DUST Search - Deep vehicle analysis

Tebu Gan wrote:

@Breakin
Agreed that tanks should have a role outside that of killing infantry. But I've yet to see a Dev response that that is even possible(and I and others have said this any times if tank are to kill other tanks, there must be reason). At this point, I just assume that it isn't exactly possible, or quite a ways down the road.

I imagine it would require quite a revamp to many things to become possible.

So thus we are stuck with making it so that tanks either are designed around killing other tanks (becoming useless in the process) or killing infantry, giving a reason to call tanks.

And honestly, right now I can't exactly say that tanks are insanely OP as AV make them out to be. It generally boils down to ONE singular fit that causes the problem for infantry AV, the infamous double rep - double hardened.

A double hardened - plate - rep fit, while strong, doesn't compare to the former as it is not possible to take sustained damage with hardeners up. As AV attack it, it slowly wears down, eventually getting to a critical point that takes a bit of time to recover from (say like 10 to 15 seconds or more).

So, imho, this should be the main focus of the balancing act, double rep - double hardened fits first and foremost. And I don't think that hardeners themselves are the biggest problem, but the nature of the passive reps. A return to active I think would have a very large impact.

And please be reasonable and respectful if you choose to reply. I've done nor said anything to elicit such negative and nasty comments that you generally leave for me. If you disagree, cool, but I don't need you bashing my intelligence because you find you are somehow more right.

There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8346	Posted - 2015.05.02 14:39:00 - [1] - Quote LAVs with zero skills can survive a hit from proto AV when you put mods on them. One PG mod allows a heavy extender or heavy armor plate (militia). There is no reality in which a naked lav should be eating hits from AV. I think that making LAVs immune to small arms fire and so expensive to purchase/fit was a mistake. The need for heavy AV to destroy a light vehicle has done more to make sure there's always a swarm or forge on the field than any act by tank or dropship pilot in DUST's history. Dropships can actually evade AV fairly consistently unless they are dealing with a good or stubborn gunner who gives them no rest opportunity. HAVs problems are many and myriad, and oddly the solutions are fairly simple. As far as vehicles, the primary problem is the lack of a clearly defined purpose. Vehicles are supposed to kill vehicles. But without the ability to make them fit an anti-infantry role without allowing them to be overpowered begs the question: Why do we have them? There's a few ways to make them more relevant but it requires making the battlefield more dynamic, making turrets more dynamic and making hardpoints that a tank crew can siege and destroy. Right now the role as I understand it (even though I know it's not the intent) is destroying other vvehicles while providing transport and being a target for infantry AV. The other problem, which makes the community as a whole hostile to the idea of giving vehicles ANY considerationis the thinly veiled comments by a loud minority of vehicle drivers who think that they should get a pass on risk. Most HAV drivers aren't looking for a fight. The behavior in game tells the story. They stick around to paste anything in reach then bolt out and hide in the redline the INSTANT they take a notable level of damage. Because of this vocal minority, very few in the game believe that vehicle drivers are interested in anything but risk-free kill farming. It's a crap statement, and in my experience it's not true. But the loudest ones are the ones who say that even against the current madrugar meta, AV is still OP. They're the ones the community at large sees. Pilots need to be thrown a bone in a few areas. But doing so with the ungrateful bastards who berate the devs relentlessly whenever something they dislike even slightly makes it really damn hard to convince people that the bone thrown is worth the effort. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8359	Posted - 2015.05.03 09:48:00 - [2] - Quote Francois Sanchez wrote: P.S : @Breakin Stuff : yes, tankers are mostly cowards, which is sadly the case for 90% of the community. This is the main problem of this game as the guys wishing to fight are hardly penalized by that. Personally it's the worst community I've ever seen because of that. risk aversion is pretty much the definition of everything wrong with any given player in this game. And you deal with the worst by ignoring them, or point out every logical insanity they throw at you. Whatever is more fun for you. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8376	Posted - 2015.05.04 23:01:00 - [3] - Quote Tesfa Alem wrote: @ Breaking stuff regarding armor LAVs You may survive the first hit but you wont survive the second one. Assuming you fit a PG upgrade, which is necessary. - Armor plate? No Reps, second hit kills. - Rep tanK? First hit kills. - Hardner? You are running on base eHP and no rreps second hit kills. To use it soley as means of tranport from A to B is fine, as long as you own a BPO. Otherwise, LAV's with any sort decent turret on them is just a waste of time. The changes have made them from interesting if fit correctly to snot wrapped tissue paper no matter what you put on them. which is sad, i liked my quafe LAV. I bought it to use it, use it often, and effectivley as well. But people bitched about wheelchair heavies, gunners using smail rail turrets, and LAV's being 'too hard to kill ( in a build where tanks were UP vs AV, people argued LAVs were OP?)' and here we are. working as intended. Bluntly the fact that LAVs require anti-tank guns to destroy (and that they cost as much or more as a proto suit) is pretty dumb. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8376	Posted - 2015.05.04 23:13:00 - [4] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: @Breakin Agreed that tanks should have a role outside that of killing infantry. But I've yet to see a Dev response that that is even possible(and I and others have said this any times if tank are to kill other tanks, there must be reason). At this point, I just assume that it isn't exactly possible, or quite a ways down the road. I imagine it would require quite a revamp to many things to become possible. So thus we are stuck with making it so that tanks either are designed around killing other tanks (becoming useless in the process) or killing infantry, giving a reason to call tanks. And honestly, right now I can't exactly say that tanks are insanely OP as AV make them out to be. It generally boils down to ONE singular fit that causes the problem for infantry AV, the infamous double rep - double hardened. A double hardened - plate - rep fit, while strong, doesn't compare to the former as it is not possible to take sustained damage with hardeners up. As AV attack it, it slowly wears down, eventually getting to a critical point that takes a bit of time to recover from (say like 10 to 15 seconds or more). So, imho, this should be the main focus of the balancing act, double rep - double hardened fits first and foremost. And I don't think that hardeners themselves are the biggest problem, but the nature of the passive reps. A return to active I think would have a very large impact. And please be reasonable and respectful if you choose to reply. I've done nor said anything to elicit such negative and nasty comments that you generally leave for me. If you disagree, cool, but I don't need you bashing my intelligence because you find you are somehow more right. I have bolded, highlighted and italicized the points I have issues with. When the minimum solo engagement time for an AV weapon at it's intended range is in excess of thirty seconds (that's two or three reloads) it's OP. Double-rep, double hardened is stupid-overpowered. But a single rep, double plate, single hardener will take over 30 seconds with current AV (except swarms, which ** me off intensely) at their intended ranges. One, tanks vs. AV are bloody overpowered, and they are overpriced to boot. if a damn tank is 4x as hard to kill as my fatsuit it should only cost 4x my fatsuit. Pricing by utility would have solved a lot of the idiotic problems we've had. Should tanks be powrful? Absolutely. Should they be as powerful comparatively as they are now? Not if you want to keep more players than you permanently lose to ragequits. And bluntly Tebu, I've been mildly annoyed with you when you solicited feedback, I gave it, and then you turned about and changed the premise of the feedback to suit your own ends. Your statement that an AV gun by itself shouldn't be able to fight a tank was bluntly one of the most asinine premises you could have pushed and something I'd expect from certain parties who remain nameless, not from someone actually interested in civil and reasoned discourse. By that logic there's no reason for a forge gun to have the range it has now. No, I do not accept any premise that says any unit should be immune to destruction by it's counter under any circumstance. If that's what you have an inherent problem, instead of trying to argue with me, walk away, because that is the one point I will give no ground on. Counters in DUST should be lethal. You want me to be nice? Be honest with your intent and don't try to hide it from the word go, and quit dismissing the opinions of dissent, because bluntly your opinions on balance are no more valid than mine than mine are to yours. they're opinions. There's never enough shposting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8386	Posted - 2015.05.05 07:47:00 - [5] - Quote Doc DDD wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Doc DDD wrote: If it doesn't destroy it then it's not the counter. I like that one av load out is no longer the counter for every vehicle. The counter to double rep double hardened maddy is high alpha, which used to come from damage modded rails. Now that you need a Gunlogi, with a heat sink, and a damage mod, and another damage mod, and another damage mod, and a shield extender, to hidein the redline and hopen this one build of tank comes within 300m and sits there for 5 straight shots is just bad game design. The only thing you can really do is roll up with a missile madrugar with 2 hardeners and a damage mod and land every volley. Shield tanks need to be fixed Rails need decreased heat build up and more range Missiles need that weird delay at end of clip reduced If rails gets a heat and range buff, that damage needs to get nerfed. Why? They would be used primarily for anti vehicle, infantry should be happy As is, missiles fire 50m shorter and have much higher alpha with the same number of damage mods. The state shields are in actually have madrugar missile tanks having more advantages over caldari missile tanks, this is sad. Unless it's a 4 damage mod shield missile tank hiding in the redline (paper thin to AV). The only people that should be scared of rails that can take 3 shots without over heating and hitting targets 450m away are double repped, double hardened madrugars. Doc is correct that caldari HAVs need some serious love right now, but so does non-swarm AV. With the madrugars the only way a AV gunner will get a kill is if the driver is a complete idiot. Right now the gunnlongi will only survive if the AV gunner is a complete idiot. Both of these are bad. I really wish AV/V was roughly equal with the odds weighted in the favor of the HAV and the cost of vehicles was lowered to match. I want AV/V to be decided by gunner/driver skill and not inherent and overwhelming mechanical advantage. There's never enough sh**posting going on, so let's add a few more teaspoons of the guy posting after me to the recipie!