|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15218
   |
Posted - 2014.11.30 19:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:Unless you consider this ****** vehicles HAV, i missed old madrugar and gunlogi, when the armor reps were passive and a missilistic couldnt 1 shot a madrugar, i missed turrepts variations, now a STD tank has the same layout of a sica/soma pre 1.7. Once was funny be a tanker, when you pick up blueberries and they started shooting to enemies MCC. It was fun but since one year the only thing CCP has done is buff AV and now, how many tankers are still calling a tank every match? Not only for kill infantry but as a team support? My last question is, will something change soon(tm)? Sorry for bad english
Core Issue that are jacked with HAV?
- Sica can have 9K EHP
- Sica can have full proto modules and turrets
- Shields are statistically better than armour
- Anything armour was supposed to do well shield does better
- Armour Reps are passive where they were better active
- 12K EHP turrets have too high TTK for something infantry don't bother to often use or protect.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15222
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 20:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:Echo 1991 wrote:H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:@ jack: i dont care about cost, where is now the difference betwen Hav and LAV? (@stylie) no, maybe you are playng the wrong game An LAV cant kill a tank in less than 4 seconds. False, Jlav?
Yup.
It's a
1750* 5 = 8750 damage (unmodified guided missile)
The only redeeming factor of JLAV's is that this Magic Guided Missile is operated by an AI with the intelligence of a severely brain damaged raccoon.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15224
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 21:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Forlorn Destrier wrote:H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:Unless you consider this ****** vehicles HAV, i missed old madrugar and gunlogi, when the armor reps were passive and a missilistic couldnt 1 shot a madrugar, i missed turrepts variations, now a STD tank has the same layout of a sica/soma pre 1.7. Once was funny be a tanker, when you pick up blueberries and they started shooting to enemies MCC. It was fun but since one year the only thing CCP has done is buff AV and now, how many tankers are still calling a tank every match? Not only for kill infantry but as a team support? My last question is, will something change soon(tm)? Sorry for bad english You mean with vehicles were immortal and one HAV promised victory for your side? No thanks.
Or the six months before that where one invisible AV user invisible to vehicles more than 50m, on machines that often costs between 1 million and 2 million for a well fitted vehicle.
Do not be a selective ass. For every month there was of vehicle dominance due to the 1.7 Tankpocalyse there was two where AV dominated.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15228
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 21:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Joel II X wrote:Armor reps used to be active, not passive, and if your vehicle lit on fire, it had a very high chance of going boom boom because of continous damage.
Which was always a silly mechanic because if in X thousand years of star-faring imperialism an Empire could not develop effective FPE they were certainly doing something wrong.
Still I wouldn't mind and FPE module for putting out on board fires. Heck I've lost many a Panzer VI because some **** in a KV-85 detonated my ammunition stores or hit my engines.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15232
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 21:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:Echo 1991 wrote:H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:Echo 1991 wrote:H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:@ jack: i dont care about cost, where is now the difference betwen Hav and LAV? (@stylie) no, maybe you are playng the wrong game An LAV cant kill a tank in less than 4 seconds. False, Jlav? Its not the Jeep that's killing the tank. Its the REs. A tank doesnt kill you, the driver kills you, are you keep going on?
Comprable comparison would be the 80GJ Large Blaster..... (blasters being lame as hell...lemme shoot plasma cannon rounds!)
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15232
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 21:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:Blaster is useless, you can overhit tryng to kill a militia dropsuit, it s easiest with a railgun without splash...
Not useless but not great.
Lower DPS than a rail gun and not accurately depicting a main battle canon.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15232
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 21:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
danthrax martin wrote:dreth longbow wrote:basicly HAV is not infantry and everybody wants infantry "shooter game" so they will spend time "fixing" infantry and other misc unimportant stuff for everybody else and leave HAV to be a mobile infantry shooter platform ie blaster or missile.
there is so much wrong with tanks, the movement, the optics on the rails, etc.
Fixes are easy, make turrets for tank battles ie remove blaster or slow it down, buff armour/sheilds so swarms and forge need reload to kill. This makes the tank a tank killer or area weapon and not an ant-personal weapon. This will allow tank battles and them to give some area denial.
Fix zoom and sticky zoom
give more slots to next level of tank with more cpu/
Basically have CCP or Ratti talk to and play with tankers and define their role and fix them to add depth and other game play to Dust. The only tanks destroyed by one clip of swarm/forge is an ill-fitted tank.
Actually I would consider it the opposite now having been a swarmer.
There is no reason any tank should be able to take more than 4 swarm volleys and keep trucking. I put six into a Gunlogi the other day and did not get a kill.
No Standard HAV should be able to ignore Prototype AV. In fact one one shield tank should be able to do this where Armour cannot.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15241
|
Posted - 2014.11.30 23:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:True Adamance wrote:danthrax martin wrote:dreth longbow wrote:basicly HAV is not infantry and everybody wants infantry "shooter game" so they will spend time "fixing" infantry and other misc unimportant stuff for everybody else and leave HAV to be a mobile infantry shooter platform ie blaster or missile.
there is so much wrong with tanks, the movement, the optics on the rails, etc.
Fixes are easy, make turrets for tank battles ie remove blaster or slow it down, buff armour/sheilds so swarms and forge need reload to kill. This makes the tank a tank killer or area weapon and not an ant-personal weapon. This will allow tank battles and them to give some area denial.
Fix zoom and sticky zoom
give more slots to next level of tank with more cpu/
Basically have CCP or Ratti talk to and play with tankers and define their role and fix them to add depth and other game play to Dust. The only tanks destroyed by one clip of swarm/forge is an ill-fitted tank. Actually I would consider it the opposite now having been a swarmer. There is no reason any tank should be able to take more than 4 swarm volleys and keep trucking. I put six into a Gunlogi the other day and did not get a kill. No Standard HAV should be able to ignore Prototype AV. In fact one one shield tank should be able to do this where Armour cannot. Swarm-light weapon Tank-Heavy vehicle Swarm should be able to hurt tank but shouldn't really deal enough damage to kill it unless there are two swarmers.
Of course a swarm launcher should hurt a tank.
Offensive technologies are usually superior to defensive technologies. There more over is not reason a weapon designed to destroy vehicles should not be carried by the average infantry man, the only difference between "heavy" and "light" AV is perception.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15324
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 18:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
dreth longbow wrote:Echo 1991 wrote:dreth longbow wrote:basicly HAV is not infantry and everybody wants infantry "shooter game" so they will spend time "fixing" infantry and other misc unimportant stuff for everybody else and leave HAV to be a mobile infantry shooter platform ie blaster or missile.
there is so much wrong with tanks, the movement, the optics on the rails, etc.
Fixes are easy, make turrets for tank battles ie remove blaster or slow it down, buff armour/sheilds so swarms and forge need reload to kill. This makes the tank a tank killer or area weapon and not an ant-personal weapon. This will allow tank battles and them to give some area denial.
Fix zoom and sticky zoom
give more slots to next level of tank with more cpu/
Basically have CCP or Ratti talk to and play with tankers and define their role and fix them to add depth and other game play to Dust. Infantry arent the problem. Tanks do need a buff, especially the armour tank, it cant fit small guns without gimping the fit. Tanks DO NOT need an ehp buff. If you decide not to put more hp dont complain when a triple dmg mod swarm kills you in 4 shots. actually they are, HAV's have 2 current roles tank to tank fighting or lets kill infantry. you get almost no wp for taking out turrents/spawn/etc not worth the time/effort/vulnerability so most tankers deploy the blaster to hunt infantry and so infantry needs to be able to kill tanks faster or they cry. FYI I use tanks as suppport against other tanks/DS not blaster to kill infantry that fit should be a MAV not HAV
The Armour HAV does need EHP buffs but this can be achieved artificial with a re-think of modules.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15331
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 19:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
Tesfa Alem wrote:My main man DELB0Y calls a tank every match.
Yup I watch the ol' videos. I used to do the same thing...... but I can't say I enjoy tanking these days. I always was an armour tanker through and through. I liked being slow and having high manageable HP values...... Pyrex actually described the Surya in one of his videos exactly how I like my Tanks.
"Like a brick you leave in the middle of a situations to sort it out."
But currently in this AV meta and in the current state of vehicle balancing the Armour HAV doesn't even compare to shield tanks.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15343
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 21:01:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sir Dukey wrote:Dauth Jenkins wrote:True Adamance wrote:Tesfa Alem wrote:My main man DELB0Y calls a tank every match. Yup I watch the ol' videos. I used to do the same thing...... but I can't say I enjoy tanking these days. I always was an armour tanker through and through. I liked being slow and having high manageable HP values...... Pyrex actually described the Surya in one of his videos exactly how I like my Tanks. "Like a brick you leave in the middle of a situations to sort it out." But currently in this AV meta and in the current state of vehicle balancing the Armour HAV doesn't even compare to shield tanks. Yea. The question we have to deal with now is, do we think shields are OP and need to be nerfed, Or do we think Armour is underpowered, and needs to be buffed. I, for one, believe that armour is underpowered and needs to be buffed to competitive levels. YES! BUFF ARMOR!
If we do not expect to see Marauder then yes buff armour. If we do then possibly nerf shield fitting capacity slightly.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15345
|
Posted - 2014.12.02 21:31:00 -
[12] - Quote
TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:There are two reasons as to why the shield tank is better at the moment. The only infantry anti vehicle weapon that is shield profiled currently is the plasma cannon which reloads too slowly and has too limited of a range to be viable against anything but a foolish vehicle that hangs around too long. AV grenades, swarm launchers, and forge guns are all armor profiled. The second reason is that shield hardeners are 40% resistance while armor hardeners are 25%. If long range anti shield weapons like say a heavy Amarr weapon and armor hardeners go up to 40% then shields won't be as advantageous.
Hey I take issue with that..... I was trying my best to kill Ceej! But the smarmy bastard has a 52m radius  and mad cannon skills.
It's not just that though its that it has many inherent bonuses over armour that means it better fulfils the stand a deliver role with the benefits of its hull and modules.
- 15% more effective hardeners
- Shield Passive Pulsed Regen is 168rep/sec after a 4 second delay (better than a Hvy Repper and requiring no module)
- Fitting Capacity and access to Fitting module without compromising primary tank type.
- A mobility profile that makes up for the inherently slow tracking of Missiles and Railguns, instant acceleration.
and outside of that
- The Anti Kinetic/Explosive AV resistance profile you mentioned.
Now if armour hardeners go up to 40%...... kinda meh.....could work..... but that still leaves armour tanking primarily passive and unable to manage crises like the shield HAV......more over damn boring to pilot.
I'll do some EHP calc with a 40% modifier now.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
|
|
| |
|