DUST Search - Vehicles Hardener Modules

Vulpes Dolosus wrote:

True Adamance wrote:

Vulpes Dolosus wrote:

Your logic seems to conclude that AV is OP.

Think about it: if you say it's mandatory for vehicles to fit one OP hardener, then you're admitting that other types of defence are useless against current AV.

Just thought I'd point that out.

I find that currently its not that hardeners that are OP at all, its the combination of stacking hardeners over prolific passive armour repairs.

If an Armour tank could say only rep say 414 armour every 3 (thats still 138 reps per second) seconds for a total of 15 seconds you would either see tanks with 15 seconds worth of the current repair values we have now only pulsing every 3 seconds or you would have overlapping/normal single hardener rep rates for 30 seconds.

I was just showing how his logic is off, but I agree with you.

I like the idea of longer intervals between repairs, but I also think its necessary to increase the fitting on heavy repairers. However to balance things out a bit, I think a slight increase in total rep given per cycle.

Something like: 435hp/3s for a proto heavy rep.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Artemis Kaiba Shadow Broker Wet Squad 79	Posted - 2015.05.04 16:52:00 - [1] - Quote Hardeners are simply O.P. : the fact that it became mandatory to every vehicle is the proof. As it is a "Idea discussion thread", here's mine : To avoid abusive stacking, wouldn't it be better if one was pre-fitted to every vehicle and then remove that modules from market ?
Apocalyptic Destroyer L.O.T.I.S. 472	Posted - 2015.05.04 18:29:00 - [2] - Quote If you stack 4 they can't kill you. But apparently that was the Developers intentions for Tanks True Amarr In Disguise Pain is Weakness Leaving the Body. In his house at R'lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 2048	Posted - 2015.05.04 19:15:00 - [3] - Quote Your joking right .?. the fact that you need hardeners are a testimony to how the field has changed and now most have some sort of AV in their arsenal when pre 1.7 you couldn't find too many that had swarms , much less PLC's and FG's .. a lot had AV grenades because people always liked grenades and you pretty much didn't need anything else because you could basically take out vehicles with AV grenades back then . No hardeners would cripple not only HAV's but ADS's & DS's as well and is prof of how powerful AV actually is , it's just the fact that you have lazy players who believe if they can't OKH something solo that something is wrong with the mechanics of the game . I AV and vehicle use , more AV then anything and when I get my heavies back ( what I'm working on now because I was going to do another respec and make myself the way I wanted until Rattati started talking about getting rid of skirmish ) with my FG's then all will see how serious I am about AV and it's not just the PLC and swarms that people should worry about . This is a bad idea , just saying ... it's a bad idea and reading what your writing leads me to believe that you have some sort of bias against vehicles or your one of the same that complains about not being able to solo a vehicle . Get some AV grenades and mix them with any AV weapons and you will see the difference , AV grenades cut threw hardeners ... I solo HAV's myself and that's because it's something that I focus on and not something that I'm casual about like most who comment on vehicles . As for the four hardeners ... fit that and you will have no room for anything else and yes .. you can still die , they can't stay active the whole match and I promise you ... someone like myself will just look at a distance and follow you until they drop and then you would see how powerful that fit would be with a couple of Lai Dai's up your @$$ . 2700 armor isn't a lot . OP , get your game up and stop trying to look for the easy way out . This is the wrong game for that . I know I don't need it easier because then no vehicle user would have any fun and it would be too easy for me to kill them , I like challenges ... that's why I play Dust and not the rest of the vanilla shooters out there , not trying to make this game like the rest and get your game up . Doubts are like bothersome flies and should be treated as such and crushed . #PubsShouldBeRandomPlayers
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3157	Posted - 2015.05.04 19:28:00 - [4] - Quote Artemis Kaiba wrote: Hardeners are simply O.P. : the fact that it became mandatory to every vehicle is the proof. As it is a "Idea discussion thread", here's mine : To avoid abusive stacking, wouldn't it be better if one was pre-fitted to every vehicle and then remove that modules from market ? They aren't mandatory for all fits, long range fits does much better imo with passives.Most combat is done in CQ, which is just better for hardeners just because of how they work. And this idea is hella stupid. Just no. It's not a ******* powerup. Top lel
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3157	Posted - 2015.05.04 19:30:00 - [5] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: If you stack 4 they can't kill you. But apparently that was the Developers intentions for Tanks As soon as those 4 hardeners goes down, it'll pretty much insta pop. That's pretty much a non viable fit, unless you plan on losing that thing the instant those hardeners go down. Top lel
LudiKure ninda Dead Man's Game RUST415 266	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:05:00 - [6] - Quote Apocalyptic Destroyer wrote: If you stack 4 they can't kill you. But apparently that was the Developers intentions for Tanks cute fit you hawe there bro ( -í° -£-û -í°) `Fully maxed tank pilot. Fully maxed Heavy.`
Artemis Kaiba Shadow Broker Wet Squad 80	Posted - 2015.05.04 21:28:00 - [7] - Quote First thing, I don't complain about Av vs vehicles. I never talked about AV. My point is purely on vehicles fittings/loadout : that module became mandatory, which is against the principle of diversity. If you look at suits modules for a comparison, you don't have any module that is clearly indispensable. Each one provide something usefull, participating in global diversity. On vehicles, the hardener is a step above other modules. That's the reason I proposed (unsoundly) to restrict it that way, in order to promote more diversity. I wanted this thread to be more a discussion about this module mandatory aspect. My proposal was merely a starting point to discuss that matter.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 2048	Posted - 2015.05.04 22:09:00 - [8] - Quote Fair enough but who in their right mind that operate vehicles would even propose such with a straight face .?. and to honest , multiple hardeners is diversity because you don't have to do it but the fact that you can fit your vehicle any way that you choose in the confines of the CPU / PG allowance is diversity , now should their be a restriction of fitting say more then two .?. that's a different story ... like there is for nitro's but I wouldn't want to put restrictions more then what's current threw the CPU / PG because people like to try new things and they do tend to gravitate towards what's OP in most instances but again , that's lazy and where you see people come up with the , " Hey try this ." ... let them come across the wrong person or persons and that attitude changes quickly and they realize what they thought would work , doesn't . You have too many good players who play this game to come with some half @$$ set up's for the most part , so your bound to find people trying to find the next FOTM but multiple hardeners really aren't a problem for those who know how to work around them . Vehicles are a different breed then infantry and is more of a waiting game then anything , every driver and pilot doesn't know what their doing , even in a PRO vehicle or ADS and they get rattled if their threatened the right way ... it's all about your approach . You need everything that's in the skill tree and vehicle mods because AV is something serious without a mixture of mods , you won't survive long . People are always looking for your weakness to exploit . Oh yeah you said that your not taking about AV and to be fair you really wouldn't have to if this plan was implemented because AV would have their way with every vehicle that hits the field and to be honest , given the right situation ... it's kinda like that right now because every pilot and driver isn't exceptional , only a select few know how to handle pressure and know when to back off and regroup without having mods timed out . Doubts are like bothersome flies and should be treated as such and crushed . #PubsShouldBeRandomPlayers
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 8380	Posted - 2015.05.04 23:49:00 - [9] - Quote honestly I'd be all for the old passive mods (which gave a much lower hardening) then brought the armor plates themselves closer to the old 180mm values (not necessarily as high) as an alternative to the active hardener thing. Or re-introducing the old 180mm plates so we can get a viable alternative to hardener spiking. My Chrome Madrugars were 180mm, 120mm, passive hardener, Rep. I miss that option. 1.7 up to this most recent of updates really cemented AV as necessity for all rather than AV as a choice in the minds of the community. As it stands, there's entirely too much going on in V/AV to pussyfoot around. the bandaid needs to be ripped off and the wound stitched. 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!
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. RUST415 3264	Posted - 2015.05.05 00:01:00 - [10] - Quote Your logic seems to conclude that AV is OP. Think about it: if you say it's mandatory for vehicles to fit one OP hardener, then you're admitting that other types of defense are useless against current AV. Just thought I'd point that out. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18726	Posted - 2015.05.05 00:07:00 - [11] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Your logic seems to conclude that AV is OP. Think about it: if you say it's mandatory for vehicles to fit one OP hardener, then you're admitting that other types of defence are useless against current AV. Just thought I'd point that out. I find that currently its not that hardeners that are OP at all, its the combination of stacking hardeners over prolific passive armour repairs. If an Armour tank could say only rep say 414 armour every 3 (thats still 138 reps per second) seconds for a total of 15 seconds you would either see tanks with 15 seconds worth of the current repair values we have now only pulsing every 3 seconds or you would have overlapping/normal single hardener rep rates for 30 seconds. "MIN MAXING! MIN MAXING! I'M BETTER AT IT THAN YOU!" - Mobius Wyvern
Vulpes Dolosus Molon Labe. RUST415 3264	Posted - 2015.05.05 01:26:00 - [12] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Your logic seems to conclude that AV is OP. Think about it: if you say it's mandatory for vehicles to fit one OP hardener, then you're admitting that other types of defence are useless against current AV. Just thought I'd point that out. I find that currently its not that hardeners that are OP at all, its the combination of stacking hardeners over prolific passive armour repairs. If an Armour tank could say only rep say 414 armour every 3 (thats still 138 reps per second) seconds for a total of 15 seconds you would either see tanks with 15 seconds worth of the current repair values we have now only pulsing every 3 seconds or you would have overlapping/normal single hardener rep rates for 30 seconds. I was just showing how his logic is off, but I agree with you. I like the idea of longer intervals between repairs, but I also think its necessary to increase the fitting on heavy repairers. However to balance things out a bit, I think a slight increase in total rep given per cycle. Something like: 435hp/3s for a proto heavy rep. Dust is there! I was real! Dear diary, Rattati senpai noticed me today~
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3161	Posted - 2015.05.05 01:26:00 - [13] - Quote Artemis Kaiba wrote: First thing, I don't complain about Av vs vehicles. I never talked about AV. My point is purely on vehicles fittings/loadout : that module became mandatory, which is against the principle of diversity. If you look at suits modules for a comparison, you don't have any module that is clearly indispensable. Each one provide something usefull, participating in global diversity. On vehicles, the hardener is a step above other modules. That's the reason I proposed (unsoundly) to restrict it that way, in order to promote more diversity. I wanted this thread to be more a discussion about this module mandatory aspect. My proposal was merely a starting point to discuss that matter. The idea is silly. Forcing people to fit something for no reason whatsoever is just ******* stupid. Top lel
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18731	Posted - 2015.05.05 01:31:00 - [14] - Quote Vulpes Dolosus wrote: True Adamance wrote: Vulpes Dolosus wrote: Your logic seems to conclude that AV is OP. Think about it: if you say it's mandatory for vehicles to fit one OP hardener, then you're admitting that other types of defence are useless against current AV. Just thought I'd point that out. I find that currently its not that hardeners that are OP at all, its the combination of stacking hardeners over prolific passive armour repairs. If an Armour tank could say only rep say 414 armour every 3 (thats still 138 reps per second) seconds for a total of 15 seconds you would either see tanks with 15 seconds worth of the current repair values we have now only pulsing every 3 seconds or you would have overlapping/normal single hardener rep rates for 30 seconds. I was just showing how his logic is off, but I agree with you. I like the idea of longer intervals between repairs, but I also think its necessary to increase the fitting on heavy repairers. However to balance things out a bit, I think a slight increase in total rep given per cycle. Something like: 435hp/3s for a proto heavy rep. I use the number 414 a most often because that amounts on a per second basis to the 138 rep sec we currently get on complex heavy reppers and was the value of the old Efficient Heavy Armour Repper from Uprising and Chromo. "MIN MAXING! MIN MAXING! I'M BETTER AT IT THAN YOU!" - Mobius Wyvern
Tread Loudly 2 Random Gunz Rise Of Legion. 126	Posted - 2015.05.05 02:04:00 - [15] - Quote My favorite fit for PC's has 0 hardeners of any kind..... I stopped running Vehicles for the most part in Pubs because I don't see the point in me pulling out a vehicle just to have 9 guys pull out AV to instapop me, but hey that's just me. The operator is seemingly 100% biased towards being able to solo a tank (or other vehicle) even more easily than you can currently which is utterly ridiculous imo. However with the growing amount of QQ coming from Infantry about vehicles I see our vehicles getting nerfed again in the near future which makes me want to respec completely out of vehicles I Like Tanks, Nova Knives and MagSec SMG's.
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 6179	Posted - 2015.05.05 03:53:00 - [16] - Quote I find it interesting that people never had an issue with hardeners until after 1.7, even though their resistance values were nearly identical Pre 1.7 Armor: 25% Resistance + 10% Resistance from skills Shield: 30% Resistance + 10% Resistance from Skills Warlords Armor: 40% Shield : 40% Kinda curious why people suddenly have an issue with them, even though not a whole lot has changed. Unless, you know, it's something else entirely, like Passive Regen being so high. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 18739	Posted - 2015.05.05 04:10:00 - [17] - Quote Pokey Dravon wrote: I find it interesting that people never had an issue with hardeners until after 1.7, even though their resistance values were nearly identical Pre 1.7 Armor: 25% Resistance + 10% Resistance from skills Shield: 30% Resistance + 10% Resistance from Skills Warlords Armor: 40% Shield : 40% Kinda curious why people suddenly have an issue with them, even though not a whole lot has changed. Unless, you know, it's something else entirely, like Passive Regen being so high. Those 10% were passive skills though weren't they? "MIN MAXING! MIN MAXING! I'M BETTER AT IT THAN YOU!" - Mobius Wyvern
Pokey Dravon OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 6180	Posted - 2015.05.05 06:30:00 - [18] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Pokey Dravon wrote: I find it interesting that people never had an issue with hardeners until after 1.7, even though their resistance values were nearly identical Pre 1.7 Armor: 25% Resistance + 10% Resistance from skills Shield: 30% Resistance + 10% Resistance from Skills Warlords Armor: 40% Shield : 40% Kinda curious why people suddenly have an issue with them, even though not a whole lot has changed. Unless, you know, it's something else entirely, like Passive Regen being so high. Those 10% were passive skills though weren't they? Yes, which is arguably better since they're working even when the hardener is not. Not to mention we also had Damage Control units which allowed for even higher total resistances back then. And again, no one complained about hardeners because they were non-issue. "That little s**t Pokey..." --CCP Rattati, Biomassed Episode 032 Dust514 // Podcast & Blog www.biomassed.net
Artemis Kaiba Shadow Broker Wet Squad 80	Posted - 2015.05.05 07:05:00 - [19] - Quote Tread Loudly 2 wrote: My favorite fit for PC's has 0 hardeners of any kind..... I would actually be interested in a hardener-less fit suggestion. I've been trying several fittings on my alt but I always felt under-performing without it.
Talos Vagheitan Ancient Exiles. 1195	Posted - 2015.05.05 19:10:00 - [20] - Quote My suggestion- Increase cool down time, and slightly reduce duration. Who cares what some sniper has to say. **--CCP, let's push for the license of Dust/Legion on both current Gen consoles-



Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page