DUST Search - Fuking tanks

All Channels

General Discussions

Fuking tanks

» 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 17697	Posted - 2015.03.16 22:00:00 - [1] - Quote Izlare Lenix wrote: So I was running around in a scout av suit with plasma cannon, lai dai packed av nades and advanced REs. This gladious was getting shoot at by a friendly tank. He was in half armor, hardner active when I first saw him. I fired my plasma cannon and hit him, tossed three pro av nades at him, which all hit him. But by the time I reloaded my plasma cannon his armor was already back where it started. And the friendly tank was still shooting at him. By this point he was backing up, pointed his turret at me for a second and insta killed me. I fuking hate tanks. Eye Crai Evry Tiem. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17703	Posted - 2015.03.17 00:50:00 - [2] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Izlare Lenix wrote: So I was running around in a scout av suit with plasma cannon, lai dai packed av nades and advanced REs. This marduk was getting shoot at by a friendly tank. He was in half armor, hardner active when I first saw him. I fired my plasma cannon and hit him, tossed three pro av nades at him, which all hit him. But by the time I reloaded my plasma cannon his armor was already back where it started. And the friendly tank was still shooting at him. By this point he was backing up, pointed his turret at me for a second and insta killed me. I fuking hate tanks. Armor tanks, shield tanks could never survive that crap. Don't doubt they could. I'd still call the Gunnlogi king of Anti-Infantry due to the sheer control you can exert over your shields coupled with the handling of the tank allowing to aggressive manoeuvre around and through sockets reacting to mobile infantrymen as required. By in by I am testing both tanks every chance I get having no SP invested in infantry roles any longer. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17704	Posted - 2015.03.17 01:46:00 - [3] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: New tanks are laughably OP. I troll around with dual hardener dual rep blaster maddy and i went 17/0 this morning while simultaneously playing hearthstone :D So easy :) I don't think the rep values are wrong however I do think that Passive Armour Repairers is still wrong. I have a big post planned for feedback on HAV both Shield and Armour (Neither results in a vastly different performance for me) and in it I want to suggest the resurgence of Active Armour Repairers. I think the 305 armour per second is a fair marker (317.6 at highest under my proposal with 2x Heavy Repairers active at the same time) but only if those values are of a limited duration and not completely passive. IMO vehicle armour should be a tank type that is more defined by its static HP buffers and reliance of specific modules for repairs unlike shields which has a natural passive repair value combined with its Shield Boosters. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17704	Posted - 2015.03.17 01:59:00 - [4] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: New tanks are laughably OP. I troll around with dual hardener dual rep blaster maddy and i went 17/0 this morning while simultaneously playing hearthstone :D So easy :) I don't think the rep values are wrong however I do think that Passive Armour Repairers is still wrong. I have a big post planned for feedback on HAV both Shield and Armour (Neither results in a vastly different performance for me) and in it I want to suggest the resurgence of Active Armour Repairers. I think the 305 armour per second is a fair marker (317.6 at highest under my proposal with 2x Heavy Repairers active at the same time) but only if those values are of a limited duration and not completely passive. IMO vehicle armour should be a tank type that is more defined by its static HP buffers and reliance of specific modules for repairs unlike shields which has a natural passive repair value combined with its Shield Boosters. 300 reps per sec + hardener = 450 effective hit points instantly repped per second. I have done the math yes. On a whole under the proposal I have the regeneration per second is lessened on both a stacked and individual level and only possible for a 15 second window. After that you are high and dry for reps relying on your piloting. If it is decided in the thread that I will post the values suggested are too high then I can slowly incrementally decrease them until it is felt they are appropriate. Also.... 300 *1.4 does not equal 450........ it's 420 and 427 if you included the addition 5 you chose to ignore. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17707	Posted - 2015.03.17 02:29:00 - [5] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: DUST Fiend wrote: New tanks are laughably OP. I troll around with dual hardener dual rep blaster maddy and i went 17/0 this morning while simultaneously playing hearthstone :D So easy :) I don't think the rep values are wrong however I do think that Passive Armour Repairers is still wrong. I have a big post planned for feedback on HAV both Shield and Armour (Neither results in a vastly different performance for me) and in it I want to suggest the resurgence of Active Armour Repairers. I think the 305 armour per second is a fair marker (317.6 at highest under my proposal with 2x Heavy Repairers active at the same time) but only if those values are of a limited duration and not completely passive. IMO vehicle armour should be a tank type that is more defined by its static HP buffers and reliance of specific modules for repairs unlike shields which has a natural passive repair value combined with its Shield Boosters. 300 reps per sec + hardener = 450 effective hit points instantly repped per second. I have done the math yes. On a whole under the proposal I have the regeneration per second is lessened on both a stacked and individual level and only possible for a 15 second window. After that you are high and dry for reps relying on your piloting. If it is decided in the thread that I will post the values suggested are too high then I can slowly incrementally decrease them until it is felt they are appropriate. Also.... 300 *1.4 does not equal 450........ it's 420 and 427 if you included the addition 5 you chose to ignore. Well you chose to ignore your number of 317 for max, which would be around 440 per second.. so let's not bicker about 10 hypothetical hps. We need balance between armor and shield tanks, right now we have effective tanks (armor) and redline tanks (shields). You don't even know the figures I am using and you want to critique my mathematics? Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17708	Posted - 2015.03.17 02:56:00 - [6] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Yeah I'm not really interested in carrying in this conversation with you, nir do i care about yet another terrible proposal as you are more interested in proposing changes that dont matter, have no positive effect on balance and are selfserving.. so good luck with that and have fun using a calculator instead if a controller. I am interested in balancing shield tanks so they can get out of the redline. Armor tanks are in a good place versus av right now and don't need any help or changes. Nerfing armor repairers should not even be on the table right now. You are wasting your time. How would you fix shield tanks? I'm testing them every evening when I get off work. There are a few things that I think need to be addressed with them but I'm keeping them close until I have tested pretty much every fit I can cook up, the turrets in every scenario, and come up with fair proposals. I do feel like shields are certainly lacking in the new environment in some respects though I currently attribute that to them not being top dog in terms of potential eHP any more and the perception that as a result of not having the highest potential eHP they are therefore unusable. They are far from it. I find them to be excellent anti infantry tanks with superior control over HP values and positioning but lacking tank vs tank. Tonight I'm testing a Gladius with 3x Complex Plates and 2x Hardeners with all 3 turrets to see how it does. As for self serving I don't think having armour repairs become active modules is self serving as currently they are rather powerful trending to the upper echelons of power in the tank rebalance. I don't think short term repairs of that power are too unreasonable but having those as a constant passive value are rather game breaking. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17708	Posted - 2015.03.17 02:58:00 - [7] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: The activation delay of active modules on tanks just needs to be increased from 1 second to 4 seconds, then infantry would have a chance at ambushing tanks. I think I will make my own thread about that. I will say that it I making tanks use them as defensive anti ambushing mods as well as assault mods. It allows tanks to kill until they encounter a few AV hits, then they quickly activate 2 hardeners, then kill and retreat for 60 seconds, they are not vulnerable while hardeners are down. Tanks are only vulnerable if there hardeners are in the cooldown phase and they have no hardeners active. I think I will say that too. Oh, yes, make shields worse........ Shield's aren't bad.....they're just lacking something specific. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17709	Posted - 2015.03.17 03:19:00 - [8] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yeah I'm not really interested in carrying in this conversation with you, nir do i care about yet another terrible proposal as you are more interested in proposing changes that dont matter, have no positive effect on balance and are selfserving.. so good luck with that and have fun using a calculator instead if a controller. I am interested in balancing shield tanks so they can get out of the redline. Armor tanks are in a good place versus av right now and don't need any help or changes. Nerfing armor repairers should not even be on the table right now. You are wasting your time. How would you fix shield tanks? I'm testing them every evening when I get off work. There are a few things that I think need to be addressed with them but I'm keeping them close until I have tested pretty much every fit I can cook up, the turrets in every scenario, and come up with fair proposals. I do feel like shields are certainly lacking in the new environment in some respects though I currently attribute that to them not being top dog in terms of potential eHP any more and the perception that as a result of not having the highest potential eHP they are therefore unusable. They are far from it. I find them to be excellent anti infantry tanks with superior control over HP values and positioning but lacking tank vs tank. Tonight I'm testing a Gladius with 3x Complex Plates and 2x Hardeners with all 3 turrets to see how it does. As for self serving I don't think having armour repairs become active modules is self serving as currently they are rather powerful trending to the upper echelons of power in the tank rebalance. I don't think short term repairs of that power are too unreasonable but having those as a constant passive value are rather game breaking. Well make sure you test 3 militia scanners with 4 cpu chips as it will be about as useful. Run only proto shield tanks, blow up as many tanks at least 100 m away from your own redline as you can, check your wallet, discuss. I'll give it a shot certainly though where I am in relation to my redline is not up to me it's up to the flow of the battle. If our infantry is confident I can be as well supporting them on the front lines. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17711	Posted - 2015.03.17 04:01:00 - [9] - Quote DarthJT5 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: True Adamance wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Yeah I'm not really interested in carrying in this conversation with you, nir do i care about yet another terrible proposal as you are more interested in proposing changes that dont matter, have no positive effect on balance and are selfserving.. so good luck with that and have fun using a calculator instead if a controller. I am interested in balancing shield tanks so they can get out of the redline. Armor tanks are in a good place versus av right now and don't need any help or changes. Nerfing armor repairers should not even be on the table right now. You are wasting your time. How would you fix shield tanks? I'm testing them every evening when I get off work. There are a few things that I think need to be addressed with them but I'm keeping them close until I have tested pretty much every fit I can cook up, the turrets in every scenario, and come up with fair proposals. I do feel like shields are certainly lacking in the new environment in some respects though I currently attribute that to them not being top dog in terms of potential eHP any more and the perception that as a result of not having the highest potential eHP they are therefore unusable. They are far from it. I find them to be excellent anti infantry tanks with superior control over HP values and positioning but lacking tank vs tank. Tonight I'm testing a Gladius with 3x Complex Plates and 2x Hardeners with all 3 turrets to see how it does. As for self serving I don't think having armour repairs become active modules is self serving as currently they are rather powerful trending to the upper echelons of power in the tank rebalance. I don't think short term repairs of that power are too unreasonable but having those as a constant passive value are rather game breaking. Well make sure you test 3 militia scanners with 4 cpu chips as it will be about as useful. Run only proto shield tanks, blow up as many tanks at least 100 m away from your own redline as you can, check your wallet, discuss. I'll give it a shot certainly though where I am in relation to my redline is not up to me it's up to the flow of the battle. If our infantry is confident I can be as well supporting them on the front lines. Can I help in your testing? Sure. Firstly I have to get my own thoughts in order on both HAV. Do you have any specific Shield HAV fits you think are competitive or powerful? I've been using 2x Complex Extenders, a Heat Sink, a Hardener, and a Heavy Booster along side a Railgun and Blaster. Rails I am struggling with due to tendency to use them like automatic battle cannon as opposed to sniper rifles but Blasters as always like Missile are my jam. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17711	Posted - 2015.03.17 04:29:00 - [10] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: True Adamance wrote: duster 35000 wrote: WeapondigitX V7 wrote: The activation delay of active modules on tanks just needs to be increased from 1 second to 4 seconds, then infantry would have a chance at ambushing tanks. I think I will make my own thread about that. I will say that it I making tanks use them as defensive anti ambushing mods as well as assault mods. It allows tanks to kill until they encounter a few AV hits, then they quickly activate 2 hardeners, then kill and retreat for 60 seconds, they are not vulnerable while hardeners are down. Tanks are only vulnerable if there hardeners are in the cooldown phase and they have no hardeners active. I think I will say that too. Oh, yes, make shields worse........ Shield's aren't bad.....they're just lacking something specific. PLC's destroy them, and armor tanks are better than them now, and have quicker regen...and regen while taking damage with a hardener...shields lost thier regen, and are only good vs swarms...even then, damage mods, when your hardener is off, you better find some cover...then hide for your cooldown. And? 4/5 of the most common AV options are Anti Armour they did horrific damage to and continue to be effective against Armour HAV right now. Your whining about one specific tailored AV option designed to defeat Shield HAV is meaningless. As for regeneration you lost all of 44 regen/sec.....seriously "crai me a river". As for Armour HAV being better we have yet to see. I will agree their passive repairs are out of control right now. I don't want to nerf that as a think short duration active reps have a very real place in Dust as long as the pilot is actively controlling their vehicle. As for Armour..... I think perhaps Armour could see some changes but rushing to present feed back a week after release seems a bit knee jerk to me. I want to be thorough when I present my HAV feed back to Rattati. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17718	Posted - 2015.03.17 09:28:00 - [11] - Quote duster 35000 wrote: Sgt Kirk wrote: I'll never take shield tankers seriously if they keep trying to 1v1 me in CQC. I just can't do it, just a few hours ago I took on an entire tank convoy of DUNA tanks in my gv.0 Madrugar. They were all ADV Shield Gunlogis with rails and lol blasters trying to take me at CQC. I even went against them 1v2 at one time but one tank couldn't even hit me because I kept circling around his railgun and getting rid of the shield blaster tank, then I killed the Gunlogi. Out of all tonight, upon all the burning heaps of tanks I called I only lost one tank and that was to a Rail Tank that stalked me only fired at me when I was dead out in the open. 3 shots, dead. The one tank I lost was to a person that actually knew how to use a Caldari Rail tank. Bravo dude, you did what 7 duna tanks and other randoms tankers couldn't do out of this entire day. You were ganged up on by blasters and rails and survived? yep, armor needs a tone done, reps, from the buff, that's just overpowered. And you do realize a maddy with nitro is better than a gunny? Moves faster. Why shouldn't a tank equipped with a Nitrous firstly move faster than one without and secondly be superior in close quarters combat if it can move faster than a tanks tracking capabilities? Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 17724	Posted - 2015.03.17 19:38:00 - [12] - Quote Reign Omega wrote: Tomorrow is my play day this week. I cant wait to respec my vehicle alt completely out of infantry again and spend all day burning money on tanks lol. Be aware too...though I haven't confirmed it. Redline timers now on HAV are misleading. Several times I've been destroyed with 4 seconds on the clock. Raphael: I'm warning you. Do not leave me here. I will find you. Castiel: Maybe one day. Today you're my little bitch

Copyright © 2013-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,03s, ref 20250208/0430
EVE-Online™/DUST514™ and EVE/DUST514 imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.