DUST Search - Rattati, are you aware that...

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Rattati, are you aware that...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1987	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:13:00 - [1] - Quote Gunnlogis and getting absolutely destroyed by armor tanks in pretty much every situation. It doesn't matter if you flank an Armor tank with Proto XT-201 Missiles and et half a clip into him, as soon as he hits hardeners everything is in his favor. Blasters wreck hardened 6000 shields with boosters in under 10 seconds while I might be sitting there all day trying to kill an armor tank with missiles. Rail Gunnlogi < Rail Madrugar Balster Gunnlogi < Blaster Madrugar Missile Gunnlogi < Missile Madrugar Armor hardeners need a reduction to 35-30% Also= when armor hardeners are active, repair rates need to go down by the same amount that the hardener resists. Literally, forget gunnlogis, I can be shooting an armor tank with my proto Min Commando with Wiki swarms with 2-3 clips and the armor tank will be at full armor due to the fact that, long lasting high resistance hardeners+high base eHP+Passive Armor reps= indestructable. Armor hardener> shield hardener 1.) Armor Hardener lasts much longer. 6 whole seconds longer without skills (gap increases with skill) 2.) The fitting: The PG of Shield hardener and CPU of Armor hardener is proportionate. BUT... Complex Shield Hardener CPU cost vs Armor Hardener PG cost. The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG Gåæ That does not seem fair at all. Why does it take twice the fitting space to fit a shield hardener on a shield tank than a Armor Hardener on a Armor tank? Fitting a Complex shield extender on Gunnlogi takes up 26.6% of CPU and 9% of the PG ON the other hand, a Armor Hardener on a Madrugar takes up 13% CPU and 13% PG. So why is it so uneven for the Gunnlogi/why is it so advantageous to use Armor Hardener on Armor tank than a Shield Hardener on Shield tank? "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
JUPA SACH Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 458	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:23:00 - [2] - Quote Are you aware that all you do is complain about everything? Karma
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1987	Posted - 2015.04.08 15:47:00 - [3] - Quote JUPA SACH wrote: Are you aware that all you do is complain about everything? Are you aware that this game is unbalanced? "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3160	Posted - 2015.04.08 16:01:00 - [4] - Quote How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1987	Posted - 2015.04.08 16:25:00 - [5] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 589	Posted - 2015.04.08 17:01:00 - [6] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at full intensity and his armor hp will be capped at full until his hardeners run out, it doesn't matter how many clips you fire at him. One swarm launcher cannot do enough dps regardless of fitting to even scratch the repair of a hardened madruger.
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 589	Posted - 2015.04.08 17:03:00 - [7] - Quote JUPA SACH wrote: Are you aware that all you do is complain about everything? You're just complaining that he's complaining, but everyone knows hes right. Gunnlogis are complete crap compared to madrugers right now, not because the gunnlogis are bad, its because the madrugers have such high reps with hardeners up that they cannot be killed by people running prototype weaponry unless there are 3 or more attacking.
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2974	Posted - 2015.04.08 17:13:00 - [8] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at full intensity and his armor hp will be capped at full until his hardeners run out, it doesn't matter how many clips you fire at him. One swarm launcher cannot do enough dps regardless of fitting to even scratch the repair of a hardened madruger. And that is exactly what should happen. If a single swarmed can still kill a double hardened tank, hardeners have absolutely no point in existing. It should take multiple people to kill a hardened tank. The problem is how quickly they can escape once it wears off. Tone down tank speed and greatly tone down tank acceleration, and we will finally have tanks in a close to balanced place. Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
Vesta Opalus T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K 589	Posted - 2015.04.08 19:55:00 - [9] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at full intensity and his armor hp will be capped at full until his hardeners run out, it doesn't matter how many clips you fire at him. One swarm launcher cannot do enough dps regardless of fitting to even scratch the repair of a hardened madruger. And that is exactly what should happen. If a single swarmed can still kill a double hardened tank, hardeners have absolutely no point in existing. It should take multiple people to kill a hardened tank. The problem is how quickly they can escape once it wears off. Tone down tank speed and greatly tone down tank acceleration, and we will finally have tanks in a close to balanced place. Why should it take multiple people to kill a double hardened tank? It was already hard before, unless the tanker was certifiably ********, but the way hardeners combine with reps and armor hp makes it literally impossible now to kill a madruger until their hardeners go down. Why is that ok? Maybe if infantry had modules that boosted their damage so they could overcome the hardeners, it would be fine, but they dont. There is no AV/V balance when you can simply choose to negate AV completely when you fit your tank. Its not even a matter of tactics or ambush, its just straight up impossible for a single person to kill a tank fitted with 2 repairs and 2 hardeners unless the tanker just does not react. Could you imagine how absurd it would be if infantry had fits like that? Heavies walking around, literally invincible to every weapon on the field, unkillable until their hardeners went down, is that something you are ok with? If not, then why is it ok for tanks?
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1988	Posted - 2015.04.08 20:03:00 - [10] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at full intensity and his armor hp will be capped at full until his hardeners run out, it doesn't matter how many clips you fire at him. One swarm launcher cannot do enough dps regardless of fitting to even scratch the repair of a hardened madruger. And that is exactly what should happen. If a single swarmed can still kill a double hardened tank, hardeners have absolutely no point in existing. It should take multiple people to kill a hardened tank. The problem is how quickly they can escape once it wears off. Tone down tank speed and greatly tone down tank acceleration, and we will finally have tanks in a close to balanced place. Why should it take multiple people to kill a double hardened tank? It was already hard before, unless the tanker was certifiably ********, but the way hardeners combine with reps and armor hp makes it literally impossible now to kill a madruger until their hardeners go down. Why is that ok? Maybe if infantry had modules that boosted their damage so they could overcome the hardeners, it would be fine, but they dont. There is no AV/V balance when you can simply choose to negate AV completely when you fit your tank. Its not even a matter of tactics or ambush, its just straight up impossible for a single person to kill a tank fitted with 2 repairs and 2 hardeners unless the tanker just does not react. Could you imagine how absurd it would be if infantry had fits like that? Heavies walking around, literally invincible to every weapon on the field, unkillable until their hardeners went down, is that something you are ok with? If not, then why is it ok for tanks? truth be told, even multiple swarmers cannot harm them. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5731	Posted - 2015.04.08 20:43:00 - [11] - Quote Shield Boosters should be easier to fit and have a slightly higher HP/minute than an armor repairer. If you allow heavy boosters to trigger every 20 seconds (15 with skills) you achieve this fairly closely. It would allow shield HAVs to have access to a lot of repping power on demand and fairly frequently. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18062	Posted - 2015.04.08 20:54:00 - [12] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Gunnlogis and getting absolutely destroyed by armor tanks in pretty much every situation. It doesn't matter if you flank an Armor tank with Proto XT-201 Missiles and et half a clip into him, as soon as he hits hardeners everything is in his favor. Blasters wreck hardened 6000 shields with boosters in under 10 seconds while I might be sitting there all day trying to kill an armor tank with missiles. Rail Gunnlogi < Rail Madrugar Balster Gunnlogi < Blaster Madrugar Missile Gunnlogi < Missile Madrugar Armor hardeners need a reduction to 35-30% Also= when armor hardeners are active, repair rates need to go down by the same amount that the hardener resists. Literally, forget gunnlogis, I can be shooting an armor tank with my proto Min Commando with Wiki swarms with 2-3 clips and the armor tank will be at full armor due to the fact that, long lasting high resistance hardeners+high base eHP+Passive Armor reps= indestructable. Armor hardener> shield hardener 1.) Armor Hardener lasts much longer. 6 whole seconds longer without skills (gap increases with skill) 2.) The fitting: The PG of Shield hardener and CPU of Armor hardener is proportionate. BUT... Complex Shield Hardener CPU cost vs Armor Hardener PG cost. The CPU cost of a Complex Shield extender is 341 which is 1/4 or 26.6% of my CPU on a Gunnlogi The PG cost of a Complex Armor hardener is 400 PG which is like is approx 13% of the Madrugars PG Gåæ That does not seem fair at all. Why does it take twice the fitting space to fit a shield hardener on a shield tank than a Armor Hardener on a Armor tank? Fitting a Complex shield extender on Gunnlogi takes up 26.6% of CPU and 9% of the PG ON the other hand, a Armor Hardener on a Madrugar takes up 13% CPU and 13% PG. So why is it so uneven for the Gunnlogi/why is it so advantageous to use Armor Hardener on Armor tank than a Shield Hardener on Shield tank? Also- armor hardeners are super easy to double stack. And two of them are super OP. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNLT2Qk2KxM Firstly I don't think anyone will deny that Shield HAV are lacking at the moment for a number of reasons though I don't believe they are necessarily what you believe them to be nor are you being particularly unbiased in this case. I'm still convinced that the primary reason the Madrugar is more powerful than it's shield counterpart is due to its repairs being both prolific and uninterruptedly passive as a result when coupled with our competitive hardeners they produce incredibly powerful effective repair values that the Gunnlogi simply cannot match. Beyond that if Shield Boosters could be more reliable and offer players the opportunity to completely regenerate the value stated on the module then I simply do not believe there will be such a gap between the HAV. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Boot Booter Titans of Phoenix RUST415 1265	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:02:00 - [13] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at full intensity and his armor hp will be capped at full until his hardeners run out, it doesn't matter how many clips you fire at him. One swarm launcher cannot do enough dps regardless of fitting to even scratch the repair of a hardened madruger. And that is exactly what should happen. If a single swarmed can still kill a double hardened tank, hardeners have absolutely no point in existing. It should take multiple people to kill a hardened tank. The problem is how quickly they can escape once it wears off. Tone down tank speed and greatly tone down tank acceleration, and we will finally have tanks in a close to balanced place. Why should it take multiple people to kill a double hardened tank? It was already hard before, unless the tanker was certifiably ********, but the way hardeners combine with reps and armor hp makes it literally impossible now to kill a madruger until their hardeners go down. Why is that ok? Maybe if infantry had modules that boosted their damage so they could overcome the hardeners, it would be fine, but they dont. There is no AV/V balance when you can simply choose to negate AV completely when you fit your tank. Its not even a matter of tactics or ambush, its just straight up impossible for a single person to kill a tank fitted with 2 repairs and 2 hardeners unless the tanker just does not react. Could you imagine how absurd it would be if infantry had fits like that? Heavies walking around, literally invincible to every weapon on the field, unkillable until their hardeners went down, is that something you are ok with? If not, then why is it ok for tanks? No you're missing the point. Yes it's near impossible to kill a tank with its hardener on but without its rather easy. The issue is tanks are way too fast so than can easily fly away from danger when their hardener drops. Slow tanks down and you force tankers to constantly be thinking about their slow escape to safety. This is how you balance them. No tanker wants to be insta popped by AV and no AVer wants a tank to escape their clutches easily. It would force tankers to play their position and hardeners in a smart fashion and force AV to use ambush tactics.
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2976	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:23:00 - [14] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Why should it take multiple people to kill a double hardened tank? It was already hard before, unless the tanker was certifiably ******, but the way hardeners combine with reps and armor hp makes it literally impossible now to kill a madruger until their hardeners go down.** Why is that ok? Maybe if infantry had modules that boosted their damage so they could overcome the hardeners, it would be fine, but they dont. There is no AV/V balance when you can simply choose to negate AV completely when you fit your tank. Its not even a matter of tactics or ambush, its just straight up impossible for a single person to kill a tank fitted with 2 repairs and 2 hardeners unless the tanker just does not react. Could you imagine how absurd it would be if infantry had fits like that? Heavies walking around, literally invincible to every weapon on the field, unkillable until their hardeners went down, is that something you are ok with? If not, then why is it ok for tanks? I highlightd the relevant portion of your reply. Tanks are supposed to be about stand-and-deliver gameplay. They are supposed to be hard to kill when hardeners are up. The entire point of hardeners is to make them take multiple people to kill so they don't have to run away as soon as someone switches to an AV fit. If one person can kill a tank, even if it is hardened, then hardeners have no purpose in existing. Imagine if armor plates only gave 8/12/15 armor hp. What would be the point of running them? They would technically increase your health, but not by near enough to be worth it. The problem is, tanks have too much speed, meaning once those hardeners go down, they quickly zip off to safety to come back and do it again. By slowing them down, we make them rely on infantry to provide support in the form of mobility. Ideally, a tank with hardeners would take 3-4 people running AV to kill, but the tank would have to have gunners, either to hop out and flank the AV or use their small guns to engage and kill them before hardeners come down. As it is now, I can easily zip off when I have about 5 seconds left on my hardeners and be perfectly fine. That shouldn't be the case. I want my tank to be a citadel when my hardeners are up. We have that now. But I don't want my tank to be able to zip away at LAV speeds when things go south. Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
sir RAVEN WING Corrosive Synergy Rise Of Legion. 3322	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:28:00 - [15] - Quote It was the Caldari's only good thing, why are you surprised? *"Vengeance. Vengeance is the name of the monster that consumed me so long ago." - Sir Raven Wing*
Juno Tristan Obscure Reference 519	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:28:00 - [16] - Quote Most people agree it's shields that need work, but a commando is a poor choice against an armour tank as it lacks the alpha damage, try a suit with nades ADS Ramming Revenge! Plasma Cannon Rampage
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18067	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:48:00 - [17] - Quote sir RAVEN WING wrote: It was the Caldari's only good thing, why are you surprised? Because Three of Five primary AV weapons aren't Caldari and aren't effective, because the ARR and RR weren't the go to weapons of top tier corporations for a good few months, because the previous Gunnlogi was not to the Madrugar what the Madrugar is to it now, and because you don't continually have the most content available to your race..... Seriously harden up........ ........................... PUNS! GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1932	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:56:00 - [18] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Shield Boosters should be easier to fit and have a slightly higher HP/minute than an armor repairer. If you allow heavy boosters to trigger every 20 seconds (15 with skills) you achieve this fairly closely. It would allow shield HAVs to have access to a lot of repping power on demand and fairly frequently. It could work , I use the complex light shield booster just for that purpose . What are your thoughts about the shield regulators ? I use boosters because their just better to me then the regulators . I would say that they should just tweak the CPU / PG requirements first of shield mods and see how that plays out and change the mechanics like the OP spoke of . I would want a nerf for either but just bring them more inline with what already exist . Doubts are like flies and should be treated as such and crushed . #PubsShouldBeRandomPlayers
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1932	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:59:00 - [19] - Quote Juno Tristan wrote: Most people agree it's shields that need work, but a commando is a poor choice against an armour tank as it lacks the alpha damage, try a suit with nades I don't know about that . If you get a Min commando with a PLC and swarms it works out nicely . I use to do that with positive results . That was my AV fit . Doubts are like flies and should be treated as such and crushed . #PubsShouldBeRandomPlayers
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 1932	Posted - 2015.04.08 23:08:00 - [20] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: The problem is, tanks have too much speed, meaning once those hardeners go down, they quickly zip off to safety to come back and do it again. By slowing them down, we make them rely on infantry to provide support in the form of mobility. I don't know about that , ground vehicles already have the most to fear as far as AV goes and to slow them down would make it too easy for AV players such as myself so I just don't think that's the problem . That's how DHAV's should be , slow with massive HP's and power to destroy ... not weak HP's and massive power . DHAV's should be the slowest but with the most power , like heavies of vehicles . I think the speed is just fine and warranted when you think of all that ground vehicles have to deal with and how most AV is anti-armor and they can't escape or maneuver like air vehicles can , couple that with terrain issues and multiple ground forces that can arrive at any moment and HAV's need the speed that they have at the present moment . Doubts are like flies and should be treated as such and crushed . #PubsShouldBeRandomPlayers

Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5733	Posted - 2015.04.08 23:22:00 - [21] - Quote Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Shield Boosters should be easier to fit and have a slightly higher HP/minute than an armor repairer. If you allow heavy boosters to trigger every 20 seconds (15 with skills) you achieve this fairly closely. It would allow shield HAVs to have access to a lot of repping power on demand and fairly frequently. It could work , I use the complex light shield booster just for that purpose . What are your thoughts about the shield regulators ? I use boosters because their just better to me then the regulators . I would say that they should just tweak the CPU / PG requirements first of shield mods and see how that plays out and change the mechanics like the OP spoke of . I would want a nerf for either but just bring them more inline with what already exist . Well shield regs are in the wrong slot and cost a lot to fit. That's problematic.' If Boosters had more HP/minute than repairers, shield HAVs would be less dependent on passive regen as their primary means of HP recovery and would put an end to the "but but but but recharge delay!" argument. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 263	Posted - 2015.04.08 23:27:00 - [22] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Shield Boosters should be easier to fit and have a slightly higher HP/minute than an armor repairer. If you allow heavy boosters to trigger every 20 seconds (15 with skills) you achieve this fairly closely. It would allow shield HAVs to have access to a lot of repping power on demand and fairly frequently. It could work , I use the complex light shield booster just for that purpose . What are your thoughts about the shield regulators ? I use boosters because their just better to me then the regulators . I would say that they should just tweak the CPU / PG requirements first of shield mods and see how that plays out and change the mechanics like the OP spoke of . I would want a nerf for either but just bring them more inline with what already exist . Well shield regs are in the wrong slot and cost a lot to fit. That's problematic.' If Boosters had more HP/minute than repairers, shield HAVs would be less dependent on passive regen as their primary means of HP recovery and would put an end to the "but but but but recharge delay!" argument. It wouldn't put an end to it... but it would make the mechanical arguments against it irrelevant the consistency within the setting argument could then be made...but never really need to be implemented besides making people (such as myself) who like the way Eve's shield regen work happy...but I imagine we're a small portion of the community, and CCP doesn't need to pander to us as long as they balance things in the system they have Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. Vehicle Re-vamp Proposal
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1993	Posted - 2015.04.08 23:34:00 - [23] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Why should it take multiple people to kill a double hardened tank? It was already hard before, unless the tanker was certifiably ******, but the way hardeners combine with reps and armor hp makes it literally impossible now to kill a madruger until their hardeners go down.** Why is that ok? Maybe if infantry had modules that boosted their damage so they could overcome the hardeners, it would be fine, but they dont. There is no AV/V balance when you can simply choose to negate AV completely when you fit your tank. Its not even a matter of tactics or ambush, its just straight up impossible for a single person to kill a tank fitted with 2 repairs and 2 hardeners unless the tanker just does not react. Could you imagine how absurd it would be if infantry had fits like that? Heavies walking around, literally invincible to every weapon on the field, unkillable until their hardeners went down, is that something you are ok with? If not, then why is it ok for tanks? I highlightd the relevant portion of your reply. Tanks are supposed to be about stand-and-deliver gameplay. They are supposed to be hard to kill when hardeners are up. The entire point of hardeners is to make them take multiple people to kill so they don't have to run away as soon as someone switches to an AV fit. If one person can kill a tank, even if it is hardened, then hardeners have no purpose in existing. Imagine if armor plates only gave 8/12/15 armor hp. What would be the point of running them? They would technically increase your health, but not by near enough to be worth it. The problem is, tanks have too much speed, meaning once those hardeners go down, they quickly zip off to safety to come back and do it again. By slowing them down, we make them rely on infantry to provide support in the form of mobility. Ideally, a tank with hardeners would take 3-4 people running AV to kill, but the tank would have to have gunners, either to hop out and flank the AV or use their small guns to engage and kill them before hardeners come down. As it is now, I can easily zip off when I have about 5 seconds left on my hardeners and be perfectly fine. That shouldn't be the case. I want my tank to be a citadel when my hardeners are up. We have that now. But I don't want my tank to be able to zip away at LAV speeds when things go south. Listen, where do all tanks go when hardeners are down? How long does it take them to go there? Here are the answers. 1. Redline 2. maybe 20 seconds. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18069	Posted - 2015.04.08 23:44:00 - [24] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Listen, where do all tanks go when hardeners are down? How long does it take them to go there? Here are the answers. 1. Redline 2. maybe 20 seconds. That's very debatable. Some pilots do chose to return to the redline as their fits are completely based around hardeners and have low eHP without them active other's don't have to and are more durable but I think the universal choice is to seek cover which is the correct course of action. Pretending like you can sit out in the open without your hardeners and have a good time is going to lose you that HAV. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1993	Posted - 2015.04.08 23:46:00 - [25] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Listen, where do all tanks go when hardeners are down? How long does it take them to go there? Here are the answers. 1. Redline 2. maybe 20 seconds. That's very debatable. Some pilots do chose to return to the redline as their fits are completely based around hardeners and have low eHP without them active other's don't have to and are more durable but I think the universal choice is to seek cover which is the correct course of action. Pretending like you can sit out in the open without your hardeners and have a good time is going to lose you that HAV. Tell you the truth, I don't always go to redline when I'm dominating the match but I do when I know there is AV and there is possibility of other tanks. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18069	Posted - 2015.04.08 23:52:00 - [26] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: True Adamance wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Listen, where do all tanks go when hardeners are down? How long does it take them to go there? Here are the answers. 1. Redline 2. maybe 20 seconds. That's very debatable. Some pilots do chose to return to the redline as their fits are completely based around hardeners and have low eHP without them active other's don't have to and are more durable but I think the universal choice is to seek cover which is the correct course of action. Pretending like you can sit out in the open without your hardeners and have a good time is going to lose you that HAV. Tell you the truth, I don't always go to redline when I'm dominating the match but I do when I know there is AV and there is possibility of other tanks. There are times when you simply have knocked out all resistance against you and therefore don't need to pull back. However most of the time I would suggest this is common sense, sticking around a single area with your hardeners on will draw pissed of AV to you, if you stay longer than your should you lose a big chunk of ISK simple as that. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 287	Posted - 2015.04.09 02:25:00 - [27] - Quote JUPA SACH wrote: Are you aware that all you do is complain about everything? It may be a complaint but... Armor hardeners need a chill pill... Whenever i engage a tank (ADS) i go for the gunny first because I know no matter how hard it can get, as long as I keep breaking recharge, i have a chance. But maddies? They just "OH! DAMAGE? HARDEN HA HA HA. " and know I'm waiting 30-45 seconds until i can engage. That and twin hardeners at max up/down time is near perma harden... It's simply too effective... It's 1.7 hardeners again. 40% and all the plus. Put shield hardeners back to 1.7 levels and watch the outcry. The ADS tourney! Join today!
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 5736	Posted - 2015.04.09 03:41:00 - [28] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: It wouldn't put an end to it... but it would make the mechanical arguments against it irrelevant the consistency within the setting argument could then be made...but never really need to be implemented besides making people (such as myself) who like the way Eve's shield regen work happy...but I imagine we're a small portion of the community, and CCP doesn't need to pander to us as long as they balance things in the system they have Well I've said this before but here is what I envision with Armor Repairers becoming active modules and shield boosters having a slightly higher HP/minute. Natural Armor Rep (~30 HP/s) (Constant, very slow, Supplementary HP regeneration) Natural Shield Recharge (~120 HP/s) (Delayed, slow, Supplementary HP regeneration) Active Armor Repairer (Moderate Duration, Moderate Rate, Primary HP regeneration) Active Shield Booster (Short Duration, High Rate, Primary HP regeneration) The recharge delay is of course a factor, but is the tradeoff for a much higher natural rate. Even so in both cases that is simply supplementary regen. Currently Shield Boosters are so terribad that shield pretty much has to rely on natural recharge....which I think will remain nearly impossible properly balance against armor repairers, ESPECIALLY Heavy Passive ones. Most of this ** started when CCP Blam moved us to the "Passive Regeneration is Primary Regeneration" model and it has been a mess ever since. Passive regeneration is fine if it is limited to supplementary regen, but the primary regen moves back to the Active model. NOTE: I think that currently, the issue with armor repairers lies in the HEAVY ones. I don't think the Light ones are problematic so those can probably be left as is, as not to totally mess up Dropships and LAVs for the sake of HAV balance. As for balancing within the system we already have....I think Rattati is willing to be aggressive in change if it is absolutely necessary. However if he can reach a balanced state by making few changes, he's going to be more likely to go that direction with it. Manpower is very limited on the Dust Dev side so he has to make very tough choices on how things are done, and if he can get the desired result (of balance) with less work, he's going to take that direction with it. "That little st Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18087	Posted - 2015.04.09 09:00:00 - [29] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: It wouldn't put an end to it... but it would make the mechanical arguments against it irrelevant the consistency within the setting argument could then be made...but never really need to be implemented besides making people (such as myself) who like the way Eve's shield regen work happy...but I imagine we're a small portion of the community, and CCP doesn't need to pander to us as long as they balance things in the system they have Well I've said this before but here is what I envision with Armor Repairers becoming active modules and shield boosters having a slightly higher HP/minute. Natural Armor Rep (~30 HP/s) (Constant, very slow, Supplementary HP regeneration) Natural Shield Recharge (~120 HP/s) (Delayed, slow, Supplementary HP regeneration) Active Armor Repairer (Moderate Duration, Moderate Rate, Primary HP regeneration) Active Shield Booster (Short Duration, High Rate, Primary HP regeneration) The recharge delay is of course a factor, but is the tradeoff for a much higher natural rate. Even so in both cases that is simply supplementary regen. Currently Shield Boosters are so terribad that shield pretty much has to rely on natural recharge....which I think will remain nearly impossible properly balance against armor repairers, ESPECIALLY Heavy Passive ones. Most of this **** started when CCP Blam moved us to the "Passive Regeneration is Primary Regeneration" model and it has been a mess ever since. Passive regeneration is fine if it is limited to supplementary regen, but the primary regen moves back to the Active model. NOTE: I think that currently, the issue with armor repairers lies in the HEAVY ones. I don't think the Light ones are problematic so those can probably be left as is, as not to totally mess up Dropships and LAVs for the sake of HAV balance. As for balancing within the system we already have....I think Rattati is willing to be aggressive in change if it is absolutely necessary. However if he can reach a balanced state by making few changes, he's going to be more likely to go that direction with it. Manpower is very limited on the Dust Dev side so he has to make very tough choices on how things are done, and if he can get the desired result (of balance) with less work, he's going to take that direction with it. And as I have mentioned before in keeping with the above ideals since I too feel the same way. I think the current repair rates for the armour modules are fine, sans the passive repair rate. From previous builds the highest possible tier repairer was the old Efficient Heavy Armour Repairer which repaired a total of 414 armour every three seconds. On a per second basis this amounts to 138 repairs per second which I feel is fine and keeps the vehicle competitive and durable. However as it is not constant and gives time between pulses I feel like it would be distinctly more balanced while keeping the modules functionality relatively fair and balanced. Considering we have a skill for the betterment of repair values I think if you set the Repair Rate on the Prototype Module to 330 armour repaired per pulse unmodified (every 3 seconds for a fifteen second duration) you would woukd amount to the current Prototype module we have now. With skills that is 412.5 repairs every 3 seconds for the exactly 137.5 we have now just active and over a maximum time of between 15 and 18.75 seconds (which means Level V in core skills only adds one additional pulse meaning that under this model the total armour repaired changes from 2062.5 every 15 seconds to to 2475 over 18 seconds). Those values I think are fair but not overly powerful. An indvidual repairer under this model functions with the exact same efficiency however its window of operation is now much lower. Couple that with an appropriate cool down time that allows shield to regenerate their HP at a faster rate per minute and I think you will see some changes to the vehicles themselves. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
E-Rock Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 78	Posted - 2015.04.09 10:40:00 - [30] - Quote #specintomadrugers #tanksarelame #getajobscrub Japanese players call "hate mail", "fan mail".pÇÇµùÑµ£¼F¬PsñºS+êsñ½ -Founder of CKC and UCKC -Ahrendee Inc. #bringbackthewarbarge

DJINN Jecture MANUFACTURERS OF DEATH 319	Posted - 2015.04.09 12:54:00 - [31] - Quote This sounds to me like Maddys are OP. So my reaction is to YELL LOUDLY NERF MADDYS!!! Or better yet, remove tanks or actually make them Killable when hardened in some way, doesn't matter much so long as there is a way. Remove the ability to double rep and double harden maddys they are too tough. This comment^^ is based on what everyone just said and to me it makes sense, Madrugers are broken, so lets fix them, not break another type of tank so it is OP too. *-ç +æ+Ä ß+¦ß¦+Gé¦ß+¡ !!!* *ß¦äß¦â-à*
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4441	Posted - 2015.04.09 13:09:00 - [32] - Quote So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left. While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair. Roll on PS2 CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1994	Posted - 2015.04.09 13:30:00 - [33] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left. While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair. Roll on PS2 Wouldn't you think it would be unbalanced that if sentinels had hardeners and they put two of them on their fit and can be shot at by 5 assaults using proto weapons and sentinel HP doesn't even go down at all until their 40 seconds of hardening us up? "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1994	Posted - 2015.04.09 13:33:00 - [34] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: It wouldn't put an end to it... but it would make the mechanical arguments against it irrelevant the consistency within the setting argument could then be made...but never really need to be implemented besides making people (such as myself) who like the way Eve's shield regen work happy...but I imagine we're a small portion of the community, and CCP doesn't need to pander to us as long as they balance things in the system they have Well I've said this before but here is what I envision with Armor Repairers becoming active modules and shield boosters having a slightly higher HP/minute. Natural Armor Rep (~30 HP/s) (Constant, very slow, Supplementary HP regeneration) Natural Shield Recharge (~120 HP/s) (Delayed, slow, Supplementary HP regeneration) Active Armor Repairer (Moderate Duration, Moderate Rate, Primary HP regeneration) Active Shield Booster (Short Duration, High Rate, Primary HP regeneration) The recharge delay is of course a factor, but is the tradeoff for a much higher natural rate. Even so in both cases that is simply supplementary regen. Currently Shield Boosters are so terribad that shield pretty much has to rely on natural recharge....which I think will remain nearly impossible properly balance against armor repairers, ESPECIALLY Heavy Passive ones. Most of this **** started when CCP Blam moved us to the "Passive Regeneration is Primary Regeneration" model and it has been a mess ever since. Passive regeneration is fine if it is limited to supplementary regen, but the primary regen moves back to the Active model. NOTE: I think that currently, the issue with armor repairers lies in the HEAVY ones. I don't think the Light ones are problematic so those can probably be left as is, as not to totally mess up Dropships and LAVs for the sake of HAV balance. As for balancing within the system we already have....I think Rattati is willing to be aggressive in change if it is absolutely necessary. However if he can reach a balanced state by making few changes, he's going to be more likely to go that direction with it. Manpower is very limited on the Dust Dev side so he has to make very tough choices on how things are done, and if he can get the desired result (of balance) with less work, he's going to take that direction with it. And as I have mentioned before in keeping with the above ideals since I too feel the same way. I think the current repair rates for the armour modules are fine, sans the passive repair rate. From previous builds the highest possible tier repairer was the old Efficient Heavy Armour Repairer which repaired a total of 414 armour every three seconds. On a per second basis this amounts to 138 repairs per second which I feel is fine and keeps the vehicle competitive and durable. However as it is not constant and gives time between pulses I feel like it would be distinctly more balanced while keeping the modules functionality relatively fair and balanced. Considering we have a skill for the betterment of repair values I think if you set the Repair Rate on the Prototype Module to 330 armour repaired per pulse unmodified (every 3 seconds for a fifteen second duration) you would woukd amount to the current Prototype module we have now. With skills that is 412.5 repairs every 3 seconds for the exactly 137.5 we have now just active and over a maximum time of between 15 and 18.75 seconds (which means Level V in core skills only adds one additional pulse meaning that under this model the total armour repaired changes from 2062.5 every 15 seconds to to 2475 over 18 seconds). Those values I think are fair but not overly powerful. An indvidual repairer under this model functions with the exact same efficiency however its window of operation is now much lower. Couple that with an appropriate cool down time that allows shield to regenerate their HP at a faster rate per minute and I think you will see some changes to the vehicles themselves. How about a look at hardeners? Clearly Armor hardeners are destroying shield hardeners. They have same % resistance, Armor hardeners cool faster and last longer. Armor hardeners are also much easier to fit. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
DJINN Jecture MANUFACTURERS OF DEATH 319	Posted - 2015.04.09 14:06:00 - [35] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left. While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair. Roll on PS2 Encouragement to be less scrubby thats all. *-ç +æ+Ä ß+¦ß¦+Gé¦ß+¡ !!!* *ß¦äß¦â-à*
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4441	Posted - 2015.04.09 14:35:00 - [36] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left. While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair. Roll on PS2 Wouldn't you think it would be unbalanced that if sentinels had hardeners and they put two of them on their fit and can be shot at by 5 assaults using proto weapons and sentinel HP doesn't even go down at all until their 40 seconds of hardening us up? But that is a lie CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3161	Posted - 2015.04.09 17:32:00 - [37] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left. While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair. Roll on PS2 Wouldn't you think it would be unbalanced that if sentinels had hardeners and they put two of them on their fit and can be shot at by 5 assaults using proto weapons and sentinel HP doesn't even go down at all until their 40 seconds of hardening us up? Infantry juggle active modules? LOL Thanks, that's better than going to a comedy club. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1998	Posted - 2015.04.09 17:34:00 - [38] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left. While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair. Roll on PS2 Wouldn't you think it would be unbalanced that if sentinels had hardeners and they put two of them on their fit and can be shot at by 5 assaults using proto weapons and sentinel HP doesn't even go down at all until their 40 seconds of hardening us up? Infantry juggle active modules? LOL Thanks, that's better than going to a comedy club. Lol, now we know that you don't know what analogies are. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 1998	Posted - 2015.04.09 17:35:00 - [39] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left. While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair. Roll on PS2 Wouldn't you think it would be unbalanced that if sentinels had hardeners and they put two of them on their fit and can be shot at by 5 assaults using proto weapons and sentinel HP doesn't even go down at all until their 40 seconds of hardening us up? But that is a lie But that is how tanks work. Turn on hardeners- be indestructible. Well, at least of Armor tanks. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
DJINN Jecture MANUFACTURERS OF DEATH 319	Posted - 2015.04.09 17:35:00 - [40] - Quote Be thankful active mods don't run until you are out of Cap (suggested once or twice) like eve and a handheld module for draining cap as in eve, oh wait, then it wouldn't be OP anymore and could be killed... BTW this would also balance shield boosting tanks to the same level as hardend and repped tanks. *-ç +æ+Ä ß+¦ß¦+Gé¦ß+¡ !!!* *ß¦äß¦â-à*

DJINN Jecture MANUFACTURERS OF DEATH 319	Posted - 2015.04.09 17:40:00 - [41] - Quote One thing to note about my above suggestion, the devs have not been interested at all in using EVE based fixes for reasons unknown to even the closed beta testers, most likely due to the fact that this is not EVE, not One Univers and One War as they claimed at Open Beta launch. *-ç +æ+Ä ß+¦ß¦+Gé¦ß+¡ !!!* *ß¦äß¦â-à*
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2978	Posted - 2015.04.09 18:11:00 - [42] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: It wouldn't put an end to it... but it would make the mechanical arguments against it irrelevant the consistency within the setting argument could then be made...but never really need to be implemented besides making people (such as myself) who like the way Eve's shield regen work happy...but I imagine we're a small portion of the community, and CCP doesn't need to pander to us as long as they balance things in the system they have Well I've said this before but here is what I envision with Armor Repairers becoming active modules and shield boosters having a slightly higher HP/minute. Natural Armor Rep (~30 HP/s) (Constant, very slow, Supplementary HP regeneration) Natural Shield Recharge (~120 HP/s) (Delayed, slow, Supplementary HP regeneration) Active Armor Repairer (Moderate Duration, Moderate Rate, Primary HP regeneration) Active Shield Booster (Short Duration, High Rate, Primary HP regeneration) The recharge delay is of course a factor, but is the tradeoff for a much higher natural rate. Even so in both cases that is simply supplementary regen. Currently Shield Boosters are so terribad that shield pretty much has to rely on natural recharge....which I think will remain nearly impossible properly balance against armor repairers, ESPECIALLY Heavy Passive ones. Most of this **** started when CCP Blam moved us to the "Passive Regeneration is Primary Regeneration" model and it has been a mess ever since. Passive regeneration is fine if it is limited to supplementary regen, but the primary regen moves back to the Active model. NOTE: I think that currently, the issue with armor repairers lies in the HEAVY ones. I don't think the Light ones are problematic so those can probably be left as is, as not to totally mess up Dropships and LAVs for the sake of HAV balance. As for balancing within the system we already have....I think Rattati is willing to be aggressive in change if it is absolutely necessary. However if he can reach a balanced state by making few changes, he's going to be more likely to go that direction with it. Manpower is very limited on the Dust Dev side so he has to make very tough choices on how things are done, and if he can get the desired result (of balance) with less work, he's going to take that direction with it. Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 291	Posted - 2015.04.09 19:49:00 - [43] - Quote It's not even the tanks themselves... It's the hardeners... That's so easy to fix man.. The ADS tourney! Join today!
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 600	Posted - 2015.04.10 17:05:00 - [44] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: It's not even the tanks themselves... It's the hardeners... That's so easy to fix man.. Its hardeners combined with passive heavy repair modules. The hardeners boost the EHP of the tank quite a bit (x4 for double hardener I think?) which has the side effect of magnifying repair module strength by the same amount, this ends up allowing you to outrep a ludicrous amount of damage just by flipping a switch. This isnt a problem in the gunnlogi since the reps can generally be stopped by damage, but on the madruger the reps just keep going regardless, which results in massive imbalance.
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 600	Posted - 2015.04.10 17:13:00 - [45] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: So as usual nerf the only useful vehicle and HAV there is to the point where it is useless and unusable like the other HAV and basically give AV another easy target to kill because you nerfed the only useful vehicle left. While we are at it nerf hardeners because AV shouldn't have to deal with them because if you can't cause damage when 2 hardeners are on then obv your AV weapon is broken and that is unfair. Roll on PS2 Gunnlogi isnt useless and unusable if you fix the madruger so that it doesnt completely dominate the gunnlogi. Im not sure if your second comment is sarcastic or not, since its actually factually correct: if you cant use a weapon to hurt something, it is quite literally broken, which is unfair in a game. All they really need to do to fix this is to make it so repair rate is reduced in proportion to the amount of hardening, meaning the repair rate would no longer be magnified by an absurd amount because the hardeners are cranking up your EHP. Instead you will just get a massive EHP boost with no rep boost, which might actually be balanced.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 294	Posted - 2015.04.10 23:35:00 - [46] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: It's not even the tanks themselves... It's the hardeners... That's so easy to fix man.. Its hardeners combined with passive heavy repair modules. The hardeners boost the EHP of the tank quite a bit (x4 for double hardener I think?) which has the side effect of magnifying repair module strength by the same amount, this ends up allowing you to outrep a ludicrous amount of damage just by flipping a switch. This isnt a problem in the gunnlogi since the reps can generally be stopped by damage, but on the madruger the reps just keep going regardless, which results in massive imbalance. Mmhm! I'll do a bit of math here, I'll show my work. I'll use something I'm familiar with, Incubi. 2362 aHP (base) 187.5 aHP/s (twin comp light) Complex aHardener aHardener on--> /* if damage is reduced by 40% , H-aHP (hardened armor hit points) is increased by 40% in theory. / H-aHP = 2362 1.4 H-aHP = 3306.8 /* since the aHP doesn't change when hardened ( as H-aHP != aHP, the total aHP does not change) the repair time is still the same. HOWEVER, due to repair time not changing for H-aHP, repair rate will be directly proportional. / H-aHP/s = 187.5 1.4 H-aHP/s = 262.5 /Proof that aHP/s == H-aHP/s/ Time_aHP = 2362 / 187.5 Time_aHP = 12.6 seconds. Time_H-aHP = 3306.8 / 262.5 Time_H-aHP = 12.6 seconds. Proportional = (Time_aHP == Time_H-aHP)? True:false Proportional = true /Now that that's proven, let's go see how it does against AV. Let's say swarms do 1000 aDamage every 3 seconds for simplicity. aHardener on/ H-aHP -= 1000 H-aHP = 2306.8 /* 1 second passes / H-aHP += H-aHP/s H-aHP = 2569.3 / 2 / H-aHP = 2831.8 / 3 / H-aHP = 3094.3 / since H-aHP prop aHP / netDamage = ((3306.8 - 3094.3) 0.6) netDamage = 127.5 Upscale for tanks, and you'll see what I mean. 300 aHP/s -> 420 H-aHP/s Thats just one hardener. Imagine twin hardener? About 560 rep. Assuming penalty pushes resistance to 34%. Edit: I'll do python for H-sHP, H-sHP/s if you want a complete comparison. The ADS tourney! Join today!
Cypher Nil Fireteam Tempest 223	Posted - 2015.04.10 23:52:00 - [47] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? I can destroy a shield tank by myself in 4 seconds using the free anti-armor fit, thats not balanced at all n++pâçGòÉS+Ç +24 Million SP Merc n++pâçGòÉS+Ç Gû¼Gû¼+¦GòÉGòÉGòÉn¦ñ Caldari Loyalist Gû¼Gû¼+¦GòÉGòÉGòÉn¦ñ Of course we won, now when do I get paid?
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 2009	Posted - 2015.04.11 00:14:00 - [48] - Quote Cypher Nil wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? I can destroy a shield tank by myself in 4 seconds using the free anti-armor fit, thats not balanced at all I would love for you to come meet my 6100 shield hardened, and boosted shield tank with an ion cannon. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18155	Posted - 2015.04.11 00:16:00 - [49] - Quote Cypher Nil wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? I can destroy a shield tank by myself in 4 seconds using the free anti-armor fit, thats not balanced at all Yeah......No. No you can't. Just no. Bosh'tet Plz. A Shield HAV would ******* decimate you. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 296	Posted - 2015.04.11 00:28:00 - [50] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Bosh'tet Plz. Tali'mancer? Good choice. The ADS tourney! Join today!

Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 2011	Posted - 2015.04.11 15:12:00 - [51] - Quote I request a reply rat. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
Mobius Wyvern Sky-FIRE 6014	Posted - 2015.04.11 15:36:00 - [52] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? It's not. Passive Armor Repair remains one of the dumber things we've received in this game. Changing stats isn't going to address this. Armor Repair modules need to go back to being active modules like they used to be. Being able to constantly gain up to 200+ hp per SECOND without any cost doesn't make much sense from a balance standpoint, and that fact has just been becoming more and more obvious over time. I support Keshava for Gallente Specialist HAV R.I.P. Kesha
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2988	Posted - 2015.04.11 15:51:00 - [53] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: It's not even the tanks themselves... It's the hardeners... That's so easy to fix man.. Its hardeners combined with passive heavy repair modules. The hardeners boost the EHP of the tank quite a bit (x4 for double hardener I think?) which has the side effect of magnifying repair module strength by the same amount, this ends up allowing you to outrep a ludicrous amount of damage just by flipping a switch. This isnt a problem in the gunnlogi since the reps can generally be stopped by damage, but on the madruger the reps just keep going regardless, which results in massive imbalance. Stacking penalties mean double hardeners provide 61% resistance. Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 2012	Posted - 2015.04.11 15:56:00 - [54] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: It's not even the tanks themselves... It's the hardeners... That's so easy to fix man.. Its hardeners combined with passive heavy repair modules. The hardeners boost the EHP of the tank quite a bit (x4 for double hardener I think?) which has the side effect of magnifying repair module strength by the same amount, this ends up allowing you to outrep a ludicrous amount of damage just by flipping a switch. This isnt a problem in the gunnlogi since the reps can generally be stopped by damage, but on the madruger the reps just keep going regardless, which results in massive imbalance. Stacking penalties mean double hardeners provide 61% resistance. Or you can cycle hardeners and have them on for a total of 80-90 seconds with only 20 second cool down. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 303	Posted - 2015.04.11 16:03:00 - [55] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: It's not even the tanks themselves... It's the hardeners... That's so easy to fix man.. Its hardeners combined with passive heavy repair modules. The hardeners boost the EHP of the tank quite a bit (x4 for double hardener I think?) which has the side effect of magnifying repair module strength by the same amount, this ends up allowing you to outrep a ludicrous amount of damage just by flipping a switch. This isnt a problem in the gunnlogi since the reps can generally be stopped by damage, but on the madruger the reps just keep going regardless, which results in massive imbalance. Stacking penalties mean double hardeners provide 61% resistance. Show me how you got 61% i would want to add it to my mathz when I go to 2x H-aHP tank vs 2x H-sHP The ADS tourney! Join today!
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2988	Posted - 2015.04.11 16:53:00 - [56] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Show me how you got 61% i would want to add it to my mathz when I go to 2x H-aHP tank vs 2x H-sHP Check out the Stacking Penalty Calculator and type in -40, -40 into the calculator. You end up with 60.86% reduction, which rounds to 61% resistance. Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 304	Posted - 2015.04.11 17:35:00 - [57] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Show me how you got 61% i would want to add it to my mathz when I go to 2x H-aHP tank vs 2x H-sHP Check out the Stacking Penalty Calculator and type in -40, -40 into the calculator. You end up with 60.86% reduction, which rounds to 61% resistance. Hmm... We have a little issue... If I do my method of boosting HP by 40% for H-xHP rather than reducing xDamage by 40%, the numbers are different. I got this using my method "Individual bonuses: 40.00%, 34.76%, Total bonus: 88.67% /* multiplying base xHP by 1.4 to show the reduction in damage relating to xHP/s / " But by saying it reduces xDamage, i get this: "Individual bonuses: -40.00%, -34.76%, Total bonus: -60.86% / reducing incoming damage by 0.6 to show reduction in damage based on resistance */ Hmm... Am i wrong with how I'm looking at it? The ADS tourney! Join today!
Nothing Certain Bioshock Rejects 1625	Posted - 2015.04.11 21:34:00 - [58] - Quote I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor?[/quote] Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at If a single swarmed can still kill a double hardened tank, hardeners have absolutely no point in existing. It should take multiple people to kill a hardened tank. The problem is how quickly they can escape once it wears off. Tone down tank speed and greatly tone down tank acceleration, and we will finally have tanks in a close to balanced place.[/quote] Why should it take multiple people to kill a double hardened tank? It was already hard before, unless the tanker was certifiably ********, but the way hardeners combine with reps and armor hp makes it literally impossible now to kill a madruger until their hardeners go down. Why is that ok? Maybe if infantry had modules that boosted their damage so they could overcome the hardeners, it would be fine, but they dont. There is no AV/V balance when you can simply choose to negate AV completely when you fit your tank. Its not even a matter of tactics or ambush, its just straight up impossible for a single person to kill a tank fitted with 2 repairs and 2 hardeners unless the tanker just does not react. Could you imagine how absurd it would be if infantry had fits like that? Heavies walking around, literally invincible to every weapon on the field, unkillable until their hardeners went down, is that something you are ok with? If not, then why is it ok for tanks?[/quote] No you're missing the point. Yes it's near impossible to kill a tank with its hardener on but without its rather easy. The issue is tanks are way too fast so than can easily fly away from danger when their hardener drops. Slow tanks down and you force tankers to constantly be thinking about their slow escape to safety. This is how you balance them. No tanker wants to be insta popped by AV and no AVer wants a tank to escape their clutches easily. It would force tankers to play their position and hardeners in a smart fashion and force AV to use ambush tactics. [/quote] Either/or but having invincibility for 40 seconds and being able to easily retreat for 40 seconds before regaining invincibility is silly. Because, that's why.
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 2991	Posted - 2015.04.11 21:42:00 - [59] - Quote You need to learn how the quote button works. Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
Lightning35 Delta514 48TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE 248	Posted - 2015.04.11 23:36:00 - [60] - Quote It's not even Gunnlogis that get wrecked. If it's not a proto (maybe adv) madrugar, ALL VEHICLE will be blown. The pro madrugar is the biggest porblem. 48th Special Operations Force. Twitter- @48SOF

Slave of MORTE 365	Posted - 2015.04.12 00:25:00 - [61] - Quote This is the kind of **** posting i expect from gam I'm her slave because amarrians are the best in the sheets #stamina
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix RUST415 783	Posted - 2015.04.12 02:20:00 - [62] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: It's not even the tanks themselves... It's the hardeners... That's so easy to fix man.. Its hardeners combined with passive heavy repair modules. The hardeners boost the EHP of the tank quite a bit (x4 for double hardener I think?) which has the side effect of magnifying repair module strength by the same amount, this ends up allowing you to outrep a ludicrous amount of damage just by flipping a switch. This isnt a problem in the gunnlogi since the reps can generally be stopped by damage, but on the madruger the reps just keep going regardless, which results in massive imbalance. Stacking penalties mean double hardeners provide 61% resistance. How is 40% + (40 x 0.87) = 61% the second hardener only loses about 4% effectiveness.
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 603	Posted - 2015.04.12 02:57:00 - [63] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: It's not even the tanks themselves... It's the hardeners... That's so easy to fix man.. Its hardeners combined with passive heavy repair modules. The hardeners boost the EHP of the tank quite a bit (x4 for double hardener I think?) which has the side effect of magnifying repair module strength by the same amount, this ends up allowing you to outrep a ludicrous amount of damage just by flipping a switch. This isnt a problem in the gunnlogi since the reps can generally be stopped by damage, but on the madruger the reps just keep going regardless, which results in massive imbalance. Stacking penalties mean double hardeners provide 61% resistance. How is 40% + (40 x 0.87) = 61% the second hardener only loses about 4% effectiveness. Looks like 74.8 when I math it out, but I dont know if thats the correct formula
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 308	Posted - 2015.04.12 03:40:00 - [64] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Echo 1991 wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: It's not even the tanks themselves... It's the hardeners... That's so easy to fix man.. Its hardeners combined with passive heavy repair modules. The hardeners boost the EHP of the tank quite a bit (x4 for double hardener I think?) which has the side effect of magnifying repair module strength by the same amount, this ends up allowing you to outrep a ludicrous amount of damage just by flipping a switch. This isnt a problem in the gunnlogi since the reps can generally be stopped by damage, but on the madruger the reps just keep going regardless, which results in massive imbalance. Stacking penalties mean double hardeners provide 61% resistance. How is 40% + (40 x 0.87) = 61% the second hardener only loses about 4% effectiveness. Looks like 74.8 when I math it out, but I dont know if thats the correct formula Use this http://wiki.dust514.info/index.php?title=Stacking_Penalties and put in -40 twice. I was surprised! But that's what the calculator put out. Individual bonuses: -40.00%, -34.76%, Total bonus: -60.86% But put 40 twice you get Individual bonuses: 40.00%, 34.76%, Total bonus: 88.67% So... I feel where everyone is about stacking penalties Why am unsure? Take a calass Ck. 0. Put two complex regs... Remember that number put two complex regs and one basic reg. It INCREASES the delay. 0.0 and so stacking penalties is unsure to me The ADS tourney! Join today!
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 603	Posted - 2015.04.12 03:54:00 - [65] - Quote Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: It's not even Gunnlogis that get wrecked. If it's not a proto (maybe adv) madrugar, ALL VEHICLE will be blown. The pro madrugar is the biggest porblem. I have a pretty easy time with anything in my standard and advanced madrugers, Im pretty much invincible against anything but multiple tanks or multiple AV or both. Plenty of times when tanks engage me, if nothing else is attacking me, Ill just pop hardeners and look at them until they go away or I have to leave. Its pretty funny when sometimes they get the hint and just trundle away, having had the full force of how stupidly invincible the madruger is shoved in their face.
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 570	Posted - 2015.04.12 05:21:00 - [66] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at full intensity and his armor hp will be capped at full until his hardeners run out, it doesn't matter how many clips you fire at him. One swarm launcher cannot do enough dps regardless of fitting to even scratch the repair of a hardened madruger. I'm not saying that gunnlogis should suck, I personally feel they should be buffed because av should require teamwork. But if you were just solo trying to kill na adv/pro tank it should take that long as our tanks now cost a lot more now there's no excuse. Caldari Loyalist. ( -í° -£-û -í°) They see me rollin they Hating (..) ( l: ) ( .-. ) ( :l ) (..)
Vesta Opalus Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 603	Posted - 2015.04.12 05:22:00 - [67] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at full intensity and his armor hp will be capped at full until his hardeners run out, it doesn't matter how many clips you fire at him. One swarm launcher cannot do enough dps regardless of fitting to even scratch the repair of a hardened madruger. I'm not saying that gunnlogis should suck, I personally feel they should be buffed because av should require teamwork. But if you were just solo trying to kill na adv/pro tank it should take that long as our tanks now cost a lot more now there's no excuse. Cost is a ** balancing factor when one side of the equation doesnt get to spend money to gain parity. cost. ** you.
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 570	Posted - 2015.04.12 05:25:00 - [68] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: JARREL THOMAS wrote: Vesta Opalus wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at full intensity and his armor hp will be capped at full until his hardeners run out, it doesn't matter how many clips you fire at him. One swarm launcher cannot do enough dps regardless of fitting to even scratch the repair of a hardened madruger. I'm not saying that gunnlogis should suck, I personally feel they should be buffed because av should require teamwork. But if you were just solo trying to kill na adv/pro tank it should take that long as our tanks now cost a lot more now there's no excuse. Cost is a ** balancing factor when one side of the equation doesnt get to spend money to gain parity. cost. ** you. Yeah calm down you look quite childish, and what are you talking about? Caldari Loyalist. ( -í° -£-û -í°) They see me rollin they Hating (..) ( l: ) ( .-. ) ( :l ) (..)
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 427	Posted - 2015.04.12 15:57:00 - [69] - Quote Gunlogis are garbage now compared to madrugars. Anyone that says otherwise is sitting in the redline (where madrugars would still do the job better). Gunlogis need a buff.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 309	Posted - 2015.04.12 16:11:00 - [70] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Gunlogis are garbage now compared to madrugars. Anyone that says otherwise is sitting in the redline (where madrugars would still do the job better). Gunlogis need a buff. Give shields 1.7 hardeners and it's fair :/ Cause that's what it looks like we should do... Knowing aHardeners are back to 1.7 level :/ The ADS tourney! Join today!

GVGMODE 191	Posted - 2015.04.12 16:32:00 - [71] - Quote I always thought that the reasoning behind long cooldowns and short durations was that shield hardeners used to have 60% resistance. There are just so many problems with tanks, that I will just say CCP will take ~6 months to come up with an update that will improve tanks slightly. (SOON TM)
Random1628 Random Gunz Rise Of Legion. 3	Posted - 2015.04.12 16:42:00 - [72] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Use this http://wiki.dust514.info/index.php?title=Stacking_Penalties and put in -40 twice. I was surprised! But that's what the calculator put out. Individual bonuses: -40.00%, -34.76%, Total bonus: -60.86% But put 40 twice you get Individual bonuses: 40.00%, 34.76%, Total bonus: 88.67% So... I feel where everyone is about stacking penalties Why am unsure? Take a calass Ck. 0. Put two complex regs... Remember that number put two complex regs and one basic reg. It INCREASES the delay. 0.0 and so stacking penalties is unsure to me I think the way it works is that with hardeners it affects the remaining unhardened HP so that would mean that the 34% is affecting the 60% unhardened HP. It probably this way so that it's impossible to get 100% hardened.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1454	Posted - 2015.04.12 16:51:00 - [73] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Gunlogis are garbage now compared to madrugars. Anyone that says otherwise is sitting in the redline (where madrugars would still do the job better). Gunlogis need a buff. Give shields 1.7 hardeners and it's fair :/ Cause that's what it looks like we should do... Knowing aHardeners are back to 1.7 level :/ If aHardeners are going to be the same resistance, then they need to be differentiated through uptime/cooldown. Currently, sHardeners are worse in uptime (PRO: 24/30 vs 36/45) 30 vs 45), cooldown (PRO: 60/45 vs 50/37.5) and fittings are somewhat wonky (PRO: 341CPU/253PG vs 133CPU/397PG - not entirely sure these are out of line, they just 'feel' a little odd.) Basically, Shields needs to have some aspect that's better, while the third element is neutral: so Shields have better downtime, Armour has better uptime and both are equal on resistance, for example. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 310	Posted - 2015.04.12 16:53:00 - [74] - Quote Random1628 wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Use this http://wiki.dust514.info/index.php?title=Stacking_Penalties and put in -40 twice. I was surprised! But that's what the calculator put out. Individual bonuses: -40.00%, -34.76%, Total bonus: -60.86% But put 40 twice you get Individual bonuses: 40.00%, 34.76%, Total bonus: 88.67% So... I feel where everyone is about stacking penalties Why am unsure? Take a calass Ck. 0. Put two complex regs... Remember that number put two complex regs and one basic reg. It INCREASES the delay. 0.0 and so stacking penalties is unsure to me I think the way it works is that with hardeners it affects the remaining unhardened HP so that would mean that the 34% is affecting the 60% unhardened HP. It probably this way so that it's impossible to get 100% hardened. You can 100% harden (effectively doubling xHP) with triple hardening. But i know you mean damage reduction... Which it is impossible to attenuate 100% of the damage The ADS tourney! Join today!
Random1628 Random Gunz Rise Of Legion. 3	Posted - 2015.04.12 16:55:00 - [75] - Quote GVGMODE wrote: I always thought that the reasoning behind long cooldowns and short durations was that shield hardeners used to have 60% resistance. There are just so many problems with tanks, that I will just say CCP will take ~6 months to come up with an update that will improve tanks slightly. (SOON TM) There were many problems with tank balance in the past but for the all most part they have it balanced currently it's just a few tweaks to the numbers and changing armor reps back to active modules. Though I guess there needs to be a lot of changes to the shield modules numbers I don't think they're drastic changes though.
Random1628 Random Gunz Rise Of Legion. 3	Posted - 2015.04.12 17:00:00 - [76] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: Random1628 wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Use this http://wiki.dust514.info/index.php?title=Stacking_Penalties and put in -40 twice. I was surprised! But that's what the calculator put out. Individual bonuses: -40.00%, -34.76%, Total bonus: -60.86% But put 40 twice you get Individual bonuses: 40.00%, 34.76%, Total bonus: 88.67% So... I feel where everyone is about stacking penalties Why am unsure? Take a calass Ck. 0. Put two complex regs... Remember that number put two complex regs and one basic reg. It INCREASES the delay. 0.0 and so stacking penalties is unsure to me I think the way it works is that with hardeners it affects the remaining unhardened HP so that would mean that the 34% is affecting the 60% unhardened HP. It probably this way so that it's impossible to get 100% hardened. You can 100% harden (effectively doubling xHP) with triple hardening. But i know you mean damage reduction... Which it is impossible to attenuate 100% of the damage Yes you can double HP but that's not what hardening is. Hardening is reducing damage which is why I said it is imposible to get 100% and it why hardeners only affect unhardened HP.
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 2015	Posted - 2015.04.12 17:57:00 - [77] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: Doc DDD wrote: Gunlogis are garbage now compared to madrugars. Anyone that says otherwise is sitting in the redline (where madrugars would still do the job better). Gunlogis need a buff. Give shields 1.7 hardeners and it's fair :/ Cause that's what it looks like we should do... Knowing aHardeners are back to 1.7 level :/ If aHardeners are going to be the same resistance, then they need to be differentiated through uptime/cooldown. Currently, sHardeners are worse in uptime (PRO: 24/30 vs 36/45) 30 vs 45), cooldown (PRO: 60/45 vs 50/37.5) and fittings are somewhat wonky (PRO: 341CPU/253PG vs 133CPU/397PG - not entirely sure these are out of line, they just 'feel' a little odd.) Basically, Shields needs to have some aspect that's better, while the third element is neutral: so Shields have better downtime, Armour has better uptime and both are equal on resistance, for example. Read OP, I explain why fitting cost's are out of line for shield hardeners. "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
SgtMajSquish MLBJ Consolidated Dust 421	Posted - 2015.04.12 18:01:00 - [78] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: JUPA SACH wrote: Are you aware that all you do is complain about everything? Are you aware that this game is unbalanced? no...... really? CPMs should stop acting like they have power and remember their true position. Scapegoats for CCP
Sir Dukey G0DS AM0NG MEN General Tso's Alliance 2015	Posted - 2015.04.12 18:06:00 - [79] - Quote SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: JUPA SACH wrote: Are you aware that all you do is complain about everything? Are you aware that this game is unbalanced? no...... really? Well then, what is wrong with complaining? "Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 1704	Posted - 2015.04.12 21:15:00 - [80] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: JUPA SACH wrote: Are you aware that all you do is complain about everything? Are you aware that this game is unbalanced? It was a yes or no question. Mace yourself, blame someone else itGÇÖs okay, no one will believe you AIV member.

501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven Back and Forth 931	Posted - 2015.04.12 21:44:00 - [81] - Quote I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner *The Mascot of 0uter.Heaven * SWBF Trailer April
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 571	Posted - 2015.04.12 21:47:00 - [82] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Thank you!! Caldari Loyalist. ( -í° -£-û -í°) They see me rollin they Hating (..) ( l: ) ( .-. ) ( :l ) (..)
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven Back and Forth 931	Posted - 2015.04.12 21:55:00 - [83] - Quote Also wanting to bring up that dropsuits that are specialized, such as the Sentinel, do get hardener like bonuses in the form of Resistances. Sure, 15% isn't nearly 40, but these are omnipresent, and do not need to be cycled or recharged. And curiousity: are the Marduk and Gladius DHAVs or UHAVS, or neither? No one really uses them because of the tighter fitting capacity. 07 "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner *The Mascot of 0uter.Heaven * SWBF Trailer April
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 9321	Posted - 2015.04.12 22:10:00 - [84] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Instapop, no, but I think combined with how accurate some of the large turrets are regarding AI, its an OP double whammy. The "waves of opportunity" are too long, and the vulnerability too narrow. I think we should at least be able to do enough damage to require some maneuverability skill, hiding behind cover, escaping etc. As it is, they can just sit there and take as many shots as they please with no fear of being damaged, while still being fast enough to chase anyone trying to hide. A single Tanker shouldn't take 4 or 5 dedicated AV out of the game just in order to be chased off. Particularly when AV itself makes one vulnerable to infantry. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven Back and Forth 931	Posted - 2015.04.12 22:18:00 - [85] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Instapop, no, but I think combined with how accurate some of the large turrets are regarding AI, its an OP double whammy. The "waves of opportunity" are too long, and the vulnerability too narrow. I think we should at least be able to do enough damage to require some maneuverability skill, hiding behind cover, escaping etc. As it is, they can just sit there and take as many shots as they please with no fear of being damaged, while still being fast enough to chase anyone trying to hide. A single Tanker shouldn't take 4 or 5 dedicated AV out of the game just in order to be chased off. Particularly when AV itself makes one vulnerable to infantry. I respectfully disagree. 1.3 million should not go down to 1 AV. If so, what happens when a whole squad goes AV, which I assure you happens. Furthermore, this argument of AV is vulnerable is rather false, as most AV is up high, where they cannot be easily hit by ground infantry. They are also commandos, which possess offensive capabilities. 1 AV vs 1 Proto Tank should make the tanker nervous, but not worried for his tank. Worried because that AVer is going to tell his whole squad, and that then he'll have 6 AV after them. In PC, forgers and swarms are abundant. Tankers do get popped. However, not from a solo infantry unless they are Godly good. Multiple AV to kill a Proto Tank. Proto Tank to kill a Proto Tank Proto Tank and gunners to kills a proto tank Proto tank and AV to kill a Proto Tank Not 1 AV to kill a Proto Tank Spin it however you want, but that is in noway fair. And people need to keep in mind that nerfing armor hardeners also hurts ADSs 07 "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner *The Mascot of 0uter.Heaven * SWBF Trailer April
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18192	Posted - 2015.04.12 22:25:00 - [86] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? It's not. Passive Armor Repair remains one of the dumber things we've received in this game. Changing stats isn't going to address this. Armor Repair modules need to go back to being active modules like they used to be. Being able to constantly gain up to 200+ hp per SECOND without any cost doesn't make much sense from a balance standpoint, and that fact has just been becoming more and more obvious over time. The actually rep rates aren't the problem it's that they are constant rather than active over a set duration. Without those repair values armour HAV would struggle against AV. Think of it this way. The only Heavy Efficient Repairer repped 414 armour every 3 seconds for a total of 15 seconds and 2070 armour total. On a per second value this is 138 armour repaired per second on the top tier repper. Nothing wrong the with rep values themselves. Just the nature of the module. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 9321	Posted - 2015.04.12 22:28:00 - [87] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: I respectfully disagree. 1.3 million should not go down to 1 AV. If so, what happens when a whole squad goes AV, which I assure you happens. Furthermore, this argument of AV is vulnerable is rather false, as most AV is up high, where they cannot be easily hit by ground infantry. They are also commandos, which possess offensive capabilities. 1 AV vs 1 Proto Tank should make the tanker nervous, but not worried for his tank. Worried because that AVer is going to tell his whole squad, and that then he'll have 6 AV after them. In PC, forgers and swarms are abundant. Tankers do get popped. However, not from a solo infantry unless they are Godly good. Multiple AV to kill a Proto Tank. Proto Tank to kill a Proto Tank Proto Tank and gunners to kills a proto tank Proto tank and AV to kill a Proto Tank Not 1 AV to kill a Proto Tank Spin it however you want, but that is in noway fair. And people need to keep in mind that nerfing armor hardeners also hurts ADSs. I do support the slowing of tanks while hardener however, as more solidying an object increases it's weight and gravity, and so reducing speeds and maneuverability. I don't feel however that for shields that should be the case, thus giving them a fairly nice advantage of outmaneuvering armor if they can. 07 I do not think an expensive tank should go down easily, however there should be enough danger that it presents a risk. Right now, they basically shrug it off and shoot me down as if I were a fly. And frankly, I might as well be. I pose zero risk to them because I can do, maybe, 10% damage with a full volley of proto swarms. They would literally have to LET me kill them. Then when you add on top of that certain large turrets with next to no skill needed to mow down infantry, the risk/rewards are waaaay off. PC is not the only game mode. Should these tanks be limited to FW/PC? I get balancing around PC, but Pubs need to be playable as well, and there are plenty of games where anyone might as well not play if there are tankers about, because there is nothing anyone can do about them. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18192	Posted - 2015.04.12 22:30:00 - [88] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Instapop, no, but I think combined with how accurate some of the large turrets are regarding AI, its an OP double whammy. The "waves of opportunity" are too long, and the vulnerability too narrow. I think we should at least be able to do enough damage to require some maneuverability skill, hiding behind cover, escaping etc. As it is, they can just sit there and take as many shots as they please with no fear of being damaged, while still being fast enough to chase anyone trying to hide. A single Tanker shouldn't take 4 or 5 dedicated AV out of the game just in order to be chased off. Particularly when AV itself makes one vulnerable to infantry. Except when I am good enough at my role I can manage to survive against 5 AVers but using speed, terrain, modules, and firepower. Some players in Dust can go out of their way and manage to kill insane numbers of players, more so than I've seen any tank recently able to achieve, and still score good KDR's and all players do it salute them on "mad playz". It is wrong that I am better/ more able to deal with a forger with his proto Ishukone Assault Forge and Packed Lai Dai's and the hopping dicklord PLC scout he's running with? GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
One Eyed King Nos Nothi 9321	Posted - 2015.04.12 22:36:00 - [89] - Quote True Adamance wrote: One Eyed King wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Instapop, no, but I think combined with how accurate some of the large turrets are regarding AI, its an OP double whammy. The "waves of opportunity" are too long, and the vulnerability too narrow. I think we should at least be able to do enough damage to require some maneuverability skill, hiding behind cover, escaping etc. As it is, they can just sit there and take as many shots as they please with no fear of being damaged, while still being fast enough to chase anyone trying to hide. A single Tanker shouldn't take 4 or 5 dedicated AV out of the game just in order to be chased off. Particularly when AV itself makes one vulnerable to infantry. Except when I am good enough at my role I can manage to survive against 5 AVers but using speed, terrain, modules, and firepower. Some players in Dust can go out of their way and manage to kill insane numbers of players, more so than I've seen any tank recently able to achieve, and still score good KDR's and all players do it salute them on "mad playz". It is wrong that I am better/ more able to deal with a forger with his proto Ishukone Assault Forge and Packed Lai Dai's and the hopping dicklord PLC scout he's running with? If it were a matter of skill, I would be fine with it. I do not believe that is the case however. If it was skill, it wouldn't just be any tanker doing it, but even mediocre tankers have no problem taking down AV. We shouldn't get to a point where the only solution to a tank is another tank, or 1/4 of the other team, just for one player. I don't even care if they have to decrease the costs of tanks to bring them more in line if need be, I just don't think they are balanced right now. Former CEO of the Land of the BIind. Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 573	Posted - 2015.04.12 22:45:00 - [90] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Instapop, no, but I think combined with how accurate some of the large turrets are regarding AI, its an OP double whammy. The "waves of opportunity" are too long, and the vulnerability too narrow. I think we should at least be able to do enough damage to require some maneuverability skill, hiding behind cover, escaping etc. As it is, they can just sit there and take as many shots as they please with no fear of being damaged, while still being fast enough to chase anyone trying to hide. A single Tanker shouldn't take 4 or 5 dedicated AV out of the game just in order to be chased off. Particularly when AV itself makes one vulnerable to infantry. When I'm in squads it only takes 3 people to destroy a tank 3 av or 2 av 1 av vehicles not four-five, and when it comes to chasing away if we can't kill him (which never happens we make them hate the sight of us to the point where he just sits in the redline or recalls it. Caldari Loyalist. ( -í° -£-û -í°) They see me rollin they Hating (..) ( l: ) ( .-. ) ( :l ) (..)

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18192	Posted - 2015.04.12 23:05:00 - [91] - Quote One Eyed King wrote: True Adamance wrote: One Eyed King wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Instapop, no, but I think combined with how accurate some of the large turrets are regarding AI, its an OP double whammy. The "waves of opportunity" are too long, and the vulnerability too narrow. I think we should at least be able to do enough damage to require some maneuverability skill, hiding behind cover, escaping etc. As it is, they can just sit there and take as many shots as they please with no fear of being damaged, while still being fast enough to chase anyone trying to hide. A single Tanker shouldn't take 4 or 5 dedicated AV out of the game just in order to be chased off. Particularly when AV itself makes one vulnerable to infantry. Except when I am good enough at my role I can manage to survive against 5 AVers but using speed, terrain, modules, and firepower. Some players in Dust can go out of their way and manage to kill insane numbers of players, more so than I've seen any tank recently able to achieve, and still score good KDR's and all players do it salute them on "mad playz". It is wrong that I am better/ more able to deal with a forger with his proto Ishukone Assault Forge and Packed Lai Dai's and the hopping dicklord PLC scout he's running with? If it were a matter of skill, I would be fine with it. I do not believe that is the case however. If it was skill, it wouldn't just be any tanker doing it, but even mediocre tankers have no problem taking down AV. We shouldn't get to a point where the only solution to a tank is another tank, or 1/4 of the other team, just for one player. I don't even care if they have to decrease the costs of tanks to bring them more in line if need be, I just don't think they are balanced right now. It's never been hard to drop AV though. They stand out in the open like it a god given right to be there and not die. Just watch those AV sentinels walk out onto flat ground and try to forge, getting cut down as instead of running I rush them and drop them at close range, or as scouts attempt to play eHP peekabo and I pre-fire the corners they are popping around. Reactive players who are smart enough to use positioning and their tools to not necessarily destroy that tank, though that happens, but blue balls it are the ones who are doing the job right. That leads to tankers becoming unfocused and therefore susceptible to smart players. However I'd agree with you Tanks are unbalanced right now for what I see as two core reasons. One is that they have modules (armour repairers) that are passive yet have the prolific per second rep rate of Active Modules. And hardeners being stackable and static at 40%. I don't think dual hardeners are an issue but when you are hitting 60% resistance AND have something like 300 repairs per second something is wrong. GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3164	Posted - 2015.04.13 01:46:00 - [92] - Quote Vesta Opalus wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Its not just 2-3 clips, you need to phrase this correctly. You can literally fire swarms at a double hardened madruger at full intensity and his armor hp will be capped at full until his hardeners run out, it doesn't matter how many clips you fire at him. One swarm launcher cannot do enough dps regardless of fitting to even scratch the repair of a hardened madruger. Oh no, can't solo a tank, the horror! Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3164	Posted - 2015.04.13 01:47:00 - [93] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Of course you don't care what I have to say. armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? No surprise there. "I can't solo a tank, that's not fair." Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
JARREL THOMAS Dead Man's Game RUST415 574	Posted - 2015.04.13 02:04:00 - [94] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? Of course you don't care what I have to say. armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? No surprise there. "I can't solo a tank, that's not fair." No, go away. But really, why don't you guys just wait for the hardeners to go down? I mean it's simple enough were not doing damage why continue shooting at it? Caldari Loyalist. ( -í° -£-û -í°) They see me rollin they Hating (..) ( l: ) ( .-. ) ( :l ) (..)
Alena Ventrallis Ahrendee Inc. Negative-Feedback 3000	Posted - 2015.04.13 02:05:00 - [95] - Quote True Adamance wrote: I don't think dual hardeners are an issue but when you are hitting 60% resistance AND have something like 300 repairs per second something is wrong. See, that isn't even the problem. The problem is how fast you can react to threats. Slow tanks down, and now one caught in the open has a much harder time getting away. Whirly gun make much thunder! - Victor
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3166	Posted - 2015.04.13 02:07:00 - [96] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: No, go away. I've already been threatened because I call people out for their lack of experience, along with not compromising on my position. Why should I compromise when things were taken away from the deployment of Uprising through 1.8? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18200	Posted - 2015.04.13 02:37:00 - [97] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: JARREL THOMAS wrote: No, go away. I've already been threatened because I call people out for their lack of experience, along with not compromising on my position. Why should I compromise when things were taken away from the deployment of Uprising through 1.8? You mean 1.7? GÇ£That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.GÇ¥ -The Nameless City
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3166	Posted - 2015.04.13 03:26:00 - [98] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: JARREL THOMAS wrote: No, go away. I've already been threatened because I call people out for their lack of experience, along with not compromising on my position. Why should I compromise when things were taken away from the deployment of Uprising through 1.8? You mean 1.7? What about 1.7? Do you have any experience with it? Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 311	Posted - 2015.04.13 03:36:00 - [99] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: But really, why don't you guys just wait for the hardeners to go down? I mean it's simple enough were not doing damage why continue shooting at it? True; but, 45 seconds is a likkle too long to wait... The ADS tourney! Join today!
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1456	Posted - 2015.04.13 03:41:00 - [100] - Quote JARREL THOMAS wrote: But really, why don't you guys just wait for the hardeners to go down? I mean it's simple enough were not doing damage why continue shooting at it? Two issues: 1) Vehicles are fast, meaning they can engage/disengage quickly, making their window of vulnerability difficult to judge at times as well as follow up on 2) For aHardeners particularly, they have a 37.5s cooldown (PRO, max skills) which is pretty damn short for a 45 second period of near invincibility. One of the big issues, and I agree with Alena, is that HAVs are incredibly fast - probably the biggest factor being acceleration. HAVs can go from zero to top speed in about a second, almost instantly with a fuel injector. Make HAVs somewhat slower to accelerate and you'd see them being a lot more cautious and potentially vulnerable. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.

Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 312	Posted - 2015.04.13 03:43:00 - [101] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Alright quick rephrase: "it's fine that aHardeners are back to 1.7 levels? Yes or no." "if you are fine with aHardeners going to 1.7, then campaign for sHardeners to go back to 1.7" But isn't that essentially undoing 1.8 with a twist on tanks eHP? "huh @.@" rephrasing the accusations against armor vehicles, not your post itself The ADS tourney! Join today!
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3167	Posted - 2015.04.13 04:39:00 - [102] - Quote Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 2) For aHardeners particularly, they have a 37.5s cooldown (PRO, max skills) which is pretty damn short for a 45 second period of near invincibility. What is this invincibility you speak of? Make HAVs somewhat slower to accelerate and you'd see them being a lot more cautious and potentially vulnerable. Tanks during Chrome accelerated slowly, but back then a tank was a tank. But that was too OP, and they were subsequently nerfed. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Spkr4theDead Red Star. 3167	Posted - 2015.04.13 04:41:00 - [103] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Alright quick rephrase: "it's fine that aHardeners are back to 1.7 levels? Yes or no." "if you are fine with aHardeners going to 1.7, then campaign for sHardeners to go back to 1.7" But isn't that essentially undoing 1.8 with a twist on tanks eHP? "huh @.@" rephrasing the accusations against armor vehicles, not your post itself Undoing 1.8? No, it's doing everything vehicle-oriented in Echo. You nerf hardeners, you bring tanks back to where they were in 1.8. Nerfing hardeners is bringing back 1.8. I don't think I can it say it any more ways than that. Nope. Confirming that pilot input is not, and never was, valued. - Breakin Stuff
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 312	Posted - 2015.04.13 10:29:00 - [104] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Alright quick rephrase: "it's fine that aHardeners are back to 1.7 levels? Yes or no." "if you are fine with aHardeners going to 1.7, then campaign for sHardeners to go back to 1.7" But isn't that essentially undoing 1.8 with a twist on tanks eHP? "huh @.@" rephrasing the accusations against armor vehicles, not your post itself Undoing 1.8? No, it's doing everything vehicle-oriented in Echo. You nerf hardeners, you bring tanks back to where they were in 1.8. Nerfing hardeners is bringing back 1.8. I don't think I can it say it any more ways than that. So, are you okay w/ aHardeners being better than sHardeners? Echo sHardeners vs 1.7 aHardeners. Now you see why we are complaining? I say go back to 35/40 or 30/40 if 35 is too much. Better than 25% and not a complete "nerf" to vehicles... Its just balancing the hardeners. Yes 1.8 aHardeners was ugh. But 1.7 aHardeners is "lolololol" for 36-45 seconds Now that we found 2 absolutes, lets just go 50/50 (i know it contradicts what I just said) 40-25 = 15 15/2 = 7.5 25+7.5 = new aHardener. If its too little, and 1 or 2% too much take away 1 or 2% The ADS tourney! Join today!
501st Headstrong 0uter.Heaven Back and Forth 935	Posted - 2015.04.13 10:41:00 - [105] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Alright quick rephrase: "it's fine that aHardeners are back to 1.7 levels? Yes or no." "if you are fine with aHardeners going to 1.7, then campaign for sHardeners to go back to 1.7" But isn't that essentially undoing 1.8 with a twist on tanks eHP? "huh @.@" rephrasing the accusations against armor vehicles, not your post itself Hardeners should not go back to 1.7 levels, however I missed the first month of 1.7 due to internet issues. All I'm saying is the hardeners should be strong enough to be a primary defense vs AV in a proto tank. Isk assets should be worth their investment. So either slightly nerf armor hardeners, and then give DHAVS a bonus to them (True Stand and Deliver Tanks), or buff the shield hardeners to 35%. I don't have the numbers to accurately say. I agree, tanking should require "skill" as the people call it these days, but also keep in mind that a tank is a force multiplier. It is SUPPOSE to require multiple people to take down, thus allowing ground infantry to more easily deal with hostiles who aren't AV. I have no qualms with current tanks, as I prefer the fun of getting a squad of friends and just hunting them down with Lavs all day lol. I hate free give-mes, so sure, make the tanks tough. 07 "There are no rights. The world owes no one a living."-Sumner *The Mascot of 0uter.Heaven * SWBF Trailer April
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1456	Posted - 2015.04.13 13:25:00 - [106] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Hardeners should not go back to 1.7 levels, however I missed the first month of 1.7 due to internet issues. All I'm saying is the hardeners should be strong enough to be a primary defense vs AV in a proto tank. Isk assets should be worth their investment. So either slightly nerf armor hardeners, That's the thing, aHardeners are back to 1.7: 1.7 aHardeners were 40% with sHardeners beings 60%, with the same uptime/cooldown as we currently have. What we currently have is 1.7 aHardeners and nerfed sHardeners, making Armour HAVs vastly superior, in no small part due to having way long uptime/shorter cooldown. This is why I have suggested previously that aHardeners need to have either their uptime reduced (or the sHardener uptime increased) or their cooldown increased (or the sHardener reduced.) Essentially, aHardeners have their fingers in every single pie: they have equal resistance (and coupled with the passive reps, that's incredibly powerful), a far longer active duration and a substantially lower cooldown - sHardeners need some kind of advantage, especially since Shields have lower HP levels and can have their regeneration stopped. Spkr4theDead wrote: Kallas Hallytyr wrote: 2) For aHardeners particularly, they have a 37.5s cooldown (PRO, max skills) which is pretty damn short for a 45 second period of near invincibility. What is this invincibility you speak of? Well, for one I said near invincibility, because the double rep/double hardened Madrugars are tearing things up right now. If you either: a, dont think this is a problem or; b, haven't encountered/experienced it, then you dont really have anything to add to the discussion, especially given your ridiculous hard line position of "Tanks must be nigh unkillable!" Armour HAVs currently are insanely resilient and even three or more AV working together struggle to even threaten a half awake pilot. Now, when Hardeners are down, they are made of paper...if you have high alpha weaponry like a railgun, but against applied DPS they are still very tough - and that's not using two of their modules! Ostensibly, Shields are in a reasonably fair place - they can resist AV fire for a good amount of time and can recover their HO rapidly when needed, but even for that they can be focused down by enough firepower, or by one smart player doing the right things (like proxy traps.) Armour HAVs need overwhelming and entirely unreasonable amounts of force applied: even from other HAVs - even other Armour HAVs, where it's like watching Superman vs Superman. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Doc DDD TeamPlayers Negative-Feedback 430	Posted - 2015.04.13 13:48:00 - [107] - Quote One of the reasons the double hardener double rep Maddies are so prevalent is the fact large rails have been nerfed at least 5 times in a row instead of fixing core issues. Damage Nerf Range Nerf Heat Build up Nerf Giving 90% more resist to armor hardener Nerf Basic and Advanced damage mod Nerf On top of these nerfs, shield tanks have also been nerfed ( because sitting in the redline hiding is supposed to be a 'pkaystyle' according to armor users). These nerfs include: Hardener Nerf Shield fitting Nerf Shield staking penalty Nerf Breaking Shield Booster Nerf Shield regen rate Nerf Shield starting armor value Nerf Missile splash damage nerf Missile clip size nerf Missile reload time nerf Fix Shields Fix Rails Fix Missiles Fix the core problems or do as per usual and pander to the masses that QQ on the forums for nerfs, as it is easier to cry on the forums than realize what the actual problem is in-game.
DeathwindRising ROGUE RELICS 991	Posted - 2015.04.13 13:59:00 - [108] - Quote Sir Dukey wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: How many times do I have to say that the answer is not to nerf vehicles, but buff them to whatever level the superior hull is at. You get parity in that fashion, not nerfing so AV has an easier time of destroying it. I don't care what you have to say because no way in hell should armor tanks be invincible to AV. Shield tanks and AV are balanced in my opinion. Armor tanks are definitely not balanced. How is it fair that an armor tank can take 2-3 clips (Clips not swarms) from my Proto Min Commando with proficiency level 4 in swarms and still have full armor? they forgot that armor reps were changed in 1.7 or whatever. armor reps needs to be changed from hp/s to hp/ 3 or 5 s which would make them more vulnerable to burst damage
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1457	Posted - 2015.04.13 14:18:00 - [109] - Quote DeathwindRising wrote: they forgot that armor reps were changed in 1.7 or whatever. armor reps needs to be changed from hp/s to hp/ 3 or 5 s which would make them more vulnerable to burst damage This would be one of the better change to make to passive armour reps. Better yet, make it like this and make it active again! Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 314	Posted - 2015.04.13 14:40:00 - [110] - Quote 501st Headstrong wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Alright quick rephrase: "it's fine that aHardeners are back to 1.7 levels? Yes or no." "if you are fine with aHardeners going to 1.7, then campaign for sHardeners to go back to 1.7" But isn't that essentially undoing 1.8 with a twist on tanks eHP? "huh @.@" rephrasing the accusations against armor vehicles, not your post itself Hardeners should not go back to 1.7 levels, however I missed the first month of 1.7 due to internet issues. All I'm saying is the hardeners should be strong enough to be a primary defense vs AV in a proto tank. Isk assets should be worth their investment. So either slightly nerf armor hardeners, and then give DHAVS a bonus to them (True Stand and Deliver Tanks), or buff the shield hardeners to 35%. I don't have the numbers to accurately say. I agree, tanking should require "skill" as the people call it these days, but also keep in mind that a tank is a force multiplier. It is SUPPOSE to require multiple people to take down, thus allowing ground infantry to more easily deal with hostiles who aren't AV. I have no qualms with current tanks, as I prefer the fun of getting a squad of friends and just hunting them down with Lavs all day lol. I hate free give-mes, so sure, make the tanks tough. 07 Shield hardeners are at 40%, 35% would be a nerf. 501, you say they (aHardeners) shouldnt be at 1.7, but thats EXACTLY what you are defending... Not being rude, just pointing that out. I think DHAVs should just have crazy eHP capability. But before that, PILOT SUITS AND LINK MODULES. it could do so much... The ADS tourney! Join today!

Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix RUST415 783	Posted - 2015.04.13 14:48:00 - [111] - Quote Shamarskii Simon wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Alright quick rephrase: "it's fine that aHardeners are back to 1.7 levels? Yes or no." "if you are fine with aHardeners going to 1.7, then campaign for sHardeners to go back to 1.7" But isn't that essentially undoing 1.8 with a twist on tanks eHP? "huh @.@" rephrasing the accusations against armor vehicles, not your post itself Hardeners should not go back to 1.7 levels, however I missed the first month of 1.7 due to internet issues. All I'm saying is the hardeners should be strong enough to be a primary defense vs AV in a proto tank. Isk assets should be worth their investment. So either slightly nerf armor hardeners, and then give DHAVS a bonus to them (True Stand and Deliver Tanks), or buff the shield hardeners to 35%. I don't have the numbers to accurately say. I agree, tanking should require "skill" as the people call it these days, but also keep in mind that a tank is a force multiplier. It is SUPPOSE to require multiple people to take down, thus allowing ground infantry to more easily deal with hostiles who aren't AV. I have no qualms with current tanks, as I prefer the fun of getting a squad of friends and just hunting them down with Lavs all day lol. I hate free give-mes, so sure, make the tanks tough. 07 Shield hardeners are at 40%, 35% would be a nerf. 501, you say they (aHardeners) shouldnt be at 1.7, but thats EXACTLY what you are defending... Not being rude, just pointing that out. I think DHAVs should just have crazy eHP capability. But before that, PILOT SUITS AND LINK MODULES. it could do so much... If by Dhav you mean destroyer HAVs they should not have crazy EHP capabilities, they would be the tanks that find other tanks and murder them. Marauder HAVs would be the high EHP lower damage variety.
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood Rise Of Legion. 315	Posted - 2015.04.13 14:56:00 - [112] - Quote Echo 1991 wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: Shamarskii Simon wrote: 501st Headstrong wrote: I'm not a tanker, but I'm confused as to why people believe 1 Aver should be able to pop a 1.3 mil Isk tank with hardeners on...Is that vehicle suppose to be a battle tank or a firecracker? I mean Dukey, I understand what you are saying about Shield Tankers. Gunlogis do need a buff...but your Heavy analogy makes little sense to me because a Sentinel suit does not cost 1.3 million isk. My isk invested should equal increase slaying capacity. This is why proto costs more than advanced. By that logic, fielding a 1 million isk asset should be able to at least clear out one proto Aver when hardened. You Shield Tankers work out how to Buff Gunnlogis, but do not Nerf the Madrugar. Make it to where both kick some serious arse, not give free 150 WPs. 07 Alright quick rephrase: "it's fine that aHardeners are back to 1.7 levels? Yes or no." "if you are fine with aHardeners going to 1.7, then campaign for sHardeners to go back to 1.7" But isn't that essentially undoing 1.8 with a twist on tanks eHP? "huh @.@" rephrasing the accusations against armor vehicles, not your post itself Hardeners should not go back to 1.7 levels, however I missed the first month of 1.7 due to internet issues. All I'm saying is the hardeners should be strong enough to be a primary defense vs AV in a proto tank. Isk assets should be worth their investment. So either slightly nerf armor hardeners, and then give DHAVS a bonus to them (True Stand and Deliver Tanks), or buff the shield hardeners to 35%. I don't have the numbers to accurately say. I agree, tanking should require "skill" as the people call it these days, but also keep in mind that a tank is a force multiplier. It is SUPPOSE to require multiple people to take down, thus allowing ground infantry to more easily deal with hostiles who aren't AV. I have no qualms with current tanks, as I prefer the fun of getting a squad of friends and just hunting them down with Lavs all day lol. I hate free give-mes, so sure, make the tanks tough. 07 Shield hardeners are at 40%, 35% would be a nerf. 501, you say they (aHardeners) shouldnt be at 1.7, but thats EXACTLY what you are defending... Not being rude, just pointing that out. I think DHAVs should just have crazy eHP capability. But before that, PILOT SUITS AND LINK MODULES. it could do so much... If by Dhav you mean destroyer HAVs they should not have crazy EHP capabilities, they would be the tanks that find other tanks and murder them. Marauder HAVs would be the high EHP lower damage variety. Thanks for the correction! The ADS tourney! Join today!
Echo 1991 Titans of Phoenix RUST415 784	Posted - 2015.04.13 14:59:00 - [113] - Quote No problem.


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

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

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.

"Skill for thee but no skill for me" so is the saying of the swarm infantry.