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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

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
Joseph Ridgeson WarRavens Capital Punishment. 2933	Posted - 2014.12.14 16:59:00 - [5] - Quote That's quite a lot of reserved posts. This should be interesting. "This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
Vitharr Foebane Terminal Courtesy Proficiency V. 2096	Posted - 2014.12.14 16:59:00 - [6] - Quote Steps out to make popcorn Amarr: Assault V, Scout V, Sentinel V, Commando V, Logistics IV I place my faith in my God, my Empress, and my Laz0r
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2475	Posted - 2014.12.14 17:10:00 - [7] - 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
Quasar Storm Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 368	Posted - 2014.12.14 17:56:00 - [8] - Quote Couldn't have said it better myself. You have my full support & if you ever need an extra opinion, All you gotta do is ask friend. ADS & Tank pilot. Drifting on *Stormy* Seas. The "Eh" Team
Quasar Storm Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 370	Posted - 2014.12.14 18:03:00 - [9] - Quote I've always said pilots are the minority in this game. Our words are almost never heard. We used to be one of the pinnacle roles in changing the flow in a match. I think its time we get that role back. The part that saddens me most, Is the fact that all my friends who I either trained or fought along side with -- Have left the game or no longer pilot, Because its no longer needed. It can become an extreme ISK sink. I am currently in the works of rebooting PD301 with Imperious & hopefully by the time vehicles get a change for the better, PD301 can be teaching newer players who want to become future pilots. We made monsters back then. We can again. ADS & Tank pilot. Drifting on *Stormy* Seas. The "Eh" Team
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15869	Posted - 2014.12.14 18:21:00 - [10] - Quote 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. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1735	Posted - 2014.12.14 18:31:00 - [11] - Quote 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. 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. 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 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. i say go for real physics for kills but you must have the same physics also affecting you in the same way. 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 All Hail Legion
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1314	Posted - 2014.12.14 18:34:00 - [12] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Note to infantry: You should be a deterrent, not the nuclear option. We've been telling you for over a year how to destroy us, tailored to individual vehicles. You've never taken our advice, instead sticking to your idea that you should be the end-all solution. I've said many times that a Wiyrkomi Breach is able to destroy an armor with base HP in one shot, but you've never believed me. It's called the rear end. You get 167% efficiency when you hit a tank in the power plant. The PRO breach at proficiency 5, on a Caldari sentinel could vaporize a tank in one shot. You all kept saying GÇ£you can't do that, it's impossible,GÇ¥ yet forget that infantry weapons have a headshot multiplier. Tanks have their multiplier in the back. But, you never wait for that perfect opportunity, choosing instead to engage it at the very first opportunity you get. That is when the pilot is aware, and more often than not has modules ready to go to prevent them from being destroyed. You cannot take out a tank in such a manner, unless it's a MLT tank, and the pilot has no clue as to what to do. The previous Packed Lai Dai AV grenades did around 2000 damage each, after the armor damage bonus if they hit a vehicle with no shield. Those are nuclear baseball, and rightly deserved a damage nerf, and should get another one, to keep with AV being a deterrent. Swarms should do less damage, as they now travel faster than an assault dropship can fly, along with being able to travel 400m, avoiding obstacles, going around corners, and flying an inch above the ground to hit vehicles that are below the plane of a road. Forge guns are good in that they require aim, but again, should do less damage to vehicles in keeping with AV being a deterrent. The plasma cannon requires more aim and timing than the forge gun, and oddly is the only AV weapon that has a damage bonus against shields. I'm not familiar with EVE lore, but that sounds odd to me. General: LAV: fast transport around the battlefield on the ground - lightly armored vehicle. - Logistics LAV: slightly slower than the STD LAV; remote shield booster for vehicles, remote shield transporter for infantry; remote armor repairs for infantry and armor, separate modules. The remote modules should be area of effect, as the old modules were very difficult to use, doubly so when there was enemy fire and a vehicle or infantry needed repairs. When first activated, the driver was able to freely move the direction to lock on to whatever needed shield/armor, then the direction was locked back forward; the driver was able to move once the lock was established. HAV: hulking behemoths of the battlefield on the ground GÇô heavily armored vehicles, able to take a beating and dish out punishment, putting the fear of God into the enemy. - Marauder HAV: slight speed reduction from their STD level counterparts, able to throw higher damage at the cost of top speed. No more than a 75% reduction in speed when the siege module is active (infantry have called for them to stop moving completely, but there is no combat without movement). - Enforcer HAV: slight speed reduction from their STD level counterparts, able to take extreme punishment at the cost of top speed. No more than a 75% reduction in speed when the siege module is active. Dropship: rapid air transport around the battlefield GÇô able to take enough punishment to drop troops on the field, then leave the area to pick up and drop off more troops where they're needed. - Assault Dropship: Fast flying, damage dealing ships with high agility. Missile variants for anti-infantry and anti-vehicle. Small railgun for strictly anti-vehicle work. - Logistics Dropship: Slow flying, heavily armored with the sole purpose of moving troops around the battlefield, able to remotely repair vehicles and infantry, with an on board mCRU, no side turrets. Remote armor repairs and shield boosting should be area of effect in a cone shape pointed towards the ground. Should be high enough that it doesn't have to scrape the ground in order to use the remote modules. Modules, current and proposed modules to return: Shield extenders, shield boosters, active shield hardeners, remote shield boosters (infantry and vehicle), passive shield hardeners, active armor repairs, active armor hardeners, passive armor hardeners, remote armor repairs (infantry and vehicle), active damage modules, active coolant modules, CPU expansion modules, active scanners, powergrid expansion modules, nitrous injectors, afterburners. Proposed skills: Marauder Operation: +2% duration to siege module per level Caldari Marauder Operation: +5% rotation speed to railgun/missile turrets per level Gallente Marauder Operation: +2% rotation speed to hybrid/blaster turrets per level Assault Dropship Operation: +2% damage per level Caldari Assault Dropship Operation: +2% rate of fire and ammo capacity per level Gallente Assault Dropship Operation: +2% rate of fire and ammo capacity per level Logistics Dropship Operation: - 10% reduction to mCRU spawn time per level, +5% remote module range per level Caldari Logistics Dropship Operation: +2% remote shield booster rate per level Gallente Logistics Dropship Operation: +2% remote armor repair rate per level Logistics LAV Operation: +2% remote module range per level Caldari Logistics LAV Operation: +2% remote shield booster rate per level Gallente Logistics LAV Operation: +2% remote armor repair rate per level Enforcer HAV Operation: +2% to duration of siege module per level Caldari Enforcer HAV Operation: +5% shield resistance per level Gallente Enforcers HAV Operation: +5% armor resistance per level You mixed up Enforcer HAV's and Marauder Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2488	Posted - 2014.12.14 18:43:00 - [13] - 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
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1314	Posted - 2014.12.14 18:53:00 - [14] - 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. 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. 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 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. i say go for real physics for kills but you must have the same physics also affecting you in the same way. 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 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. When jumping from 400m to the ground you guys have inertia dampens. I propose you take those away because those don't exist and make infantry have real physics. I would also take away the stupid strafe as well. Any person strafing with that speed is gonna break those ankles on the first change in direction. Let's also make it say 2-3 bullets kll any suit because that is more realistic. Lets make it so a missile from a tank will kill any infantry within a 8m diameter of where it lands. You know, you might as well give tanks really really long range like they gave in real with range over 2+ miles and unherd of accuracy. We should also make it more realistic because is real, tanks moving at top speed of 50 mp/h can hit a target the size of a plate from 2 miles away. We should also add the fact that infantry have weapons that can severely injure newer tanks are destroy older tanks in a shot. Trust me, you don't want realistic conditions. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1735	Posted - 2014.12.14 18:57:00 - [15] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: 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. 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. 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 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. i say go for real physics for kills but you must have the same physics also affecting you in the same way. 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 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. When jumping from 400m to the ground you guys have inertia dampens. I propose you take those away because those don't exist and make infantry have real physics. I would also take away the stupid strafe as well. Any person strafing with that speed is gonna break those ankles on the first change in direction. Let's also make it say 2-3 bullets kll any suit because that is more realistic. Lets make it so a missile from a tank will kill any infantry within a 8m diameter of where it lands. You know, you might as well give tanks really really long range like they gave in real with range over 2+ miles and unherd of accuracy. We should also make it more realistic because is real, tanks moving at top speed of 50 mp/h can hit a target the size of a plate from 2 miles away. We should also add the fact that infantry have weapons that can severely injure newer tanks are destroy older tanks in a shot. Trust me, you don't want realistic conditions. im not the one asking for real physics here as an excuse for more kills like the op. i'm just stating the point you cannot use real physics as an excuse for 1 thing and then ignore physics for how it should affect you which is what the op seems to think is ok. physics affecting infantry but not the vehicles.thats what he wants All Hail Legion
Hakyou Brutor Titans of Phoenix 1838	Posted - 2014.12.14 19:05:00 - [16] - Quote Can I get a tl;dr? Knight Soiaire = my bae
Daddrobit You Can Call Me Daddy 1239	Posted - 2014.12.14 19:16:00 - [17] - Quote 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." O.G. Pink Fluffy Bunny
Zepod Titans of Phoenix 16	Posted - 2014.12.14 19:26:00 - [18] - Quote You wrote so much text for someone who knows they won't be taken seriously. Though since we are balancing around Physics, I'd like to make 2 Propositions: 1. FGs Destroy Vehicles in 1 Hit; Sends DSs Into Orbit. Forge Guns are powered by a capacitor, which fires magnetic slugs traveling at 3000m/s. That would be enough to not only destroy any vehicle imaginable, but would also send what's left of the remains about 3km away from the impact, which is the size of about 2.5 maps. 2. Firing 20GJ & 80GJ Turrets Kills The Pilot 20 Gigajoules is enough force to turn a Metropolitan area into a parking lot, which would surely destroy the vehicle that it's mounted onto. If they're using an 80GJ? Well, lets just hope that those corporations have Planetary Insurance. Spkr4theDead wrote: Note to infantry: You should be a deterrent, not the nuclear option. We've been telling you for over a year how to destroy us, tailored to individual vehicles. You've never taken our advice, instead sticking to your idea that you should be the end-all solution. I've said many times that a Wiyrkomi Breach is able to destroy an armor with base HP in one shot, but you've never believed me. Actually, Pilots are supposed to be a deterrent. Back in the days of 1.1, Infantry have been telling you how to survive AV, and even supplied multiple methods of surviving different types of AV. You've never taken their advice, and simply stuck to the idea that you should be the god-mode class that goes 50/0 each-match. Spkr4TheDead wrote: It's called the rear end. You get 167% efficiency when you hit a tank in the power plant. The PRO breach at proficiency 5, on a Caldari sentinel could vaporize a tank in one shot. You all kept saying GÇ£you can't do that, it's impossible,GÇ¥ yet forget that infantry weapons have a headshot multiplier. 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. Spkr4TheDead wrote: Tanks have their multiplier in the back. But, you never wait for that perfect opportunity, choosing instead to engage it at the very first opportunity you get. That is when the pilot is aware, and more often than not has modules ready to go to prevent them from being destroyed. You cannot take out a tank in such a manner, unless it's a MLT tank, and the pilot has no clue as to what to do. Would you mind listing and presenting the data given to you by your multiple trials and tests you've performed to come to this conclusion? Surely someone who's calming to know the actions of a community as a whole would have evidence to back it up, right? You may not like what I just said, but you know it's true...
Quasar Storm Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 371	Posted - 2014.12.14 19:41:00 - [19] - Quote The problem with vehicles, Is that there really has never been a true discussion that doesn't end up going the complete wrong way. Kind of like the way this post is turning out. Speaker does say some important things in his OP. He is expressing his opinions based on what he sees, experiences & shares with others. So, Of course, What he says will be tailored to his experiences. You should all focus on the core of the issue: Vehicles being sub-par. Not the physics of the game. Not whether or not Speaker has his lore right. Not past nerfs. What can be done now? I will say vehicles have had their fair share of nerfs. So, No more nerfs. I know the LRG Turrets need work before CCP decides to release our old tanks. Also, People need to remember, The AV vehicles face now are going to be OP due to the fact all the vehicles only have up to STD hulls. That's PRO Tier Vs. STD Tier. So, Of course it isn't going to be easy anyways. I do think ADSs got WAYYYY too much of a nerf. I think the afterburner is the only thing CCP should have nerfed. The turrets skill stacking, To me, Wasn't that big of a deal because the pilots who could do that were incredibly small in the community. Plus, To even effectively stack in the first place both the pilot & gunner had to have millions of SP specialized into Cal ADS/Gal ADS skills & small turret skills. Even if stacking was a major concern, CCP should have removed just the stacking & not nerf the RoF for the pilot. Shields still need work. Collisions & uneven terrain can remove your shields almost better than AV. I still think every Caldari vehicle should get more passive resistances to Caldari Rails, Because its Caldari tech. I mean, Duh. Come on. Same should go for the Gallante & their blaster tech. But, I suppose this will have to wait until CCP reintroduce the Gal rail & whatnot. Tanks. Okay, I can make fits to take on AV, But they suck Vs. other tanks. I can make Destroyers which are spiked. Sponge tanks. I can make tanks that have two mini cannons plus one LRG PRO Turret. That's basically it for fits. It does feel like AV is overpowered, But I really feel like its cause I'm in a STD Hull while I'm being swarmed by PRO AV. Now, If this continues when I get my Sagaris rollin', Then there will be a problem. The only major issue I could even think that is broken, Is Jihads. I mean that crap can cause your Ps3 to freeze. Not cool. For LAVs, I mean, I don't use them very much. Would like to see LLAVs about giving support to other tanks, But I feel like there just isn't enough players in one game to do that. It takes one noob army to compete against 1 squad of organized effort. So, I think the more I see them in pubs, The more chances our team has at losing if the other team has good players. I miss my Eryx. :( & my Sagaris.... :((((( ADS & Tank pilot. Drifting on *Stormy* Seas. The "Eh" Team
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15869	Posted - 2014.12.14 19:51:00 - [20] - Quote Quasar Storm wrote: The problem with vehicles, Is that there really has never been a true discussion that doesn't end up going the complete wrong way. Kind of like the way this post is turning out. Speaker does say some important things in his OP. He is expressing his opinions based on what he sees, experiences & shares with others. So, Of course, What he says will be tailored to his experiences. You should all focus on the core of the issue: Vehicles being sub-par. Not the physics of the game. Not whether or not Speaker has his lore right. Not past nerfs. What can be done now? I will say vehicles have had their fair share of nerfs. So, No more nerfs. I know the LRG Turrets need work before CCP decides to release our old tanks. Also, People need to remember, The AV vehicles face now are going to be OP due to the fact all the vehicles only have up to STD hulls. That's PRO Tier Vs. STD Tier. So, Of course it isn't going to be easy anyways. I do think ADSs got WAYYYY too much of a nerf. I think the afterburner is the only thing CCP should have nerfed. The turrets skill stacking, To me, Wasn't that big of a deal because the pilots who could do that were incredibly small in the community. Plus, To even effectively stack in the first place both the pilot & gunner had to have millions of SP specialized into Cal ADS/Gal ADS skills & small turret skills. Even if stacking was a major concern, CCP should have removed just the stacking & not nerf the RoF for the pilot. Shields still need work. Collisions & uneven terrain can remove your shields almost better than AV. I still think every Caldari vehicle should get more passive resistances to Caldari Rails, Because its Caldari tech. I mean, Duh. Come on. Same should go for the Gallante & their blaster tech. But, I suppose this will have to wait until CCP reintroduce the Gal rail & whatnot. Tanks. Okay, I can make fits to take on AV, But they suck Vs. other tanks. I can make Destroyers which are spiked. Sponge tanks. I can make tanks that have two mini cannons plus one LRG PRO Turret. That's basically it for fits. It does feel like AV is overpowered, But I really feel like its cause I'm in a STD Hull while I'm being swarmed by PRO AV. Now, If this continues when I get my Sagaris rollin', Then there will be a problem. The only major issue I could even think that is broken, Is Jihads. I mean that crap can cause your Ps3 to freeze. Not cool. For LAVs, I mean, I don't use them very much. Would like to see LLAVs about giving support to other tanks, But I feel like there just isn't enough players in one game to do that. It takes one noob army to compete against 1 squad of organized effort. So, I think the more I see them in pubs, The more chances our team has at losing if the other team has good players. I miss my Eryx. :( & my Sagaris.... :((((( Traditionally you do not make a technology that is designed to protect against your own weaponry..... you make one to protect yourself against your enemies technology. Regardless he does say some valuable things even if a few are coloured by the bitterness of an old vet....but what both of you need to remember most of all is that any prospective vehicles we may have reintroduced must be balanced around the current PRO AV, and currently at this time there are some very obvious issues with the interplay between the two. - Shield HAV are statistically superior in every respect to armour HAV - Shield Hardeners are 15% more efficient than Armour Hardeners for no good reason, allowing for stacking abuse. - Shield Passive Regeneration if far too effective for not having to fit a module allowing Shield HAV to fully regen in a matter of 20-30 seconds. - Lack of Modules - Explosive and Kinetic Heavy AV meta renders Armour HAV ineffective but means Shield HAV can ignore lesser AV. - Fitting disparities between Shield and Armour HAV - Shield HAV @ MLT and STD level have too much potential eHP for their tier. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 411	Posted - 2014.12.14 19:54:00 - [21] - Quote You learnt all that from the redline?. K den. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
Bam Critical Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.12.14 20:02:00 - [22] - Quote I support your effort to make tanks awesome again Step back.Go away.Be ready to be blown away.
Draden Brohiem D3ATH CARD RUST415 22	Posted - 2014.12.14 20:09:00 - [23] - Quote Zepod wrote: You wrote so much text for someone who knows they won't be taken seriously. Though since we are balancing around Physics, I'd like to make 2 Propositions: 1. FGs Destroy Vehicles in 1 Hit; Sends DSs Into Orbit. Forge Guns are powered by a capacitor, which fires magnetic slugs traveling at 3000m/s. That would be enough to not only destroy any vehicle imaginable, but would also send what's left of the remains about 3km away from the impact, which is the size of about 2.5 maps. 2. Firing 20GJ & 80GJ Turrets Kills The Pilot 20 Gigajoules is enough force to turn a Metropolitan area into a parking lot, which would surely destroy the vehicle that it's mounted onto. If they're using an 80GJ? Well, lets just hope that those corporations have Planetary Insurance. Spkr4theDead wrote: Note to infantry: You should be a deterrent, not the nuclear option. We've been telling you for over a year how to destroy us, tailored to individual vehicles. You've never taken our advice, instead sticking to your idea that you should be the end-all solution. I've said many times that a Wiyrkomi Breach is able to destroy an armor with base HP in one shot, but you've never believed me. Actually, Pilots are supposed to be a deterrent. Back in the days of 1.1, Infantry have been telling you how to survive AV, and even supplied multiple methods of surviving different types of AV. You've never taken their advice, and simply stuck to the idea that you should be the god-mode class that goes 50/0 each-match. Spkr4TheDead wrote: It's called the rear end. You get 167% efficiency when you hit a tank in the power plant. The PRO breach at proficiency 5, on a Caldari sentinel could vaporize a tank in one shot. You all kept saying GÇ£you can't do that, it's impossible,GÇ¥ yet forget that infantry weapons have a headshot multiplier. 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. Spkr4TheDead wrote: Tanks have their multiplier in the back. But, you never wait for that perfect opportunity, choosing instead to engage it at the very first opportunity you get. That is when the pilot is aware, and more often than not has modules ready to go to prevent them from being destroyed. You cannot take out a tank in such a manner, unless it's a MLT tank, and the pilot has no clue as to what to do. Would you mind listing and presenting the data given to you by your multiple trials and tests you've performed to come to this conclusion? Surely someone who's calming to know the actions of a community as a whole would have evidence to back it up, right? How is he not taken seriously? This is a forum community not a proto dictatorship. His opinion is as valid as anyone else's! This is not a popularity contest. He has made true and valid points! Nothing he said about infantry or tanks is incorrect. Your corp you're in doesn't make or break your opinion. I bet CCP takes what he has written here into consideration long before your dumb forge gun suggestion.
Quasar Storm Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 372	Posted - 2014.12.14 20:11:00 - [24] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Traditionally you do not make a technology that is designed to protect against your own weaponry..... you make one to protect yourself against your enemies technology. Regardless he does say some valuable things even if a few are coloured by the bitterness of an old vet....but what both of you need to remember most of all is that any prospective vehicles we may have reintroduced must be balanced around the current PRO AV, and currently at this time there are some very obvious issues with the interplay between the two. - Shield HAV are statistically superior in every respect to armour HAV - Shield Hardeners are 15% more efficient than Armour Hardeners for no good reason, allowing for stacking abuse. - Shield Passive Regeneration if far too effective for not having to fit a module allowing Shield HAV to fully regen in a matter of 20-30 seconds. - Lack of Modules - Explosive and Kinetic Heavy AV meta renders Armour HAV ineffective but means Shield HAV can ignore lesser AV. - Fitting disparities between Shield and Armour HAV - Shield HAV @ MLT and STD level have too much potential eHP for their tier. Nerfing Shielded HAVs in not a solution. I think what should be better is buff armor HAVs. I know you play with armor. So, I know you want armor to be good. I play with shields, So of course, I want them to be effective. I know how you feel. The only issue I have with shields is the boosters don't work very well for HAVs in PC. The slightest nudge can dud them out. The uneven terrain can rip your shields to nothing sometimes. That's not very nice. I can still even get armor damage sometimes if hit with something that has heavy Alpha. Shields have depleted recharge & recharge rates that take a moment to engage. Armor has passive all-around repair & shield recharge. Armor tanks also don't have to sacrifice most of their survival abilities to put on other modules like DMG mods, CRU, Scanners or Fuel Injectors. That's why armor was always the popular blaster. Don't have to trade all of your health for other things. I do think Armor HAVs could use some PG. The LRG Blaster needs a skill for dispersion. It really is a circle of prayers after the first two shots. Plus, In PC, One of the things that was so enjoyable & fulfilling was when there was an enemy blaster covering an objective. What did your team do? Dial 911 for your Rail tank. The escalation was great. Also, I just thought that Cal & Gal could get resistances to their own tech, Because when & if CCP reintroduces more of the Race variant turrets, You would come up with some specialized fits for targets. You wouldn't go try to remove a Caldari Rail tank off the field with Caldari Rail. You'd get a Gal Rail. Just thinking about more ways to put the "Special" back into Vehicle Specialist. Of course, This wouldn't even need to be remotely considered until those turrets were out. Wouldn't be fair, For the selection we have now already favors Caldari. ADS & Tank pilot. Drifting on *Stormy* Seas. The "Eh" Team
Draden Brohiem D3ATH CARD RUST415 22	Posted - 2014.12.14 20:16:00 - [25] - Quote Quasar Storm wrote: True Adamance wrote: Traditionally you do not make a technology that is designed to protect against your own weaponry..... you make one to protect yourself against your enemies technology. Regardless he does say some valuable things even if a few are coloured by the bitterness of an old vet....but what both of you need to remember most of all is that any prospective vehicles we may have reintroduced must be balanced around the current PRO AV, and currently at this time there are some very obvious issues with the interplay between the two. - Shield HAV are statistically superior in every respect to armour HAV - Shield Hardeners are 15% more efficient than Armour Hardeners for no good reason, allowing for stacking abuse. - Shield Passive Regeneration if far too effective for not having to fit a module allowing Shield HAV to fully regen in a matter of 20-30 seconds. - Lack of Modules - Explosive and Kinetic Heavy AV meta renders Armour HAV ineffective but means Shield HAV can ignore lesser AV. - Fitting disparities between Shield and Armour HAV - Shield HAV @ MLT and STD level have too much potential eHP for their tier. Nerfing Shielded HAVs in not a solution. I think what should be better is buff armor HAVs. I know you play with armor. So, I know you want armor to be good. I play with shields, So of course, I want them to be effective. I know how you feel. The only issue I have with shields is the boosters don't work very well for HAVs in PC. The slightest nudge can dud them out. The uneven terrain can rip your shields to nothing sometimes. That's not very nice. I can still even get armor damage sometimes if hit with something that has heavy Alpha. Shields have depleted recharge & recharge rates that take a moment to engage. Armor has passive all-around repair & shield recharge. Armor tanks also don't have to sacrifice most of their survival abilities to put on other modules like DMG mods, CRU, Scanners or Fuel Injectors. That's why armor was always the popular blaster. Don't have to trade all of your health for other things. I do think Armor HAVs could use some PG. The LRG Blaster needs a skill for dispersion. It really is a circle of prayers after the first two shots. Plus, In PC, One of the things that was so enjoyable & fulfilling was when there was an enemy blaster covering an objective. What did your team do? Dial 911 for your Rail tank. The escalation was great. Also, I just thought that Cal & Gal could get resistances to their own tech, Because when & if CCP reintroduces more of the Race variant turrets, You would come up with some specialized fits for targets. You would go try to remove a Caldari Rail tank off the field with Caldari Rail. You'd get a Gal Rail. Just thinking about more ways to put the "Special" back into Vehicle Specialist. Of course, This wouldn't even need to be remotely considered until those turrets were out. Wouldn't be fair, For the selection we have now already favors Caldari. Very true!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15869	Posted - 2014.12.14 20:32:00 - [26] - Quote Quasar Storm wrote: True Adamance wrote: Traditionally you do not make a technology that is designed to protect against your own weaponry..... you make one to protect yourself against your enemies technology. Regardless he does say some valuable things even if a few are coloured by the bitterness of an old vet....but what both of you need to remember most of all is that any prospective vehicles we may have reintroduced must be balanced around the current PRO AV, and currently at this time there are some very obvious issues with the interplay between the two. - Shield HAV are statistically superior in every respect to armour HAV - Shield Hardeners are 15% more efficient than Armour Hardeners for no good reason, allowing for stacking abuse. - Shield Passive Regeneration if far too effective for not having to fit a module allowing Shield HAV to fully regen in a matter of 20-30 seconds. - Lack of Modules - Explosive and Kinetic Heavy AV meta renders Armour HAV ineffective but means Shield HAV can ignore lesser AV. - Fitting disparities between Shield and Armour HAV - Shield HAV @ MLT and STD level have too much potential eHP for their tier. Nerfing Shielded HAVs in not a solution. I think what should be better is buff armor HAVs. I know you play with armor. So, I know you want armor to be good. I play with shields, So of course, I want them to be effective. I know how you feel. The only issue I have with shields is the boosters don't work very well for HAVs in PC. The slightest nudge can dud them out. The uneven terrain can rip your shields to nothing sometimes. That's not very nice. I can still even get armor damage sometimes if hit with something that has heavy Alpha. Shields have depleted recharge & recharge rates that take a moment to engage. Armor has passive all-around repair & shield recharge. Armor tanks also don't have to sacrifice most of their survival abilities to put on other modules like DMG mods, CRU, Scanners or Fuel Injectors. That's why armor was always the popular blaster. Don't have to trade all of your health for other things. I do think Armor HAVs could use some PG. The LRG Blaster needs a skill for dispersion. It really is a circle of prayers after the first two shots. Plus, In PC, One of the things that was so enjoyable & fulfilling was when there was an enemy blaster covering an objective. What did your team do? Dial 911 for your Rail tank. The escalation was great. Also, I just thought that Cal & Gal could get resistances to their own tech, Because when & if CCP reintroduces more of the Race variant turrets, You would come up with some specialized fits for targets. You wouldn't go try to remove a Caldari Rail tank off the field with Caldari Rail. You'd get a Gal Rail. Just thinking about more ways to put the "Special" back into Vehicle Specialist. Of course, This wouldn't even need to be remotely considered until those turrets were out. Wouldn't be fair, For the selection we have now already favors Caldari. Yes nerfing Shield HAV is a valid means of bringing balance to HAV battles. No HAV should have powerful regenerative capacity AND high eHP. That is neither fair nor a good vehicle design. Either an HAV should have a high eHP and sacrifice is repping power or have powerful reps and comparatively lower static eHP. No I don't play with armour tanks. They are ineffective, statistically inferior in every role, and lack the incredibly powerful passive reps that don't even require modules to carry. I acknowledge that Shield HAV in their current form are comparatively over powered. They can stack Extenders and effectually abuse a 15% more effective Hardener that they currently have for no reason contributing more EHP than a comprable Armour Tank. Moreover they has a naturally high 168 passive shield regeneration per second that is stronger than a Complex Heavy Armour Repairer and have module fitting values far in excess of Armour HAV, abusable by fitting modules, allowing them to armour tank as well. Look all I am suggesting is a standardisation of all Active Shield and Armour Hardener Modules @ 30%. Under a proposed model by Pokey Dravon both tanks can roughly have equivalent eHP values when all is said and done while armour has no passive reps and shields can buff their passive reps up to constant values per second of between 45-60. The Last thing I want is Shield HAV to be under powered again like the were pre-1.7 but I feel with the current Boosters and old modules we had they certainly wouldn't be if there stats were correctly designed. Nor do I want the Armour HAV to be over powered, and though I would like to get back into armour tanking again, there's no value in piloting and over powered tool.....and that's genuinely how I feel about the Shield HAV. I am able to get away with too much in my Gunnlogi. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Quasar Storm Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 372	Posted - 2014.12.14 20:36:00 - [27] - Quote I think if a pilot post is ever going to taken seriously, It needs to be moderated away from the forums. There needs to be sessions for each individual class of vehicle. For example: IF there was a session where tankers were to come together, It can't be on the forums. There's too many people who get tunnel vision while reading OP's & get way off topic. There are trolls to consider as well. There needs to be CPM's & maybe even a DEV or two for community security. Meaning, They are there to ensure the community the players who talk about tanks, are not conjuring up garbage trying to make tanks overpowered. The idea is that, We talk about how to makes effective, How to make them have a defined role in the game & not screw up balancing in the process. The same would go for all other vehicles. Heck, I'm sure maybe infantry could get down on this idea. ADS & Tank pilot. Drifting on *Stormy* Seas. The "Eh" Team
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2499	Posted - 2014.12.14 20:38:00 - [28] - 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
Quasar Storm Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 372	Posted - 2014.12.14 20:53:00 - [29] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Yes nerfing Shield HAV is a valid means of bringing balance to HAV battles. No HAV should have powerful regenerative capacity AND high eHP. That is neither fair nor a good vehicle design. Either an HAV should have a high eHP and sacrifice is repping power or have powerful reps and comparatively lower static eHP. No I don't play with armour tanks. They are ineffective, statistically inferior in every role, and lack the incredibly powerful passive reps that don't even require modules to carry. I acknowledge that Shield HAV in their current form are comparatively over powered. They can stack Extenders and effectually abuse a 15% more effective Hardener that they currently have for no reason contributing more EHP than a comprable Armour Tank. Moreover they has a naturally high 168 passive shield regeneration per second that is stronger than a Complex Heavy Armour Repairer and have module fitting values far in excess of Armour HAV, abusable by fitting modules, allowing them to armour tank as well. Look all I am suggesting is a standardisation of all Active Shield and Armour Hardener Modules @ 30%. Under a proposed model by Pokey Dravon both tanks can roughly have equivalent eHP values when all is said and done while armour has no passive reps and shields can buff their passive reps up to constant values per second of between 45-60. The Last thing I want is Shield HAV to be under powered again like the were pre-1.7 but I feel with the current Boosters and old modules we had they certainly wouldn't be if there stats were correctly designed. Nor do I want the Armour HAV to be over powered, and though I would like to get back into armour tanking again, there's no value in piloting and over powered tool.....and that's genuinely how I feel about the Shield HAV. I am able to get away with too much in my Gunnlogi. Then why wouldn't you agree to buff armor HAVs if they feel even more underpowered against shields? They wouldn't be OP verses everything. Both HAVs would be equal & still be challenged by AV. Shields have to be strong or there is no point in them being in the game. They don't have passive or active reps & they only have a first level of health security. Second being armor, Which it has none. Plus, Of course, Other modules nerf Shield fits because most useful modules go into high slots. I've seen really good armor fits take on shield tanks. The problem I see a lot is AV does a lot of damage to armor & Armor HAVs have a nerfed recovery system. I think CCP should buff armor hardeners or a higher repair that is active, Not passive. Like I said, Armor tanks are useful because you don't have to sacrifice Low slots to add on high slot modules. They can still tend to their second layer of health while having extra damage, Speed or scans. I think armor HAVs could use a PG buff. This is all from what I've seen & heard. I'm not an armor master. I can put together decent armor tanks & I do have them -- However, I've always sided with shield, Regardless of any buffs/nerfs. ADS & Tank pilot. Drifting on *Stormy* Seas. The "Eh" Team
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15871	Posted - 2014.12.14 21:07:00 - [30] - Quote Quasar Storm wrote: True Adamance wrote: Yes nerfing Shield HAV is a valid means of bringing balance to HAV battles. No HAV should have powerful regenerative capacity AND high eHP. That is neither fair nor a good vehicle design. Either an HAV should have a high eHP and sacrifice is repping power or have powerful reps and comparatively lower static eHP. No I don't play with armour tanks. They are ineffective, statistically inferior in every role, and lack the incredibly powerful passive reps that don't even require modules to carry. I acknowledge that Shield HAV in their current form are comparatively over powered. They can stack Extenders and effectually abuse a 15% more effective Hardener that they currently have for no reason contributing more EHP than a comprable Armour Tank. Moreover they has a naturally high 168 passive shield regeneration per second that is stronger than a Complex Heavy Armour Repairer and have module fitting values far in excess of Armour HAV, abusable by fitting modules, allowing them to armour tank as well. Look all I am suggesting is a standardisation of all Active Shield and Armour Hardener Modules @ 30%. Under a proposed model by Pokey Dravon both tanks can roughly have equivalent eHP values when all is said and done while armour has no passive reps and shields can buff their passive reps up to constant values per second of between 45-60. The Last thing I want is Shield HAV to be under powered again like the were pre-1.7 but I feel with the current Boosters and old modules we had they certainly wouldn't be if there stats were correctly designed. Nor do I want the Armour HAV to be over powered, and though I would like to get back into armour tanking again, there's no value in piloting and over powered tool.....and that's genuinely how I feel about the Shield HAV. I am able to get away with too much in my Gunnlogi. Then why wouldn't you agree to buff armor HAVs if they feel even more underpowered against shields? They wouldn't be OP verses everything. Both HAVs would be equal & still be challenged by AV. Shields have to be strong or there is no point in them being in the game. They don't have passive or active reps & they only have a first level of health security. Second being armor, Which it has none. Plus, Of course, Other modules nerf Shield fits because most useful modules go into high slots. I've seen really good armor fits take on shield tanks. The problem I see a lot is AV does a lot of damage to armor & Armor HAVs have a nerfed recovery system. I think CCP should buff armor hardeners or a higher repair that is active, Not passive. Like I said, Armor tanks are useful because you don't have to sacrifice Low slots to add on high slot modules. They can still tend to their second layer of health while having extra damage, Speed or scans. I think armor HAVs could use a PG buff. This is all from what I've seen & heard. I'm not an armor master. I can put together decent armor tanks & I do have them -- However, I've always sided with shield, Regardless of any buffs/nerfs. I do not necessarily feel any buffs besides fitting capacity is required for the standard Madrugar. Otherwise it just comes down to a rebalancing of modules. - 180mm Reinforced Armour Plating - Active Armour Reps - Standardised Armour Hardeners @ 30% - Damage Controls - Heat SInks All of those are essentially armour buffs. But even assuming they returned...... Armour HAV cannot be allowed to retain 1200 Shields and 4000 base armour EHP. That would then make them too powerful as well. Hell even the old values of 3625 are a little much. But 3400 isn't far off for armour values. As to your assertion that Shields would be weak under my model..... no they would not be. They would resist the same amount of damage, they can regenerate the same amount, they can still be fit out well......BUT they cannot have all of these things at once. A Passive Tanked Gunnlogi could have armour 8.5-9.5 K EHP BUT would not have powerful regenerative capacity. Instead they would forsake than for a constant regeneration of between 45-60 per second......whereas an active Tanked Gunnlogi would have prolific Shield Regen based around the use of Boosters and most likely have a constant passive regen of 30-40 per second but access to multiple shield booster modules. The same would be true of Armour HAV. They would have comparatively more eHP on a passive tank but no reps, and on an active tank access to multiple repppers but less static eHP as they must fit 120mm plates. In Vehicle use there have to be checks and balances. We cannot have everything, we must give something up for the power we gain in one area over others. Moreover if Rattati is serious about vehicle rebalances then I can forsee a great value in having these two school of vehicle use. Passive would be better in squadrons backed up by Logi and Actives would be better for solo use and more skilled tankers. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

Quasar Storm Capital Acquisitions LLC General Tso's Alliance 372	Posted - 2014.12.14 21:19:00 - [31] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Quasar Storm wrote: True Adamance wrote: Yes nerfing Shield HAV is a valid means of bringing balance to HAV battles. No HAV should have powerful regenerative capacity AND high eHP. That is neither fair nor a good vehicle design. Either an HAV should have a high eHP and sacrifice is repping power or have powerful reps and comparatively lower static eHP. No I don't play with armour tanks. They are ineffective, statistically inferior in every role, and lack the incredibly powerful passive reps that don't even require modules to carry. I acknowledge that Shield HAV in their current form are comparatively over powered. They can stack Extenders and effectually abuse a 15% more effective Hardener that they currently have for no reason contributing more EHP than a comprable Armour Tank. Moreover they has a naturally high 168 passive shield regeneration per second that is stronger than a Complex Heavy Armour Repairer and have module fitting values far in excess of Armour HAV, abusable by fitting modules, allowing them to armour tank as well. Look all I am suggesting is a standardisation of all Active Shield and Armour Hardener Modules @ 30%. Under a proposed model by Pokey Dravon both tanks can roughly have equivalent eHP values when all is said and done while armour has no passive reps and shields can buff their passive reps up to constant values per second of between 45-60. The Last thing I want is Shield HAV to be under powered again like the were pre-1.7 but I feel with the current Boosters and old modules we had they certainly wouldn't be if there stats were correctly designed. Nor do I want the Armour HAV to be over powered, and though I would like to get back into armour tanking again, there's no value in piloting and over powered tool.....and that's genuinely how I feel about the Shield HAV. I am able to get away with too much in my Gunnlogi. Then why wouldn't you agree to buff armor HAVs if they feel even more underpowered against shields? They wouldn't be OP verses everything. Both HAVs would be equal & still be challenged by AV. Shields have to be strong or there is no point in them being in the game. They don't have passive or active reps & they only have a first level of health security. Second being armor, Which it has none. Plus, Of course, Other modules nerf Shield fits because most useful modules go into high slots. I've seen really good armor fits take on shield tanks. The problem I see a lot is AV does a lot of damage to armor & Armor HAVs have a nerfed recovery system. I think CCP should buff armor hardeners or a higher repair that is active, Not passive. Like I said, Armor tanks are useful because you don't have to sacrifice Low slots to add on high slot modules. They can still tend to their second layer of health while having extra damage, Speed or scans. I think armor HAVs could use a PG buff. This is all from what I've seen & heard. I'm not an armor master. I can put together decent armor tanks & I do have them -- However, I've always sided with shield, Regardless of any buffs/nerfs. I do not necessarily feel any buffs besides fitting capacity is required for the standard Madrugar. Otherwise it just comes down to a rebalancing of modules. - 180mm Reinforced Armour Plating - Active Armour Reps - Standardised Armour Hardeners @ 30% - Damage Controls - Heat SInks All of those are essentially armour buffs. But even assuming they returned...... Armour HAV cannot be allowed to retain 1200 Shields and 4000 base armour EHP. That would then make them too powerful as well. Hell even the old values of 3625 are a little much. But 3400 isn't far off for armour values. As to your assertion that Shields would be weak under my model..... no they would not be. They would resist the same amount of damage, they can regenerate the same amount, they can still be fit out well......BUT they cannot have all of these things at once. A Passive Tanked Gunnlogi could have armour 8.5-9.5 K EHP BUT would not have powerful regenerative capacity. Instead they would forsake than for a constant regeneration of between 45-60 per second......whereas an active Tanked Gunnlogi would have prolific Shield Regen based around the use of Boosters and most likely have a constant passive regen of 30-40 per second but access to multiple shield booster modules. The same would be true of Armour HAV. They would have comparatively more eHP on a passive tank but no reps, and on an active tank access to multiple repppers but less static eHP as they must fit 120mm plates. In Vehicle use there have to be checks and balances. We cannot have everything, we must give something up for the power we gain in one area over others. Moreover if Rattati is serious about vehicle rebalances then I can forsee a great value in having these two school of vehicle use. Passive would be better in squadrons backed up by Logi and Actives would be better for solo use and more skilled tankers. I get the math, But without those Passive/Active modules being released, Its not going to work. CCP would have to go back in re-do everything for HAVs & plus they still have to re-do LRG Turrets. I'm just trying to come up with things that they can implement without drastically changing base models. I agree with you, That there must be balance. I agree with you that a shield tank would still be effective under your model -- Presuming CCP fixed the booster bugs & terrain bugs & made it where not all of 90% of our useful modules are not for high slot use. Also, I think we need to see what the reintroduction of modules we will get will effect the vehicle meta. Some worries me, Some sounds great. ADS & Tank pilot. Drifting on *Stormy* Seas. The "Eh" Team
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15873	Posted - 2014.12.14 21:27:00 - [32] - Quote Quasar Storm wrote: I get the math, But without those Passive/Active modules being released, Its not going to work. CCP would have to go back in re-do everything for HAVs & plus they still have to re-do LRG Turrets. I'm just trying to come up with things that they can implement without drastically changing base models. I agree with you, That there must be balance. I agree with you that a shield tank would still be effective under your model -- Presuming CCP fixed the booster bugs & terrain bugs & made it where not all of 90% of our useful modules are not for high slot use. Also, I think we need to see what the reintroduction of modules we will get will effect the vehicle meta. Some worries me, Some sounds great. Considering these values considerably little has to be done. No HAV even exceeding a 5 slot tank under the design ideals can amass more than 11,000 eHP and that is a passive tanked Surya with no capacity to self repair I have already proposed the values for Reinforced 180mm plating at 2146,2448,and 2750 (Basic to Complex @ a rate of 302 extra armour and 2% mobility penalties per tier to a total of 15%) Many of the old values can also remain to same. So only a turret rebalance is really required but even then engaging a Passive Tanked Armour HAV would not be overtly difficult give its heavy armour penalties and inability to repair. It would simply require the correct turret or deployment of your weapon.....which is to avoid to avoid a brawl. CCP cannot implement higher tier tanks under the current model. It simply will not work. The Sagaris will simply be a batter Gunnlogi and nigh unkillable, the Surya will be slightly less crap an Armour Tank but not able to directly engage or deal with a Sagaris. *"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. 2500	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:00:00 - [33] - 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 - [34] - 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 - [35] - 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 - [36] - 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 - [37] - 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 - [38] - 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
Vitharr Foebane Terminal Courtesy Proficiency V. 2097	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:45:00 - [39] - Quote 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 Amarr: Assault V, Scout V, Sentinel V, Commando V, Logistics IV I place my faith in my God, my Empress, and my Laz0r
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2503	Posted - 2014.12.15 04:54:00 - [40] - 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

RemingtonBeaver Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1554	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:03:00 - [41] - Quote 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. Pride of Amarria. I am a hero to the Amarrinese.
RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 441	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:06:00 - [42] - Quote 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 have an alt that is dedicated to vehicles that i have not bothered with since they gutted vehicles into what we have today. I can't express enough how pitifully basic and stupid i find vehicle play now and it quite literally disgusts me. Any nub can be good in vehicles now, it's a no brainer joke to play. It literally disgusts me. K den. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 441	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:12:00 - [43] - 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. Actually no, i just enjoy k den, it is good for you. You may as well have called him a scrub as he is not as good as another scrub...... If you think duna is that good then you must also be a scrub as he wasn't that good when tanks required skill but he is very good now that any scrub can do well in them. K den. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2504	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:18:00 - [44] - 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
RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 441	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:22:00 - [45] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. Any decent tanker used to find joy in bullying duna and his bumchum blacl heart. Now they are legends........ K den. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
RemingtonBeaver Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 1556	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:30:00 - [46] - Quote It was a joke. I put the little devil face there, I thought..... places head on keyboard hyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyhyybggg Pride of Amarria.* Wheeee!
RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 442	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:31:00 - [47] - Quote RemingtonBeaver wrote: It was a joke. I put the little devil face there, I thought..... *places head on keyboard hyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyhyybggg Pics or it didn't happen. K den. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 128	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:33:00 - [48] - Quote 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 Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15901	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:47:00 - [49] - 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?" No that's very much the opposite. It's more that we completely at this time lack any semblance of role. "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....." What do tanks do when there is this double standard? *"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. 2504	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:50:00 - [50] - 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

Jack 3enimble Titans of Phoenix 614	Posted - 2014.12.15 05:56:00 - [51] - Quote ... No Dealing justice with a swift punch in the balls, now in battles near you! Lord of the Links
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2504	Posted - 2014.12.15 07:27:00 - [52] - 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15903	Posted - 2014.12.15 07:31:00 - [53] - Quote Jack 3enimble wrote: ... No In B4 World of Tanks <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<, I currently play War Thunder Ground Forces which is arguably a more realistic simulator for tank combat and depicts what, in primacy, tanks were designed to do. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 239	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:23:00 - [54] - 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. 1. An exploit is being able to shot someone with a shotgun while still cloaked or placing an RE somewhere and killing the entire team - Fitting 3 reps is not an exploit if it can be done 2. In DUST Gallentean lore is reps, it is for suits hence why they have better passive reps to begin with and it would be the same for Gallente vehicles until we get drone and it would be pointless if it was the same as Amarr ie favouring brick tank

CCP Rattati C C P C C P Alliance 13648	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:38:00 - [55] - Quote 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. "As well as stupid, Rattati is incredibly slow and accident-prone, and cannot even swim"

RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 443	Posted - 2014.12.15 13:42:00 - [56] - 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. Please bring back all the vehicle modules and the logi vehicles. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 239	Posted - 2014.12.15 14:51:00 - [57] - 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. 1. The way i do see things it could go like this, Logi LAV/DS and also MAV and APCs which transport and support infantry become annoying to infantry thus you need a HAV to destroy them or put them off from annoying the point and then to clear the other HAV you need either another HAV or an Marauder/Enforcer HAV to clear the other HAV so escalation goes all the way to the top but also the lower tiered vehicles have some use in the match 2. With your idea the Marauder would be the infantry killer but also would require 2 other players in that HAV unless the large turret can kill infantry? Problem is Small turrets have a small range and generally cannot reach 200m out let alone 300m which is max range of a FG. which then also brings in the question of Tank Destroyer HAVs and also AV ie 3 AV to kill a 3manned HAV? 3. Will the TD HAV be specalized also?
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix 621	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:14:00 - [58] - Quote 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.
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6323	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:22:00 - [59] - Quote ...So My peace is over.... Amarr Logi, Scout, Assault , Sentinel and soon Commando. Check MY loyalty Empress o7
Luk Manag of Terror TRE GAFFEL 619	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:27:00 - [60] - Quote 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. There will be bullets. ACR+SMG [CEO of Terror]

Aidualc LATINOS KILLERS CORP Dark Taboo 22	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:28:00 - [61] - Quote RogueTrooper 2000AD 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. Please bring back all the vehicle modules and the logi vehicles. The yellow brick Logi Dropship was removed because it was OP, no ? Maybe If the Gimsnes doesn-¦t have turrets but 7 slots for 6-infantry and 1-pilot and the speed of Incubus, could be an excelent DROPSHIP... for infantry, maybe return the rep-in-ship ... so you can take your squad... move to another point and bring it back to the battle full rep.
NextDark Knight Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance 748	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:35:00 - [62] - Quote Anything I can do to help support getting my forge gun back to being awesome and not this waterdown chest beater that it is now. I will dump all my support into.. Over 60+ Million SP and full proto in all Caldari Suits. Dust just won't die on PS3/Xbox. Dustin since 6/29/2012
Fox Gaden Immortal Guides Learning Alliance 5410	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:49:00 - [63] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: I don't feel that GÇ£murder taxiGÇ¥ were a problem. It's physics in action. There's literally no reason to nerf physics. Here's what physics looks like in action: Exhibit A "Murder taxis" were a problem, because they defied physics. A LAV hitting a solder in an Exoskeleton suit at 5 mile/hour would kill them. That was not intended. It was a glitch that would cause the damage from the impact to be applied hundreds of times so the small bump that should have dropped the shields a few notches would be applied a hundred times and kill the solder. Since that was fixed, you can still "murder taxi" someone, but you have to be going fast enough to produce deadly force on impact. Which is not to disparage any other portion of your post. Only addressing that one comment here. Edit: In fact I road killed two people in a match last night. Impact Physics is working as intended with LAV's. Impact physics between a Blue HAVE and a Blue LAV on the other hand needs to brought into line with reality. Slow speed impacts which should simply push the LAV out of the way and maybe scratch the pain are causing LAV's to blow up. I mean if the HAV drives over a LAV I can see it destroying the LAV, but brushing one at low speed should just push it out of the way. Hand/Eye coordination cannot be taught. For everything else there is the Learning Coalition.
DDx77 The Exemplars RISE of LEGION 53	Posted - 2014.12.15 15:49:00 - [64] - Quote 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
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 8843	Posted - 2014.12.15 16:24:00 - [65] - Quote 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. Born Deteis Caldari. Rejected by my Kinsman. Found a new family in the Vherokior Tribe. Nobody messes with my family
KING CHECKMATE Opus Arcana Covert Intervention 6325	Posted - 2014.12.15 16:27:00 - [66] - 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. 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. Amarr Logi, Scout, Assault , Sentinel and soon Commando. Check MY loyalty Empress o7
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 737	Posted - 2014.12.15 16:41:00 - [67] - Quote Joseph Ridgeson wrote: Response time: * The main reason why Murder Taxis were nerfed is because it was obnoxious. It is the same reasoning you use later: "Because it is a video game." * I don't buy the "we had better Tank battles before with more diversity" because how to fit your Tank was a problem, not a choice. The Triple Staggered Hardener Madrugar with a Plate, Repair, and a Heat Sink was simply the best option and would kill pretty much anything. Yes, it was more of an active process cycling them so that you had 100% uptime with 2 and like 70% uptime with 3 but it wasn't difficult. From a balance aspect, it was too powerful. I remember watching 3 people constantly shooting at me with their Swarm Launchers as my blaster was both super anti-infantry and anti-vehicle other than high flying dropships. When one role is so heavily more powered than others, it should not be the case "Because it is a video game." * I don't understand your statement on "those national corps" and "while those that speak English." Insulting and pandering. It moves away from your attempts to be have reasoned arguments. * I find that your statements on "you should be a deterrent, not the nuclear option" to be based on "because you are infantry." I would than hazard to guess that you would say that tanks should be "the nuclear option" because "they are tanks." Why does one reasoning not work while the other one does? * I too am glad that AV Grenades were nerfed. They were simply too powerful as a slot that didn't cause you to lose your primary weapon. * The LLAV and Marauder stuff would be interesting to have. Providing it was balanced, of course. * Vehicle PG and CPU skills are unlikely to ever return. Vehicles were meant to be the push towards Tiericide that many have been calling for the game as a whole. PG and CPU skills made that far more difficult. It is strange that vehicles follow a different philosophy compared to Infantry at the moment. * Ehh, the Tank Escalation was not that common. It was fascinating to see it though. It used to happen with Dropsuits too. Game starts basic, more and more deaths, the game gets more bitter, and you have a bunch of people running their best suits. Though, it could also go the other direction. The reason that doesn't happen now is because the SP is plentiful and the people that have been playing for a while have enough ISK to use their best gear all the time. Your memories of Escalation are the same ones that Infantry have of Escalation but like most nostalgia, it is gone. * Yes, Vehicles have been a serious balance problem. There have been loads of nerfs, this is true. Triple Repair Madrugar is not someone "following Gallente lore", it is someone using one of the best tanks in the game that is pretty much immune to all damage other than massive Alpha Damage. Hardeners were nerfed first though. People went from Double Hardener Repairer to Triple Repairer because of the hardener nerf if I remember correctly, at least I deleted my Double Hardener builds before the Triple Hardener ones. The only complaint I have with the Repair nerf is that CCP acknowledged that it was multiple Repairers that were overpowered but rather than adding a stacking penalty they just nerfed the Repair rates. Screwed over my Plate, Repairer, Hardener build pretty hard. * Yes, 1.7's AV reduction was caused by Tanks having a 'stat squish.' It wasn't because of your "nuclear option" philosophy. Again, "because it is a video game." * Tanks were only critical because they were quite overpowered. * I don't see how you can say that a newbie will kill you if you can't fight back. You can still run, activate hardener, or out maneuver them. Yes, the Railgun glitch needs to die but it isn't like it is different from when it happened before. * Most of your post has been about tanks rather than all vehicles (I imagine that is what you are most comfortable with?) but now here it is with Dropships. I would agree that Dropships are in a rough spot. It is mostly fly in, shoot some missiles, and run away because the Swarm Launchers are coming to get you. Not super great. * There are few tank fits now. This is true. However, I would still argue that there was really only one back in Chromosome because of how much better it was compared to the other options. My take on the situation: Yes, Vehicles don't really have a hard defined role today. When I am cruising about in my Tank, I am mostly killing other Tanks that are only there because I am killing Tanks. It is a rough spot but the role of the Tank before was "kill all the Infantry and be too difficult to stop." That was too powerful and as much as I miss the wonderful finickyness of the Triple Staggered Hardener, it was a balance nightmare. Vehicles do need a massive rework so they have a reason to exist. Maps made much larger with more people would give Dropships and LAV's more of a purpose other than one time transports to drop Uplinks. Larger maps with more people would allow Tanks to whack-a-mole locations. Push into an objective, support your infantry with blaster fire, and when the enemy swapped to AV, fall back and let the infantry mop up easier. This is their current design with the "waves of engagement" where the hardener is worth so very much EHP with a longish cooldown but the game is too limited to make the most out of it. Something needs to happen but balance should be the end result. stacking penalties only work on percentages. such as 7% damage mods or 45% shield rechargers
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 129	Posted - 2014.12.15 16:42:00 - [68] - 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. Like more of a Battle Fortress and less of a Mammoth Tank? I still like it! (Any chance you can add more small turrets onto the HAV Hulls, or are we locked into 3 total?) Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. I believe all these roles are support for front line soldiers.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS VP Gaming Alliance 737	Posted - 2014.12.15 16:45:00 - [69] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. CCP, if this needs to be moved, please do so. I'm never sure where to put certain stuff, but I do know that General Discussions is the most-read part of the forums. the CPM did alot of work to fix tanks. it was their opinion that tanks were to powerful vs infantry because of their damage. thats why we lost our turret proficiency skills that gave damage bonuses. its also why large turrets have been progressively made to harder to apply their damage on small infantry. the goal was to have tanks still be powerful against other vehicles, but not also against infantry, unless fitting small turrets
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2520	Posted - 2014.12.15 17:16:00 - [70] - 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

RogueTrooper 2000AD Neckbeard Absolution 446	Posted - 2014.12.15 17:18:00 - [71] - Quote Aidualc wrote: RogueTrooper 2000AD 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. Please bring back all the vehicle modules and the logi vehicles. The yellow brick Logi Dropship was removed because it was OP, no ? Maybe If the Gimsnes doesn-¦t have turrets but 7 slots for 6-infantry and 1-pilot and the speed of Incubus, could be an excelent DROPSHIP... for infantry, maybe return the rep-in-ship ... so you can take your squad... move to another point and bring it back to the battle full rep. And swarms are now buffed. K den. Do not try and bend the K den. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no k den.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2520	Posted - 2014.12.15 17:29:00 - [72] - 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 - [73] - 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
Dauth Jenkins Titans of Phoenix 612	Posted - 2014.12.15 17:38:00 - [74] - 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 actually, if you fit small turrets on your tank, and have people gun them, it becomes an area denial vehicle. you can roll up to an objective amd park there, letting your small turrets deal with infantry. ive done this countless times on the bridge maps. then the other team pulls out a tank made for tank hunting and tries to kill me (i say try because most people pull out mlt sica railguns, without even fitting amy modules on them) -Sincerely --The Dual Swarm Commando
Riptalis Horizons' Edge Proficiency V. 133	Posted - 2014.12.15 17:57:00 - [75] - 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. I want my Eryx back! Isn't December supposedly going to be for vehicles? Hotfixes and/or maybe possibly a re-introduction to the vehicles we had? Python pilot Logistics mk.0 Assault mk.0
Sir Snugglz Red Star. EoN. 954	Posted - 2014.12.15 18:26:00 - [76] - Quote 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. -Pro AFKing LVL 5 -Luck is just one of my skills -Just because I make flying look easy doesn't mean it is
Kierkegaard Soren THE HANDS OF DEATH RUST415 593	Posted - 2014.12.15 18:27:00 - [77] - Quote 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. Dedicated Commando. "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." -Paul Atreides.
Jacques Cayton II Titans of Phoenix 1235	Posted - 2014.12.15 18:40:00 - [78] - Quote Op tanks are fine av is fine armor hav needs some love but its fine. Tanks are area denial if your assaulting your doing it wrong. Tanks dont assault heavily fortified defenses. Why? Infantry is the deadliest thing to tanks in real life. Because they arent built for that We fight for the future of the State not our personal goals
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 18:56:00 - [79] - 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
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15921	Posted - 2014.12.15 19:08:00 - [80] - Quote Jacques Cayton II wrote: Op tanks are fine av is fine armor hav needs some love but its fine. Tanks are area denial if your assaulting your doing it wrong. Tanks dont assault heavily fortified defenses. Why? Infantry is the deadliest thing to tanks in real life. Because they arent built for that That's debatable Jaques if there is a fortified emplacement whose long range high calibre explosive canon do you used to bring that position down..... whose armoured hull does the infantry march behind to close in on the defences to protect them from small arms fire? *"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. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 19:27:00 - [81] - 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 - [82] - 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
Kayla Michael Tactical Logistics and Cargo 55	Posted - 2014.12.15 19:37:00 - [83] - Quote Dang dude, have you ever thought about writing a book? Enormous wall of texts there... I eat drahp uplink, me thinks this isn't a cookie. `~`
Kayla Michael Tactical Logistics and Cargo 55	Posted - 2014.12.15 19:39:00 - [84] - 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. STONE.. lol I eat drahp uplink, me thinks this isn't a cookie. `~`
Jack 3enimble Titans of Phoenix 617	Posted - 2014.12.15 19:41:00 - [85] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Jack 3enimble wrote: ... No Call of Duty >>>>>>>>>>> Standard answer from a standard QQ machine Dealing justice with a swift punch in the balls, now in battles near you! Lord of the Links
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15922	Posted - 2014.12.15 19:54:00 - [86] - 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. Do want to point out Ghost that in BF 3 and 4 Tanks did/do have coaxial machine guns on their turrets for anti infantry work, and any direct hit with the shell was always a OHKO. I've played a lot of BF in my hiatus from Dust and honestly I find even as the main pilot I have significantly more anti infantry and destructive power both vs vehicles and structures. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pisidon Gmen Ivory Vanguard 49	Posted - 2014.12.15 19:59:00 - [87] - Quote omg all u need a clue its an infantry game not tank 514 real life vs game ok how about real infantry av weapons take down choppers and tanks in 1 hit not 3+ as in the game real life tanks don't move that fast or are able to fly off hills with out taking crippling damage how about this a real tank would not have room 4 a heavy suit let alone 3 as a tank crew the tank is your weapon and if u bailout ur not warring more then light armor and have a side arms not hmgs and long rifles but hay itsa game and we have to treat it like 1 now if ccp would just stop trying to make the low % of players who just complain on the forums happy and play the game maybe we could get some real fixes to the game
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1317	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:01:00 - [88] - 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. IT'S NOT STONE!!! IT'S ROCK!!! Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:01:00 - [89] - 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 - [90] - 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

Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1317	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:09:00 - [91] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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 completely agree with this, my 40 million sp Vehicle ALT is not even closed to being maxed out anywhere in vehicles or turrets but he is completely useless as infantry because all sp is in vehicles and still get destroyed. I have been tanking since chromosome, that is what brought me into this game and have a lot of experience in almost every vehicle and still get ganked by one punk on a tower in is Minmatar commando and proto swarms. Probably a fit that costs 10 million isk sp max. Absolute max unless you're just a scrub that act's like "OMG I have swarm launcher proficiency to 5, I have kin cats to 5, micro fibs to 5." even though that makes no sense. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:10:00 - [92] - 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
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1317	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:11:00 - [93] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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. As it stands now, either you're a max ADS pilot with a crap ton of sp and play skill involved in flying or you get dominated by my mediocre standard Caldari assault with an ADV swarms and two militia damage mods. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1317	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:14:00 - [94] - Quote Did I mention you messed up Marauder and Enforcer HAV skill. Marauder should have resistances. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:46:00 - [95] - 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 - [96] - 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
Aeon Amadi Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 7458	Posted - 2014.12.15 20:58:00 - [97] - 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. 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. Long-Term Roadmap More Hard Questions
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2521	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:06:00 - [98] - 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
Luther Mandrix WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL Top Men. 390	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:08:00 - [99] - 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. Tank only mode World of Tanks Eve style
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix 624	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:38:00 - [100] - Quote 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. its not overpowered. i dont know why you think it is. It does its job, and it makes the user easier to kill because all they have is a sidearm for protection, i mean drive around a corner and i wont even be able to get a lock without chasing after you by which time you could have gotten well out of range. Shield tanks right now are really good, maybe too good. Armour tanks are lacking and need a buff, it also doesnt help the armour tank that 2/3 of all AV is armour based making it even harder for them. its not AV thats the problem, its the tanks.

TYCHUS MAXWELL The Fun Police 709	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:54:00 - [101] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Quasar Storm wrote: The problem with vehicles, Is that there really has never been a true discussion that doesn't end up going the complete wrong way. Kind of like the way this post is turning out. Speaker does say some important things in his OP. He is expressing his opinions based on what he sees, experiences & shares with others. So, Of course, What he says will be tailored to his experiences. You should all focus on the core of the issue: Vehicles being sub-par. Not the physics of the game. Not whether or not Speaker has his lore right. Not past nerfs. What can be done now? I will say vehicles have had their fair share of nerfs. So, No more nerfs. I know the LRG Turrets need work before CCP decides to release our old tanks. Also, People need to remember, The AV vehicles face now are going to be OP due to the fact all the vehicles only have up to STD hulls. That's PRO Tier Vs. STD Tier. So, Of course it isn't going to be easy anyways. I do think ADSs got WAYYYY too much of a nerf. I think the afterburner is the only thing CCP should have nerfed. The turrets skill stacking, To me, Wasn't that big of a deal because the pilots who could do that were incredibly small in the community. Plus, To even effectively stack in the first place both the pilot & gunner had to have millions of SP specialized into Cal ADS/Gal ADS skills & small turret skills. Even if stacking was a major concern, CCP should have removed just the stacking & not nerf the RoF for the pilot. Shields still need work. Collisions & uneven terrain can remove your shields almost better than AV. I still think every Caldari vehicle should get more passive resistances to Caldari Rails, Because its Caldari tech. I mean, Duh. Come on. Same should go for the Gallante & their blaster tech. But, I suppose this will have to wait until CCP reintroduce the Gal rail & whatnot. Tanks. Okay, I can make fits to take on AV, But they suck Vs. other tanks. I can make Destroyers which are spiked. Sponge tanks. I can make tanks that have two mini cannons plus one LRG PRO Turret. That's basically it for fits. It does feel like AV is overpowered, But I really feel like its cause I'm in a STD Hull while I'm being swarmed by PRO AV. Now, If this continues when I get my Sagaris rollin', Then there will be a problem. The only major issue I could even think that is broken, Is Jihads. I mean that crap can cause your Ps3 to freeze. Not cool. For LAVs, I mean, I don't use them very much. Would like to see LLAVs about giving support to other tanks, But I feel like there just isn't enough players in one game to do that. It takes one noob army to compete against 1 squad of organized effort. So, I think the more I see them in pubs, The more chances our team has at losing if the other team has good players. I miss my Eryx. :( & my Sagaris.... :((((( Traditionally you do not make a technology that is designed to protect against your own weaponry..... you make one to protect yourself against your enemies technology. Regardless he does say some valuable things even if a few are coloured by the bitterness of an old vet....but what both of you need to remember most of all is that any prospective vehicles we may have reintroduced must be balanced around the current PRO AV, and currently at this time there are some very obvious issues with the interplay between the two. - Shield HAV are statistically superior in every respect to armour HAV - Shield Hardeners are 15% more efficient than Armour Hardeners for no good reason, allowing for stacking abuse. - Shield Passive Regeneration if far too effective for not having to fit a module allowing Shield HAV to fully regen in a matter of 20-30 seconds. - Lack of Modules - Explosive and Kinetic Heavy AV meta renders Armour HAV ineffective but means Shield HAV can ignore lesser AV. - Fitting disparities between Shield and Armour HAV - Shield HAV @ MLT and STD level have too much potential eHP for their tier. You should add to that although armour tanks have a theoretical higher top speed, the shield vehicle ability to accelerate faster and turn far outshine whatever the armor tank may due if it was in a drag race lol. I have a feeling that spkr doesn't use shield tanks, because right now I just slap regenerators on to sicas and push with the infantry. I get popped by proto tanks but my tanks cost a tenth or less then that proto tank it took to pop me with a proto rail gun and damage mods. If I could complain about anything right now, it's the fact that I don't see why anyone would skill into vehicles. I can make militia fitted vehicles that can generally avoid proto AV as long as I don't over extend. And if three guys suprise me, well it was a cheap ass tank anyways. Same goes for my 40k vipers that I can use as transports and air support with a buddy. They blow it up... that's okay it was 40k... What I think actual vehicles players should be asking for is a reduction in cost to adv/pro modules and turrets that's what really makes current vehicle play unviable. They are quite effective when used properly just stupid expensive if you use your sp skills to fit em.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15928	Posted - 2014.12.15 21:56:00 - [102] - Quote TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote: True Adamance wrote: Quasar Storm wrote: The problem with vehicles, Is that there really has never been a true discussion that doesn't end up going the complete wrong way. Kind of like the way this post is turning out. Speaker does say some important things in his OP. He is expressing his opinions based on what he sees, experiences & shares with others. So, Of course, What he says will be tailored to his experiences. You should all focus on the core of the issue: Vehicles being sub-par. Not the physics of the game. Not whether or not Speaker has his lore right. Not past nerfs. What can be done now? I will say vehicles have had their fair share of nerfs. So, No more nerfs. I know the LRG Turrets need work before CCP decides to release our old tanks. Also, People need to remember, The AV vehicles face now are going to be OP due to the fact all the vehicles only have up to STD hulls. That's PRO Tier Vs. STD Tier. So, Of course it isn't going to be easy anyways. I do think ADSs got WAYYYY too much of a nerf. I think the afterburner is the only thing CCP should have nerfed. The turrets skill stacking, To me, Wasn't that big of a deal because the pilots who could do that were incredibly small in the community. Plus, To even effectively stack in the first place both the pilot & gunner had to have millions of SP specialized into Cal ADS/Gal ADS skills & small turret skills. Even if stacking was a major concern, CCP should have removed just the stacking & not nerf the RoF for the pilot. Shields still need work. Collisions & uneven terrain can remove your shields almost better than AV. I still think every Caldari vehicle should get more passive resistances to Caldari Rails, Because its Caldari tech. I mean, Duh. Come on. Same should go for the Gallante & their blaster tech. But, I suppose this will have to wait until CCP reintroduce the Gal rail & whatnot. Tanks. Okay, I can make fits to take on AV, But they suck Vs. other tanks. I can make Destroyers which are spiked. Sponge tanks. I can make tanks that have two mini cannons plus one LRG PRO Turret. That's basically it for fits. It does feel like AV is overpowered, But I really feel like its cause I'm in a STD Hull while I'm being swarmed by PRO AV. Now, If this continues when I get my Sagaris rollin', Then there will be a problem. The only major issue I could even think that is broken, Is Jihads. I mean that crap can cause your Ps3 to freeze. Not cool. For LAVs, I mean, I don't use them very much. Would like to see LLAVs about giving support to other tanks, But I feel like there just isn't enough players in one game to do that. It takes one noob army to compete against 1 squad of organized effort. So, I think the more I see them in pubs, The more chances our team has at losing if the other team has good players. I miss my Eryx. :( & my Sagaris.... :((((( Traditionally you do not make a technology that is designed to protect against your own weaponry..... you make one to protect yourself against your enemies technology. Regardless he does say some valuable things even if a few are coloured by the bitterness of an old vet....but what both of you need to remember most of all is that any prospective vehicles we may have reintroduced must be balanced around the current PRO AV, and currently at this time there are some very obvious issues with the interplay between the two. - Shield HAV are statistically superior in every respect to armour HAV - Shield Hardeners are 15% more efficient than Armour Hardeners for no good reason, allowing for stacking abuse. - Shield Passive Regeneration if far too effective for not having to fit a module allowing Shield HAV to fully regen in a matter of 20-30 seconds. - Lack of Modules - Explosive and Kinetic Heavy AV meta renders Armour HAV ineffective but means Shield HAV can ignore lesser AV. - Fitting disparities between Shield and Armour HAV - Shield HAV @ MLT and STD level have too much potential eHP for their tier. You should add to that although armour tanks have a theoretical higher top speed, the shield vehicle ability to accelerate faster and turn far outshine whatever the armor tank may due if it was in a drag race lol. Indeed. The ability to track your hull so your weapon point is not exposed or angle yourself across their turret arc with fast acceleration trumps top speed easily. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Aeon Amadi Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 7462	Posted - 2014.12.16 01:43:00 - [103] - Quote 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. Long-Term Roadmap More Hard Questions
Loyal Glasses Kaalmayoti Warzone Control 3	Posted - 2014.12.16 01:48:00 - [104] - Quote Matari need Bikes anti gravity Bikes for Ramming and running away. "Glasses of the Loyal Variety"
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1317	Posted - 2014.12.16 02:02:00 - [105] - Quote 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. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2526	Posted - 2014.12.16 04:30:00 - [106] - 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 - [107] - 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
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1318	Posted - 2014.12.16 12:45:00 - [108] - Quote 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. Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
killer270890 rock G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1	Posted - 2014.12.16 14:38:00 - [109] - Quote need bikes with a small cannon in front, and that we operate type phytom Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but this time I'm not willing to lose.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2532	Posted - 2014.12.16 17:19:00 - [110] - 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

Vesta Opalus Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 255	Posted - 2014.12.16 17:40:00 - [111] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: stacking penalties only work on percentages. such as 7% damage mods or 45% shield rechargers Why do you think that? It would be easy to implement stacking penalties on (for example) dropsuit armor modules, where the first complex mod gives 135 health, the second one gives some fraction of that, and the next gives an even smaller fraction, etc.
Vesta Opalus Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 255	Posted - 2014.12.16 17:46:00 - [112] - Quote 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.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2532	Posted - 2014.12.16 17:54:00 - [113] - 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
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix 624	Posted - 2014.12.16 18:07:00 - [114] - Quote 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.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1745	Posted - 2014.12.16 18:54:00 - [115] - Quote dont add more of the same. add more types single seater armored cars with small turret for anti infantry. armored and very fast and much cheaper yet weak to av and then normal tanks immune to infantry av and armored cars but very weak killing infantry. now you have tanks hunting anti infantry vehicles and other tanks. tanks get their tank on tank combat and infantry get their AV vs AP. the armored car gives the middleground for combat between vehicles and infantry while tanks can concentrate on killing these vehicles while trying to protect their own armored cars All Hail Legion
Riptalis Horizons' Edge Proficiency V. 142	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:01:00 - [116] - Quote I want a jet! Python pilot Logistics mk.0 Assault mk.0
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2544	Posted - 2014.12.16 19:30:00 - [117] - 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
Sergeant Sazu Nanite Systems 222	Posted - 2014.12.16 20:11:00 - [118] - Quote I read this entire thread, and I am very disappointed in humanity. The bias, the bitterness, the hypocrisy, the entitlement, and the cherry picking from both sides is saddening. We cannot reach any conclusions this way. [35.6m SP - Next skill: Cardiac Regulation 3] (Assault mk.0 - Logistics mk.0) {Lv 5 CR, AR, MD, SL, SMG, ScP, NK, HMG}
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix 624	Posted - 2014.12.16 20:38:00 - [119] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: 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 don't get why you keep trying to castrate AV. 3 people shooting a tank at once should kill it fairly quickly. You Cant pull one instance out of a hat and use it to say AV is OP.
killer270890 rock G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 2	Posted - 2014.12.16 20:58:00 - [120] - Quote destroy the tanks is very easy today , and you can not compare a suit with a tank , a prototype suit does not cost half a prototype tank, which is not fair for tanks and less for dropships, Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but this time I'm not willing to lose.

Vesta Opalus Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 256	Posted - 2014.12.16 21:49:00 - [121] - Quote 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. So why are you using a base HP tank you dumb ass? Why are you sticking yourself so far into enemy territory that a fat ass heavy can literally waddle up behind you, stand there charging a breach forge for a few seconds, and blap you? Is he driving behind you in a car? Why arent you paying attention to his car? Why arent you moving? This is what Im talking about, tankers act like complete idiots and then get mad that something actually killed them. The reality of the situation is that the tanker played like an idiot and left himself vulnerable to an incredibly fringe scenario where an AV player can actually be effective. The scenario Im concerned about is when a vehicle is driven by someone who isnt a moron, because then the vehicle is invincible and AV AT BEST can only hope to drive him away temporarily while still sustaining lots of losses both from the vehicle and from enemy infantry.
Sir Dukey Murphys-Law General Tso's Alliance 1318	Posted - 2014.12.16 22:32:00 - [122] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Why not? Because that is how it was in Chromosome. That is how it was in uprising. CCP even said Marauder- Defensive tank Enforcer- Offensive tank Why change it? Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris
killer270890 rock G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 3	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:27:00 - [123] - Quote the marauder tank : they have become a waste of isk, it is a very weak tank Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but this time I'm not willing to lose.
TIGER SHARK1501 Savage Bullet 77	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:39:00 - [124] - 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. Whether or not one approves of that sort of fitting it is hardly invincible. Perhaps your right that no ship would use all rep however when armor hardeners are crap people move to the next way to survive a conflict. Sadly with AV the way it is pilots will likely go to extremes to survive. Losing two half a million tanks is more costly than running multiple advanced or in the hands of a veteran player quality proto suit fittings.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 15986	Posted - 2014.12.16 23:45:00 - [125] - Quote TIGER SHARK1501 wrote: 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. Whether or not one approves of that sort of fitting it is hardly invincible. Perhaps your right that no ship would use all rep however when armor hardeners are crap people move to the next way to survive a conflict. Sadly with AV the way it is pilots will likely go to extremes to survive. Losing two half a million tanks is more costly than running multiple advanced or in the hands of a veteran player quality proto suit fittings. It would simply cap out too quickly and not leave room for use of prop mods.... and be susceptible to delicious Amarrian Energy Neuts. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Ghost Kaisar Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance 9038	Posted - 2014.12.17 01:43:00 - [126] - Quote True Adamance 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. Do want to point out Ghost that in BF 3 and 4 Tanks did/do have coaxial machine guns on their turrets for anti infantry work, and any direct hit with the shell was always a OHKO. I've played a lot of BF in my hiatus from Dust and honestly I find even as the main pilot I have significantly more anti infantry and destructive power both vs vehicles and structures. Comparing Dust Vehicles with BF vehicles is a terrible conversation to have. Mainly because BF has a FAR better vehicle/infantry balance, and they actually have a role. Armor is fantastic at suppressing targets by destroying cover and letting the top mounted gunners sweep the field with HMG fire. In BF, Armor and Infantry SYNERGIZE with each other to form a very deadly fighting force. Onto Dust though: What role should heavy armor have? The first role, of course, is ANTI-ARMOR. These things are made to ruin every other vehicles day. Their SECONDARY role is anti-infantry. They SUPPORT infantry advance, they don't spearhead it. And they shouldn't. Onto Turrets: I'm fine with Large Rails instapopping infantry. I'm not saying we should remove that aspect. Anyone who lands a direct shell kill in BF DESERVES the kill, same in here. What I'm mainly talking about here is the Large Blaster and Large Missile. Large Blaster needs bigger, more powerful blasts with slower ROF. Like a 12 round clip or something with large, slow moving rounds that HURT. They receive minor splash damage but they get their old accuracy back. Since its a large, slower moving round, it will be possible to hit infantry, but it shouldn't be a shooting gallery. Yes, we have coaxial turrets. Personally, thats a terrible decision on the tankers part. You already have one on your tank, just put someone in there to gun it. You'd be better off running some guided shells or staff shells. However, if Dust players want a co-axial Blaster or Rail, I say let them have it. Make a module slot that activates and lets all turrets track on one target. Would be interesting, to say the least. Hell, make it a trademark for the enforcer or something. Anywho, about Large Missiles. I've always loved these things. Personally, I think they need a larger clip, less damage, and more splash. They should be good at assaulting entrenched positions by sustained missile barrages from a distance. Now, you aren't going to be killing them (If they're smart enough to move out of the dead zone), but you can support infantry via suppression. It is the best form of offense against armor tanks due to the large sustain damage from a distance. They can just keep throwing missiles down range and pummel through even the tankiest tank through sheer damage in the clip. In my mind, the blaster should be the DPS king, Rail is the burst king, and Missile is the sustain king. All of them are primarily anti-vehicle weapons, but have limited Anti-infantry capabilities. To round out vehicles, I would also want to include a form of MAV that specializes in anti-infantry operations (Much like the IFV from BF), which would in turn be weak to armor. So, you could have an armor fighting force if you wanted to, but it would require multiple vehicles with roles that overlap. IFV for infantry, and HAV's for armor. IFV would probably feature a Mobile CRU, throw in a Logi LAV and BAM you have some sick Vehicle action on the battlefield. But that's probably asking for too much out of dust... Born Deteis Caldari. Rejected by my Kinsman. Found a new family in the Vherokior Tribe. Nobody messes with my family
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16019	Posted - 2014.12.17 02:28:00 - [127] - Quote Ghost Kaisar wrote: True Adamance 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. Do want to point out Ghost that in BF 3 and 4 Tanks did/do have coaxial machine guns on their turrets for anti infantry work, and any direct hit with the shell was always a OHKO. I've played a lot of BF in my hiatus from Dust and honestly I find even as the main pilot I have significantly more anti infantry and destructive power both vs vehicles and structures. Comparing Dust Vehicles with BF vehicles is a terrible conversation to have. Mainly because BF has a FAR better vehicle/infantry balance, and they actually have a role. Armor is fantastic at suppressing targets by destroying cover and letting the top mounted gunners sweep the field with HMG fire. In BF, Armor and Infantry SYNERGIZE with each other to form a very deadly fighting force. Onto Dust though: What role should heavy armor have? The first role, of course, is ANTI-ARMOR. These things are made to ruin every other vehicles day. Their SECONDARY role is anti-infantry. They SUPPORT infantry advance, they don't spearhead it. And they shouldn't. Onto Turrets: I'm fine with Large Rails instapopping infantry. I'm not saying we should remove that aspect. Anyone who lands a direct shell kill in BF DESERVES the kill, same in here. What I'm mainly talking about here is the Large Blaster and Large Missile. Large Blaster needs bigger, more powerful blasts with slower ROF. Like a 12 round clip or something with large, slow moving rounds that HURT. They receive minor splash damage but they get their old accuracy back. Since its a large, slower moving round, it will be possible to hit infantry, but it shouldn't be a shooting gallery. Yes, we have coaxial turrets. Personally, thats a terrible decision on the tankers part. You already have one on your tank, just put someone in there to gun it. You'd be better off running some guided shells or staff shells. However, if Dust players want a co-axial Blaster or Rail, I say let them have it. Make a module slot that activates and lets all turrets track on one target. Would be interesting, to say the least. Hell, make it a trademark for the enforcer or something. Anywho, about Large Missiles. I've always loved these things. Personally, I think they need a larger clip, less damage, and more splash. They should be good at assaulting entrenched positions by sustained missile barrages from a distance. Now, you aren't going to be killing them (If they're smart enough to move out of the dead zone), but you can support infantry via suppression. It is the best form of offense against armor tanks due to the large sustain damage from a distance. They can just keep throwing missiles down range and pummel through even the tankiest tank through sheer damage in the clip. In my mind, the blaster should be the DPS king, Rail is the burst king, and Missile is the sustain king. All of them are primarily anti-vehicle weapons, but have limited Anti-infantry capabilities. To round out vehicles, I would also want to include a form of MAV that specializes in anti-infantry operations (Much like the IFV from BF), which would in turn be weak to armor. So, you could have an armor fighting force if you wanted to, but it would require multiple vehicles with roles that overlap. IFV for infantry, and HAV's for armor. IFV would probably feature a Mobile CRU, throw in a Logi LAV and BAM you have some sick Vehicle action on the battlefield. But that's probably asking for too much out of dust... YOU WERE THE ONE WHO MADE THE COMPARISON....werent you? *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Quasar Storm 0uter.Heaven 383	Posted - 2014.12.17 15:57:00 - [128] - Quote I have little problems with AV when normal scenarios are running. However when full squads hunt me down cause my team is redlined -- I'm locked out. Which to me, Is a good thing. That's what is supposed to happen. Heck, I can't blame them. Here I am lookin' like a sweet & spicy 400 WP. Although, I have been running into a lot of AV personnel who I think go after me just for spite. People that know me. They throw their match away, Just for me. I guess the lulz are far too great to resist. A lot of people love killing me. :( ADS & Tank pilot. Drifting on *Stormy* Seas. The "Eh" Team
H0riz0n Unlimit Dead Man's Game 256	Posted - 2014.12.17 16:53:00 - [129] - Quote I m only expecting AV buff, vehicles are Op, now i cant even make a jlav and die in militia gear... #sarcasm ... I will no more spend a word for Ccp and his work on vehicles, you should do the same The KTM DuKe lives here, send a message after the "beep". TheD1ck is on the table fan club. MPRQ-MakingPeopleRageQuit
TIGER SHARK1501 Savage Bullet 77	Posted - 2014.12.18 00:41:00 - [130] - 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. I pray for the day this is dropped.

killer270890 rock G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 4	Posted - 2014.12.22 23:29:00 - [131] - Quote THE MARAUDER: strengthener shielding decreases only 25% damage compared with strengthening shield that is nothing THE GUNLOGI: It is the strongest tank as you can got around 7000 pr, and use two strengtheners shield which gives you a great advantage. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but this time I'm not willing to lose.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

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

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Knight Soiaire = my bae

Pride of Amarria.

Pride of Amarria.

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris

Acquire Currency, Disregard Female Canis lupus familiaris