagree with many of the points here
But here are a few pointers
- Currently militia rails are glitched to out DPS particle cannons and need a drastic fix for pubs and PC. I can't tell you how many times in the last 8 PCs I've tanked that I've seen proto tankers using militia railguns.
- Currently I find their is little indifference between a 100k sica, and a 500k Gunloggi other than an extra module slot and slightly higher DPs. Militia tanks with 0 SP investment are just as troublesome as a 32 million SP tanker due to lack of SP sinking skills that will give you an advantage over people with little to no SP themselves in tanks. If the money and SP is sunk into it, you should be noticeably better, aka the difference between a 20k militia suit and a 150k proto suit (More modules, better modules, more health, stronger weapons, better equipment, better resistances).
- The difference in prices for large turrets is distasteful in that you have to pay over a 200k ISK difference between a basic to a proto Large turret, and the only advantage is damage (For handheld weapons it used to be range, less heat build up, damage, etc.). I believe that if you have the sp invested to use a proto turret, and equip something that cost that outrageous an amount on a tank, you should be a defining force on the battlefield.
- Using small turrets on a tank competitively is useless. Turrets can only shoot ahead of you (Where most engagements do not happen, and if you face your tank straight ahead you have little to no ability to strafe damage) and at reduced range than an actual other tanker can fight. If you want another player to hop out a tank to hack and lay things down, just bring a second tanker to hop out. Also, if your gunner happens to hop out and die or you get engaged while he is busy, look at losing your tank battle due to the reducing efficacy of your tank to fit those small turrets.
- Propose a per level (basic/militia, advanced, proto) advancement in statistics for Large turrets if no skills are going to be included to make tankers happy
Closed Beta Vet/ Chromosome and Corp battle Vet/ Uprising 1.0-Now PC vet
Ex D.F. Director
Current Inner.Hell Director
|
CHANCEtheChAn
0uter.Heaven
472
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 20:16:00 -
[98] - Quote
PROPOSITION FOR LARGE TURRETS
At all levels, damages should should stay the same to keep a good balance
But because of recent nerfs, I think a few stats should be changed for large turrets due to DRASTIC increase in costs per level
- RAIL TURRETS
- Basic level- All stats should remain the same
- Advanced level- Railgun range should be increased up to 325-350 meters
- Proto level- Railgun range should be increased up to 350-400 meters
- BLASTER TURRETS
- Basic level- All stats should remain the same
- Advanced level- Blaster optimal range increased by 5-10 meters, and dispersion reduced 10%-25% from basic
- Proto level- Blaster optimal range increased 10-25 meters, and dispersion reduced 20%-40% from basic
- MISSILE TURRETS
- Basic level- All stats should remain the same
- Advanced level- Missile blast radius increased 25%-75% from basic, splash damage increased 10%-25%
- Proto level- Missile blast redius increased 75%-200% from basic, splash damage increased 20%-35%
Let me be perfectly clear, I think that ALL base numbers are the MINIMUM increases that should be applied per level, and the 2nd set of numbers are the maximum amount that I believe should be applied, if ever need be
This proposal gives all tankers what they want. Rails get more effective range to be anti AV and higher tiered rails have a definitive advantage over lower tiered rails at range
Blasters get more range to be effective at suppression and less dispersion to be better at CQC of vehicles an infantry(Currently the dispersion is so bad, its hard to even hit tanks or drop ships at 60 m+) and give better turret users clear range improvements to engage over less equipped tanks
Missile tanks get what they have ALWAYS wanted, and that is better splash, mainly to be somewhat of a anti-personel deterrent (Honestly when is the last time you saw a Missile tank as an infantry and ever been even the least bit frightened?) But since missile tanks are armor based killers, and have unlimited range, it is hard to give missile turrets a definitive increase in tank vs tank power
With this new improvements, we will all be seeing more improved turret usage in pubs, for tankers to gain clear advantages over other vehicle pilots.Right now in pubs, killing militia tanks and basic turret basic tanks is customary, and makes no real progression in fending off tanks, as they will just call in more, but as tankers begin to call in better turrets to battle better turreted tanks, killing 250k-500k Gunloggi will be worthwhile as you watch those tankers lose huge helpings of cash and begin to stop using vehicles altogether for the remainder of the match.
Also, this gives AV a clear target when fending off multiple tanks
As of now it really doesn't matter, but if an adv blaster Maddy roles up, and a basic blaster Maddy is right behind him, the more threatening tank can obviously be identified by having better stats and costing more
Essentially, "Mo money, mo fiapowa"
Let the QQ begin 
Closed Beta Vet/ Chromosome and Corp battle Vet/ Uprising 1.0-Now PC vet
Ex D.F. Director
Current Inner.Hell Director
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11453
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 20:45:00 -
[99] - Quote
Tanks in this game will never be balanced when their operators think its fine that their vehicles don't act like tanks.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
CHANCEtheChAn
0uter.Heaven
472
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 21:21:00 -
[100] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Tanks in this game will never be balanced when their operators think its fine that their vehicles don't act like tanks.
Depends on what your definition of "Tank" is
If you go by real life definition, then tanks are used for Anti vehicle, running through or over terrain to fuel infantry pushes, troop transport, and blowing up environments
Since dust has no terrain or environments to blow up, all that leaves is anti-vehicle and troop transport
And because troop transport would require the tank to be less effective (less pg and cpu to use) without troops in the tank
Your left with Anti-vehicle, in which this is not the case because their are three separate types of large turrets that some are better against infantry than certain types of vehicles
Closed Beta Vet/ Chromosome and Corp battle Vet/ Uprising 1.0-Now PC vet
Ex D.F. Director
Current Inner.Hell Director
|
|
|
Poison Howl
Tronhadar Free Guard
Minmatar Republic
142
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 21:34:00 -
[101] - Quote
You know I've seen people with their heads up their asses before, but this... the arrogance in this thread... kinda hard to believe I'm actually seeing this.
For every point of happiness we gain in this game, our madness increases exponentially.
|
Atiim
Fooly Cooly.
10109
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 21:43:00 -
[102] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Large blasters are so bad at taking out competent infantry
Working as intended.
CCP Rattati wrote:Small Blaster ROF and dispersion were increased to make it easier to hit infantry, the intent was buff.
How did Rail and dmg mod nerf change AV-Vehicle balance?
The only change like Atiim says, PLC buff, AV grenade slight buff, two bugfixes and rep nerf. LB was never supposed to be anti-infantry.
Taking Care of The Pilot Infestation in North American Skirmish
-HAND
|
Atiim
Fooly Cooly.
10109
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 21:48:00 -
[103] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Apothecary Za'ki wrote:if you want anti personnel equip the small turrets too. the large ones are for AV only really so quite your belly aching silence peasant! In PC matches there is no available manpower to man the miny rails. Dont expect a noob to understand the complexities of PC however.
Then fit a Mobile CRU and tell someone that they are relieved of their Uplink duty.
Taking Care of The Pilot Infestation in North American Skirmish
-HAND
|
Atiim
Fooly Cooly.
10110
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 22:27:00 -
[104] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:
lol your being hyper sensitive. PC is balance in its purest form. Strategy, experience and prototype vs prototype hardware. Achieve true balance there and it will trickle down to the pub matches. If you have no PC experience, how can you provide valuable input?
PC is a slideshow in it;s purest form.
Balances and imbalances are determined by the statistics of items and how they correlate with others. Due to this, "balance for PC" and "balance for PUBs" is non-existent, and mostly used by players who participate in PC who wish for an excuse to either create or maintain an imbalance (something your doing right now).
The PRO vs. PRO comment doesn't really hold merit, as balance is (and must) be achieved across all tiers, meaning even if [PRO vs. PRO] is balance, there needs to be a balance between [PRO vs. STD], [ADV vs. STD], etc. This is not to say however, that higher tiered items need to be superior to lowered tiered items.
A good example of why "exclusive balance for highest tier" is not good,, is the Swarm Launcher vs. HAV.
- PRO Swarm Launcher vs Complex HAV is about a 60/40 situation
- ADV Swarm Launcher vs. Enhanced HAV is a 50/50 situation
- STD Swarm Launcher vs Basic HAV is a 25/75 situation
This may seem good, because PRO and ADV (for the most part) is balanced right? Well, not quite. While a PRO or ADV Swarm user may have a decent chance against an equally tiered opponent, those using a STD or MLT Swarm Launcher against an equally tiered opponent will find that the target is nearly invincible.
You may not care (as you most likely don't use STD gear), but do you not find that a player being able to take a STD/Basic HAV into the battle academy and be theoretically invincible?
As for True Adamance being "overly sensitive", the term over-sensitive is defined as:
Quote:
excessively responsive to or aware of feelings, reactions, etc
None of what he said meets that perquisite, so no he is not being "overly sensitive", he's actually providing criticism. Though perhaps I should be equally abrasive and condescending to you (after all, the tanker mentality is that you should only be able to fight fire with fire, right?). 
Q: "How could someone as uneducated and ignorant as you possibly provide meaningful feedback?"
A: Your incapable of provide meaningful feedback in any way, condition, shape, or form. That's already been proven by the original post and your comments within this thread.
Taking Care of The Pilot Infestation in North American Skirmish
-HAND
|
SteelDark Knight
Ancient Exiles.
General Tso's Alliance
481
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 23:08:00 -
[105] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:
Its never changes in small portions with CCP. & is there a particular solution you would like to propose?
First I want to state that I sympathize with what the new developer group is trying to accomplish. It is not going to be easy and the majority of the time when you get it wrong you are going to alienate a good portion of your player base depending on which side of the aisle you are on. I won't claim that I have all the answers. Obviously, the overpowered tanks of the recent past needed corrected and I think CCP has done that in its recent set of balance changes. They were "right" more than wrong in the recent update.
With that said I think that perhaps they hit too many areas at once and may have tipped the scale to far the other way. In addition with the Large Blaster they did so in way that, while it generated the desired effect, is frustrating and feels unfair to players which is not something you want to do as a designer (and yes invincible tanks did this as well). I believe that any weapon in a FPS that by design doesn't hit were you aim the majority of the time and doesnGÇÖt give any ability to counter it is a poor design. They appeased one side of the player base by making it frustrating for the other. The player does everything he is supposed to but cannot defend himself because the random number generator decides his shot doesn't go where he aimed it.
I have a long list of things IGÇÖd like to see done such as making pilot skills more relevant (i.e. someone whom skills heavily in the area should have bonuses that match) but for this conversation IGÇÖll keep it simple and ask a question.
Would the blaster tank of the recent past have been anywhere near the issues it created if the AV buffs, Bug fixes, and defensive nerfs of tanks been in place then? To me that was the real problem all along and in breaking it and leaving it as it was for months a huge disservice was done to ALL players. There is nothing wrong with large blaster tanks killing infantry as long as the counters are viable and in the end tanks that kill infantry create a wide variety of counter roles and content.
TL:DR:
1# LBT's killing infantry is o.k as long as viable counters are available. In fact it is needed to generate the need for those counter roles. This does not mean return blasters fully to prior state but it does mean they need to be better than where they stand now.
2# Excessive dispersion with no means to counter it is bad design for many reasons
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11457
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 23:14:00 -
[106] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Apothecary Za'ki wrote:if you want anti personnel equip the small turrets too. the large ones are for AV only really so quite your belly aching silence peasant! In PC matches there is no available manpower to man the miny rails. Dont expect a noob to understand the complexities of PC however. Then fit a Mobile CRU and tell someone that they are relieved of their Uplink duty.
For all intensive purposes Atiim and I'd honestly trust you more than this jack off...... is PC really that complex?
I can understand if you said intense......but not any more or less complex than any other game mode. Mechanics are still the same, maps the same, etc.
And lets be honest FPS players aren't that complex.......
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
CHANCEtheChAn
0uter.Heaven
472
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 23:17:00 -
[107] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
lol your being hyper sensitive. PC is balance in its purest form. Strategy, experience and prototype vs prototype hardware. Achieve true balance there and it will trickle down to the pub matches. If you have no PC experience, how can you provide valuable input?
PC is a slideshow in it;s purest form. A good example of why "exclusive balance for highest tier" is not good,, is the Swarm Launcher vs. HAV.
- PRO Swarm Launcher vs Complex HAV is about a 60/40 situation
- ADV Swarm Launcher vs. Enhanced HAV is a 50/50 situation
- STD Swarm Launcher vs Basic HAV is a 25/75 situation
You may not care (as you most likely don't use STD gear), but do you not find that a player being able to take a STD/Basic HAV into the battle academy and be theoretically invincible? As for True Adamance being "overly sensitive", the term over-sensitive is defined as: Quote:
excessively responsive to or aware of feelings, reactions, etc
None of what he said meets that perquisite, so no he is not being "overly sensitive", he's actually providing criticism. Though perhaps I should be equally abrasive and condescending to you (after all, the tanker mentality is that you should only be able to fight fire with fire, right?).
- PC is a slideshow? Dont exactly know when is the last time you were in PC, but I haven't hard lagged or " Slideshowed" in roughly the last 80 PC matches I've played except for surface research lab. Yeah you get the occasional lag spike, or the server occasionally seems to crash, but what else is new on DUST
- Honestly anything under basic in swarm launchers on a HAV is a joke BUT not to other vehicles such as drop ships or LAVs. Even a militia swarm launcher can be detrimental to these other vehicles, thus they are balanced, as a SINGLE proto swarm launcher user can do enough DPS to send my Gunloggi scurrying to hide and kill it on the second reload if I get caught on something (Which all tankers do)
- Honestly the battle academy is a laugh and a joke and you know that, but its besides the point, the point being that militia HAVs should have a giant Nerf sticker put on them to prevent tank spamming and etc etc
- Don't get your panties in a bunch over what Shadow of War says to you. He speaks to most people that have not been battle tested like this. But he has been through every MH war and every cue and backstab for the last year and a half and has consistently shown to be one of the very best DUST has ever seen on the battlefield. Shadow is a war monger and speaks as one. If you feel as though you are "special" for being talked down to, don't be.
If your with Shadow and it isn't done by the book and to the letter he gets pissed, a by-product of the caliber of play our players and corp have achieved through many battles. He is not being condescending to everyone, he takes the thrill of the battle seriously as do I and we laugh and have fun after mission accomplished.
As of now, the mission is to get tanks changed for the better and better input on the matter for competitive play. If he has not seen you, or you do not compete competitively then he sees no reason for your input, or why you are even here to begin with
Honestly if you are here for the people, there are 10,000 other games you could go play with them on. Otherwise pub matches are filled with trolls and academy scrubs. Why else be here if not for the meta and PC environment?
Closed Beta Vet/ Chromosome and Corp battle Vet/ Uprising 1.0-Now PC vet
Ex D.F. Director
Current Inner.Hell Director
|
CHANCEtheChAn
0uter.Heaven
473
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 23:36:00 -
[108] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Apothecary Za'ki wrote:if you want anti personnel equip the small turrets too. the large ones are for AV only really so quite your belly aching silence peasant! In PC matches there is no available manpower to man the miny rails. Dont expect a noob to understand the complexities of PC however. Then fit a Mobile CRU and tell someone that they are relieved of their Uplink duty. For all intensive purposes Atiim and I'd honestly trust you more than this jack off...... is PC really that complex? I can understand if you said intense......but not any more or less complex than any other game mode. Mechanics are still the same, maps the same, etc. And lets be honest FPS players aren't that complex.......
Yes PC is that complex
MOST teams spend the ENTIRE 10 minutes in the warbarge planning for the PC, and get into the battle and have to plan even more
Every map and every socket placement and every difference in how many points and which players are available to you and who your enemy is and who they bring dictate a different plan nearly every single PC you play, and I've played over 500
You have to have a set number of tanks, and ADS, and forgers for AV, but too much and your ground game suffers. Bring in too many slayers and you get pushed out of vital areas with lack of equipment and support.
Too much support and you just get rolled over with Sentinel spam
Tanks are busy and an ADS in the city? You have to make sure you have someone on standby with swarms or forge to counter or risk getting shredded
Enemy team losing ground battle? They might counter by taking their 4 vehicle pilots and putting them on the ground, now your outnumbered.
Lost high ground? Now you have to take players away from the fight to reset it. Do you risk removing your players and getting over in by numbers? Or do you risk the incoming rain? When you take high ground, do you keep it when the enemy moves away? Or leave it and risk a counter attack
PC on DUST is probably the most competitive thing I've ever played. No other game has even come close in comparison. The best thing I can stress in PC intensity in a video game is sitting with 20 kills and the 25 Kill streak NUKE equipped on MW2 and not knowing whether to camp or proceed into the fight, to stay put and wait, or follow your team. All the while the timer has just hit 1 minute.
Every last move you make in a PC match could mean a loss or a victory, and a loss could mean hundreds of millions of ISK loss. And a win can be a foothold for the future of an uprising star corp.
TL&DR
PC is the bees knees of competitive play
You will not find thrill like this playing anything else
Here, you will shape your future with the choices you make
And as a corporation make
If you have not played for your corp in PC I feel sorry for you
GG
Closed Beta Vet/ Chromosome and Corp battle Vet/ Uprising 1.0-Now PC vet
Ex D.F. Director
Current Inner.Hell Director
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11460
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 23:44:00 -
[109] - Quote
CHANCEtheChAn wrote:True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Apothecary Za'ki wrote:if you want anti personnel equip the small turrets too. the large ones are for AV only really so quite your belly aching silence peasant! In PC matches there is no available manpower to man the miny rails. Dont expect a noob to understand the complexities of PC however. Then fit a Mobile CRU and tell someone that they are relieved of their Uplink duty. For all intensive purposes Atiim and I'd honestly trust you more than this jack off...... is PC really that complex? I can understand if you said intense......but not any more or less complex than any other game mode. Mechanics are still the same, maps the same, etc. And lets be honest FPS players aren't that complex....... Yes PC is that complex MOST teams spend the ENTIRE 10 minutes in the warbarge planning for the PC, and get into the battle and have to plan even more Every map and every socket placement and every difference in how many points and which players are available to you and who your enemy is and who they bring dictate a different plan nearly every single PC you play, and I've played over 500 You have to have a set number of tanks, and ADS, and forgers for AV, but too much and your ground game suffers. Bring in too many slayers and you get pushed out of vital areas with lack of equipment and support. Too much support and you just get rolled over with Sentinel spam Tanks are busy and an ADS in the city? You have to make sure you have someone on standby with swarms or forge to counter or risk getting shredded Enemy team losing ground battle? They might counter by taking their 4 vehicle pilots and putting them on the ground, now your outnumbered. Lost high ground? Now you have to take players away from the fight to reset it. Do you risk removing your players and getting over in by numbers? Or do you risk the incoming rain? When you take high ground, do you keep it when the enemy moves away? Or leave it and risk a counter attack PC on DUST is probably the most competitive thing I've ever played. No other game has even come close in comparison. The best thing I can stress in PC intensity in a video game is sitting with 20 kills and the 25 Kill streak NUKE equipped on MW2 and not knowing whether to camp or proceed into the fight, to stay put and wait, or follow your team. All the while the timer has just hit 1 minute. Every last move you make in a PC match could mean a loss or a victory, and a loss could mean hundreds of millions of ISK loss. And a win can be a foothold for the future of an uprising star corp. TL&DRPC is the bees knees of competitive play You will not find thrill like this playing anything else Here, you will shape your future with the choices you make And as a corporation make If you have not played for your corp in PC I feel sorry for you GG
Sounds no different from how our treat Factional Warfare....... issue with PC that there is no point to it.
Holding a district in the arse end of Minmatar space?
I'll pass.... I mean your districts only serve as much meaning as you attribute them. Just like our Temple which we set up on a planet, the POSes we own, the Capitals we station on...... etc
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Atiim
Fooly Cooly.
10111
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 23:58:00 -
[110] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
For all intensive purposes Atiim and I'd honestly trust you more than this jack off...... is PC really that complex?
I can understand if you said intense......but not any more or less complex than any other game mode. Mechanics are still the same, maps the same, etc.
And lets be honest FPS players aren't that complex.......
Imagine a 16v16 q-sync with everyone running full PRO (and FoTM) gear in Skirmish.
That's about as complex as it gets.
Taking Care of The Pilot Infestation in North American Skirmish
-HAND
|
|
|
Atiim
Fooly Cooly.
10111
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 00:02:00 -
[111] - Quote
Reserved.
Taking Care of The Pilot Infestation in North American Skirmish
-HAND
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11460
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 00:09:00 -
[112] - Quote
Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:
For all intensive purposes Atiim and I'd honestly trust you more than this jack off...... is PC really that complex?
I can understand if you said intense......but not any more or less complex than any other game mode. Mechanics are still the same, maps the same, etc.
And lets be honest FPS players aren't that complex.......
Imagine a 16v16 q-sync with everyone running full PRO (and FoTM) gear in Skirmish. That's about as complex as it gets.
So the loudest entitled players masquerading and MLG circuit 1337 pro 5k1llz0rz
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Atiim
Fooly Cooly.
10114
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 03:02:00 -
[113] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:
For all intensive purposes Atiim and I'd honestly trust you more than this jack off...... is PC really that complex?
I can understand if you said intense......but not any more or less complex than any other game mode. Mechanics are still the same, maps the same, etc.
And lets be honest FPS players aren't that complex.......
Imagine a 16v16 q-sync with everyone running full PRO (and FoTM) gear in Skirmish. That's about as complex as it gets. So the loudest, self entitled players masquerading and MLG circuit 1337 pro 5k1llz0rz?
Yep.
But, it also features "meta-game". Though most of the people in PC are terrible at meta and their plans are so blatantly obvious that it may as well be a cheesy American sitcom from the mid '90s.
Taking Care of The Pilot Infestation in North American Skirmish
-HAND
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11476
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 03:12:00 -
[114] - Quote
Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:
For all intensive purposes Atiim and I'd honestly trust you more than this jack off...... is PC really that complex?
I can understand if you said intense......but not any more or less complex than any other game mode. Mechanics are still the same, maps the same, etc.
And lets be honest FPS players aren't that complex.......
Imagine a 16v16 q-sync with everyone running full PRO (and FoTM) gear in Skirmish. That's about as complex as it gets. So the loudest, self entitled players masquerading and MLG circuit 1337 pro 5k1llz0rz? Yep. But, it also features "meta-game". Though most of the people in PC are terrible at meta and their plans are so blatantly obvious that it may as well be a cheesy American sitcom from the mid '90s.
Yeah I remember Ghostt Shadow's
"My hundreds of men will launch a surprise attack" announcement....or the "We want to make a league in Molden Heath"...or the always classic and most ridiculous of all the idiotics posts "We are locking our districts to enforce change".
I would say to the Warroom get good at Meta.....but most of them probably don't understand what that actually entails.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Argetlam Thorson
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 03:31:00 -
[115] - Quote
Does Shadow of War even PC? I'm pretty sure I've never seen him in a PC...ever. Considering how often we fight OH, how often I'm fielded by my corp, and the fact that I didn't even know he existed before today, I'm curious as to how credible he is as an authority on PC gameplay.
Anyway, moving on, Large Rails should not have a range greater than a FG. I should not be getting sniped from outside my absolute range by a vehicle that can do the same damage per shot, shoot much faster, move much faster, and on top of that, has 5x my HP. If anything, I should have the slight range advantage as they can one shot me but it takes me 3-4 shouts to take them down. That's 12-16 seconds of me shooting one guy who can one shot me and moves faster than I do and as such can escape my range without much difficulty, not to mention the fact that I have to worry about infantry. I don't say this to attempt to say Forges are UP, I'm just saying that if Rail Turrets get a buff to range, the forges need the same buff as well.
As for the old "I win" tin can, you should not be able to solo god mode the other team, just because you are in a tank. Large turrets are should be good AV, small should be good AI. Nothing should be good against everything, just like my Forge is terribad up close usually (except when low HP scouts get owned by splash and scrub heavies take a forge round to the chest).
CPM1 Candidate
Youtube
|
Hakyou Brutor
G0DS AM0NG MEN
819
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 03:33:00 -
[116] - Quote
I think he's on his infantry guy in PC a lot. Delta Bliztkrieg, I believe.
I could be completely wrong though.
"I never pull out" ~Ace Boone, 2014.
|
Argetlam Thorson
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 03:38:00 -
[117] - Quote
Hakyou Brutor wrote:I think he's on his infantry guy in PC a lot. Delta Bliztkrieg, I believe.
I could be completely wrong though.
That name doesn't sound familiar at all either.
CPM1 Candidate
Youtube
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11480
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 03:43:00 -
[118] - Quote
Argetlam Thorson wrote:Does Shadow of War even PC? I'm pretty sure I've never seen him in a PC...ever. Considering how often we fight OH, how often I'm fielded by my corp, and the fact that I didn't even know he existed before today, I'm curious as to how credible he is as an authority on PC gameplay.
Anyway, moving on, Large Rails should not have a range greater than a FG. I should not be getting sniped from outside my absolute range by a vehicle that can do the same damage per shot, shoot much faster, move much faster, and on top of that, has 5x my HP. If anything, I should have the slight range advantage as they can one shot me but it takes me 3-4 shouts to take them down. That's 12-16 seconds of me shooting one guy who can one shot me and moves faster than I do and as such can escape my range without much difficulty, not to mention the fact that I have to worry about infantry. I don't say this to attempt to say Forges are UP, I'm just saying that if Rail Turrets get a buff to range, the forges need the same buff as well.
As for the old "I win" tin can, you should not be able to solo god mode the other team, just because you are in a tank. Large turrets are should be good AV, small should be good AI. Nothing should be good against everything, just like my Forge is terribad up close usually (except when low HP scouts get owned by splash and scrub heavies take a forge round to the chest).
Lol.....
About shadow.
But Argetlam my Rail Turret is 5x the size of your forge gun...why even mount it on an HAV if it is not simply better than a Forgegun?
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Argetlam Thorson
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 03:49:00 -
[119] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
But Argetlam my Rail Turret is 5x the size of your forge gun...why even mount it on an HAV if it is not simply better than a Forgegun?
For the HP, the speed of transport, and the RoF. Maybe the Damage mods, but I don't know much about them since I don't use vehicles often.
CPM1 Candidate
Youtube
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11482
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 03:56:00 -
[120] - Quote
Argetlam Thorson wrote:True Adamance wrote:
But Argetlam my Rail Turret is 5x the size of your forge gun...why even mount it on an HAV if it is not simply better than a Forgegun?
For the HP, the speed of transport, and the RoF. Maybe the Damage mods, but I don't know much about them since I don't use vehicles often.
Active Damage Modules need to die a horrible death.
What I wish to suggest should be done with HAV is that Large Turrets have their Anti Infantry power reduced consderably. They will, without the appropriate skills, track slowly, be the greatest part of any HAV's fitting requirements, and be primarily designed to hurt vehicles.
Relatively slow RoF, Low Magazine Cap, with AoE effects to simulate the inherently greater fire power. HAV would have to rely on either superior targeting skills or small turrets to protect themselves from infantry.
HAV power lies in their main guns being indisputably the best AV option (yes ideally call in tanks to deal with tanks resulting in large vehicle battles against one another), their armour is strong, and module use is based off capacitor.
Their weaknesses lie in their inability to directly engage infantry and air targets, vehicle weak points (rear), and the fact their module activation is based of a depleting capacitor.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
|
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
Psychotic Alliance
1412
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 04:43:00 -
[121] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:I am all for sensible changes. 6 OP tanks in ambush was ridiculous and not fun for anyone, but having infantry in proto gear dance 40 meters in front of you while bombarding you with AV and your blaster cant seem to hit sh!t....that's not balance. Not 32 million SP and half a million ISK war machine gets outdone by one 150k infantry.
Remember tanks are very situational. They cant take points or invade effectively in urban combat.
I know..... I have been tanking for a very long time...... And I have in my mind a role for HAV since we currently don't have one. And it is what I has stated. However I think that an HAV pilot should be able to switch between control of a Large turret for AV fire, and a Light Turret for anti infantry fire (( basically finding reasons for HAV pilots to fill up turret slots and stop fitting HAV for pure tank)).
As in the tanker switches seats, or the tanker loses control of his main gun to fire a side gun while still driving the tank?
Calmanndo user with nova knives: Because someone has to do it.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11486
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 06:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:True Adamance wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:I am all for sensible changes. 6 OP tanks in ambush was ridiculous and not fun for anyone, but having infantry in proto gear dance 40 meters in front of you while bombarding you with AV and your blaster cant seem to hit sh!t....that's not balance. Not 32 million SP and half a million ISK war machine gets outdone by one 150k infantry.
Remember tanks are very situational. They cant take points or invade effectively in urban combat.
I know..... I have been tanking for a very long time...... And I have in my mind a role for HAV since we currently don't have one. And it is what I has stated. However I think that an HAV pilot should be able to switch between control of a Large turret for AV fire, and a Light Turret for anti infantry fire (( basically finding reasons for HAV pilots to fill up turret slots and stop fitting HAV for pure tank)). As in the tanker switches seats, or the tanker loses control of his main gun to fire a side gun while still driving the tank?
No no no
I would like to think a pilot might be able to switch control of the main turret to a fitted small turret (just like switching to a side arm). Almost in the same way a tank in the battlefield series can cycle through to its coaxial machine gun.
During that time the turret fires as if it was being manned.
Perhaps that is one way to balance HAV without taking anti infantry away from them totally.
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Auris Lionesse
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
914
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 07:18:00 -
[123] - Quote
last time i used a large blaster it was a monster
im no tanker, i hate tanks tbh, but i had no issue dancing with forge heavies.
some of my favorite kills are playing peekaboo with heavies at 200m and sniping them with a railgun while they stop to fire before they duck back in cover.
Gallente Heavy Ninja Turtles! Gallente Heavy Ninja Turtles!
Heroes in a half Gank!
TURTLE POWER!!!
|
manboar thunder fist
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
58
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 09:28:00 -
[124] - Quote
I still go 30+ with a neutron blaster madrugar and kill several gunnlogi and other madrugar in the process. These less skilled tankers just want an instakill OP weapon. Well guess what, the time of being a 1 man death machine is over. Learn 2 gunners. With my madrugar with missiles and 2 particle accelerators we get over 10,000 wp between us and kill around 60 ppl per match.
NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES
nerf life
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
395
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 16:27:00 -
[125] - Quote
manboar thunder fist wrote:I still go 30+ with a neutron blaster madrugar and kill several gunnlogi and other madrugar in the process. These less skilled tankers just want an instakill OP weapon. Well guess what, the time of being a 1 man death machine is over. Learn 2 gunners. With my madrugar with missiles and 2 particle accelerators we get over 10,000 wp between us and kill around 60 ppl per match.
lawl not talking bout pubs.
& justice for all
|
CHANCEtheChAn
0uter.Heaven
475
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 21:13:00 -
[126] - Quote
Argetlam Thorson wrote:Hakyou Brutor wrote:I think he's on his infantry guy in PC a lot. Delta Bliztkrieg, I believe.
I could be completely wrong though. That name doesn't sound familiar at all either.
Lmao have you ever even PCed bro?
D3lta blitzkrieg was a squad cup tourney winner
And has been kicking ass since Chrome days
But Shadow has like 4 alts he plays
He also runs Scout Hunter II as I.H. CEO
He hasn't played PC on shadow in a while because of recent tank changes
But he, as lead tank, is the one that won us those 30/40 districts we now own and through his training has made the few 0.H./ I.H. tankers some of the best in the game
Learn your place on the food chain
Closed Beta Vet/ Chromosome and Corp battle Vet/ Uprising 1.0-Now PC vet
Ex D.F. Director
Current Inner.Hell Director
|
Atiim
Fooly Cooly.
10134
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 21:34:00 -
[127] - Quote
CHANCEtheChAn wrote:
Learn your place on the food chain
The high end of the "food chain" (in most instances) is usually reserved for those who do something that's actually important (and beneficial) to society (or in this case, playerbase).
The Molden Heath subset does nothing of the former, so I assume that you need to learn yours. (Hint; it's at the bottom).
AVers: The Most Persistent Playerbase in DUST 514
-HAND
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11497
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 21:38:00 -
[128] - Quote
CHANCEtheChAn wrote:Argetlam Thorson wrote:Hakyou Brutor wrote:I think he's on his infantry guy in PC a lot. Delta Bliztkrieg, I believe.
I could be completely wrong though. That name doesn't sound familiar at all either. Lmao have you ever even PCed bro? D3lta blitzkrieg was a squad cup tourney winner And has been kicking ass since Chrome days But Shadow has like 4 alts he Switches between He is also I.H. CEO He hasn't played PC on shadow in a while because of recent tank changes But he, as lead tank, is the one that won us those 30/40 districts we now own and through his training has made the few 0.H./ I.H. tankers some of the best in the game Learn your place on the food chain
Doesn't mean he can act like a ****.
He's a CEO big deal you know I happen to know the CEO of Intermediate Purgatory.....I may or may not have an Alt in that corp.
I.P > O.H and I.H combined
" We need to reclaim their fates and envelop them in ours. And we need to love them, no matter how much it hurts."
|
Will Driver
Horizons' Edge
Proficiency V.
99
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 21:41:00 -
[129] - Quote
I see you have your share of support among the Tanker community, but I don't agree with making missile turrets more effective against infantry with "sharpshooter" skill or other adjustments of that kind. Tankers have had their way with infantry for far too long, now is the time to actually get good, learn and adapt, just like everyone else.
I also do not agree with increasing their effective range. Sitting back out of harms way sniping from a tank is high reward and low risk and that's not a properly balanced formula.
Looking forward to seeing you and your brethren on the battlefield. Game on.
GÇ£Creativity is knowing how to hide your sourcesGÇ¥
GÇò Albert Einstein
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Last of DusT.
General Tso's Alliance
2419
|
Posted - 2014.07.02 21:44:00 -
[130] - Quote
manboar thunder fist wrote:I still go 30+ with a neutron blaster madrugar and kill several gunnlogi and other madrugar in the process. These less skilled tankers just want an instakill OP weapon. Well guess what, the time of being a 1 man death machine is over. Learn 2 gunners. With my madrugar with missiles and 2 particle accelerators we get over 10,000 wp between us and kill around 60 ppl per match.
You lost me there
Tanker/Logi
0 The number of 7ucks given
|
|
|
Argetlam Thorson
Capital Acquisitions LLC
General Tso's Alliance
79
|
Posted - 2014.07.03 23:52:00 -
[131] - Quote
CHANCEtheChAn wrote:Argetlam Thorson wrote:Hakyou Brutor wrote:I think he's on his infantry guy in PC a lot. Delta Bliztkrieg, I believe.
I could be completely wrong though. That name doesn't sound familiar at all either. Lmao have you ever even PCed bro?
Nope. You'll never see me in a PC against you guys. Not even once. (Hint:This is sarcasm. I'm in most of them.)
CPM1 Candidate
Youtube
|
Zatara Rought
General Tso's Alliance
3493
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 04:53:00 -
[132] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:Until CCP gives a definitive statement about what the purpose of large blaster turrets are, I feel like I can't assert that LBT's need less dispersion (whether through a skill or some other way). I spoke with a couple other tanks and they agreed with your sentiment that a scout can outstrafe blasters. But like I said, if blasters are supposed to be ineffective against infantry, then thats significant. However I do believe blasters need to be anti infantry effective. I think personally tanks need to have a purpose beyond destroying the the extremely effective anti infantry ADS and killing enemy tanks/lav's.
I for one would not be opposed to tanks getting a major buff to DPS in exchange for them losing out on their ability to traverse the battlefield quickly.
I for one do not know why rails need splash damage, at all. I have been VERY frustrated at times hacking a point only to be hit 4 times by spalsh damage that only required the ral to hit the point lazily. Min/maxing they don't do enough DPS IMO. And the range nerf was 2 strong, I hear tanks seriously concerned about the viability of rail tanking as opposed to forging, mobility being the only advantage. I personally view rails to be snipers of sorts.
I've spoken with tank pilots they would prefer tanks required more skill required of them in order to obtain a greater advantage over easier to use fits. Specifically I spoke with a few that preferred when tankers were required to be responsible for a lot of diverse modules as opposed to hitting all the damage mods or hardeners and then recalling when they ran out.
I feel like this got buried. I do not pretend to be a tanker, but I would like some feedback. <3
Candidate for CPM1 Voting begins in 1 week!
CEO of FA Skype: Zatara.Rought
|
Zatara Rought
General Tso's Alliance
3493
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 04:57:00 -
[133] - Quote
CHANCEtheChAn wrote:
Learn your place on the food chain
Can you please FFS leave your asinine pride in the WR, or at least out of the ******* feedback section?
What a douchebag comment.
He wasn't trying to be offensive or insulting.
Candidate for CPM1 Voting begins in 1 week!
CEO of FA Skype: Zatara.Rought
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11604
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 05:03:00 -
[134] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:CHANCEtheChAn wrote:
Learn your place on the food chain
Can you please FFS leave your asinine pride in the WR, or at least out of the ******* feedback section? What a douchebag comment. He wasn't trying to be offensive or insulting.
You gone dun it now Zatara.
Defending the Publics and the FWers from PCers....... wins the vote (actually already prepared to vote for you)
*"I watched you. From candle to a torch you grew. I'll always remember those days with great affection." - Satja Askarin
|
Zatara Rought
General Tso's Alliance
3495
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 05:05:00 -
[135] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
You gone dun it now Zatara.
Defending the Publics and the FWers from PCers....... wins the vote (actually already prepared to vote for you)
What?! Really?? YAY! <3
And thank you!
*bows*
Candidate for CPM1 Voting begins in 1 week!
CEO of FA Skype: Zatara.Rought
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11604
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 05:09:00 -
[136] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:True Adamance wrote:
You gone dun it now Zatara.
Defending the Publics and the FWers from PCers....... wins the vote (actually already prepared to vote for you)
What?! Really?? YAY! <3 And thank you! *bows*
Zatara.....your back bone/ spine is showing......
*"I watched you. From candle to a torch you grew. I'll always remember those days with great affection." - Satja Askarin
|
Shadow of War88
0uter.Heaven
399
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 18:31:00 -
[137] - Quote
Zatara Rought wrote:Zatara Rought wrote:Until CCP gives a definitive statement about what the purpose of large blaster turrets are, I feel like I can't assert that LBT's need less dispersion (whether through a skill or some other way). I spoke with a couple other tanks and they agreed with your sentiment that a scout can outstrafe blasters. But like I said, if blasters are supposed to be ineffective against infantry, then thats significant. However I do believe blasters need to be anti infantry effective. I think personally tanks need to have a purpose beyond destroying the the extremely effective anti infantry ADS and killing enemy tanks/lav's.
I for one would not be opposed to tanks getting a major buff to DPS in exchange for them losing out on their ability to traverse the battlefield quickly.
I for one do not know why rails need splash damage, at all. I have been VERY frustrated at times hacking a point only to be hit 4 times by spalsh damage that only required the ral to hit the point lazily. Min/maxing they don't do enough DPS IMO. And the range nerf was 2 strong, I hear tanks seriously concerned about the viability of rail tanking as opposed to forging, mobility being the only advantage. I personally view rails to be snipers of sorts.
I've spoken with tank pilots they would prefer tanks required more skill required of them in order to obtain a greater advantage over easier to use fits. Specifically I spoke with a few that preferred when tankers were required to be responsible for a lot of diverse modules as opposed to hitting all the damage mods or hardeners and then recalling when they ran out. I feel like this got buried. I do not pretend to be a tanker, but I would like some feedback. <3
Feedback is ADS FTW.
Blaster garbage. Infantry kills you, you cant kill them (In PC not pubs lol)
Rails are not needed as much. The big hit box makes you vulnerable. Like your better off going AV infantry. Less SP & ISK investment and less risk.
& CCP never balances in moderation. <--- long term problem
& justice for all
|
Atiim
Fooly Cooly.
Anime Empire.
10183
|
Posted - 2014.07.04 20:30:00 -
[138] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Less SP & ISK investment.
Not even close.
Long Live The Anime Empire
-HAND
|
Murder Cake FTW
Shining Flame
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 05:38:00 -
[139] - Quote
Tanks r useless and have no rule #truth.
|
Atiim
Fooly Cooly.
Anime Empire.
10212
|
Posted - 2014.07.06 05:44:00 -
[140] - Quote
Murder Cake FTW wrote:Tanks r useless and have no rule #truth.
Bob is that you?
Long Live The Anime Empire
"You know what? You really, REALLY, like to dampen the mood" - Lea Silencio
-HAND
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page] |