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)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16397	Posted - 2015.01.03 09:28:00 - [661] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. Yeah so as long as you can recover from the disabled status the mechanic would be great. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6136	Posted - 2015.01.03 10:43:00 - [662] - Quote Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic. Let's take the immobile tank as an example. Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation. There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot. But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required. I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG. Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams. Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
ADAM-OF-EVE Dead Man's Game RUST415 1856	Posted - 2015.01.03 13:50:00 - [663] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. i made no suggestion of disabling a tank. did you read the linked post. im talking about denial of movement which is by far the most powerful asset a vehicle has. the ability to move in and out of combat unhindered. what i'm suggesting is slowing them down, making them think about not only what's in front of them but what's behind. i wouldn't care how powerful tanks where if i had the ability to restrict where they go or at least slow them down and i'm sure a lot of tankers would enjoy the extra things to blow up. All Hail Legion
Alaika Arbosa Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc. 2354	Posted - 2015.01.03 15:09:00 - [664] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic. Let's take the immobile tank as an example. Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation. There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot. But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required. I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG. Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams. Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls. I think you're on to something here. Roll Vehicles back to Chromosome values (tweaked by the things that have been learned since then) as well as rolling back some of the bad ideas that were developed along the way (like removable secondary turrets). Only other thing that would be a "Must Have" if you ask me is Racial Parity among Turrets/Vehicles (even if they're reskins with individualized bonuses). Amarr/Minmatar vehicles are OP (especially Minmatar speed tanks) ^The reason why CCP is afraid to release them
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6139	Posted - 2015.01.03 15:38:00 - [665] - Quote Agreed. Too much vehicle balance is predicated on other units that don't exist as well as weapons that don't exist either. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4266	Posted - 2015.01.03 16:49:00 - [666] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: My vote is rebuilding the chromebalance and tweaking. We have a lot of the baseline stats now and besides the fact that to match chrome tank speed would need to go down to match the old balance we could simply tweak dropships upward to acommodate the necessary reversions of some AV weapons with the PLC brought upward a bit. I think initially something like this is the best course of action. Systems such as higher frontal resistance, damage angle reflection, ect. are all very cool, but not really the core of the problem, so I'd like to tackle stuff like that at a later date. Additionally the Chrome days were better than what we had now but in general people tend to remember good things in the past far more readily than bad things, and as such I think many people in the thread seem to underestimate how imperfect the Chrome stats were. Better, yes, but they still need quite a bit of work. I'm trying to get the community PC redesign in a more solid place first, but then I intend to really dig back into the vehicle redesign initiative. The primary goals I'm looking at are as follows: More slots for HAVs and LAVs to allow more flexibility in fitting. General push to make modules a more important part of fitting, and base hull stats less important. Move armor repair back to an active module Keep shield recharge passive, but require a module of equal tier in order to surpass an armor repairer (Natural Shield Regen < Armor Repairer < Shield Regen + Recharger < Shield + Booster) Reduce Shield Recharge Rate on Armor Vehicles Make shield and armor vehicles have more similar total base HP, with main difference being in module HP/regen. Either move shields to 0 delay, or introduce skills & modules to reduce shield recharge delay. General rebuild of the skill system. Will attempt to leave existing skills intact, even if effect is modified (Avoid need for respec) Reintroduce/Add removed/needed modules. Explore options of Passive/Active modules with lesser/greater effectiveness. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6140	Posted - 2015.01.03 17:05:00 - [667] - Quote don't forget revert AV to chrome stats. not including the six missile swarm or 400m lock range EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4266	Posted - 2015.01.03 17:16:00 - [668] - Quote Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6140	Posted - 2015.01.03 17:34:00 - [669] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4266	Posted - 2015.01.03 17:41:00 - [670] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net

Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 18:41:00 - [671] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: And HAVS are currently practically immune from smll arms fire (concen trated fire will. still hurt it if the HAV has no armor reps....we've gotten 5 tank kills by finishing off the survivor of a slugging match with my squads rifles). Not saying we need that level of front facing resistance, but it illustrates the point (we don't need a full tank simulation, just a reasonable facsimile of one) Sorry for any mistakes, phone is freaking out Vehicles should be completely immune from rifles. 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. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 18:43:00 - [672] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see. Was that supposed to make any sense? I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2672	Posted - 2015.01.03 19:19:00 - [673] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it You can hurt them so bad that they will back off, but vehicle turrets are generally (aka not the blaster) too strong for that, they'll just kill them before they escape, or AV as well for that matter. EDIT: Read your idea, sounds neat, but I'm not sure if that would change much, but would be nice to have. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2672	Posted - 2015.01.03 19:22:00 - [674] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see. Was that supposed to make any sense? You say no, because this is supposed o be a video game, not a sim, and many people thinks that sims are not fun. 1: WT isn't a sim, it has a sim mode, but not a sim. 2: If it wasn't fun, then why does a million people or more like it? click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2672	Posted - 2015.01.03 19:29:00 - [675] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic. Let's take the immobile tank as an example. Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation. There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot. But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required. I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG. Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams. Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls. There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is ******* silly. Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2672	Posted - 2015.01.03 19:31:00 - [676] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. i made no suggestion of disabling a tank. did you read the linked post. im talking about denial of movement which is by far the most powerful asset a vehicle has. the ability to move in and out of combat unhindered. what i'm suggesting is slowing them down, making them think about not only what's in front of them but what's behind. i wouldn't care how powerful tanks where if i had the ability to restrict where they go or at least slow them down and i'm sure a lot of tankers would enjoy the extra things to blow up. Actually thinking about this, how big are these things supposed to be, and how many do you get? entrances to places are quite large... click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6143	Posted - 2015.01.03 19:34:00 - [677] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess. Because the AV/V in chrome was very solid. All of the AV weaps have eaten sharp nerfs since then. If the chrome vehicles return, the chrome AV needs to as well so it's not a one-sided harvest of kills for HAVs EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
Godin Thekiller The Corporate Raiders Top Men. 2672	Posted - 2015.01.03 19:35:00 - [678] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess. I would have changes ready to go out though, of many kinds. click me Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:11:00 - [679] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see. Was that supposed to make any sense? You say no, because this is supposed o be a video game, not a sim, and many people thinks that sims are not fun. 1: WT isn't a sim, it has a sim mode, but not a sim. 2: If it wasn't fun, then why does a million people or more like it? I don't play it, so how would I know? 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. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:20:00 - [680] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic. This isn't World of Tanks - another bad idea. Let's take the immobile tank as an example. Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation. There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot. More bad ideas, and shouldn't happen because video game. But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required. I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG. Not having to fit small turrets was the best thing to ever happen to vehicles. Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams. We were nerfed because we knew how to fit our vehicles for the best compromise between offense and defense - looks like you want us nerfed yet again for the same thing. Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls. No more mandatory small turrets. There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is silly. Agreed, having to fit small turrets is insane. I'm glad the requirement to have them on was removed, as it freed up that little bit of CPU and PG needed to put on a better module. Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now. I still believe that since we don't have racial parity with vehicles and turrets, that the rail and forge gun should be neutral as far as damage goes. Armor has the short end of the stick with two turrets and two AV weapons getting a damage bonus against armor. That ought to change until we get racial parity with hulls and turrets, then the bonuses can be tweaked to more closely follow EVE lore. Wiping out tanks in 2-3 shots was ridiculous; having Uprising damage was certainly better, but vehicles as a whole were better during Chromosome. A balance between the two could be achieved, but it would take some work to do 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

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4267	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:20:00 - [681] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess. Because the AV/V in chrome was very solid. All of the AV weaps have eaten sharp nerfs since then. If the chrome vehicles return, the chrome AV needs to as well so it's not a one-sided harvest of kills for HAVs Well as long as the relative strength of both is unchanged, it doesn't really matter right? If a swarm had 200 attack and HAVs had 2000 defense in Chrome, would that not be the same if swams have 100 attack now and HAVs had 1000 defense? "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2655	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:21:00 - [682] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Ideally I'd like to not change AV at the same time. I'd keep AV as is and then balance the new HAV stats around it, but go with the Chrome mechanics. Not a good idea at all How so? Last time vehicles and AV were changed at the same time, it was a mess. Because the AV/V in chrome was very solid. All of the AV weaps have eaten sharp nerfs since then. If the chrome vehicles return, the chrome AV needs to as well so it's not a one-sided harvest of kills for HAVs I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world. What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours? 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 16398	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:25:00 - [683] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Would bekinda neat if ccp coded impact angles for av and turrets. Like the shallower the strike angle the more damage lost. No, because video game. So the 1,000,000+ who likes it a lot on War Thunder doesn't like fun then? Silly pilots are still as silly as silly Avers I see. Was that supposed to make any sense? You say no, because this is supposed o be a video game, not a sim, and many people thinks that sims are not fun. 1: WT isn't a sim, it has a sim mode, but not a sim. 2: If it wasn't fun, then why does a million people or more like it? WT might as well be the closest thing to a tank simulator out this generation of gaming. Trumps that arcade World of Tanks crap.. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16398	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:30:00 - [684] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Not having a means to recover from disabling shots would absolutely be idiotic. This isn't World of Tanks - another bad idea. Let's take the immobile tank as an example. Busted track and complete immobility is just a countdown to annihilation. There would have to be a means of recovery or I would never fail to solo an HAV ever. Especially if another type of disabling shot immobilizes the turret or whatnot. More bad ideas, and shouldn't happen because video game. But this is unlikely to happen because of the programming time required. I think reversion to chrome ICLUDING mandatory small turrets would be best or reduced CPU/PG. Not having to fit small turrets was the best thing to ever happen to vehicles. Because it would be too easy to supertank beyond the most "I want to be invincible" tank idjits wildest dreams. We were nerfed because we knew how to fit our vehicles for the best compromise between offense and defense - looks like you want us nerfed yet again for the same thing. Marauders were beast even having to fit smalls. No more mandatory small turrets. There's a problem with that logic, and that is fitting smalls didn't really change your HAV fit much at all unless you put on higher end smalls, in which you might have to drop one module to a slightly weaker one. That only happens since 1.7, which is part of why I think the new fitting system is silly. Agreed, having to fit small turrets is insane. I'm glad the requirement to have them on was removed, as it freed up that little bit of CPU and PG needed to put on a better module. Turrets need a overhaul, we have agreed on that, but otherwise, the best balance between AV and vehicles scratch DS's and AV was Chromo. We can go off of that, but we still need to keep in mind large turret balance, because it was as bad as it is now. I still believe that since we don't have racial parity with vehicles and turrets, that the rail and forge gun should be neutral as far as damage goes. Armor has the short end of the stick with two turrets and two AV weapons getting a damage bonus against armor. That ought to change until we get racial parity with hulls and turrets, then the bonuses can be tweaked to more closely follow EVE lore. Wiping out tanks in 2-3 shots was ridiculous; having Uprising damage was certainly better, but vehicles as a whole were better during Chromosome. A balance between the two could be achieved, but it would take some work to do that. I'm actually for mandatory Small Turrets. I though it was a very nuanced aspect to the balancing of HAV fitting that was more or less a necessity. It ensured the HAV was a vehicle open to your allies so that they could gun, etc but it also ensured that the ability to stack eHP modules was in some way capped and required significant SP investment to maximise your fittnigs. Either way in Dust a manned 3 turret tank trumps every other fit on the field. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 4268	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:30:00 - [685] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world. What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours? Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast www.biomassed.net
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 6144	Posted - 2015.01.03 20:43:00 - [686] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world. What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours? Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. this. you exist, therefore I want to kill you. really is that simple. EVE Online is what you get when engineers attempt to create "fun" without consulting someone who comprehends the word.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16398	Posted - 2015.01.03 22:12:00 - [687] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: I still don't understand what was wrong with Chromosome. We beat the absolute hell out of each other once vehicles were brought into the battle. What was wrong with that? We literally left you all alone to fight your battle while we pounded the hell out of each other to the ends of the world. What the hell was wrong with us leaving you alone to fight your battle, while we fought ours? Because vehicles need more of a role than simply killing each other. If I just wanted to fight other tanks, there are plenty of tank vs tank only games out there. I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. this. you exist, therefore I want to kill you. really is that simple. More to the point I will not ignore HAVs because HAV drivers NEVER ignore infantry, instead opportunistically slaughtering infantry for free kills wherever possible. The people who bang the loudest on the "I only want to fight other tanks" have historically been the ones I see with a maxed out HAV harvesting Infantry kills like a God-possessed Combine Harvester until I engage them. We exist on the same battlefield. You are on the opposing team. You are a target for extermination. Just like your blue dots on foot. Actually you can tell me this. I only sporadically log into Dust these days. If farming the hell out of infantry like Duna isn't what I should be doing.....what is? I am lost. ((No sarcasm......I need something to do in Dust or I'm going to drop it)) *"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 1856	Posted - 2015.01.03 22:54:00 - [688] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i think we will always have issues with tanks until you let us defeat them in other ways than killing which currently is the only way to deal with them. what we need is more options like https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2527039#post2527039 which i have been suggesting for ages. this will allow us to temporarily restrict vehicle movements and provide a middle ground to the infantry/vehicle interaction which doesn't involve 1 killing the other on sight. when we get this proper balance can be introduced between the 2 sides as needing to kill the other side fast is not going to be as important as restricting movement or returning it The purpose of disabling a tank is so you can kill it. There is no justification for the assertion that destroying a tank should not be the primary objective of engaging it. i made no suggestion of disabling a tank. did you read the linked post. im talking about denial of movement which is by far the most powerful asset a vehicle has. the ability to move in and out of combat unhindered. what i'm suggesting is slowing them down, making them think about not only what's in front of them but what's behind. i wouldn't care how powerful tanks where if i had the ability to restrict where they go or at least slow them down and i'm sure a lot of tankers would enjoy the extra things to blow up. Actually thinking about this, how big are these things supposed to be, and how many do you get? entrances to places are quite large... 2 types. 1 small say 1m square but not solid like a caltrop which you can carry lots of but can be shotup quite easily and the other 1-2m square (or just length or height) which is a solid block of ehp like a big block of rock or in this case a big block of armor plate to chew through which are fewer in number. to get the full effect these would have to be given in reasonable quantities with high deploy count with optimal effect using up both types. All Hail Legion
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 280	Posted - 2015.01.04 01:54:00 - [689] - Quote AV weapons are more than effective enough versus all vehicles at this point. I am actually surprised with the community that there aren't more posts asking for swarms or forges or plasma cannons to be able to shoot 90 degrees around corners so Frontline suits can lob 3 volleys at anything retreating for more easy vehicle kills. It has gotten to the point that it is more important to blow up the supply depots before going anywhere near infantry as even 2 militia av suits can bunny hop around and pop you if you aren't ready to duck around a corner. I would like to see the next level tanks take similar amounts of sp investment as assault dropships as well as isk cost for base av defenses for all races, caldari having increased rail range and damage, gallente having better blaster dispersion and damage. Something along those lines. I'm sure all the minmitar commandos will cry that they shouldn't have to reload to insta-lock on any vehicle and watch them pop from the top of some building. But it wouldn't be the dust forums without the garbage players trying to stay relevant.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2659	Posted - 2015.01.04 04:17:00 - [690] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I want to be part of the battle as a whole, not just the vehicle fight. Blame infantry for 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



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.