DUST Search - Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Sticky:[Feedback] HAV Bring Back Initiative

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 281	Posted - 2014.12.23 11:08:00 - [421] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Tesfa Alem wrote: That wont work as each module has different fitting requirements. Without a cap on hardeners or damage mods it will be a question of how many of each can a tank stack. If we have a fully proto level tank than i expect to fit all proto mods on the thing. The only quesion should be the proto module fitting cost. Well, I'm just going for a rough outline right now, my main question is "If you want to equip Proto this, what should suffer in terms of fitting elsewhere?". I bring this up because I think quite a few dropsuits are incapable of fitting 100% proto everything at the same time (though I know a few can). I gather from your response that you expect to be able to fit full proto defenses, utility, large, and small turrets at the same time, yes? Mmmk thanks for the feedback. 1. Majority of my dropsuits are all proto 2. If i want a fully proto dropsuit then i look at reducing the nades/side arm - In vehicles this means no small turrets 3. A vehicle is alot more powerful than a dropsuit so it should be able to fit on all proto since we are on tiercide with vehicles and not expecting proto vehicles to fit all my proto stuff on it - one way or another i should be able to fit all proto on a vastly more powerful platform 4. On a dropsuit im able to fit more stuff on due to various skill books and bonuses which give me more pg/cpu or saves on PG etc
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2318	Posted - 2014.12.23 11:16:00 - [422] - Quote Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
manboar thunder fist Dead Man's Game RUST415 326	Posted - 2014.12.23 11:52:00 - [423] - Quote Whaaat, these things are going to rip up ads pilots, especially those crazy long range "redline" ones. Can we have an ads variant with a lot more hp -.- and one with less but another gun? "If there is a strafe nerf in this game, remove hit detection"- manboar 2014
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16236	Posted - 2014.12.23 12:51:00 - [424] - Quote manboar thunder fist wrote: Whaaat, these things are going to rip up ads pilots, especially those crazy long range "redline" ones. Can we have an ads variant with a lot more hp -.- and one with less but another gun? Like Logi DS? Regardless this is not the thread for that discussion. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 129	Posted - 2014.12.23 13:08:00 - [425] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: True Adamance wrote: Most if not all infantry suit can equip full proto line ups without sacrificing much but a side arm or greande..... those might as well be small turrets I guess...... That was my general point. So where would you place your lot? Main Rack: Proto Off Rack: Proto Main Turret: Proto Small Turret: None/Basic? On any tank I've ever piloted I've given priority to durability and then to fire power....... given how the Gunnlogi currently works I fit mine following this archetype. Main Rack : Proto ( I may make concessions for items like the Shield Hardener and Damage Module as all that is affected is cool down timers) Off Rack : Proto Fitting (most likely since there are no utility modules I need or want in lows) Main Turret: Always Proto (even on Sica) Small Turrets: Usually Basic (but on my fits designed to a crew I always use proto) TL;DR - I cannot think of a reason on the Gunnlogi as it is now to every need anything more than a Proto Tier Tank and a Main Gun which I can always fit. Proto fitting is usually if I want higher tier small turrets alongside a Blaster or wish to stack an armour plate. PRO tank modules allows me to actually stay on the field for a moderate amount of time and react to anti tanks rounds, while the gun allows me to compete with and dominate lesser tanks and infantry. On my old Madrugar from Uprising I hatd two fits one Heavy Tank and one Light Scout Tank Ion Cannon Basic Blasters Prototype 180mm Plates Prototype Hardeners Inefficient Heavy Repper (cuz I wuz skrub den) Prototype Heat Sink Prototype Damage Control LSHAV Ion Cannon Basic Blasters Proto120mm Plates Pro Passive Armour Resistance Pro High Through-Put Damage Module Mid Tier Repper Mid Tier Scanner Proto Heat Sink The former HAV was the 6375 Main Battke Maddy you saw everywhere but not full optimised while the former was a high DPS, low EHP, fast little hellion ala the enforcer but cheaper. Oh, a question I just remembered. Mind reminding me of the difference between efficient and regular reppers? Besides the hp restored per cycle of course. Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4086	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:07:00 - [426] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Oh, a question I just remembered. Mind reminding me of the difference between efficient and regular reppers? Besides the hp restored per cycle of course. Different fitting costs and different HP/s The name itself was just flavor text, the axed it in favor of the Basic/Enhanced/Complex progression for clarity. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4086	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:16:00 - [427] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Well....you have some merit of what you say, but I still feel like Enforcers should be a bit more zippy than what we have now. HAVs can reach pretty high speeds now, but they feel far from agile. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
duster 35000 Algintal Core Gallente Federation 129	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:35:00 - [428] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: duster 35000 wrote: Oh, a question I just remembered. Mind reminding me of the difference between efficient and regular reppers? Besides the hp restored per cycle of course. Different fitting costs and different HP/s The name itself was just flavor text, the axed it in favor of the Basic/Enhanced/Complex progression for clarity. Oh, right, right, I didn't remember too much, despite me using them, thought they started repping sooner... Choo Choo
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4087	Posted - 2014.12.23 15:38:00 - [429] - Quote Well you may be thinking of shield boosters vs armor repairers. Shield Boosters were on a shorter cycle and would generate HP at the start of the cycle but in smaller amounts. Armor Repairers would rep on a longer cycle and generate HP at the end of the cycle, but in larger amounts. It basically meant that you needed to start repping armor early because it would be a 3 second delay before you started getting HP back. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:39:00 - [430] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4087	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:42:00 - [431] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 16:58:00 - [432] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values. I don't have my system on and it's very likely to keep disconnecting on wifi. I literally can't play the game when I'm using wifi, yet strangely enough, nearly everything else I've played worked just fine, including MAG. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4089	Posted - 2014.12.23 17:00:00 - [433] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values. I don't have my system on and it's very likely to keep disconnecting on wifi. I literally can't play the game when I'm using wifi, yet strangely enough, nearly everything else I've played worked just fine, including MAG. Well whenever you get a chance, obviously AV is important in this discussion as a whole. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 171	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:16:00 - [434] - Quote Bringing out the hulls with crazy base setups will only make it harder to get old mods returned. The tanks haven't changed much, it's the lack of module and turret variety that killed vehicle op. CCP needs to add a smiley that's blue in the face... "Tossin uplinks and runnin fer my life" ~ Gunny blownapart "Lets group up and push an objective" ~ No blueberry ever
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5936	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:37:00 - [435] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Suppose we buffed standard HAV HP, slowed them down (acceleration and top speed) and gave enforcers the current tank values? As it is, tanks don't weather AV so much as try to escape it, which is un-tanky to say the least. So let's buff their ability to withstand AV and reduce their ability to run, then base the enforcer/marauder off that. Or... we can knock AV down to being a deterrent, and that will give us a good starting point. Could you propose some values for AV then? I'd like to see your thoughts on exact values. I don't have my system on and it's very likely to keep disconnecting on wifi. I literally can't play the game when I'm using wifi, yet strangely enough, nearly everything else I've played worked just fine, including MAG. Well whenever you get a chance, obviously AV is important in this discussion as a whole. I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay. No. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Lazer Fo Cused Shining Flame Amarr Empire 283	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:41:00 - [436] - Quote 1. Reset vehicles and AV to uprising levels 1a. Bring in the current levels of swarms to uprising vehicles, same with AV nades 1b. Bring in PLC 1c. Bring back all the modules and skills for vehicles 1d. Tweek from then on
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4093	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:43:00 - [437] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay. No. Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5936	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:45:00 - [438] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay. No. Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. I don't. I just get tired of the mantra of "AV should only be able to drive away vehicles." Fine your turrets should only be allowed to stun infantry briefly. It's an asinine argument that an AV weapon shouldn't be able to destroy vehicles reliably. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:54:00 - [439] - Quote Lazer Fo Cused wrote: 1. Reset vehicles and AV to uprising levels 1a. Bring in the current levels of swarms to uprising vehicles, same with AV nades 1b. Bring in PLC 1c. Bring back all the modules and skills for vehicles 1d. Tweek from then on With the core skills in line with infantry. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4093	Posted - 2014.12.23 18:54:00 - [440] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay. No. Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. I don't. I just get tired of the mantra of "AV should only be able to drive away vehicles." Fine your turrets should only be allowed to stun infantry briefly. It's an asinine argument that an AV weapon shouldn't be able to destroy vehicles reliably. Indeed. If AV can't destroy vehicles reliably then the only way to counter a vehicle is with another vehicle, which is just bad design. I wish we had riched AV saturation in general. If AV weapons were easily accessible to infantry without having to sacrifice ton in order to do so, then you can have more people carrying AV on the field, and then individual AV weapons could be weaker. The issue is that because most suits must sacrifice substantial defense against infantry in order to use AV, that the AV has to be exceptionally strong in order to make that sacrifice worth it. I mean look at Titanfall. Every single infantry in the game has an AV weapon at all times. The weapons themselves are not particularly great, and Titans can shrug off 1-2 without much difficulty. But if people simply swap to AV on the fly, they can quickly dispose of vehicles if they focus fire. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2610	Posted - 2014.12.23 19:15:00 - [441] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay. No. Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. I don't. I just get tired of the mantra of "AV should only be able to drive away vehicles." Fine your turrets should only be allowed to stun infantry briefly. It's an asinine argument that an AV weapon shouldn't be able to destroy vehicles reliably. Indeed. If AV can't destroy vehicles reliably then the only way to counter a vehicle is with another vehicle, which is just bad design. I wish we had riched AV saturation in general. If AV weapons were easily accessible to infantry without having to sacrifice ton in order to do so, then you can have more people carrying AV on the field, and then individual AV weapons could be weaker. The issue is that because most suits must sacrifice substantial defense against infantry in order to use AV, that the AV has to be exceptionally strong in order to make that sacrifice worth it. I mean look at Titanfall. Every single infantry in the game has an AV weapon at all times. The weapons themselves are not particularly great, and Titans can shrug off 1-2 without much difficulty. But if people simply swap to AV on the fly, they can quickly dispose of vehicles if they focus fire. It's not bad design, it's working as intended. I'm going without knowledge of EVE, but it would be like a mining ship trying to take on a ship meant for battle. Why compare some terrible 6v6 game with Dust? And why do you keep trying to compromise vehicles so much that they'll be useless out the box when Rattati gets some solid figures 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
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4093	Posted - 2014.12.23 19:38:00 - [442] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: It's not bad design, it's working as intended. I'm going without knowledge of EVE, but it would be like a mining ship trying to take on a ship meant for battle. Why compare some terrible 6v6 game with Dust? And why do you keep trying to compromise vehicles so much that they'll be useless out the box when Rattati gets some solid figures up? Well actually you can kill combat ships with some mining ships in certain situations, but regardless. And Titanfall is a pretty meh game, but it landed AV perfectly. Singular AV weapons are a deterrent (as you want) but when used en-mass they can kill vehicles. And I'm trying to be reasonable because I honestly believe deep down that if someone like you were in charge of designing this stuff that we would end up with a vehicle system so broken, so fundamentally overpowered, that CCP and the community would simply hack it apart with a chainsaw and what we would end up with is a bloody stump rather than the polished, clean, enjoyable system that is fair for both sides. Like I appreciate your passion, and I've tried over and over to try to find a happy medium between your ideas and my own, but I think your views are way too extreme and you seem completely unwilling to even consider changing what you think out of sheer stubbornness. And who knows maybe a lot of it is lost in translation, but the fact of the matter is that I'm clearly going to take a more conservative and careful approach to things and not something as crude as "BLARRGGG NERF AV AND REVERT EVERYTHING BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE". So again while I appreciate your passion, it's getting a little tiresome of the negative and rough comments when I'm trying to move the conversation forward to actually put together some design concepts. I feel like half this thread is nothing but people throwing rocks at each other and repeating over and over the same concepts of their own personal opinion of how things should work, rather than trying to work together to combine the ideas into something that works and then actually moving forward, rather than moving in circles. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2324	Posted - 2014.12.23 19:39:00 - [443] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: I love how this discussion treats killing vehicles with AV as invalid gameplay. No. Don't lump all vehicle pilots together. I don't. I just get tired of the mantra of "AV should only be able to drive away vehicles." Fine your turrets should only be allowed to stun infantry briefly. It's an asinine argument that an AV weapon shouldn't be able to destroy vehicles reliably. Here's the issue with AV: If all it takes is one person to kill a tank (within a single magazine no less) then what is the point of running the tank? It is nothing to hit up a supply depot and switch to AV, kill a tank, then switch back. This is the issue. AV becomes a side-thought. It's not a dedicated role, it's more of an afterthought. Now, a part of the problem is the vehicles themselves. There is no AP vehicle (a vehicle whose primary purpose in life is to kill infantry) and there desperately needs to be. This vehicle needs to be able to be controlled by one person; the comparison of two people to use a heavy suit is an apt analogy. And the vehicle needs to be nimble, quick, and above all, relatively easy to kill. The Enforcers could perfectly fit this role. Giving the LAV driver control of his turret from the driver seat is also a solution. But without an AP vehicle, there is no reason to run an AV vehicle. It's like having a vaccine for a disease that doesn't exist. If you want tanks to not be a threat to you, if you want to kill them within a single magazine... then why would I, a vehicle pilot, want to run them? Now, there should not be a vehicle that can both resist infantry AV AND be good at killing infantry. This is what I think ground AV fear will happen. We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob. Most of us DO NOT WANT THAT. We want each vehicle to have a purpose, and for the threat of ground AV to be proportional to the threat we pose to infantry. For instance, if we have Marauders as dedicated AV platforms, with bonuses to turret damage and penalties to speed, acceleration, turret rotation, etc. then yes, I want ground AV to have to team up to kill me. If I cannot fight you off, if I cannot run, then I should be able to sit there and soak it up. Ground AV shouldn't be the be-all-end-all of vehicle combat. If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, then why should I bother hopping in a tank at all? But in some way, I should have a vehicle whose primary objective is popping you and your mates walking around on the ground. And THAT vehicle, you certainly should reliably kill on most occasions. But if ground AV is just as good as my proto AV tank, then why would I waste my ISK or SP speccing into tanks? Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.23 21:52:00 - [444] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob. They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable. Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 166	Posted - 2014.12.23 21:56:00 - [445] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob. They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable. Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank. I don't know what 1.7 you were talking about, but i remember being able to take on 3 forge guns at the same time with a 1 hardener 2 extender tank, laughing as I missile sniped them one by one. That got...... Boring. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5940	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:06:00 - [446] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, You can stop there. I don't use swarms unless I feel like being useless. I have ZERO SP in swarms. I do forge guns. That's it. Prototype forge guns and fits at that. Anything lesser gets chewed to crap too quickly or utterly fails at doing more than pissing most tanks off. I am specced for AV, I do AV, my playstyle of tank hunter is as valid as your role of tank driver is. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Alena Ventrallis Vengeance Unbound 2325	Posted - 2014.12.23 22:50:00 - [447] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, You can stop there. I don't use swarms unless I feel like being useless. I have ZERO SP in swarms. I do forge guns. That's it. Prototype forge guns and fits at that. Anything lesser gets chewed to crap too quickly or utterly fails at doing more than pissing most tanks off. I am specced for AV, I do AV, my playstyle of tank hunter is as valid as your role of tank driver is. It's amazing how many assumptions people make about what I do and how I do it. Then you're 47k ISK to my 500k ISK. The point still stands. Do not go gentle into that good night; Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 5942	Posted - 2014.12.23 23:03:00 - [448] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, You can stop there. I don't use swarms unless I feel like being useless. I have ZERO SP in swarms. I do forge guns. That's it. Prototype forge guns and fits at that. Anything lesser gets chewed to crap too quickly or utterly fails at doing more than pissing most tanks off. I am specced for AV, I do AV, my playstyle of tank hunter is as valid as your role of tank driver is. It's amazing how many assumptions people make about what I do and how I do it. Then you're 47k ISK to my 500k ISK. The point still stands. Try 150k ISK per dropsuit fielded. You are counting the cost of your whole fit and cherry picking one part of mine. Your statement is utterly invalid by that premise. And ISK cost is not a balance point argument, as has been stated by the devs on numerous occasions. So take your elitist "more ISK means more winning" attitude out the door. My 150k AV fits can get ripped by a newb in a starter suit that's free. Your argument of cost is invalid as it has never been a balancing point in DUST game mechanics. It's not helpful to the topic at hand. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.23 23:41:00 - [449] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: We'll have the unstoppable monstrosities from 1.7 return with a fancy paintjob. They were "unstoppable" because nobody put effort into destroying them. Using a MLT forge? Good luck. Starter fit AV suit? Go on home, kid. Darkside swarms? Still laughable. Nobody wanted to team up, nobody wanted to put effort in. All anybody did was complain that their rifles couldn't destroy a tank. I don't know what 1.7 you were talking about, but i remember being able to take on 3 forge guns at the same time with a 1 hardener 2 extender tank, laughing as I missile sniped them one by one. That got...... Boring. Maybe you were going against terrible people with MLT forge guns, but I've always had the short end of the stick, where ADV swarms were the baseline, up to and including a full car of PRO forge guns getting behind me to vaporize me. 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. 2613	Posted - 2014.12.23 23:42:00 - [450] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: If you're 21k ISK swarms are a match to my 500k ISK proto tank, You can stop there. I don't use swarms unless I feel like being useless. I have ZERO SP in swarms. I do forge guns. That's it. Prototype forge guns and fits at that. Anything lesser gets chewed to crap too quickly or utterly fails at doing more than pissing most tanks off. I am specced for AV, I do AV, my playstyle of tank hunter is as valid as your role of tank driver is. It's amazing how many assumptions people make about what I do and how I do it. Then you're 47k ISK to my 500k ISK. The point still stands. Try 150k ISK per dropsuit fielded. You are counting the cost of your whole fit and cherry picking one part of mine. Your statement is utterly invalid by that premise. And ISK cost is not a balance point argument, as has been stated by the devs on numerous occasions. So take your elitist "more ISK means more winning" attitude out the door. My 150k AV fits can get ripped by a newb in a starter suit that's free. Your argument of cost is invalid as it has never been a balancing point in DUST game mechanics. It's not helpful to the topic at hand. If your PRO fits are getting shred to bits by MLT suits, then I think taking out a tank is the least of your worries. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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

"If there is a strafe nerf in this game, remove hit detection"- manboar 2014