DUST Search - On vehicles

All Channels

General Discussions

On vehicles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2475	Posted - 2014.12.14 16:54:00 - [1] - Quote reserved this will be a long post 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. 2475	Posted - 2014.12.14 16:54:00 - [2] - Quote reserved 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. 2475	Posted - 2014.12.14 16:55:00 - [3] - Quote reserved 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. 2475	Posted - 2014.12.14 16:56:00 - [4] - Quote reserved 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. 2475	Posted - 2014.12.14 17:10:00 - [5] - Quote 5th reply needed I'm going to assign infantry some homework they can think about night. Despite the nerfs to vehicles and buffs to AV, you continued to get on the forums to call for more nerfs to vehicles and more buffs to AV. There have been times when half the first page of General Discussions was filled with AV and vehicle threads, all saying that vehicles were too powerful. First, think of that. Then, think of how pilots continued to adapt to the ever-changing counterbalance of vehicles vs. AV. How you all made those threads, how many of you were so frustrated with vehicles that a good bunch threatened to biomass their characters if things didn't change. Then, you think of that little tidbit. If your brain functions at a normal level, you'll start to realize that, well... pilots are actually pretty intelligent. We've consistently come up with ways to make the most out of our fits and skills. We've continued to adapt to changing tactics and tweaks to various little things. We've even figured out ways to beat infantry's lovable suicide cars. When that's all swirling around in your heads, and you reach that eureka moment, you'll realize the problems you've been having with vehicles isn't us, or the vehicle itself... It's you. 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. 2488	Posted - 2014.12.14 18:43:00 - [6] - Quote True Adamance wrote: A triple rep tank is not following Gallentean lore. It was an exploit developed by players and masked as legitimate gameplay. No Gallentean ship will ever use triple reps. Maybe 2 at best. One Ancillary and one standard. How is that not Gallente lore? 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. 2499	Posted - 2014.12.14 20:38:00 - [7] - Quote RogueTrooper 2000AD wrote: You learnt all that from the redline?. K den. Lolk Have you ever been in a tank? Have you ever fought against me? Or are you parroting the same non-argument that everybody else uses? 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. 2500	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:00:00 - [8] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: ... tl, dr AV is a deterrent, not the Highlander of the battlefield. We don't want to be Highlander either. I just want to pound on tanks and send their pilots back to the clone vats. Occasionally I'd like to be able to use a good blaster turret to wipe out infantry, because it's fun, and it's great fun when you realize that 6 people took out AV just to get you. Even better when you're just using a rail to destroy installations. I'm not bothering them, but they're bothering me. So that's when a LAV comes out, and that's when infantry comes on here to cry. You don't want us to slay you and send you back to the vats? If you see a rail tank taking out installations, leave it alone. It'll save you ISK. Don't really care what you said, it was probably all flatulence. 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. 2500	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:09:00 - [9] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: how can you expect physics to affect infantry but not vehicles. i shouldn't have been surprised to see a 1 sided argument from you your examples are 1) a car hitting a soft unarmored target. if that was a statue made of steel the approx size and weight of a dropsuit that vehicle would be destroyed also. if that vehicle hit a wall it would be destroyed, if that vehicle hit another vehicle it would be destroyed. Yes, a car hitting a soft target will utterly obliterate it. Except, cars in the future weigh a lot more, with a sufficient powerplant to get them moving, so no, that vehicle will not be destroyed hitting a dropsuit. 2) as for the guy getting crushed. well its all all down to ground pressure. dust vehicles don't slowly run over a soft target exerting its whole weight on one spot. its spread out. this is the reason tanks don't just sink into the ground. you can run over someones legs with a tank and not break a single bone. What "ground pressure?" Tanks today weigh around 60 tons. I'm betting a Madrugar weighs something like 150 tons, if not more. They don't travel slow, they travel fast. Yes, they do exert their weight on a spot. They don't sink into the ground because it's a video game. Name me one game where a tank sinks into the ground, and no, a tank going into deep water on Battlefield doesn't count. hit a reinforced object like a wall and that tank is going to take huge damage. i have seen it before in RL a tank hitting a rock and virtually splitting in This literally is not possible. Are you implying that US tanks are designed and built in China? Because that's where I'd expect such useless pieces of scrap iron to be made if you're implying that a mere rock could actually crack a tank hull. 2. i know what you are going to say and that this is not rl and we have shields etc. well so do dropsuits and physics is real. you can't have real physics for 1 thing and make up the rest for yourself. Just because a dropsuit has shields doesn't mean it will be protected from vehicles. Again, see the video from Meet Joe Black. That's what happens to a person hit by moving cars. i say go for real physics for kills but you must have the same physics also affecting you in the same way. We do have physics, except when we go over rocks, our vehicles lose their physics and go crazy for a second or two, before leveling out again. so that means a swarm hitting a flying vehicle will violently shake it, a rail hitting a tank will slow it down and shake it throwing off its aim slightly. vehicles colliding will destroy each other or have them sustain hugh damage Swarms already rock the hell out of dropships, so do forge guns, railguns, missiles and plasma cannons. The tracking computers in tanks 20,000 years in the future will be far better than what we have today, so no, tanks won't get rocked. also why do you feel the need to always blame the infantry. you reap what you sow. you constantly place vehicles above all other playstyles like they are the most important things and i know you will turn this into me being anti vehicle like you always do but i never have been. i'm anti players with your attitude in every role that that thinks they are something special and that every other players views are irrelevant. I blame infantry because you're the reason we're in the bottomless pit we are today. Of course I place vehicles over all else, because that's what I want to do. Drive around in my tank, and crush other tanks. Who the hell are you to decide how I can do that, how fast I can do it, how far I can do it, and how much damage I'm allowed to deal to do it? Where's the rest of the "vehicles must die to my AR" cheerleader squad? 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. 2500	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:11:00 - [10] - Quote Hakyou Brutor wrote: Can I get a tl;dr? There isn't one. It's a vehicle thread, and CCP and the CPM are asking for input. What I wrote is a lot of input. I'm not writing only 1000 characters and leave it at that. I've been doing this for too long to write so little about the path I want to take in Dust. I don't want to do infantry, I want to do vehicles, and there's no damn good reason why my voice should be silenced. 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. 2500	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:13:00 - [11] - Quote Daddrobit wrote: Hakyou Brutor wrote: Can I get a tl;dr? It's speaker dude, you can pretty much assume any posts by him on the matter of tanks is along the lines of, "Buff tanks, nerf infantry, I want to survive longer and kill faster. You don't deserve to kill me, it should take a coordinated effort." When CCP was nerfing the TAR rifles and Cal logi, everybody screamed that that was the end of Dust. There's still thousands of people playing every day, and a lot of the same people from that time. They're still here through the flaylock and fused locus grenade nerfs, too. 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. 2503	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:22:00 - [12] - Quote Zepod wrote: 1. FGs Destroy Vehicles in 1 Hit; Sends DSs Into Orbit. No, forge guns are not powered by a capacitor, because vehicles don't have one. Forge guns are jury rigged mining tools; railguns destroy starships. 2. Firing 20GJ & 80GJ Turrets Kills The Pilot Then why don't forge guns kill the user? Actually, Pilots are supposed to be a deterrent. No, because that would make vehicles completely and utterly useless, every single person that plays Dust that has SP into vehicles would get another respec and completely drop vehicles, or they would biomass their characters and play other games. Why would CCP completely alienate part of their community? We're already hanging on by a thread as it is, they don't want to cut us loose completely. This isn't Call of Duty 514 or Infantry-only 514. It's Dust 514, and if watch any of the old videos, vehicles had a huge presence in them. Go to Call of Duty if you want to ruin a game for someone, stop ruining this for pilots. Unless you're fighting a Sica with Base HP, that's not happening. Dispite you and ES's claims, this has been proven several times by multiple people. Then again you're both terrible tankers so I wouldn't be surprised if a MLT Swarm Launcher 1HK'd you. Armor tanks with base HP, and it could probably be done to shield tanks with base HP as well. And who are you calling a terrible tanker? Have you seen me in a tank? Have you been in a tank? Do you have any idea how hard it is to use a tank now? Have you lost 1.2mil ISK in a single death? Have you had more than half your SP into vehicles? No? Then stop talking about something you have no idea about. And no, swarms can't OHK anything in the game. -10/10 Surely someone who's calming to know the actions of a community as a whole would have evidence to back it up, right? Not everybody has a workhorse computer with a capture card. No, I don't have video of me playing. And if you say you want to see video of me, how about you buy me a capture card for Christmas? And no some cheap POS either, I want something in my PCI slot that is better than average, but doesn't use too much power. I run AMD, so there's enough heat. Here's a new member for the He-man Vehicle Haters Club. 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. 2503	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:27:00 - [13] - Quote How about some comments on the meat of my posts, instead of nitpicking the other things I wrote? I notice those decrying this post didn't comment on any of that. Probably because they don't have any argument against ADV tanks having more slots, and vehicles as a whole having useful passive bonuses. No argument about the core skills, either. You took my general thoughts and ran with those, instead of commenting on the more important things. But that doesn't surprise me, because you cry "it shot me, nerf it" on here and get what you want. Petulant little children. 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. 2503	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:54:00 - [14] - Quote Vitharr Foebane wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: But that doesn't surprise me, because you cry "it shot me, nerf it" on here and get what you want. Petulant little children. isnt that what you're doing now? as far as V/AV goes it is impossible to discuss until we have anti shield AV That's up to CCP, not me to speculate on. Make a thread appealing to Rattati 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
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2504	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:18:00 - [15] - Quote RemingtonBeaver wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: RogueTrooper 2000AD wrote: You learnt all that from the redline?. K den. Lolk Have you ever been in a tank? Have you ever fought against me? Or are you parroting the same non-argument that everybody else uses? I laughed at it. He won't get a like because he keeps trying to force some old meme into relevancy. It was also the only thing in this thread that I have enough time in the ******* day to read. I've fought you, you're alright. You're no Duna. Duna, you mean the same guy that only uses a blaster tank, and when he does lose it, jumps out in a scout suit and cloaks away to save his KDR? I go down with my ship. Duna is a nonfactor. 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. 2504	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:50:00 - [16] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Currently we have a problem with HAVs that can be summarized as "If tanks are only designed to destroy other tanks, then hy do we need tanks at all right now?" Don't get me wrong, I love tanks...but as they are now, they're pulling double duty. Until we get some sort of Infantry Fighting Vehicle for the tanks to blow up, tanks will largely only be relevant to other tanks (assuming that they actually make the tank turrets you know, designed as tank turrets)... I think we need to introduce the MAV, or at the very least, a variation of the current HAV hulls designed to be close infantry support...something with extremely high EHP and Regen that provides bonuses to infantry around it, and functions as a re-supply beacon and transport for them (see this thread)... And yes Adamance, I believe we all know about the fitting disparity between Armor and Shield Tanks, although I disagree with the statement that no vehicle should have both High EHP and High Regen, since there is a third factor to base measures off of: Firepower...I'm fine with a vehicle having high amounts of all around general tanky-nes so long as they sacrifice their firepower to achieve that end (see passive regen based brick fit drakes in space...I know they're not really a viable PvP fitting, but they're a cheaper representation of what I'm talking about (not to mention they actually sacrifice their firepower compared to something like a passive Tengu)) Tanks will always be one of the best counters to tanks (by definition of tank)...but they we currently need a reason for them to exist other than to kill each-other I love making other tanks burn. They should also have an anti-infantry role. But then it turns into a tank v tank battle anyway. 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. 2504	Posted - 2014.12.15 07:27:00 - [17] - Quote Jack 3enimble wrote: ... No Call of Duty >>>>>>>>>>> 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. 2520	Posted - 2014.12.15 17:16:00 - [18] - Quote CCP Rattati wrote: I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game" Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's. LOVE! 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. 2520	Posted - 2014.12.15 17:29:00 - [19] - Quote Luk Manag wrote: We need gameplay modes like Skirmish 1.0 to restore the vehicle role. As long as vehicle users can't simply snipe the objectives, there will be a a strong element of mobile siege/transportation gameplay for vehicles, and close quarters assault/defense for infantry. Driving/flying in endless circles has always felt wrong. Conquest, blow up the fortress, destroy a series of ground objectives, or anything like Skirmish 1.0 is essential for any modern FPS. We spend entirely too much time in redlined battles waiting for timers to run out. Exactly this Vehicles were designed around Skirmish 1.0, and that design continues today. If we had it back, vehicles as they are today would be absolutely critical for winning. 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. 2520	Posted - 2014.12.15 17:30:00 - [20] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Please stop saying AV is supposed to be a deterrent, because its not. It is designed to blow your tank sky high. Swarms can't hurt infantry, why should it only be able to scare you off until you have recovered and not kill you? Tanks do need to be made better, especially armour tanks. Also if you want to have sufficient AI capability fit small turrets, because if you want a main gun that wrecks both vehicles and infantry, you're being a douche. You wouldn't like it if an AR did full damage to your tank. If t hat's what you want, then why was my blaster nerfed? Why was nerfed for having good aim, when you still don't need to aim with swarms? An AR shouldn't do any damage to a vehicle at all. 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. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 18:56:00 - [21] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: ...So My peace is over.... Don't bother 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. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 19:27:00 - [22] - Quote DDx77 wrote: The only nerf tanks should get imo is a major reduction in armor repair. not only do you have very high shield/armor hp but you can use a modifier to reduce dmg while repping. Ive seen tanks laugh at my adv swarms with 2x dmg mods It doesn't make any sense to me to spec into a proto weapon that is only a deterrent. My problem with av is always the same I have my av scout fit that is not good vs infantry So when you tell me to "get behind the tank, or wait for that perfect opportunity" what you're really saying is " go waste your time trying to annoy that tank and get killed" Most have scanners and see me cloaked as I approach from behind, or I uncloak get two volleys out and I'm gunned down by infantry. So I do some dmg and lose a clone but really all I'm doing is wasting my time. It is much more fun, effective and rewarding to jihad you Or avoid you all together with a cloak scout Fact is infantry need more options to deal with tanks from a distance. Other weapons like lazers should be able to do reasonable dmg to vehicles (if only shields) I was in a pub match this morning and was up against 3 tanks. Two maddys and a missile gunlogi. Their infantry was good too Do I have to go further about the results from that match? They just rotated around the map. Couldn't get close to use proxies or use nades bc of infantry I couldn't get more than two shots off before I was killed or had to run. Yes we had a forge gunner....we had a forge gunner Clone reserves depleted. All three tanks were in the 20's with I think a couple deaths Passive reps were already nerfed because infantry complained that pilots were following Gallente lore. 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. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 19:28:00 - [23] - Quote Ghost Kaisar wrote: My view on the Tank vs. Infantry balance. Large turrets should have little to no infantry slaying power. Suppressive abilities at best (Via splash damage that makes it harmful, but not lethal to any infantry that isn't an idiot.) To counter, small turrets need to be more effective vs. infantry, so that we can see a pilot+Gunner as an effective combo. In BF3, you never saw a good tanker without a gunner. The top gun was vital for deterring infantry from pull out SMAW after SMAW in an effort to take you down. It was the gunners responsibility to get rid of C4 runners and to protect the tanks sides and flanks while engaging vehicles. This is what I want. Little to no infantry offense? Might as well remove the blaster, and while we're at it, remove the Madrugar. One large step closer to infantry's dream of no tanks. Next up on the chopping block is the ADS. 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. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:01:00 - [24] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: Ghost Kaisar wrote: My view on the Tank vs. Infantry balance. Large turrets should have little to no infantry slaying power. Suppressive abilities at best (Via splash damage that makes it harmful, but not lethal to any infantry that isn't an idiot.) To counter, small turrets need to be more effective vs. infantry, so that we can see a pilot+Gunner as an effective combo. In BF3, you never saw a good tanker without a gunner. The top gun was vital for deterring infantry from pull out SMAW after SMAW in an effort to take you down. It was the gunners responsibility to get rid of C4 runners and to protect the tanks sides and flanks while engaging vehicles. This is what I want. I can agree, taht if a tank is controlled by multiple players it has the right to be that many times effective. So i second Kaisar's idea. What im against is 1 Man uber tanks. Vehicles are far more SP intensive than the AV skills are. 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. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:05:00 - [25] - Quote Sir Snugglz wrote: I agree that vehicle pilots are a minority. But you have to admit the derpship pilots are the minority of the minority. While its always been tankers vs infantry.... we've had to struggle with derpships vs infantry and/or tankers. I also agree that the ADS was nerfed too much. But it wasn't when the rate of fire or ab got nerfed.... It was long before that. Til this day I have yet to get a reason as to why the 2nd low slot was taken away. I can not stress how important that slot is for the Cal ADS or the 2nd high slot for the Gal ADS. Yes they needed nerfs.. but now more than ever do they need that second slot. The OPness overshadowed that necessity... but now that the OPness is gone I hope that everyone can now see why I keep saying that we need that 2nd slot back. The 3rd volley from a swarm is now always guaranteed to hit. A dropship needs everything it can possibly get to increase survivability not only from AV, but from guys in tanks like me. As it stands now, with 2 damage mods, I can 2-shot any ADS out of the sky if I catch it cold. 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. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:10:00 - [26] - Quote Kierkegaard Soren wrote: Infantry AV should be a solid counter to tanks, otherwise what's the point? Vehicles are already incredibly weak today. There's next to no reason for someone new to skill into them. Unless they know someone that's been playing a while who they could get ISK from, and will actually take the time required to learn a tank's strengths and weaknesses, as well as when to engage and when to back off, as well as knowing exactly how to time their shots, it's otherwise completely useless to someone new and an insane ISK and SP sink. If my PLC can't knock out your average shield tank then I might as well just drop my own tank into the field and go from there because realistically nobody wants to be a deterrent. An average shield tank is a Sica. A Gunnlogi piloted by someone with a lot of experience is not an average shield tank. If I'm close enough to someone using swarms that I hear them leaving the tubes, 2 hardeners are instantly activated and I drive away. I just neutralized that person's offensive capability against me. I might also jump out and shove an HMG in their face to teach them a lesson. 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. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:46:00 - [27] - Quote Kayla Michael wrote: Dang dude, have you ever thought about writing a book? Enormous wall of texts there... It's not a wall of text. It's in proper format with paragraphs. 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. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:47:00 - [28] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Did I mention you messed up Marauder and Enforcer HAV skill. Marauder should have resistances. No, I didn't get them mixed up. 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. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:06:00 - [29] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game" Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's. Right, right. It should come full circle. Anti-Infantry Tank > Infantry Anti-Vehicle Tank > Anti-Infantry Tank Infantry > Anti-Vehicle Tank EDIT: This might even be a golden opportunity to have an infantry role specifically designed for AV in which they get bonuses toward AV weapons and tools. Then other infantry options are also a threat to them while they are a massive threat to vehicles and we can solely focus on the balance between them. That's not "full circle," that's infantry still devastating vehicles with still overpowered AV. 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. 2526	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:30:00 - [30] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Did I mention you messed up Marauder and Enforcer HAV skill. Marauder should have resistances. No, I didn't get them mixed up. Yes, Yes you did. I deliberately swapped the skills. I didn't get them mixed up. 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. 2527	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:50:00 - [31] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Aeon Amadi wrote: CCP Rattati wrote: I agree with OP that I enjoyed seeing and being a part of bigger tank battles, with escalation. I also agree that since we are having tanks in the game, there should be some variety, preferably some stone/paper/scissors. The entry point seems to be the most difficult, in "why do I need Tanks in my infantry game" Maybe the Marauder can be that take and hold monster, that has small turrets and is incredibly difficult to dislodge and requires tank destroyer HAV's. Right, right. It should come full circle. Anti-Infantry Tank > Infantry Anti-Vehicle Tank > Anti-Infantry Tank Infantry > Anti-Vehicle Tank EDIT: This might even be a golden opportunity to have an infantry role specifically designed for AV in which they get bonuses toward AV weapons and tools. Then other infantry options are also a threat to them while they are a massive threat to vehicles and we can solely focus on the balance between them. That's not "full circle," that's infantry still devastating vehicles with still overpowered AV. Oh, you again. You know I stopped listening to you almost a year ago, right? Like, everything is OP to you. EDIT: It's a really simple solution, you realize that right? Just make the Anti-Infantry Tanks more resistant to Infantry AV and the Anti-Vehicle Tanks more resistant to Vehicle Turrets. Then you can keep pretending that IAV > Everything while the rest of us have a mildly-to-really enjoyable experience. Pilots have a barely enjoyable experience. Why should infantry have a better experience than us? 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. 2532	Posted - 2014.12.16 17:19:00 - [32] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Did I mention you messed up Marauder and Enforcer HAV skill. Marauder should have resistances. No, I didn't get them mixed up. Yes, Yes you did. I deliberately swapped the skills. I didn't get them mixed up. Then you shouldn't have. There was no need to. Why not? 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. 2532	Posted - 2014.12.16 17:54:00 - [33] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Kierkegaard Soren wrote: I wasn't around for skirmish 1.0 but I love th idea of tanks playing a central role in destroying nulls. Shaping the battlefield is one of the few elements I miss from BF. If tanks could assault nulls and cripple them rather than destroying them, would that create the right dynamic to make players field vehicles for a reason beyond dominating infantry for lols? Infantry AV should be a solid counter to tanks, otherwise what's the point? If my PLC can't knock out your average shield tank then I might as well just drop my own tank into the field and go from there because realistically nobody wants to be a deterrent; they want to be a counter. We build fits, both suits and vehicles, to fulfill a specific purpose on the battlefield. Success in that endeavour is then dependant on the players skill in the execution of that role whilst playing. If I fit my suit to kill tanks I want the game to be balanced so as to allow me to do that if I play the role well enough. Of course, proto fit tanks and superb tankers can prevent this, and that's great, but fundementally all weapons, and the roles they are designed to support, should be effective and fun. And thats why a sica with a militia railgun, 2 militia damage mods, a militia hardener, and a militia plate is the best AV in the game available to an infantry player. There is no reason to pull out a forge gun or swarm launcher when I can just call in a tank that does comparable damage (and much more damage with mods active) over longer range with less delay between shots on a tank that moves many times faster than a dropsuit and grants me invincibility to all the infantry which would murder my AV fits the second I start firing and reveal my location. Also the tank costs less money than an effective AV fitting (effective at being a deterrent, not at actually killing anything, because killing a vehicle isnt allowed unless you use another vehicle). But yeah all the clueless tankers should keep whining about how good AV is. The only reason they really think its good is that it is one of the few things that isnt a tank that can kill them if they act stupid enough to take AV fire for 10+ seconds. Because we act stupid when someone actually has a brain and gets behind us to use AV. You can still one-shot a base HP tank in the rear end with a PRO breach forge, proficiency 5 in a Cal sentinel with 4 damage mods. 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. 2544	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:30:00 - [34] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Kierkegaard Soren wrote: I wasn't around for skirmish 1.0 but I love th idea of tanks playing a central role in destroying nulls. Shaping the battlefield is one of the few elements I miss from BF. If tanks could assault nulls and cripple them rather than destroying them, would that create the right dynamic to make players field vehicles for a reason beyond dominating infantry for lols? Infantry AV should be a solid counter to tanks, otherwise what's the point? If my PLC can't knock out your average shield tank then I might as well just drop my own tank into the field and go from there because realistically nobody wants to be a deterrent; they want to be a counter. We build fits, both suits and vehicles, to fulfill a specific purpose on the battlefield. Success in that endeavour is then dependant on the players skill in the execution of that role whilst playing. If I fit my suit to kill tanks I want the game to be balanced so as to allow me to do that if I play the role well enough. Of course, proto fit tanks and superb tankers can prevent this, and that's great, but fundementally all weapons, and the roles they are designed to support, should be effective and fun. And thats why a sica with a militia railgun, 2 militia damage mods, a militia hardener, and a militia plate is the best AV in the game available to an infantry player. There is no reason to pull out a forge gun or swarm launcher when I can just call in a tank that does comparable damage (and much more damage with mods active) over longer range with less delay between shots on a tank that moves many times faster than a dropsuit and grants me invincibility to all the infantry which would murder my AV fits the second I start firing and reveal my location. Also the tank costs less money than an effective AV fitting (effective at being a deterrent, not at actually killing anything, because killing a vehicle isnt allowed unless you use another vehicle). But yeah all the clueless tankers should keep whining about how good AV is. The only reason they really think its good is that it is one of the few things that isnt a tank that can kill them if they act stupid enough to take AV fire for 10+ seconds. Because we act stupid when someone actually has a brain and gets behind us to use AV. You can still one-shot a base HP tank in the rear end with a PRO breach forge, proficiency 5 in a Cal sentinel with 4 damage mods. Wow, one instance that is incredibly difficult to pull off past 80 metres, and only works on one suit. Oh and that only works on gunnlogi. Stop trying to paint this picture that AV is this thing that can kill all vehicles with impunity because they can't. I'm trying to wrap my head around what you're saying, and I can't understand it. I guess you weren't around for the days when a trio of forge gunners would get behind a tank and melt it in seconds. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

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.