DUST Search - The problem with Vehicles and lack of purpose..... and AV

All Channels

General Discussions

The problem with Vehicles and lack of purpose..... and AV

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 16509	Posted - 2015.01.12 19:01:00 - [1] - Quote QQ MOAR! *"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 16511	Posted - 2015.01.12 20:00:00 - [2] - Quote Atiim wrote: Vodar 540 wrote: Quite frankly I am severely disapointed with this thread it was meant to be a discussion on how to improve the game, but yet again all the AV people came in here to start whining and fight against change. Actually, what happened is that an AVer offered a rebuttal to your premise, than you offered a counter-argument while also claiming that I'm a biased [evil] AVer who doesn't know what it's like to be a Pilot (which is false, as I've been piloting vehicles for over a year now). . You aren't evil? Much disappoint...... *"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 16511	Posted - 2015.01.12 20:04:00 - [3] - Quote Toobar Zoobar wrote: Yeah you should soooooooooo be a lawyer, you'd be so awesome at that. Cuz you know you're so good at 'backing people into corners' and repeating the same BS questions over and over again and trying to make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Nah I'd actually like to see most tankers back their points up with numbers and stats. This anecdotal crap means jack all without proper forms of evidence to back up the assertions mades. E.G- See 400m Swarms in not an argument? What about 400m Swarms? Their lock on range, their travel distance, their DPS, their alpha, their reload, their lock on? Spkr if you want to talk TTK of the vehicle prove to these people that that 4 second TTK is currently in effect with calculations not assertions. Moreover if you don't like the 4 second TTK of Swarm Launchers how could you possibly in your good conscience advocate the 2-3 second TTK of Missile Launchers vs Armour Tanks? *"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 16511	Posted - 2015.01.12 20:22:00 - [4] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: True Adamance wrote: E.G- See 400m Swarms in not an argument? What about 400m Swarms? Their lock on range, their travel distance, their DPS, their alpha, their reload, their lock on? Here you go That's all you need to say. Yes in early Uprising Swarms could from a very large number of position on each map deny any and all vehicles a place on the field. However I don't think such is the case any longer. *"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 16512	Posted - 2015.01.12 20:36:00 - [5] - Quote Toobar Zoobar wrote: well if he actually answered the question which he never did i can ask you the same thats in the thread. i would like to know maybe something can finally be done instead of QQ AV or QQ tanks/ADS Give me a capacitor which powers both guns and modules. Let my modules be active indefinitely thus giving me the ability to manage them with more depth. Then it becomes a mini game of balancing offence v. defence. That's what I really want.[/quote] You have to be very aware that you can't easily make a cap stable fit in EVE with Active Modules. Especially not the more powerful ones and the more useful ones that we currently take for granted. *"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 16513	Posted - 2015.01.12 20:55:00 - [6] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: and laughing at the very concept that I would EVER agree that any win butan in my possession would be a good thing for this game. 400m max range swarms = I-win button. I never use swarms. Your argument is irrelevant in that context. I looked at the numbers. Current swarms are actually appropriate DPS numbers-wise to tackle Chromosome HAVs. that's why I use the current stats in my theorycrafting tab for recommended changes. I like them but I'm wondering how you came by the numbers for the hulls. Again specifically where you derived the numbers from. *"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 16513	Posted - 2015.01.12 21:09:00 - [7] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: and laughing at the very concept that I would EVER agree that any win butan in my possession would be a good thing for this game. 400m max range swarms = I-win button. I never use swarms. Your argument is irrelevant in that context. I looked at the numbers. Current swarms are actually appropriate DPS numbers-wise to tackle Chromosome HAVs. that's why I use the current stats in my theorycrafting tab for recommended changes. I like them but I'm wondering how you came by the numbers for the hulls. Again specifically where you derived the numbers from. I found a thread where someone had helpfully collected all of the vehicle statistics during the chromosome build in closed beta. I've been resurrecting them By the way, I need dropship pilot input DESPERATELY. Chrome AV was death on a cracker to dropships. My proposed changes in the theorycrafting tab for AV would be viable versus chrome vehicles, but I'm iffy vs. current ADS. the chrome dropship took three shots (assuming I missed a shot) and I'm looking for suggestions on where to propose numbers buffs for them to make them less squishy. Are you sure those were the values? I mean they must have changed in the Uprising build somehow. I know for a fact I had the most powerful plates and full skills and my tanks standard Armour HP values were 6375 (aka the standard combat Madrugar) EDIT- Proceeds to stick foot in mouth when he realises 2900 1.25 = 3625......... which is the armour value I am thinking of. Then proceeds to realise I'd inverted the 3 and 7 in the only maddy armour values....... "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 16513	Posted - 2015.01.12 21:17:00 - [8] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: I mean they must have changed in the Uprising build somehow. this. Chrome tanks had actual SKILL BONUSES! They behaved in relation to skills similarly to dropsuits even if they didn't behave similarly on the battlefield. My numbers are predicated on the vehicle skill tree being FULLY re-implemented. Otherwise all vehicles will be is suicide sled paper tigers that will get farmed. Early Uprising had them as well. Just me being a dunce. *"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 16529	Posted - 2015.01.12 23:38:00 - [9] - Quote Toobar Zoobar wrote: .......................this game should be more like EVE. Do you agree with that? In EVE there is no lobby shooter mechanic. You aren't throw into a group of random players in what feels like a closed confined area. It's not like you are thrown into a confined battle arena. Where noobs in rookie ships have to fight vets in battleships. That's actually this games big flaw. There simply isn't enough room for different players with different play styles to have the freedom to enjoy what they like doing. Pubs don't allow for enough choice. We can't even choose the map. Personally I just want my vehicles to have real purpose. They don't atm. I wouldn't care if i'm not killing infantry. And that's the problem the only current way a vehicle can influence a team winning or losing a match is if they kill infantry. And some infantry don't enjoy having to deal with vehicles. Thus we can all this tension in the community. If this game were more like EVE... Players would cry too much. "Boo hoo they have 20+ Tanks and Logi Support" "Boo hoo they attacked outside of my Timer" "Boo hoo they ganked me in High Sec. Is nowhere safe?" *"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 16530	Posted - 2015.01.13 00:34:00 - [10] - Quote Duke Noobiam wrote: Ld Collins wrote: The best advice I can give to vehicle users is to just respect out of them. In a game where infantry can go 60-0 everything is fine but a tanker goes 20-0 there's a serious problem. Let me stress that 20-0 for a tank is pretty rare. The enforcer tank does not exist anymore notice this tank has lots of modules to manage tanks today are no where near this. Players who did not know how to counter tanks swore up and down that tanks are op and the wave of nerfs just kept coming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5FyD5Nolwo 25-0 with a crew member. I'm not trying to throw anyone under the bus but balance right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REsKIZedfgE 60-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa9cGNqLomI 40-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrzz32kdKrg 51-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrzz32kdKrg 44-1 The problem is not that a tanker goes 30-0. No one is saying Duna has a 50-1 kdr therefore nerf tanks. The problem is that almost all tankers can go 30-0. As a group vehicle users have the highest kdr by far aside from snipers. This is why when tankers come here and cry they get no sympathy. But tankers do not got 30/0 at the moment. Haven't seen someone/anyone do that since 1.7 when Triple Rep Maddies were the bane of this game. Even before that I can't remember ever seeing anyone besides myself barring maybe Lorhak or Jason Pearson who ever scored more than 25 kills a match in a tank. Chromosome was a different story though. Most of the community did not even have the SP for AV. *"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 16540	Posted - 2015.01.13 02:58:00 - [11] - Quote Stupid Blueberry wrote: Stupid Blueberry wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Thread is adorable. A coalescent of all of the worst arguments vehicle users use to justify being overpowered. <3 And a completely ignorant cpm who thinks they know everything, but in reality knows next to nothing because they spend all day on the forums instead of playing. Backing my point up here, I just looked and Soraya has 0 kills or wp for the month of January.... It's doesn't much matter if he has played or not recently. I'm waiting for his statistics to prove the legitimacy of his stand point. *"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 16549	Posted - 2015.01.13 09:57:00 - [12] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: Me too. I'd like to know some statistics rather than just guessing from what I observe. Before that though, what metrics should we use to determine balance and what are acceptable numbers for those metrics? Should a vehicle user be equal to an infantry player since they are both only one player? Does ISK matter and if so, how much? I fear the disagreement for most runs deeper than faulty perception but lies rather in different expectations. When I read that "a single rep Madrugar should be able to rep right through constant swarms", well, I don't think we are going to agree. It's a really tricky thing to balance. On one hand you might want an HAV to represent a Tank ( a heavily armoured grounding fighting vehicle with a large calibre gun) but on the other hand you cannot make and HAV impervious to enemy fire and still able to very efficiently engage and destroy infantrymen. ISK I would say is a metric and factor despite what other might suggest as in previous builds the maintenance costs of redeploying vehicles was enormous. This was a good thing as I see it. eHP is a metric or perhaps I should suggest resistance values on tanks bother their natural vs certain damage types and in terms of hardeners as those directly determine the total eHP of the vehicle. SP perhaps is one as well. Previous builds saw tiered progression from the class unlike the current build which has standardised many type of modules. If there are any other suggest them. They are all worth talking about. One of the more radical Ideas I have about tanks is that I fundamentally believe that all HAV turrets should fire a small number 1-2 high explosive shells. Ideally good shots in Tanks will still have a means of defeating infantry and applying damage through splash but wont be able to use multiple consecutive shots without re-chambering a round. *"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 16549	Posted - 2015.01.13 10:02:00 - [13] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: The distinguishing difference in your rather extreme examples is the 60/1 infantry is an extreme rarity. My two absolute best matches were 53/2 and 43/13. That's twice in two years. No other match comes remotely close. The tank drivers at one point were running 20-25/0 for match after match after match until they bumped into someone like me and exploded. Then they came on the forums to scream that AV needed to be nerfed because :reasons: Most of the infantry hate comes from the latter portion where a tank driver wpuld explode in a marauder once every 4-8 matches and absolutely sht themselves. That offensive ember has never died in the minds of AV players. Now. On the other side of the coin, the elite infantry slayers were whiny little brats who openly stated that they should not have to change their fits to tackle and win against a tank. They also cried hardest when I shot them with a forge gun. The blame lies equally both ways, but whenever pilots start raging that their precious toys need to be able to be immune to dying to infantry AV it usually inspires AV hate and you see a sharp uptick of players who will run AV just to kill vehicles. When the mad happens because of these forum rants infantry stop caring about winning and focus on annihilating your walkets one HAV at a time to punish your audacity. You want balance and parity? You want to stop being the battlefield victims? Stop making entitled and poorly considered rants like this. Honestly Breaking I can't really remember a time that was the case as a result of me being over powered though I will admit that at one point I was certainly aware of how powerful the double rep/ triple rep Madrugar was. Since 1.7's release I've personally (and this is purely my own anecdotal evidence not to misconstrued as me preaching "Fact") seen a decrease in my efficiency as a tanker. Nearing the end of 1.6 when tanks were still relatively interesting to use I was doing as you said. Scoring 44/0, 52/1, 66/0, etc though even then those were very much so oddities for me as a player. As for QQ well we have to admit that every group in Dust has complained about another play style incessantly. AV has done it before, tanks did it before, assaults did it, scout did it, heavies did it, etc. No point in throwing blame around as everyone is equally guilty. "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 16551	Posted - 2015.01.13 19:48:00 - [14] - Quote pegasis prime wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Toobar Zoobar wrote: pegasis prime wrote: Breakin Stuff I k noticed erlyer when you were detailing the changes to the forge gun you missed one thing that I myself think should be returned . When I used to forge gun in chrome when you lined a tanks sweet spot up at the back you got 204% efficiency again shields and 214% efficiency against armour and that has been several decreased to 104% and 114% I think I'm not in game to check at the moment but that old 204% used to serve my breech forge guns well and I do think it should be returned both as a tanker and a forge gunner. ...ahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!! NO. weakspots still exist. current values for the weakspot don't need a buff. Never said they were removed but severely nerfed as forges gave 204% and 214% as i stated but have little over 100% now that a big nerf . It's a dynamic I do believe need to be fixed as when im rolling my Gunnlogi (which is about 80% of the time these days) I am very aware of forge gunners getting shots on my weak spot this is a habit I form tanking in chrome now it dosent really do that muchbmore dammage whrn hit in the soft spot . If a forge gunner was abke to get to a good position behind ta tank they deserve the dammage bonus . Also inthought you might want to consifer this when tour giving input into the hav thread in the ideas forum. It's certainly something worth consideration. On one hand it does in some way encourage AVers to attack the weaker rear armour on the other 204 and 214% respectively are very high bonuses for a game like Dust. I can certainly handle 1-2 hit kills but I doubt the rest of the community can. *"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 16552	Posted - 2015.01.13 21:04:00 - [15] - Quote Toobar Zoobar wrote: I'd be cool if they increased the weak spot bonus and reduced the overall DPS of AV. It would certainly reward good gameplay more. I'm not necessarily in agreement with that solely because I feel like it would force AV players into more difficult situations where they "MUST" fire at rear armour to get kills and honestly now that I know more about tanks and the fundamentals of their armour design and various other kinds of penetration values and what not..... I know that rounds "CAN and WILL" penetrate armour from most angles". *"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 16553	Posted - 2015.01.13 22:39:00 - [16] - Quote KILL3R H3LLH0UND wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: LOL. You didn't get past the first paragraph before admitting you think you should be immune to an AV. Nice job. You should never EVER be impossible to take down by a single other player. Ever. Correct. if you want one player to kill and ADS solo, then make an ADS cost as much as a dropsuit. that way a 150k minmando can kill my150k fitting incubus, or make It so a viper is 610 ISK, a Myron is 3k and a python is 56k I'm going to stop you there and suggest the immunity to small arms fire as well as the ability to fly coupled with Small Turret fire power...... is worth the costs of a PRO dropsuit and then some. *"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 16556	Posted - 2015.01.13 23:19:00 - [17] - Quote Soraya Xel wrote: Vodar 540 wrote: Cost is irrelevant? what is the point of having a currency in the game then i would recommend you just leave this thread because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are hell bent on keeping this game from getting anywhere. And my tank does cost more than AV I clearly know a lot more than you. For instance, you're crying that you might have to run away to survive. Whereas AV doesn't have that option. Vehicles outright kill infantry, and they don't have the opportunity to escape. Furthermore, vehicle users can bail from their vehicles and survive, continuing to deny opponents from actually killing them. Vehicles are STILL overpowered today, even with some nerfs to bring them back into line a bit. Infantry most certainly do have a chance to escape. Standing in the middle of an open patch of ground is ***** stupid no matter who you are. Infantry or Tanker. I idea that an infantryman has no chance to escape is tank is utterly ridiculous. Currently of the three turret types one is actively designed for the anti infantry role. This being the large blaster which given its mechanic of high dispersion means in all likelihood a fair number of your shots are going to miss their intended target with inaccuracy increasing over time. Can fire up to 48 consecutive rounds before over heat kicks in and your target is gone. The Railgun is specifically not designed for direct anti infantry work and would require a fair amount of effort in order to acquire the target due to the slow horizontal traversal of the turret and its slow rate of fire and low splash damage requiring a direct hit to kill your enemy. Can fire up to 5 consecutive rounds before overheat kicks in and your target is gone. The Missile Launcher is an eclectic mix of both mechanics suffering from dispersion though maintaining a fair level of accuracy but spotty hit detection vs infantry targets. Moreover it unlike the others has a slow muzzle velocity for its missiles and slow traversal requiring a fair amount of effort to acquire the target before a publishing slow reload during which time your target can escape. The issue as I see it is that you seem to be trying to place all of the responsibility for the situation you describe on the pilot. Should not an infantryman of AVer be required to have the situational awareness I do? Should they not be using cover instead of standing in the open? Should not an AVer retreat if their situation becomes less to their advantage? Now I'm not the greatest supporter of Dusts current turrets. I don't even like them. However you are making an assertion in your post that strikes me as very biased. I'll be the first to admit I have an interest in tanks and most likely a bias, yet I am trying to provide positive and meaningful feed back to those sources presenting ideas for consideration. And I'm not even a ***** CPM. You are doing a lot of asserting here and I am not seeing anywhere in your posting any positive suggestions, any concessions, constructive feedback. Regardless of your personal opinions as a CPM you are expected to respond to threads in a mature manner. Not play tit for tat with those you don't agree with. *"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 16556	Posted - 2015.01.13 23:48:00 - [18] - Quote TIGER SHARK1501 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Soraya Xel wrote: Vodar 540 wrote: Cost is irrelevant? what is the point of having a currency in the game then i would recommend you just leave this thread because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are hell bent on keeping this game from getting anywhere. And my tank does cost more than AV I clearly know a lot more than you. For instance, you're crying that you might have to run away to survive. Whereas AV doesn't have that option. Vehicles outright kill infantry, and they don't have the opportunity to escape. Furthermore, vehicle users can bail from their vehicles and survive, continuing to deny opponents from actually killing them. Vehicles are STILL overpowered today, even with some nerfs to bring them back into line a bit. Infantry most certainly do have a chance to escape. Standing in the middle of an open patch of ground is ***** stupid no matter who you are. Infantry or Tanker. I idea that an infantryman has no chance to escape is tank is utterly ridiculous. Currently of the three turret types one is actively designed for the anti infantry role. This being the large blaster which given its mechanic of high dispersion means in all likelihood a fair number of your shots are going to miss their intended target with inaccuracy increasing over time. Can fire up to 48 consecutive rounds before over heat kicks in and your target is gone. The Railgun is specifically not designed for direct anti infantry work and would require a fair amount of effort in order to acquire the target due to the slow horizontal traversal of the turret and its slow rate of fire and low splash damage requiring a direct hit to kill your enemy. Can fire up to 5 consecutive rounds before overheat kicks in and your target is gone. The Missile Launcher is an eclectic mix of both mechanics suffering from dispersion though maintaining a fair level of accuracy but spotty hit detection vs infantry targets. Moreover it unlike the others has a slow muzzle velocity for its missiles and slow traversal requiring a fair amount of effort to acquire the target before a publishing slow reload during which time your target can escape. The issue as I see it is that you seem to be trying to place all of the responsibility for the situation you describe on the pilot. Should not an infantryman of AVer be required to have the situational awareness I do? Should they not be using cover instead of standing in the open? Should not an AVer retreat if their situation becomes less to their advantage? Now I'm not the greatest supporter of Dusts current turrets. I don't even like them. However you are making an assertion in your post that strikes me as very biased. I'll be the first to admit I have an interest in tanks and most likely a bias, yet I am trying to provide positive and meaningful feed back to those sources presenting ideas for consideration. And I'm not even a ***** CPM. You are doing a lot of asserting here and I am not seeing anywhere in your posting any positive suggestions, any concessions, constructive feedback. Regardless of your personal opinions as a CPM you are expected to respond to threads in a mature manner. Not play tit for tat with those you don't agree with. Well said! Honestly I would suggest to posters in this thread to no engage in "forum warfare" with Soraya (take it form a vet) he's not worth your time. Instead perhaps look to guys like Pokey Dravon, Thaddeus Reynolds, and Breaking Stuff, Atiim (despite what people say he does make fair points from time to time ) and discuss your ideas with them and see how they rationalise it to you. Rattati seems to have a relatively open line in his vehicle suggestions thread or take your suggestions to a more active CPM like IWS. If it is a good idea I am sure he will consider it for discussion. *"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 16571	Posted - 2015.01.14 01:29:00 - [19] - Quote Mex-0 wrote: Remember Tank514? Every scrub like me feels the pain... I do. That was ******* awful for me as well as a tanker. All those skills I'd put together learning how to avoid AV, manage my module to survive, get the top tier tank content, etc was worthless. But that's not an argument for keeping vehicles in the abysmally boring state they are in. *"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 16578	Posted - 2015.01.14 19:53:00 - [20] - Quote Toobar Zoobar wrote: "When an AVer sees an ADS it's time for him to have fun and the pilot to have not fun". This is why I have so little respect for so many of you AV fanatics. You keep throwing BS like this at the argument. No fight? No options for the ADS pilot? He just has to take some damage, give AV ass some easy points, then fly away? Ridiculous. And this is a point I have made before. It should NEVER be about the kill. How can you demand that you should be able to kill the 500,000isk 9000 HP HAV with ease? What the hell is the point of a tank if it can't be a tank?! It's just BS after BS after BS. You complain that they kill infantry to well. You complain that they can rep too fast. And now you complain that they have the ability to retreat and that prevents you from getting the oh so over rated kill. **** K/D. But mate you cannot expect another player to be responsible for your own enjoyment of the game. It's not their responsibility. They are using established in game mechanics to achieve their desired goal which is ideally the destruction of the vehicle they are targeting. Just like an infantryman should never expect you to be responsible for their enjoyment of the game. It is likely that no matter what multiplayer game you play or how you are ruining someone's experience. *"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 16578	Posted - 2015.01.14 21:15:00 - [21] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: I don't care about K/D. I'm not an AV fanatic. I hate using AV because its ** and ineffective. I hate using vehicles because they are boring. I also dont care much about WP, so talking about how vehicles are win point pinatas doesnt really get alot of sympathy with me, and implying that firing swarm launchers at an ADS is somehow "easy points" when the ADS could kick the out of the swarmer if the pilot had any skill at all and ignoring the rest of the AV players experience where they constantly get on by other infantry also isnt going to get you any sympathy. As for no options for the ADS pilot, I'd love to see flare modules and ** like that, but Im not a developer, so when I talk about balance in this game I talk about how things are NOW, not how things are in some mythical magical fairy land where everything is fun and balanced already. The fact is that vehicles are way too hard to kill with an AV fit, and vehicles are way too expensive to engage in risky play. I'd love to see vehicles being more disposable. Lower ISK prices so they are comparable to dropsuits, rebalance so that AV is more effective, remove swarm launcher lock on crap and give me some AV that requires aim, and you have more fun for both sides. Now tanks and drop ships can be killed, but arent so expensive that you cant afford to lose them, now you have AV that works, and is actually able to kill the thing its designed to kill. More fun for everyone. P.S. "What the hell is the point of a tank if it can't be a tank?!" Quick aside to address this misconception: tanks are not invincible. In reality the main battle tank is a pretty fragile piece of equipment, it is largely immune to small arms fire, however weapons designed to destroy tanks exist and are incredibly effective unless there is a huge disparity in technology level (e.g. cold war era RPG vs. modern abrams tank). I'm not sure where this expectation of being stupidly resistant to damage, even damage coming from weapons that exist solely to kill vehicles comes from, but I dont think its a good expectation and its a horrible one from a balancing standpoint. "In reality the main battle tank is a pretty fragile piece of equipment, it is largely immune to small arms fire, however weapons designed to destroy tanks exist and are incredibly effective unless there is a huge disparity in technology level" Now I'm not disputing this isn't true. Tanks CAN be very fragile depending on which sections they are hit in, from what angle, with what kind of explosive charge, and from what range since there are a huge number of variables that adjust armour penetration values. However I don't then think I'd be far wrong in suggesting that everything on a battlefield can and will kill and infantryman. I don't say this to play tit for tat since its pointless to do so but you do need to keep it in context. HAV in Dust are not tanks. They do not function in the same role and are not equipped with the same types of weapons. The High Explosive RPG Tandem HEAT warhead can penetrate up to 750mm of rolled homogenous armour with the SMAW HEAA rocket is thought to have roughly 600mm of penetrative power under the same circumstances. Even the TOW small variants of the TOW warhead are thought to have penetrative values of 430,630, and 900mm on their successive BGD-71 B-D designs. The Effective armour values on an Abrams varies depending on the round fired at it. HEAT rounds are less effective as compared to Discarding Sabot rounds and also vary on where the tank is hit. The turret in this case typically is less armoured than the hull and against HEAT rounds if I am not mistaken the Turret has an effective 600-650mm of Plating and the hull has an effective 800-900mm of plating. During testing of armour penetration values of APFSDS rounds an Abrams could resist shots to the forward hull and turret as well as the side of the turret, though suffered armour penetrations against the side and rear armour of their tanks. Comparatively the Armour Piercing Capabilities of a Discarding Sabot Round and an HEAT are vast. Again this does not suggest that infantry based anti tank guns cannot destroy tanks only that it's likely not as simple as you put it and is based on a much large number of factors than are accounted for in Dust 514 including the arbitrarily limited ranges of our turrets, the lack on actually main battle cannons with high explosive single shot rounds, coaxial turrets, etc. *"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 16578	Posted - 2015.01.14 22:07:00 - [22] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: True Adamance wrote: However I don't then think I'd be far wrong in suggesting that everything on a battlefield can and will kill and infantryman. Everything except the swarm launcher can kill an infantryman on the dust battlefield, and the swarm cant only because of lock on requirement to fire, I have no problem with this fact and I dont think many people do, so Im not sure how this sentence informs dust balance or this discussion. True Adamance wrote: I don't say this to play tit for tat since its pointless to do so but you do need to keep it in context. HAV in Dust are not tanks. They do not function in the same role and are not equipped with the same types of weapons. In dust they seem to function either as mobile artillery, close infantry support (more similar to an APC without much carrying capacity with a cannon than an MBT), or as an actual tank (penetration of enemy lines and exploitation thereof). As mobile artillery they are extremely effective, as close infantry support they are very effective if used properly (if the pilot doesnt feed himself to AV they can sit there and support infantry all day), and as a MBT it isnt super effective because using it in this manner exposes you to a ton of risk (actively pushing into enemy AV and other tanks) and there are no supply lines/soft targets you can hit in the rear to really affect the battle and the front lines are rarely "lines" in any sense in the first place. True Adamance wrote: blah blah blah scooby doo where are youdly scoodly doo I deleted the rest and Ill just reply to it all saying it would be really cool having an accurate damage model of armor vs. incoming penetrators to play with in this game. If I could expect to take a plasma cannon and stuff it up a HAVs ass and kill it in one shot, I would be fine with the front end of those tanks being largely invincible. However with the mechanics in play today, the HAVs are way too hard to kill from any angle and it just makes AV feel absolutely worthless unless the HAV pilot is or is acting like a moron. And again I have experienced this from both sides, I use vehicles and AV, Im not trying to ** on one party or the other, Im trying to make a discussion/environment where both can have some actual fun. Right now vehicles are boring and AV is crap. Edited to add: RE: mobile artillery usage, it would be really cool if there was an indirect fire turret available, to lob some kind of explosive round into an area. Might be hell to balance though. Mobile Artillery? Tank Guns don't have noticeable splash damage so I'm not sure how can they bombard anything without considerable luck or ***** great aim. Certainly one of the things I like about BF4 (and I never thought I'd say this) is that they allow me to chose an Ammo type. That can be HEAT, AP, and Sabot which have varying muzzle velocities and explosive/AV profiles. I personally like Sabots for their high muzzle velocity and the HMG for any pesky infantry that gets too close. *"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 16585	Posted - 2015.01.15 01:49:00 - [23] - Quote Mex-0 wrote: Apparently the Rail turrets used to have or currently have some splash damage, which didn't really make sense since rail weapons are precision weapons... They did. Though I cannot recall the exact values for the splash though I do remember CCP Blam did want 4m splash zones which was vehemently opposed. Though I believe that the Railgun rounds used in New Eden fire shells with specific functions in a very similar manner as modern rounds might fire. The Javelin Hybrid Railgun Charge an example potentially of a Dust 514 Tank round that might have a reduced range or muzzle velocity with a larger AoE splash damage zone to represent those Iridium Felechets detonating upon round impact. "The Javelin charge consists of a cluster of Iridium Fletchets with a Graviton Pulse Detonator. This allows for much higher damage than can be achieved by a standard rail system. However, the inherent entropy of graviton pulses means that it is very hard to maintain accuracy at long range." The Spike Hybrid Railgun Chrage is an example using modern anti materiel concepts which could in Dust 514 fire the equivalent of a APFSDS round which would likely have greater muzzle velocity and a much greater penetrative potential. "The spike munition package is designed to deliver huge damage to targets at extreme distances. It consists of a superdense plutonium sabot mounted on a small graviton booster unit that provides a substantial boost to the sabots impact velocity. However, the charge is next to useless at close range. Assuming the other varied kinds of Hybrid charges which consist of various kinds of atoms suspended in a plasma state such as Anti Matter, Iridium, Uranium which are released on impact I cannot see why Railguns don't have a more pronounced splash damage upon detonation of the round. *"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 16598	Posted - 2015.01.15 19:40:00 - [24] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: You dont need splash damage to kill stuff, I don't know why people think its so hard to kill infantry with the large rail turret, unless someone is actively strafing to avoid you it doesnt take much skill to get them, and if you hit them at all you get a kill unless you have a crap turret and the target is a heavily tanked sentinel. The only reason I want splash damage is for the purposes of the turrets functionality and the immersion of the role. Tank's fire high calibre shells. Simple enough. Those shells usually have a high explosive charge to them so as to damage armour. I like the idea of driving vehicles that let you visually see the forces at work. The recoil on the main gun. The dust kicked up by your hull rocking from the force. The explosion as your round lands on target. The idea of splash isn't necessarily to get kills its to apply damage to the target. *"He spoke, and we made it so all worlds were one, all peoples were one, all faiths, creeds, and nationalities were one.

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.