DUST Search - 'Windows of Opportunity' isnt working

Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:

Megaman Trigger wrote:

General Mosquito wrote:

You're preaching to the choir on that front.

But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective.

And that is something that needs to change, and I don't think the problem is the suit. Not entirely.

HAVs are out of balance with themselves, which needs to be addressed. Too fragile while unhardened, too resilient while hardened. Gunnlogis need something to make them a viable alternative. Both need more options in terms of modules. Buffing raw HP and/or add passive resist (hardeners would need toning down for balance with the latter) and moving Heavy Reps to active would be a start for sorting the HAVs, then shield HAVs can be looked at more and adjusted further.

Sentinels need more AV options, hell, more Heavy weapon options in general. They need a shield AV option and a shield AI weapon. Preferably bring them up to two weapons, one AV and one AI, for each race.

I would disagree that direct resilience is necessarily the problem. The problem is the constant recovery resulting in that massive resilience (on Armor Tanks), followed by a quick turn around back into combat...the problem isn't that the HAVs can take damage, it's that Damage doesn't stick to HAVs. Even shield HAVs have this problem to some degree...just without the benefit of direct resilience from it. The problem is with the Reps, not the Hardeners (although hardeners need changed from long duration/cooldown to short duration/cooldown), not the plates/extenders (although these could provide a little more HP...and not suck as much at lower tiers...or at light modules), not even necessarily the hulls/mobility (Mobility could use a bit of toning down).

Overall as I've said time and time again, it's the setup of HAVs as skirmishing oriented Attack Platforms, when they should be more like siege oriented Combat Platforms

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.14 17:07:00 - [31] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: The main problem is that the nuclear baseball is even more effective than most actual AV weapons, and can be carried even by non AV players. So you are 100% outnumbered by AV from the moment you spawn onto the map. Toning them back a tad wouldn't hurt anyone but scrubs. You know this game is screwed when a tanker is defending AV nades versus so called AV players. As a tanker, I assume every player has AV nades, and I don't get into throwing range. If they actually had them, there would be far less complaining about maddies. Clearly, the scrubs(which is 99% of the infantry players when it comes to fighting tanks) need all the help they can get, because thinking isn't their strong suit. They need more homing AV otherwise they just can't do the job. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.14 17:08:00 - [32] - Quote DRT 99 wrote: General Mosquito wrote: Jesus, you don't even know why you think tanks are OP incase i wasnt clear, let me dumb it down for you. Vehicles are weak and hardeners are overperforming. I never said tanks are OP, consider reading the OP next time. And yet, even double hardened two players can absolutely nuke a tank. So how are hardeners overperforming exactly? The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
DRT 99 RAT PATROL INC. The Empire of New Eden 533	Posted - 2015.08.14 17:17:00 - [33] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: You know this game is screwed when a tanker is defending AV nades versus so called AV players. As a tanker, I assume every player has AV nades, and I don't get into throwing range. If they actually had them, there would be far less complaining about maddies. Clearly, the scrubs(which is 99% of the infantry players when it comes to fighting tanks) need all the help they can get, because thinking isn't their strong suit. They need more homing AV otherwise they just can't do the job. "If everyone used AV, tanks wouldnt be OP" Also, you evidently missed the part where i said Half Damage, Double Capacity General Mosquito wrote: And yet, even double hardened two players can absolutely nuke a tank. So how are hardeners overperforming exactly? Well i'd say that the fact that it takes 2 people to even stand a chance at killing one double hardened tank that, ignoring hardeners, dies to three 'baseballs', is a pretty sure sign that hardeners are overperforming and vehicles without hardeners are lacking. Tell me exactly how many players you think it should take to kill a tank. This will be good.
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.14 17:34:00 - [34] - Quote DRT 99 wrote: Also, you evidently missed the part where i said Half Damage, Double Capacity Which increases their TTK, which is a non starter. I didn't miss you being an idiot, I just didn't want to come out and call you one. You really are pushing for it. DRT 99 wrote: Well i'd say that the fact that it takes 2 people to even stand a chance at killing one double hardened tank that, ignoring hardeners, dies to three 'baseballs', is a pretty sure sign that hardeners are overperforming and vehicles without hardeners are lacking. Tell me exactly how many players you think it should take to kill a tank. This will be good. 1. Not stand a chance. Two players with AV will cut right through a double hardened tank. Two players with AV nades and either swarms/forges/plc won't even have to reload. These claims that people struggle to kill a tank with 4 people are simply lies. There is literally no excuse for a tank to live with 3 people trying to kill it. 2. Having to double up on hardeners to be able to even face av isn't a sign that hardeners are overperforming. It is players resorting to the ONLY fit that allows them to engage at an objective at all. Even if they do that, and go max tank, two people can nuke it with AV nades during its hardened phase. And since the tanker has to double up to survive, it creates the unhardened opportunity to kill it. How many people to take out a tank? I have said this many, many times before, the answer is one. But not from range, and not with only a single weapon slot being used. I risk my tank by calling it out. In order to kill me, you better have to come within my killing zone so I at least have a chance to either evade, fight or die. Then again, people like you, talking about tanks without having ever driven one, of course you don't know what you are talking about. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
DRT 99 RAT PATROL INC. The Empire of New Eden 533	Posted - 2015.08.14 18:08:00 - [35] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: 2. Having to double up on hardeners to be able to even face av isn't a sign that hardeners are overperforming. It is players resorting to the ONLY fit that allows them to engage at an objective at all. This is exactly what i have been saying, when the ONLY way to have a vehicle be durable is with hardeners, theres something wrong. Im not saying 'flat out nerf hardeners' im saying 'make vehicles viable without hardeners' because the windows of opportunity gameplay isnt working
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.14 18:09:00 - [36] - Quote DRT 99 wrote: General Mosquito wrote: 2. Having to double up on hardeners to be able to even face av isn't a sign that hardeners are overperforming. It is players resorting to the ONLY fit that allows them to engage at an objective at all. This is exactly what i have been saying, when the ONLY way to have a vehicle be durable is with hardeners. And your solution is to nerf hardeners because you were dropped on your head as a child? The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
DRT 99 RAT PATROL INC. The Empire of New Eden 533	Posted - 2015.08.14 18:21:00 - [37] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: DRT 99 wrote: General Mosquito wrote: 2. Having to double up on hardeners to be able to even face av isn't a sign that hardeners are overperforming. It is players resorting to the ONLY fit that allows them to engage at an objective at all. This is exactly what i have been saying, when the ONLY way to have a vehicle be durable is with hardeners. And your solution is to nerf hardeners because you were dropped on your head as a child? What im saying is that vehicles are underperforming unless hardeners are involved - people are FORCED To use hardeners in order to be viable, which kills variety in fittings. Theres like 2 viable loadouts for a maddies low slots. both involve 2 hardeners. What im saying is make vehicles viable without hardeners. Does that involve a hardener nerf? yes. does it involve some other buffs? also yes.
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.14 18:25:00 - [38] - Quote DRT 99 wrote: What im saying is that vehicles are underperforming unless hardeners are involved - people are FORCED To use hardeners in order to be viable, which kills variety in fittings. Theres like 2 viable loadouts for a maddies low slots. both involve 2 hardeners. What im saying is make vehicles viable without hardeners. Does that involve a hardener nerf? yes. does it involve some other buffs? also yes. We are not going to get ANOTHER total vehicle rework with this game. So keep asking for what will never happen I guess. You are better off learning to not suck at AV, that might be possible. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
DRT 99 RAT PATROL INC. The Empire of New Eden 534	Posted - 2015.08.14 19:45:00 - [39] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: You are better off learning to not suck at AV, that might be possible. youre contributing nothing to the discussion other than insuls. if youre going to provide reasonable criticism, do so, if youre going to suggest an alternative, im listening, otherwise stop spkring all over the thread.
DUST Fiend 17	Posted - 2015.08.14 19:54:00 - [40] - Quote DRT 99 wrote: General Mosquito wrote: You are better off learning to not suck at AV, that might be possible. youre contributing nothing to the discussion other than insuls. if youre going to provide reasonable criticism, do so, if youre going to suggest an alternative, im listening, otherwise stop spkring all over the thread. I think his point is that without an adequate dev team or resources, asking for fixes or changes at this point is less productive than just figuring out how to handle it with what currently exists. I am a beautiful space manatee, flying through the sky with the greatest of ease Swarms *everywhere. WoD 514*

General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.14 19:59:00 - [41] - Quote DRT 99 wrote: General Mosquito wrote: You are better off learning to not suck at AV, that might be possible. youre contributing nothing to the discussion other than insuls. if youre going to provide reasonable criticism, do so, if youre going to suggest an alternative, im listening, otherwise stop spkring all over the thread. My contribution is to correct the blatant lies and hyperbole coming from the crybaby av'ers. I'm sure you would love it if no one ever pointed out that you are wrong, or bad. That isn't the real world though sparky. In the real world, fools get mocked and idiots get told to mind their tongues. Keep singing those stories about needing a whole squad to take out a tank, and I'll still be around to point out that it isn't true. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.14 20:00:00 - [42] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: DRT 99 wrote: What im saying is that vehicles are underperforming unless hardeners are involved - people are FORCED To use hardeners in order to be viable, which kills variety in fittings. Theres like 2 viable loadouts for a maddies low slots. both involve 2 hardeners. What im saying is make vehicles viable without hardeners. Does that involve a hardener nerf? yes. does it involve some other buffs? also yes. We are not going to get ANOTHER total vehicle rework with this game. So keep asking for what will never happen I guess. You are better off learning to not suck at AV, that might be possible. Depends whether or not you know how to suggest the changes that are the low-hanging fruit to make V/AV balance work. But the thing tanks need is a purpose that isn't simply ROLL ROLL ROLL ROLL PEW PEW INFANTRY DIE!!! WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Megaman Trigger Ready to Play 436	Posted - 2015.08.14 20:04:00 - [43] - Quote Buff raw HP for a HAVs primary tank and maybe return passive resistance skills and plates, tone down Active Hardeners, move Heavy Reps to Active rather than Passive (keep light reps as Passive or introduce native reps) Would that be a balance, or at least a start, both sides could agree on or work from? Purifier. First Class.
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.14 20:08:00 - [44] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Depends whether or not you know how to suggest the changes that are the low-hanging fruit to make V/AV balance work. But the thing tanks need is a purpose that isn't simply ROLL ROLL ROLL ROLL PEW PEW INFANTRY DIE!!! Small changes are one thing. Tweak av damage, slow tanks down, adjust turret rotation, are all possible as low hanging changes. All would be viable for discussion. None of the crybaby threads ever approach that idea though. Its always nerf hardeners, nerf hardeners, nerf hardeners. They want that because it will destroy the maddie as a viable option to play in. Which is seemingly the only goal of these types of threads. "I can't kill a hardened tank by myself in less than 5 seconds! This is not fair!" is not a valid argument for tanks being op. There will never be another roll for tanks in this game. No one in PC uses them for transport, and a 3 man tank team is a virtual steamroller in pubs. People don't spawn on tank CRUs when you are sitting by an undefended flag, so it isn't like making them roaming crus works either. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
Pocket Rocket Girl Psygod9 502	Posted - 2015.08.14 20:28:00 - [45] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Depends whether or not you know how to suggest the changes that are the low-hanging fruit to make V/AV balance work. But the thing tanks need is a purpose that isn't simply ROLL ROLL ROLL ROLL PEW PEW INFANTRY DIE!!! Small changes are one thing. Tweak av damage, slow tanks down, adjust turret rotation, are all possible as low hanging changes. All would be viable for discussion. None of the crybaby threads ever approach that idea though. Its always nerf hardeners, nerf hardeners, nerf hardeners. They want that because it will destroy the maddie as a viable option to play in. Which is seemingly the only goal of these types of threads. "I can't kill a hardened tank by myself in less than 5 seconds! This is not fair!" is not a valid argument for tanks being op. There will never be another roll for tanks in this game. No one in PC uses them for transport, and a 3 man tank team is a virtual steamroller in pubs. People don't spawn on tank CRUs when you are sitting by an undefended flag, so it isn't like making them roaming crus works either. can you please link a nurf tank thread that has been made with in the last 6 months? Have garbage gun game? Throw a Core.
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.14 20:56:00 - [46] - Quote Pocket Rocket Girl wrote: can you please link a nurf tank thread that has been made with in the last 6 months? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=208479 The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
Pocket Rocket Girl Psygod9 502	Posted - 2015.08.14 21:19:00 - [47] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: Pocket Rocket Girl wrote: can you please link a nurf tank thread that has been made with in the last 6 months? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=208479 dam how far back did you have to go?(page wise i went about 15) I admit you got me on that one now comparing how many nurf tanks threads to AV is OP why do you call AVer crybabies? when its the tankers crying. Have garbage gun game? Throw a Core.
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.14 21:36:00 - [48] - Quote Pocket Rocket Girl wrote: General Mosquito wrote: Pocket Rocket Girl wrote: can you please link a nurf tank thread that has been made with in the last 6 months? https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=208479 dam how far back did you have to go?(page wise i went about 15) I admit you got me on that one now comparing how many nurf tanks threads to AV is OP why do you call AVer crybabies? when its the tankers crying. I call av'ers crybabies because every time I try to kill a tank with AV, I do it. It isn't difficult, it doesn't take me and 5 friends. I just do what is necessary, and poof, no more tank. If I can do it in a scout suit with std av and proto nades and less than 3 million SP in suits, there is no excuse for anyone else to not be able to do it. Especially since I don't even use the easy mode minmando setup that allows you to never even be at risk. Learn to spell and type, unless you like people thinking you are a re.tarded 14 year old girl who flunked out of 1st grade. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
Megaman Trigger Ready to Play 440	Posted - 2015.08.14 23:22:00 - [49] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: If I can do it in a scout suit with std av and proto nades and less than 3 million SP in suits, there is no excuse for anyone else to not be able to do it. As an AV Sentinel, I have to disagree with this statement, is only because Commandos can't use AV Grenades and because our (Sentinel) fat asses can't get close to a HAV unless it comes to us. The Forge is also slower to charge than a Plasma Cannon and hits for less Alpha, so even if we did get close, 3 'nades and a charge shot may not drop the tank Purifier. First Class.
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.14 23:27:00 - [50] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: As an AV Sentinel, I have to disagree with this statement, is only because Commandos can't use AV Grenades and because our (Sentinel) fat asses can't get close to a HAV unless it comes to us. The Forge is also slower to charge than a Plasma Cannon and hits for less Alpha, so even if we did get close, 3 'nades and a charge shot may not drop the tank Here is the thing: You are not your dropsuit, and your dropsuit is not a fixed role. If your goal is to destroy a tank, you should use what works, not what you want to work. I always thought that the heavy should be the primary AV unit, but CCP clearly thinks differently. I don't make the rules, but I do intend to win within them. Playing to win matters more than trying to respect your SP investment. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu

Blood Immortal Bank of DUST 514 23	Posted - 2015.08.14 23:48:00 - [51] - Quote A tank with 1 harder on is easy to kill, it takes 2 to survive even 1 swarm unless you hit nitro and run at first shot.
Megaman Trigger Ready to Play 441	Posted - 2015.08.14 23:49:00 - [52] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: As an AV Sentinel, I have to disagree with this statement, is only because Commandos can't use AV Grenades and because our (Sentinel) fat asses can't get close to a HAV unless it comes to us. The Forge is also slower to charge than a Plasma Cannon and hits for less Alpha, so even if we did get close, 3 'nades and a charge shot may not drop the tank Here is the thing: You are not your dropsuit, and your dropsuit is not a fixed role. If your goal is to destroy a tank, you should use what works, not what you want to work. I always thought that the heavy should be the primary AV unit, but CCP clearly thinks differently. I don't make the rules, but I do intend to win within them. Playing to win matters more than trying to respect your SP investment. Which makes an entire class obsolete and pointless. What's the point of Heavy weapons if Light weapons do the job better? Why have Sentinels if Assaults and Scouts can perform their role just as well, if not better? Forge Guns should be a viable option for taking down HAVs, as should non-Minmatar/Caldari Commandos. Gunnlogi should b a viable HAV choice. If the only viable AV fit is Plasma Cannon and AV Grenades on a Light/Scout frame, then there's an issue, just like if the only viable HAV fit is double hardened Madruger. If there's no other options, for either AV or HAV, then there's a serious issue. Purifier. First Class.
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 283	Posted - 2015.08.15 01:37:00 - [53] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: General Mosquito wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: As an AV Sentinel, I have to disagree with this statement, is only because Commandos can't use AV Grenades and because our (Sentinel) fat asses can't get close to a HAV unless it comes to us. The Forge is also slower to charge than a Plasma Cannon and hits for less Alpha, so even if we did get close, 3 'nades and a charge shot may not drop the tank Here is the thing: You are not your dropsuit, and your dropsuit is not a fixed role. If your goal is to destroy a tank, you should use what works, not what you want to work. I always thought that the heavy should be the primary AV unit, but CCP clearly thinks differently. I don't make the rules, but I do intend to win within them. Playing to win matters more than trying to respect your SP investment. Which makes an entire class obsolete and pointless. What's the point of Heavy weapons if Light weapons do the job better? Why have Sentinels if Assaults and Scouts can perform their role just as well, if not better? Forge Guns should be a viable option for taking down HAVs, as should non-Minmatar/Caldari Commandos. Gunnlogi should b a viable HAV choice. If the only viable AV fit is Plasma Cannon and AV Grenades on a Light/Scout frame, then there's an issue, just like if the only viable HAV fit is double hardened Madruger. If there's no other options, for either AV or HAV, then there's a serious issue. You're preaching to the choir on that front. But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
Megaman Trigger Ready to Play 441	Posted - 2015.08.15 02:06:00 - [54] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: You're preaching to the choir on that front. But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective. And that is something that needs to change, and I don't think the problem is the suit. Not entirely. HAVs are out of balance with themselves, which needs to be addressed. Too fragile while unhardened, too resilient while hardened. Gunnlogis need something to make them a viable alternative. Both need more options in terms of modules. Buffing raw HP and/or add passive resist (hardeners would need toning down for balance with the latter) and moving Heavy Reps to active would be a start for sorting the HAVs, then shield HAVs can be looked at more and adjusted further. Sentinels need more AV options, hell, more Heavy weapon options in general. They need a shield AV option and a shield AI weapon. Preferably bring them up to two weapons, one AV and one AI, for each race. Purifier. First Class.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 12	Posted - 2015.08.15 04:17:00 - [55] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: Maken Tosch wrote: Once the mode is activated you can't move, you can't take in any remote repairs from another player, the mode does nothing to your damage output, and you can't manually deactivate until the timer runs its course. Actually, Bastion gives you a 25% boost to falloff and missile velocity, which does affect damage output. Hmm... I never knew that. Eve Online Invite https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 370	Posted - 2015.08.15 04:36:00 - [56] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: General Mosquito wrote: You're preaching to the choir on that front. But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective. And that is something that needs to change, and I don't think the problem is the suit. Not entirely. HAVs are out of balance with themselves, which needs to be addressed. Too fragile while unhardened, too resilient while hardened. Gunnlogis need something to make them a viable alternative. Both need more options in terms of modules. Buffing raw HP and/or add passive resist (hardeners would need toning down for balance with the latter) and moving Heavy Reps to active would be a start for sorting the HAVs, then shield HAVs can be looked at more and adjusted further. Sentinels need more AV options, hell, more Heavy weapon options in general. They need a shield AV option and a shield AI weapon. Preferably bring them up to two weapons, one AV and one AI, for each race. I would disagree that direct resilience is necessarily the problem. The problem is the constant recovery resulting in that massive resilience (on Armor Tanks), followed by a quick turn around back into combat...the problem isn't that the HAVs can take damage, it's that Damage doesn't stick to HAVs. Even shield HAVs have this problem to some degree...just without the benefit of direct resilience from it. The problem is with the Reps, not the Hardeners (although hardeners need changed from long duration/cooldown to short duration/cooldown), not the plates/extenders (although these could provide a little more HP...and not suck as much at lower tiers...or at light modules), not even necessarily the hulls/mobility (Mobility could use a bit of toning down). Overall as I've said time and time again, it's the setup of HAVs as skirmishing oriented Attack Platforms, when they should be more like siege oriented Combat Platforms Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper.
Megaman Trigger Ready to Play 442	Posted - 2015.08.15 11:29:00 - [57] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: General Mosquito wrote: You're preaching to the choir on that front. But ask yourself, do I want to destroy tanks or wear a fat suit? If you want to destroy vehicles, the fat suit is not the most effective. And that is something that needs to change, and I don't think the problem is the suit. Not entirely. HAVs are out of balance with themselves, which needs to be addressed. Too fragile while unhardened, too resilient while hardened. Gunnlogis need something to make them a viable alternative. Both need more options in terms of modules. Buffing raw HP and/or add passive resist (hardeners would need toning down for balance with the latter) and moving Heavy Reps to active would be a start for sorting the HAVs, then shield HAVs can be looked at more and adjusted further. Sentinels need more AV options, hell, more Heavy weapon options in general. They need a shield AV option and a shield AI weapon. Preferably bring them up to two weapons, one AV and one AI, for each race. I would disagree that direct resilience is necessarily the problem. The problem is the constant recovery resulting in that massive resilience (on Armor Tanks), followed by a quick turn around back into combat...the problem isn't that the HAVs can take damage, it's that Damage doesn't stick to HAVs. Even shield HAVs have this problem to some degree...just without the benefit of direct resilience from it. The problem is with the Reps, not the Hardeners (although hardeners need changed from long duration/cooldown to short duration/cooldown), not the plates/extenders (although these could provide a little more HP...and not suck as much at lower tiers...or at light modules), not even necessarily the hulls/mobility (Mobility could use a bit of toning down). Overall as I've said time and time again, it's the setup of HAVs as skirmishing oriented Attack Platforms, when they should be more like siege oriented Combat Platforms Hardeners may not be the problem by themselves, but the combination of Hardeners and Passive Reps is. Separately neither is that big an issue, and in fact are likely working as intended, but when combined the result is invinsi-tank. As you said, damage just doesn't stick. Tankers have said, and I can agree, that without Hardeners a HAV is too fragile. So buff the HP for the hulls. If that's not enough, a small passive resistance can be added and Active Hardeners reduced to balance. Make it attractive, or at least viable, to run HP over resistance. Active Reps definitely need to a thing again. Fuel Injector needs a rework when combined with Hardeners to stop instant acceleration the moment things go south. Perhaps activating a Hardener reduces acceleration and top speed, much like fitting a plate, due the Hardeners making the armour much denser and heavier. Or it can be a result of high power drain. Purifier. First Class.
Kierkegaard Soren Eridani Light Horse Battalion 913	Posted - 2015.08.15 12:52:00 - [58] - Quote Just wanted to poke my nose in here and add to the relatively small chorus of opinion that's pinpointing the mobility of tanks as the real culprit to our current issues. I am absolutely fine with tanks being able to withstand a tremendous amount of sustained fire when hardners are active, it's an attribute that no other suit or vehicle should possess. Tanks are line-breakers, and they should be fierce. However, it's there ability to GTFO once the situation gets too hot that's making them OP; essentially, a hardened maddy has very little risk of losing because of the speed at which it can accelerate, even in reverse. Top-line speed is about right -tanks should be more mobile than infantry by default- but there NEEDS to be a strong element of pilots considering what they're getting themselves into every time they commit to a firefight, lest they run into a firefight that will overwhelm thier defenses before they can retreat to repair. Ideally, reps should be an activated module, acceleration should be reduced, reverse gear top speed should be reduced, and turning speed should be increased to compensate, so good tankers can use thier skills and good judgement to best effect without making AV redundant. Dedicated Commando. "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."
General Mosquito Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 284	Posted - 2015.08.15 14:36:00 - [59] - Quote Kierkegaard Soren wrote: but there NEEDS to be a strong element of pilots considering what they're getting themselves into every time they commit to a firefight, lest they run into a firefight that will overwhelm thier defenses before they can retreat to repair. This already happens with tankers who actually survive. The Attorney General - Mr. Hybrid Vayu
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 10	Posted - 2015.08.15 14:42:00 - [60] - Quote General Mosquito wrote: Kierkegaard Soren wrote: but there NEEDS to be a strong element of pilots considering what they're getting themselves into every time they commit to a firefight, lest they run into a firefight that will overwhelm thier defenses before they can retreat to repair. This already happens with tankers who actually survive. Yeah but right now it's entirely too easy for idiots to be lazy and still profit. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page