DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] Hotfix Echo

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] Hotfix Echo

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 12 post(s)
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1069	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:39:00 - [151] - Quote Crimson ShieId wrote: Why not up the HP values on shields a bit instead of simply knocking down armor plates? Increase the TTK and make everyone happy? A "more HP" solution would do little to help with module imbalance or King HP.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:40:00 - [152] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: You don't seem to understand me. I am all for vehicle weapons being primarily anti vehicle. The problem is that he wants his own enclosed little box within DUST 514, vehicles will essentially fight their own battle without affecting anything else. What's the point of that? I'll say it again. We can melt all infantry, or vehicles can beat the hell out of each other. Choose one. Problem is, that when there's only vehicles on one side, or the opposing vehicles refuse to fight after losing their initial tank or running back to recall, then they melt the infantry anyways. So it should be balanced on the off chance that nobody on one team has access to a good tank? That's a terrible way to balance vehicles. It's the luck of the draw. If someone starts to protect their redline from the big bad wolf after losing one tank, then they have no business being in a tank in the first place. You can't balance vehicles around that. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Imp Smash Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 472	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:46:00 - [153] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: Tac ar buff too much armor plate nerf too much scrambler nerf is irrelevant and not really a nerf at all Tac AR kills are 1% in PC. It's obviously not borderline OP. Remains to be seen. Scrambler is just to get rifle alignment for future balancing. Yes TAC ar is largely unused. But it is still a good gun. The TAC ar was broken good for a long time. Ratta, when you guys make these changes, y'all ARE considering past iterations yes? Did you look up the numbers from when the TAC ar was more than 50% of kills in PC? Learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:46:00 - [154] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: You don't seem to understand me. I am all for vehicle weapons being primarily anti vehicle. The problem is that he wants his own enclosed little box within DUST 514, vehicles will essentially fight their own battle without affecting anything else. What's the point of that? I'll say it again. We can melt all infantry, or vehicles can beat the hell out of each other. Choose one. Problem is, that when there's only vehicles on one side, or the opposing vehicles refuse to fight after losing their initial tank or running back to recall, then they melt the infantry anyways. And that is the nature of escalation. One teams acts. The Other reacts. The conflict is resolved. The losing side must then either choose to react again or stand down. If a team is unwilling to commit either AV units, Tanks, or even a freaking Jihad Jeep to the combat then they have no cause to complain. I think they didn't like Chromosome tanks because they very easily beat the hell out of each other, leaving AV to just watch the carnage. I bet they thought "why should tanks do that to each other, we should do that to them instead," and that started the straight-down roller coaster of tank nerfs. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15650	Posted - 2014.12.10 02:49:00 - [155] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: You don't seem to understand me. I am all for vehicle weapons being primarily anti vehicle. The problem is that he wants his own enclosed little box within DUST 514, vehicles will essentially fight their own battle without affecting anything else. What's the point of that? I'll say it again. We can melt all infantry, or vehicles can beat the hell out of each other. Choose one. Problem is, that when there's only vehicles on one side, or the opposing vehicles refuse to fight after losing their initial tank or running back to recall, then they melt the infantry anyways. And that is the nature of escalation. One teams acts. The Other reacts. The conflict is resolved. The losing side must then either choose to react again or stand down. If a team is unwilling to commit either AV units, Tanks, or even a freaking Jihad Jeep to the combat then they have no cause to complain. I think they didn't like Chromosome tanks because they very easily beat the hell out of each other, leaving AV to just watch the carnage. I bet they thought "why should tanks do that to each other, we should do that to them instead," and that started the straight-down roller coaster of tank nerfs. Those old Tank fights looked tough as hell and I remember watching Beld in his Surya, I think it was, blapping bobthecakeman (forgot his name its been so long)and visa versa all the live long day @ 3 million a pop. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 03:25:00 - [156] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Those old Tank fights looked tough as hell and I remember watching Beld in his Surya, I think it was, blapping bobthecakeman (forgot his name its been so long)and visa versa all the live long day @ 3 million a pop. I've said multiple times I don't care about the price, I just want a tank to be a tank. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Daddrobit You Can Call Me Daddy 1186	Posted - 2014.12.10 03:32:00 - [157] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: You don't seem to understand me. I am all for vehicle weapons being primarily anti vehicle. The problem is that he wants his own enclosed little box within DUST 514, vehicles will essentially fight their own battle without affecting anything else. What's the point of that? I'll say it again. We can melt all infantry, or vehicles can beat the hell out of each other. Choose one. Problem is, that when there's only vehicles on one side, or the opposing vehicles refuse to fight after losing their initial tank or running back to recall, then they melt the infantry anyways. So it should be balanced on the off chance that nobody on one team has access to a good tank? That's a terrible way to balance vehicles. It's the luck of the draw. If someone starts to protect their redline from the big bad wolf after losing one tank, then they have no business being in a tank in the first place. You can't balance vehicles around that. You say it shouldn't be balanced around the chance that someone can't counter you, but then say it's the luck of the draw that lets you stomp the other team if there isn't an opposing tank and suddenly that's an ok way to balance? No. Speaking 100% on general game balance, in a scenario where two teams have equal numbers of potential actors able to attack one another, there should never be a situation where one actor has a powerful manner of play that is best countered by itself or otherwise requires the combined effort of more than one individual on the enemy team. That is not proper game balance. And this applies to all gameplay, be it tanks, cloaky scouts, or murder taxi heavies. The best counter to any power play can never be itself and be considered balance. O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 03:37:00 - [158] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: blah blah But it's okay when it's 98% infantry doing the stomping, right? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Vitantur Nothus Nos Nothi 1080	Posted - 2014.12.10 03:45:00 - [159] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: blah blah But it's okay when it's 98% infantry doing the stomping, right? Nyain San is still stomping Ambush all day every day, and they're quick to drop two HAVs when the map loads OMS.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 03:46:00 - [160] - Quote Vitantur Nothus wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: blah blah But it's okay when it's 98% infantry doing the stomping, right? Nyain San is still stomping Ambush all day every day, and they're quick to drop two HAVs when the map loads OMS. What's to stop the other team from bringing in tanks? Are we AGAIN going to balance the game around Ambush? CCP has already done that more than once. It really needs to stop. If you don't like tanks, go play Call of Duty. I'm sick of this BS. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

hfderrtgvcd 1473	Posted - 2014.12.10 03:46:00 - [161] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: Tac ar buff too much armor plate nerf too much scrambler nerf is irrelevant and not really a nerf at all Tac AR kills are 1% in PC. It's obviously not borderline OP. Remains to be seen. Scrambler is just to get rifle alignment for future balancing. The tac ar being unpopular has more to do with map design than the weapon. The gun is very good but the vast majority of fighting in pc is in cqc. That is why hmgs and shotguns are so popular. If you nerf armor plates without touching the speed penalty everyone will simply switch to ferros and reactives. 65/90/115 seems more reasonable to me. You can't fight in here! This is the war room.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15656	Posted - 2014.12.10 03:50:00 - [162] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Cat Merc wrote: You don't seem to understand me. I am all for vehicle weapons being primarily anti vehicle. The problem is that he wants his own enclosed little box within DUST 514, vehicles will essentially fight their own battle without affecting anything else. What's the point of that? I'll say it again. We can melt all infantry, or vehicles can beat the hell out of each other. Choose one. Problem is, that when there's only vehicles on one side, or the opposing vehicles refuse to fight after losing their initial tank or running back to recall, then they melt the infantry anyways. So it should be balanced on the off chance that nobody on one team has access to a good tank? That's a terrible way to balance vehicles. It's the luck of the draw. If someone starts to protect their redline from the big bad wolf after losing one tank, then they have no business being in a tank in the first place. You can't balance vehicles around that. You say it shouldn't be balanced around the chance that someone can't counter you, but then say it's the luck of the draw that lets you stomp the other team if there isn't an opposing tank and suddenly that's an ok way to balance? No. Speaking 100% on general game balance, in a scenario where two teams have equal numbers of potential actors able to attack one another, there should never be a situation where one actor has a powerful manner of play that is best countered by itself or otherwise requires the combined effort of more than one individual on the enemy team. That is not proper game balance. And this applies to all gameplay, be it tanks, cloaky scouts, or murder taxi heavies. The best counter to any power play can never be itself and be considered balance. I won't start to talk too much about other games.....but I'll cite a number of games which are universally received as well made and that have vehicles that are able to counter multiple players at a time. Battlefield 3-4 Starwars Battlefront 1-2 Planetside 2 At some point players have to realise that vehicle operators have to be give credit for what they do. For every infantry man players accept that can have 8/0, 16/0, 21/1, hell if you are Saxonmish upwards of 40/0 you have to accept vehicles pilots can do that as well. However unlike in those games I am investing my personal economic resources (in game ISK) into the operation of these things. The difference between Tanks and infantry is that..... Tanks will always be one of the best counters to tanks (doesn't matter if its the best of not) as modern tanks are designed to destroy...... other modern tanks. Every infantry mounted heavy weapon will be a smaller calibre version of armaments that can be fitted on a tank. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Daddrobit You Can Call Me Daddy 1187	Posted - 2014.12.10 03:55:00 - [163] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: blah blah But it's okay when it's 98% infantry doing the stomping, right? An overwhelming majority of infantry doesn't stomp, they don't even have positive KDRs. Even on my most tanked suit, a GK0 assault with 857 hp and 50,000,000 SP boosting all aspects of infantry life, a militia assault rifle available for free to every Gallente toon, or 610 isk for everyone else, will take me down in less than two seconds if they can bead me. Faster if they aim for the head. Not to mention the plethora of one hit kill weapons. Infantry is countered by literally everything bar AV nades, swarmers, and flux grenades. It is a tiny fraction of percent the infantry community that is able to actually put up high kills and low to no deaths. However there is the belief among a large portion of tanker community that demands, just by virtue of being in a tank and with no consideration to personal skill, that they deserve to be difficult to kill, often even by other tanks, while maintaining the ability to destroy infantry just by looking at them. There is no balance to be had there. O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15658	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:02:00 - [164] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: blah blah But it's okay when it's 98% infantry doing the stomping, right? An overwhelming majority of infantry doesn't stomp, they don't even have positive KDRs. Even on my most tanked suit, a GK0 assault with 857 hp and 50,000,000 SP boosting all aspects of infantry life, a militia assault rifle available for free to every Gallente toon, or 610 isk for everyone else, will take me down in less than two seconds if they can bead me. Faster if they aim for the head. Not to mention the plethora of one hit kill weapons. Infantry is countered by literally everything bar AV nades, swarmers, and flux grenades. It is a tiny fraction of percent the infantry community that is able to actually put up high kills and low to no deaths. However there is the belief among a large portion of tanker community that demands, just by virtue of being in a tank and with no consideration to personal skill, that they deserve to be difficult to kill, often even by other tanks, while maintaining the ability to destroy infantry just by looking at them. There is no balance to be had there. Comparitively a Sica fit with roughly less that 8 Million SP worth of investment can utterly annihilate a fully speced out Tanker, additionally I have probably Op 5 Swarm Launchers and I can utterly deny armour tanks a place on the map. I don't want HAV to over powered. There's no reward or value in driving an overpowered vehicle nor any semblance of fun. I just want HAV to have a place on the battlefield that is their own and that they can thrive in. Killing infantry is not that role. Killing other ground based vehicles and installations is IMO that role we should excel in, with at best a secondary or tertiary focus on being able to engage infantry. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:11:00 - [165] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: blah blah But it's okay when it's 98% infantry doing the stomping, right? An overwhelming majority of infantry doesn't stomp, they don't even have positive KDRs. Even on my most tanked suit, a GK0 assault with 857 hp and 50,000,000 SP boosting all aspects of infantry life, a militia assault rifle available for free to every Gallente toon, or 610 isk for everyone else, will take me down in less than two seconds if they can bead me. Faster if they aim for the head. Not to mention the plethora of one hit kill weapons. Infantry is countered by literally everything bar AV nades, swarmers, and flux grenades. It is a tiny fraction of percent the infantry community that is able to actually put up high kills and low to no deaths. However there is the belief among a large portion of tanker community that demands, just by virtue of being in a tank and with no consideration to personal skill, that they deserve to be difficult to kill, often even by other tanks, while maintaining the ability to destroy infantry just by looking at them. There is no balance to be had there. There we go with the "a MLT rifle can easily take me down" argument. If you're standing still, you'll die to anything. There's a lot of people that can't learn anything because they're always being PRO stomped. I was losing on Amarr FW for 3 to 4 days straight. That's not a few a day, that's not a single win for days straight. Next you'll tell me that since I'm a tanker, I should be able to carry the entire team on my shoulders. Infantry makes lame arguments like "there's only a few weapons that can damage a tank." Well of course, it's a rifle vs a tank. Tanks have many tons of armor. Rifles fire a little bullet. They expect it to explode? A rational argument cannot be had with people that complain about that. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Daddrobit You Can Call Me Daddy 1187	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:11:00 - [166] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Daddrobit wrote: Problem is, that when there's only vehicles on one side, or the opposing vehicles refuse to fight after losing their initial tank or running back to recall, then they melt the infantry anyways. So it should be balanced on the off chance that nobody on one team has access to a good tank? That's a terrible way to balance vehicles. It's the luck of the draw. If someone starts to protect their redline from the big bad wolf after losing one tank, then they have no business being in a tank in the first place. You can't balance vehicles around that. You say it shouldn't be balanced around the chance that someone can't counter you, but then say it's the luck of the draw that lets you stomp the other team if there isn't an opposing tank and suddenly that's an ok way to balance? No. Speaking 100% on general game balance, in a scenario where two teams have equal numbers of potential actors able to attack one another, there should never be a situation where one actor has a powerful manner of play that is best countered by itself or otherwise requires the combined effort of more than one individual on the enemy team. That is not proper game balance. And this applies to all gameplay, be it tanks, cloaky scouts, or murder taxi heavies. The best counter to any power play can never be itself and be considered balance. [/quote] I won't start to talk too much about other games.....but I'll cite a number of games which are universally received as well made and that have vehicles that are able to counter multiple players at a time. Battlefield 3-4 Starwars Battlefront 1-2 Planetside 2 At some point players have to realise that vehicle operators have to be give credit for what they do. For every infantry man players accept that can have 8/0, 16/0, 21/1, hell if you are Saxonmish upwards of 40/0 you have to accept vehicles pilots can do that as well. However unlike in those games I am investing my personal economic resources (in game ISK) into the operation of these things. The difference between Tanks and infantry is that..... Tanks will always be one of the best counters to tanks (doesn't matter if its the best of not) as modern tanks are designed to destroy...... other modern tanks. Every infantry mounted heavy weapon will be a smaller calibre version of armaments that can be fitted on a tank. [/quote] In Battlefield, yes, vehicles are quite effective against infantry, but so is AV, and it is effective enough that single players are able to efficiently dispatch them. Between RPGs that pretty much instagib airial vehicles to C4 traps for tanks. The vehicles of Battlefield are far from hard to kill as solo infantry. And in PS2, well there are a couple of issues with this comparison as the nearly unlimited number of players you can field means that even if the individual isn't terribly strong he can bring 20 of his friends in as AV on top of thee 30 other light assault players on the field to take on the enemy, it's like EVE in that regard, and it's gameplay that is unavailable to Dust. Even beyond that, infantry has MAX suits as well as the heavy assaults which are both formidable tank killers. Never played the star wars franchise, can't comment on them. As to high kill players, yeah, they exist. But for every one infantry that's able to put up 25-0 on a regular basis, there are literally 100s of others that struggle to even go positive. Tankers should be on a similar level, there should be no playstyle that simply allows clearly more success against its counters than any other. The act of sitting in a tank should not make you difficult to kill or require more cooperation from an infantry standpoint when using weaponry designed to counter you. O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
Daddrobit You Can Call Me Daddy 1187	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:22:00 - [167] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: blah blah But it's okay when it's 98% infantry doing the stomping, right? An overwhelming majority of infantry doesn't stomp, they don't even have positive KDRs. Even on my most tanked suit, a GK0 assault with 857 hp and 50,000,000 SP boosting all aspects of infantry life, a militia assault rifle available for free to every Gallente toon, or 610 isk for everyone else, will take me down in less than two seconds if they can bead me. Faster if they aim for the head. Not to mention the plethora of one hit kill weapons. Infantry is countered by literally everything bar AV nades, swarmers, and flux grenades. It is a tiny fraction of percent the infantry community that is able to actually put up high kills and low to no deaths. However there is the belief among a large portion of tanker community that demands, just by virtue of being in a tank and with no consideration to personal skill, that they deserve to be difficult to kill, often even by other tanks, while maintaining the ability to destroy infantry just by looking at them. There is no balance to be had there. Comparitively a Sica fit with roughly less that 8 Million SP worth of investment can utterly annihilate a fully speced out Tanker, additionally I have probably Op 5 Swarm Launchers and I can utterly deny armour tanks a place on the map. I don't want HAV to over powered. There's no reward or value in driving an overpowered vehicle nor any semblance of fun. I just want HAV to have a place on the battlefield that is their own and that they can thrive in. Killing infantry is not that role. Killing other ground based vehicles and installations is IMO that role we should excel in, with at best a secondary or tertiary focus on being able to engage infantry. Aye, I agree, if vehicles were specialized more for anti tank over infantry, then I don't think we'd be having this conversation. However that is not the case, tank shots are just as effective at taking out tanks as they are infantry, and that leaves infantry in a bad place getting one shotted by every rail, and blasters in 2-5. If I could, I'd put resistances on infantry suits based on frame sizes to help mitigate that effect. Something like %75 %50 %25 and help actually place tanks into anti tank as a primary role. But I can already see speakers text in my head now.... "That's stupid, I'm in a tank, I should tear apart infantry with my cannons..." O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15662	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:27:00 - [168] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: True Adamance wrote: Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: blah blah But it's okay when it's 98% infantry doing the stomping, right? An overwhelming majority of infantry doesn't stomp, they don't even have positive KDRs. Even on my most tanked suit, a GK0 assault with 857 hp and 50,000,000 SP boosting all aspects of infantry life, a militia assault rifle available for free to every Gallente toon, or 610 isk for everyone else, will take me down in less than two seconds if they can bead me. Faster if they aim for the head. Not to mention the plethora of one hit kill weapons. Infantry is countered by literally everything bar AV nades, swarmers, and flux grenades. It is a tiny fraction of percent the infantry community that is able to actually put up high kills and low to no deaths. However there is the belief among a large portion of tanker community that demands, just by virtue of being in a tank and with no consideration to personal skill, that they deserve to be difficult to kill, often even by other tanks, while maintaining the ability to destroy infantry just by looking at them. There is no balance to be had there. Comparitively a Sica fit with roughly less that 8 Million SP worth of investment can utterly annihilate a fully speced out Tanker, additionally I have probably Op 5 Swarm Launchers and I can utterly deny armour tanks a place on the map. I don't want HAV to over powered. There's no reward or value in driving an overpowered vehicle nor any semblance of fun. I just want HAV to have a place on the battlefield that is their own and that they can thrive in. Killing infantry is not that role. Killing other ground based vehicles and installations is IMO that role we should excel in, with at best a secondary or tertiary focus on being able to engage infantry. Aye, I agree, if vehicles were specialized more for anti tank over infantry, then I don't think we'd be having this conversation. However that is not the case, tank shots are just as effective at taking out tanks as they are infantry, and that leaves infantry in a bad place getting one shotted by every rail, and blasters in 2-5. If I could, I'd put resistances on infantry suits based on frame sizes to help mitigate that effect. Something like %75 %50 %25 and help actually place tanks into anti tank as a primary role. But I can already see speakers text in my head now.... "That's stupid, I'm in a tank, I should tear apart infantry with my cannons..." While I can accept that it's probably true we'd not be having this discussion..... ain't no reason in hell an infantry ever deserve to live through a direct hit from a tank shell. Small turrets in Dust may or may not be equivalent to small turrets in EVE..... if they are you don't survive something that knocks starships out of the skies. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 13268	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:30:00 - [169] - Quote hfderrtgvcd wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: hfderrtgvcd wrote: Tac ar buff too much armor plate nerf too much scrambler nerf is irrelevant and not really a nerf at all Tac AR kills are 1% in PC. It's obviously not borderline OP. Remains to be seen. Scrambler is just to get rifle alignment for future balancing. The tac ar being unpopular has more to do with map design than the weapon. The gun is very good but the vast majority of fighting in pc is in cqc. That is why hmgs and shotguns are so popular. If you nerf armor plates without touching the speed penalty everyone will simply switch to ferros and reactives. 65/90/115 seems more reasonable to me. scrambler rifle has a very similar function, and is still used in PC "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

Daddrobit You Can Call Me Daddy 1187	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:35:00 - [170] - Quote True Adamance wrote: While I can accept that it's probably true we'd not be having this discussion..... ain't no reason in hell an infantry ever deserve to live through a direct hit from a tank shell. Small turrets in Dust may or may not be equivalent to small turrets in EVE..... if they are you don't survive something that knocks starships out of the skies. And that's exactly the mentality I was talking about earlier. "I deserve to kill everything with relative ease and be difficult to kill in return because..." Tankers should have the ability to go 40-0 through individual player skill just like saxonamish or whatever other high tier player, absolutely. But for every one tanker that does, there should be 100s of others that fall to their own lack of abilities just like the rest of the playerbase. Sitting in a tank should not innately make you a good player. O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:38:00 - [171] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: Aye, I agree, if vehicles were specialized more for anti tank over infantry, then I don't think we'd be having this conversation. However that is not the case, tank shots are just as effective at taking out tanks as they are infantry, and that leaves infantry in a bad place getting one shotted by every rail, and blasters in 2-5. So we're not allowed to have good aim with a rail, is that it? That actually takes the cake for worst non-argument I've heard on here. Then CCP should remove aim assist, and actually make it so that it's more difficult to get headshots. Does that sound fair? If we're gonna get penalized for having great aim, then it's only fair that infantry should penalized for having good aim. Nevermind you're forgetting the word experience. There's a lot of us out there that have been doing this for a long, long time and have become very, very good. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Daddrobit You Can Call Me Daddy 1189	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:50:00 - [172] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: Aye, I agree, if vehicles were specialized more for anti tank over infantry, then I don't think we'd be having this conversation. However that is not the case, tank shots are just as effective at taking out tanks as they are infantry, and that leaves infantry in a bad place getting one shotted by every rail, and blasters in 2-5. So we're not allowed to have good aim with a rail, is that it? That actually takes the cake for worst non-argument I've heard on here. Then CCP should remove aim assist, and actually make it so that it's more difficult to get headshots. Does that sound fair? If we're gonna get penalized for having great aim, then it's only fair that infantry should penalized for having good aim. Nevermind you're forgetting the word experience. There's a lot of us out there that have been doing this for a long, long time and have become very, very good. Yes, I would love it if CCP took away aim assist from the game. I trust my own abilities to aim, I did very well for myself in the past, the less crutches the game has the better. But if you don't think sitting in a vehicle with 5000+ health and resistance to 95% of everything in the game with an instant kill weapon isn't relying on a crutch, then you're delusional. If you don't like infantry, go play World of Tanks. O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:52:00 - [173] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: True Adamance wrote: While I can accept that it's probably true we'd not be having this discussion..... ain't no reason in hell an infantry ever deserve to live through a direct hit from a tank shell. Small turrets in Dust may or may not be equivalent to small turrets in EVE..... if they are you don't survive something that knocks starships out of the skies. And that's exactly the mentality I was talking about earlier. "I deserve to kill everything with relative ease and be difficult to kill in return because..." Tankers should have the ability to go 40-0 through individual player skill just like saxonamish or whatever other high tier player, absolutely. But for every one tanker that does, there should be 100s of others that fall to their own lack of abilities just like the rest of the playerbase. Sitting in a tank should not innately make you a good player. That's what you don't get. The ones that have been doing it for a long time are able to rack up kills, just like a PRO assault with a dedicated logi can do. Why can't you draw the parallel? I've been piloting a tank for a long time, why can't my experience amount to a good number of kills in one match? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:56:00 - [174] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: Aye, I agree, if vehicles were specialized more for anti tank over infantry, then I don't think we'd be having this conversation. However that is not the case, tank shots are just as effective at taking out tanks as they are infantry, and that leaves infantry in a bad place getting one shotted by every rail, and blasters in 2-5. So we're not allowed to have good aim with a rail, is that it? That actually takes the cake for worst non-argument I've heard on here. Then CCP should remove aim assist, and actually make it so that it's more difficult to get headshots. Does that sound fair? If we're gonna get penalized for having great aim, then it's only fair that infantry should penalized for having good aim. Nevermind you're forgetting the word experience. There's a lot of us out there that have been doing this for a long, long time and have become very, very good. Yes, I would love it if CCP took away aim assist from the game. I trust my own abilities to aim, I did very well for myself in the past, the less crutches the game has the better. But if you don't think sitting in a vehicle with 5000+ health and resistance to 95% of everything in the game with an instant kill weapon isn't relying on a crutch, then you're delusional. If you don't like infantry, go play World of Tanks. Lol I have 5 PRO suits and 5 PRO weapons. I now have more SP into infantry than vehicles, because vehicles are only half worth it now. And again, you're complaining that a rifle can't do anything to a tank. Like I said, a rational argument cannot be had with a person like you. Tanks in WWI couldn't be damaged by the 1903 Springfield; tanks in WWII couldn't be damaged by the Mauser; tanks in the Korean and Vietnam wars couldn't be damaged by the AK-47; tanks after those conflicts couldn't be damaged by rifles. Why should the reverse happen 20,000 years into the future? You literally make no sense, and would get laughed off a debate team with that argument. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 04:58:00 - [175] - Quote True Adamance wrote: While I can accept that it's probably true we'd not be having this discussion..... ain't no reason in hell an infantry ever deserve to live through a direct hit from a tank shell. Small turrets in Dust may or may not be equivalent to small turrets in EVE..... if they are you don't survive something that knocks starships out of the skies. This is the absolute best thing I've ever read as an argument for vehicles doing massive damage to infantry that I've ever seen in my time posting here. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Nocturnal Soul Primordial Threat 4762	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:00:00 - [176] - Quote Just make small, medium, and heavy plates/extenders already. (Gê¬n+Ç-´)GèâGöüGÿån+ƒ.pâ+n+ín+ƒ. LASERS BTCH!!!!!!
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2451	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:02:00 - [177] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: message begins Rattati, what do you feel about the parallel that Dust turrets are essentially an extension of EVE turrets? I have someone on here complaining that an AR can't do damage to a tank, as well as complaining that infantry can get one-shot by a railgun. True Adamance posted something great on here, to the effect that a turret that can take down starships should have no problem taking down infantry. What do you think of that? Personally, I believe it sounds childish to complain about rifles not being able to damage a tank. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Daddrobit You Can Call Me Daddy 1189	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:02:00 - [178] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Daddrobit wrote: True Adamance wrote: While I can accept that it's probably true we'd not be having this discussion..... ain't no reason in hell an infantry ever deserve to live through a direct hit from a tank shell. Small turrets in Dust may or may not be equivalent to small turrets in EVE..... if they are you don't survive something that knocks starships out of the skies. And that's exactly the mentality I was talking about earlier. "I deserve to kill everything with relative ease and be difficult to kill in return because..." Tankers should have the ability to go 40-0 through individual player skill just like saxonamish or whatever other high tier player, absolutely. But for every one tanker that does, there should be 100s of others that fall to their own lack of abilities just like the rest of the playerbase. Sitting in a tank should not innately make you a good player. That's what you don't get. The ones that have been doing it for a long time are able to rack up kills, just like a PRO assault with a dedicated logi can do. Why can't you draw the parallel? I've been piloting a tank for a long time, why can't my experience amount to a good number of kills in one match? I'm not saying they shouldn't, in fact i literally said it in what you quoted that they should be able to kill like the top percentile of infantry. What I'm on about is that even bad players are made at least decent just because they're in a tank. If a 30mil SP infantry player still manages to go 2-6 in a proto assault suit. Then the same player should do no better after putting 30 mil SP into tanks and sitting in a Madrugar. But they do and they shouldn't. O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 8733	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:06:00 - [179] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Cat Merc wrote: You don't seem to understand me. I am all for vehicle weapons being primarily anti vehicle. The problem is that he wants his own enclosed little box within DUST 514, vehicles will essentially fight their own battle without affecting anything else. What's the point of that? There's not point but I think as a pilot of one of the, arguably, most hated vehicles know to this game...... there has to be a point where I step back and say.... I'm not designed to do this.... The issue is that when tanks do help infantry, the other infantry whine that HAV are OP, and the friendlies whine that the HAV stole their kills..... When we want to drop other vehicles AV whine that their role is not THE most effective means of dealing with vehicles, and other vehicles complain that we ARE the best means of destroying other vehicles..... With a current mind set like this where else can we go but our own little line battles if infantry won't let us help them, and other vehicles won't let us destroy them? Personally: I want all Large Turrets to be Anti-Armor based. They would be used for infantry suppression AT BEST. However, this doesn't mean that tanks need to be helpless. They need to make the Small Blaster better at mowing down infantry, so that tankers would justify running a gunner. I'm fine with dying to a small blaster on a tank. The Tank removes vehicles and suppresses infantry, while the small turrets on top kill anyone attempting to leave cover. Think about BF3. Did you ever see an effective tanker WITHOUT a gunner (And proxy scans )? It's much like the Attack Chopper, which requires a gunner to use to its best potential. I would love to see something like that applied to the ads as well. Let the ADS turn its missle slots into a right and left turret for strafing runs, and then a bottom turret controlled by a gunner. Fragile, but powerful aerial support. With the DPS buff, it could even make decent strafing runs on tanks, with Missiles and Small rail pummeling a lone tank without proper AA support. Imagine the transport dropships being able to turn on a hardener, and drop some dudes on an objective. A gunner stays in with a Missile or blaster to help support infantry in taking the point. Infantry - Vehicle synergy at its best. Vehicles are made to take down other vehicles and support infantry assaults / extractions. I want to see more of this. Born Deteis Caldari. Rejected by my Kinsman. Found a new family in the Vherokior Tribe. Nobody messes with my family
Daddrobit You Can Call Me Daddy 1189	Posted - 2014.12.10 05:08:00 - [180] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: message begins Rattati, what do you feel about the parallel that Dust turrets are essentially an extension of EVE turrets? I have someone on here complaining that an AR can't do damage to a tank, as well as complaining that infantry can get one-shot by a railgun. True Adamance posted something great on here, to the effect that a turret that can take down starships should have no problem taking down infantry. What do you think of that? Personally, I believe it sounds childish to complain about rifles not being able to damage a tank. I never once said that I feel ARs should do damage to tanks, I only stated that they don't. However for the sake of game balance, I do feel that infantry needs some recourse against untouchable instant death machines, especially with the possibility of real proto tanks making a comeback soon and our current AV only being balanced against basic. Not absolute resistance, but at least -something- to mitigate the damage. O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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