DUST Search - Tanks rule, infantry drool

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Tanks rule, infantry drool

» 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)
Text Grant PIanet Express 442	Posted - 2015.11.14 05:25:00 - [1] - Quote I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. Ways to fix since I put this here... 1 keep tanks strong, but take away their acceleration 2 make tanks weak, but keep the acceleration. 3 add dispertion to all hybrid large turrets, and nerf the range on them. Hey, let me know if any of these things happen so I can actually enjoy a game not based on tank vs tank warfare only.
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 2	Posted - 2015.11.14 05:55:00 - [2] - Quote Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. . I think you are not aiming for a realistic balanced situation, at all. The underlined part sounds an awful lot like: Quote: Until any AV'er can kill 1 tanker Even if you mean maximized proto AV vs maximized proto tank and not lesser AV variations, that is not good gameplay balance. The reason why that is broken balance is that if in all theoretical 1v1 scenarios (impossible btw) both tank and infantryman are "on balance", the tank gets absolutely wrecked, instagibbed and all totaled if two infantrymen casually open fire together. Let's face it: infantry, dropships, tanks (and even scouts and sentinels) play differently. KERO-TRADER is my official Eve character for Dust trading. Search "KEROBPO" for list of bpos for sale.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2015.11.14 10:33:00 - [3] - Quote Basically you want to go back to the times when 1 AV player could effectively shutdown 6 vehicles by themselves and destroy them without ever fearing a retaliation by said vehicle pilots. Add in a second AV player and there is no more room or even a role for the vehicle because infantry can do it better anyways. This is why the 1v1 argument is flawed, at least with a vehicle in the days when my blaster was accurate and not RBS based infantry could still hide from my massive vehicle and ambush me using areas i cannot get to but infantry can get everywhere and attack from everywhere and if 1AV can kill a vehicle no problem like a HAV then every other vehicle such as the ADS/LAV will get hammered even quicker. Just admit you want to delete vehicles from the game. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Text Grant PIanet Express 442	Posted - 2015.11.14 10:36:00 - [4] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Basically you want to go back to the times when 1 AV player could effectively shutdown 6 vehicles by themselves and destroy them without ever fearing a retaliation by said vehicle pilots. Add in a second AV player and there is no more room or even a role for the vehicle because infantry can do it better anyways. This is why the 1v1 argument is flawed, at least with a vehicle in the days when my blaster was accurate and not RBS based infantry could still hide from my massive vehicle and ambush me using areas i cannot get to but infantry can get everywhere and attack from everywhere and if 1AV can kill a vehicle no problem like a HAV then every other vehicle such as the ADS/LAV will get hammered even quicker. Just admit you want to delete vehicles from the game. Can you read?
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. 4	Posted - 2015.11.14 11:41:00 - [5] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Basically you want to go back to the times when 1 AV player could effectively shutdown 6 vehicles by themselves and destroy them without ever fearing a retaliation by said vehicle pilots. Add in a second AV player and there is no more room or even a role for the vehicle because infantry can do it better anyways. This is why the 1v1 argument is flawed, at least with a vehicle in the days when my blaster was accurate and not RBS based infantry could still hide from my massive vehicle and ambush me using areas i cannot get to but infantry can get everywhere and attack from everywhere and if 1AV can kill a vehicle no problem like a HAV then every other vehicle such as the ADS/LAV will get hammered even quicker. Just admit you want to delete vehicles from the game. Can you read? Bottom line is you want 1v1 and i just explained why you cannot have 1v1. Just ask CCP to remove vehicles for you because that is what essentially will happen anyways if 1v1 comes into play. CCP Rattati - "One giant vehicle nerf with more power to AV", you have got to be kidding...''
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.11.14 14:37:00 - [6] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. . I think you are not aiming for a realistic balanced situation, at all. The underlined part sounds an awful lot like: Quote: Until any AV'er can kill 1 tanker Even if you mean maximized proto AV vs maximized proto tank and not lesser AV variations, that is not good gameplay balance. The reason why that is broken balance is that if in all theoretical 1v1 scenarios (impossible btw) both tank and infantryman are "on balance", the tank gets absolutely wrecked, instagibbed and all totaled if two infantrymen casually open fire together. Let's face it: infantry, dropships, tanks (and even scouts and sentinels) play differently. I understand your point, but at the same time this point can be boiled down 'Tanks shouldn't be able to be killed 1v1 because then when they get into a 2v1 situation they are fcked'. Which is the same scenario for every other non-vehicle player on the field. 2v1 with equivalent gear and the 1 is in trouble. It's not an even analogy because of the differences between infantry and vehicle combat, but the fact is that you can currently have people soloing in a fitting that cannot be killed by another player soloing in a fitting meant to counter the first. And with hardeners in their current state a solo Av player is better off trying to avoid a hardner stacked tank because they will accomplish nothing more than drawing it's attention to them. At best, scaring it away for a few seconds. The meta is broken and needs fixing. I'm not advocating any particular action, but in the end vehicles need to be able to be killed in a 1v1 fight. añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ "Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1	Posted - 2015.11.14 19:25:00 - [7] - Quote Text Grant wrote: 1 keep tanks strong, but take away their acceleration This is actually reasonable, the only real issue with it being the dumb Myofib + AV nade douchebaggery that will inevitably kill any HAVs if they go too far (and this is CCP we're talking about, so they'd definitely go too far...) But yeah, reducing HAV acceleration down, little bits at a time until they are in a balanced place would help the situation an immense amount. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
THUNDERGROOVE Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 2	Posted - 2015.11.14 22:01:00 - [8] - Quote Is it fun? The enemies of God stand broken before us. The light of the Reclaiming shines over them! 12/13/14 Never forget
XT11 TU53 Fire Star 8th battalion 20	Posted - 2015.11.15 01:58:00 - [9] - Quote I can 1v1 a tank most of the time. from militia tanks to GV.0's they get demolished. Though, I die in the process as well. ~15,000 dmg in a single hit. The balance of this is that a scout with no mods and an SMG can one shot me. SMG>Me>Tank>SMG, I think that fits... Caldari: "Get railed" Amarr: "I'ma firin' my laser, Blaaah!" Minmatar: "Here comes the BOOM!" Galente: "Got my eyes on U
Derpty Derp Dead Man's Game 1	Posted - 2015.11.15 17:27:00 - [10] - Quote Yes tanks need looking at, badly... Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas Oh nvm, you're just a really bad aver then.

luckyireland Mcalpines Fusiliers 61	Posted - 2015.11.15 22:28:00 - [11] - Quote Give forge gunz back there range, Please. I'm happy go lucky
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.11.15 22:40:00 - [12] - Quote luckyireland wrote: Give forge gunz back there range, Please. Blaster Turrets want their range back not to mention Railguns. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Nothing Certain Pervy Sages 1	Posted - 2015.11.16 01:09:00 - [13] - Quote Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. Ways to fix since I put this here... 1 keep tanks strong, but take away their acceleration 2 make tanks weak, but keep the acceleration. 3 add dispertion to all hybrid large turrets, and nerf the range on them. Hey, let me know if any of these things happen so I can actually enjoy a game not based on tank vs tank warfare only. I reaaly don't get this, vehicle/AV balance is in a good place, if anything vehicles could use a small buff with the exception of the hardened Maddy. That is pretty much broken, a swarm user has no effect on it. They can eat all your swarms and Lai Dai's and just roll up on to you. Good tankers are hard to kill but sometimes they get too cocky because they are almost invulnerable. Because, that's why.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1	Posted - 2015.11.16 02:59:00 - [14] - Quote True Adamance wrote: luckyireland wrote: Give forge gunz back there range, Please. Blaster Turrets want their range back not to mention Railguns. Railguns can have their range back as soon as it's not possible for them to sit 200m in the redline and still massively affect vehicles across most of all maps... Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
Richard Gamerich-R Capital Acquisitions LLC 159	Posted - 2015.11.16 05:21:00 - [15] - Quote Don't forget, proto tank cost 1 200 000 ISK, your suit max 130 000. Balance tank/AV is good, if you play in coordinate squad, no vehicle can run as they want. Wait I'm restocking... // DUST 514 - Get Rekt: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLx9VURwhIB1N2kNbg6hFCiRMhJ07e041L
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.11.16 07:22:00 - [16] - Quote Richard Gamerich-R wrote: Don't forget, proto tank cost 1 200 000 ISK, your suit max 130 000. Balance tank/AV is good, if you play in coordinate squad, no vehicle can run as they want. So you're saying that a solo player in a tank is counterable by an entire squad. Yep, sounds totally balanced to me. añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ *"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
Moochie Cricket Fatal Absolution Bleeding Sun Conglomerate 1	Posted - 2015.11.16 18:57:00 - [17] - Quote Lai Dai packed av nades are your friend Caldari REALLY 514
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.11.16 20:18:00 - [18] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: Don't forget, proto tank cost 1 200 000 ISK, your suit max 130 000. Balance tank/AV is good, if you play in coordinate squad, no vehicle can run as they want. So you're saying that a solo player in a tank is counterable by an entire squad. Yep, sounds totally balanced to me. It's not but he does have a point. A major aspect of HAV and vehicular game play is their disproportionally high upkeeps over time. If an HAV designed to be quickly destroyed by individual AVers they should see the costs of their modules and hulls reduced. At present they are difficult to kill and thus the costs to outfit one is very high. That all being said HAV have not been representative of tanks in DUST 514 at any point in their history due to a combination of woefully inappropriate turret options, poor design changes for armour modules, and a lack of emphasis on vehicle positioning. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.11.17 08:11:00 - [19] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: Don't forget, proto tank cost 1 200 000 ISK, your suit max 130 000. Balance tank/AV is good, if you play in coordinate squad, no vehicle can run as they want. So you're saying that a solo player in a tank is counterable by an entire squad. Yep, sounds totally balanced to me. It's not but he does have a point. A major aspect of HAV and vehicular game play is their disproportionally high upkeeps over time. If an HAV designed to be quickly destroyed by individual AVers they should see the costs of their modules and hulls reduced. At present they are difficult to kill and thus the costs to outfit one is very high. That all being said HAV have not been representative of tanks in DUST 514 at any point in their history due to a combination of woefully inappropriate turret options, poor design changes for armour modules, and a lack of emphasis on vehicle positioning. The point that cost per death isn't equal is a given, I've never argued that point. I would honestly rather tanks be completely free and be uber killing machines that die in 2 shots at this point though. People playing the cost per death card like it means that makes it balanced and that gets under my skin. Regardless of ISK price, 1 ISK or 1,000,000 ISK, if one player running gear specifically made to shut down what you are running can't kill you without a squad of coordinated teammates who aren't busy dodging bullets from other sources, then there's a gameplay imbalance. I agree with every point you make on tanks True, you're in fact the only tanker on these forums that I can easily agree with on a regular basis and you have been so for years. I just get frustrated with the rest of them who keep repeating the same tired old talking points rather than putting effort into trying to get a proper balance going. I don't want tanks to be useless but I want a fair fight between them and AV. Maybe some day.... añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ *"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.11.17 21:57:00 - [20] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: True Adamance wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: Don't forget, proto tank cost 1 200 000 ISK, your suit max 130 000. Balance tank/AV is good, if you play in coordinate squad, no vehicle can run as they want. So you're saying that a solo player in a tank is counterable by an entire squad. Yep, sounds totally balanced to me. It's not but he does have a point. A major aspect of HAV and vehicular game play is their disproportionally high upkeeps over time. If an HAV designed to be quickly destroyed by individual AVers they should see the costs of their modules and hulls reduced. At present they are difficult to kill and thus the costs to outfit one is very high. That all being said HAV have not been representative of tanks in DUST 514 at any point in their history due to a combination of woefully inappropriate turret options, poor design changes for armour modules, and a lack of emphasis on vehicle positioning. The point that cost per death isn't equal is a given, I've never argued that point. I would honestly rather tanks be completely free and be uber killing machines that die in 2 shots at this point though. People playing the cost per death card like it means that makes it balanced and that gets under my skin. Regardless of ISK price, 1 ISK or 1,000,000 ISK, if one player running gear specifically made to shut down what you are running can't kill you without a squad of coordinated teammates who aren't busy dodging bullets from other sources, then there's a gameplay imbalance. I agree with every point you make on tanks True, you're in fact the only tanker on these forums that I can easily agree with on a regular basis and you have been so for years. I just get frustrated with the rest of them who keep repeating the same tired old talking points rather than putting effort into trying to get a proper balance going. I don't want tanks to be useless but I want a fair fight between them and AV. Maybe some day.... To be honest I wouldn't mind HAV being more susceptible to AV fire if there were various additional modules including active counter measures, target jamming arrays, scan suppressing armour coatings, and various other odds and ends most prominent amongst them would be a powerful main gun with AoE explosive power and the ability to either switch (like a side arm) to a Co-axial Small Turret or Cuppola Mounted Small Turret. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.

THEAMAZING POTHEAD Nyain San 1	Posted - 2015.11.18 03:34:00 - [21] - Quote Commandos means theres always 3-7 swarms near every red berry furball. Until theres not an average 4 av'ers every game that can insta pop everything that comes near them, you cant talk about 1v1 balance. In chrome a proto aver could solo maxed out tanks but it wasnt a huge problem because there was only 1 or 2 proto avers ever in a game, and redline rail gunnys kept other tanks, in redlines anyways. I'd have no problem with proto av 1v1 killing tanks if tere weren't 4 on average each game. Your post is making me facepalm. ò.ó Nyan!~~=[,,..,,]:3 Nyain SanGäó (rated ® for rape) is currently accepting hatemails.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.11.18 15:32:00 - [22] - Quote THEAMAZING POTHEAD wrote: Commandos means theres always 3-7 swarms near every red berry furball. Until theres not an average 4 av'ers every game that can insta pop everything that comes near them, you cant talk about 1v1 balance. In chrome a proto aver could solo maxed out tanks but it wasnt a huge problem because there was only 1 or 2 proto avers ever in a game, and redline rail gunnys kept other tanks, in redlines anyways. I'd have no problem with proto av 1v1 killing tanks if tere weren't 4 on average each game. And who did you get that info from? Any time I play I do so with my girlfriend and we're the only 2 AV players in the entire match 9 times out of ten because most people these days would rather avoid the triple hardened fortresses trying to camp them rather than attempt to fight them alone. But just like your little tale, mine is purely annecdotal as well and has no bearing on the average match. añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ *"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.11.18 15:42:00 - [23] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: True Adamance wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: Don't forget, proto tank cost 1 200 000 ISK, your suit max 130 000. Balance tank/AV is good, if you play in coordinate squad, no vehicle can run as they want. So you're saying that a solo player in a tank is counterable by an entire squad. Yep, sounds totally balanced to me. It's not but he does have a point. A major aspect of HAV and vehicular game play is their disproportionally high upkeeps over time. If an HAV designed to be quickly destroyed by individual AVers they should see the costs of their modules and hulls reduced. At present they are difficult to kill and thus the costs to outfit one is very high. That all being said HAV have not been representative of tanks in DUST 514 at any point in their history due to a combination of woefully inappropriate turret options, poor design changes for armour modules, and a lack of emphasis on vehicle positioning. The point that cost per death isn't equal is a given, I've never argued that point. I would honestly rather tanks be completely free and be uber killing machines that die in 2 shots at this point though. People playing the cost per death card like it means that makes it balanced and that gets under my skin. Regardless of ISK price, 1 ISK or 1,000,000 ISK, if one player running gear specifically made to shut down what you are running can't kill you without a squad of coordinated teammates who aren't busy dodging bullets from other sources, then there's a gameplay imbalance. I agree with every point you make on tanks True, you're in fact the only tanker on these forums that I can easily agree with on a regular basis and you have been so for years. I just get frustrated with the rest of them who keep repeating the same tired old talking points rather than putting effort into trying to get a proper balance going. I don't want tanks to be useless but I want a fair fight between them and AV. Maybe some day.... To be honest I wouldn't mind HAV being more susceptible to AV fire if there were various additional modules including active counter measures, target jamming arrays, scan suppressing armour coatings, and various other odds and ends most prominent amongst them would be a powerful main gun with AoE explosive power and the ability to either switch (like a side arm) to a Co-axial Small Turret or Cuppola Mounted Small Turret. I wouldn't either, but the chances of that any time soon is about as likely as Jesus appearing on TV's worldwide and announcing he's gay. Given our current structure and what we are able to work with, the only path I can see as making them properly balanced is to give them a massive (and I mean massive) price reduction, crank back the clocks on their turrets so they are uber killing machines again, cut their speed, increase their base eHp by a bit, find a fix for hardner stacking (I personally like the idea of Flux grenades resetting all active modules or locking them for x# of seconds since that cuts out the commando suit soloer and makes other suits give up their AV grenades, but haven't thought it through enough to tell if that would be over the top) and move on from there. However that's almost just as likely as your proposition, for the same reasons that we'll likely never be rid of the stupid jumpy assholes: the tears of the addicts. The ones who refuse to give a little of their power up for the betterment of the game... But we'll see. I'd be thrilled to have deeper V v AV combat, but I'm not too hopeful. añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ *"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
Tebu Gan Capital Acquisitions LLC 1	Posted - 2015.11.18 16:37:00 - [24] - Quote Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. Ways to fix since I put this here... 1 keep tanks strong, but take away their acceleration 2 make tanks weak, but keep the acceleration. 3 add dispertion to all hybrid large turrets, and nerf the range on them. Hey, let me know if any of these things happen so I can actually enjoy a game not based on tank vs tank warfare only. I honestly feel sorry for you. It take a lot to admit a fault like this. "I can't kill a well built soma with AV" man I'm sooo sorry dude. Best advice I can give you, Get Gud. Maybe try pulling out some proto AV and mix it up with some AV nades. I though generally just sneezed in a MLT tanks general direction and watched a pretty explosion back when I played. Maybe try a different game that isn't nearly as difficult, like Yoshi's Island.
Text Grant PIanet Express 442	Posted - 2015.11.18 22:25:00 - [25] - Quote THEAMAZING POTHEAD wrote: Commandos means theres always 3-7 swarms near every red berry furball. Until theres not an average 4 av'ers every game that can insta pop everything that comes near them, you cant talk about 1v1 balance. In chrome a proto aver could solo maxed out tanks but it wasnt a huge problem because there was only 1 or 2 proto avers ever in a game, and redline rail gunnys kept other tanks, in redlines anyways. I'd have no problem with proto av 1v1 killing tanks if tere weren't 4 on average each game. I wish I could survive when 4 infantry came after me. Lol
Richard Gamerich-R Capital Acquisitions LLC 162	Posted - 2015.11.19 05:04:00 - [26] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: Don't forget, proto tank cost 1 200 000 ISK, your suit max 130 000. Balance tank/AV is good, if you play in coordinate squad, no vehicle can run as they want. So you're saying that a solo player in a tank is counterable by an entire squad. Yep, sounds totally balanced to me. Yep, time to destroy a tank and kill a pilot, 15s. Time to recall a tank and to be again effective, +1min. During this interval, many ways to the AV team to do others things. And excuse me, but loose 5mil in ISK after 3 looses, it's not fun at all, even you have many ISK. The wallet is not iinfinite. Wait I'm restocking... // DUST 514 - Get Rekt: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLx9VURwhIB1N2kNbg6hFCiRMhJ07e041L
Richard Gamerich-R Capital Acquisitions LLC 162	Posted - 2015.11.19 05:12:00 - [27] - Quote Moreover, I know people who don't have any problems to destroy a tank. Last WE, I loose 3mil ISK just against 2 commando swarm and 1 FG. And except the FG, commandos didn't have difficulties to help on the field. In short, play well in squad, and there is not problem. The real problem is the tank spam, for me 2 tanks max on the field, not more. Wait I'm restocking... // DUST 514 - Get Rekt: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLx9VURwhIB1N2kNbg6hFCiRMhJ07e041L
THEAMAZING POTHEAD Nyain San 1	Posted - 2015.11.19 07:11:00 - [28] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: THEAMAZING POTHEAD wrote: Commandos means theres always 3-7 swarms near every red berry furball. Until theres not an average 4 av'ers every game that can insta pop everything that comes near them, you cant talk about 1v1 balance. In chrome a proto aver could solo maxed out tanks but it wasnt a huge problem because there was only 1 or 2 proto avers ever in a game, and redline rail gunnys kept other tanks, in redlines anyways. I'd have no problem with proto av 1v1 killing tanks if tere weren't 4 on average each game. And who did you get that info from? Any time I play I do so with my girlfriend and we're the only 2 AV players in the entire match 9 times out of ten because most people these days would rather avoid the triple hardened fortresses trying to camp them rather than attempt to fight them alone. But just like your little tale, mine is purely annecdotal as well and has no bearing on the average match. Instead of using av and following a tank after its running away, then saying you dont see any av- pull out a tank, see how long you last, and see if you can get over 5 kills with it. Your post is making me facepalm. ò.ó Nyan!~~=[,,..,,]:3 Nyain SanGäó (rated ® for rape) is currently accepting hatemails.
Text Grant PIanet Express 442	Posted - 2015.11.19 11:13:00 - [29] - Quote Richard Gamerich-R wrote: Moreover, I know people who don't have any problems to destroy a tank. Last WE, I loose 3mil ISK just against 2 commando swarm and 1 FG. And except the FG, commandos didn't have difficulties to help on the field. In short, play well in squad, and there is not problem. The real problem is the tank spam, for me 2 tanks max on the field, not more. You lost your tank to 3 AVers, and you're complaining??? This is the problem with tankers. 1v1 AV should kill V. No ifs ands or buts about it.
Kallas Hallytyr Skullbreakers 1	Posted - 2015.11.19 13:17:00 - [30] - Quote Text Grant wrote: You lost your tank to 3 AVers, and you're complaining??? This is the problem with tankers. 1v1 AV should kill V. No ifs ands or buts about it. I get what you're saying, I do, but surely you can't be likening 1+ million ISK investment to a 30-160k ISK investment? I do agree that ISK shouldn't be able to buy invulnerability, which is why nigh invincible Maddy's are an issue, but at the same time when the investment is so massively disproportionate the should be some reason. Personally, I'd rather have far cheaper vehicles that were far more destructible. If vehicles didn't cost 2x, 3x, 5x of way more than AV suits, then it'd be far more reasonable to bring their power down. As is, the cost difference is ridiculous, in pretty every way we can shake it. Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.

Richard Gamerich-R Capital Acquisitions LLC 162	Posted - 2015.11.19 14:56:00 - [31] - Quote You understand nothing guys, if it need only one AV to destroy a tank, vehicle would be useless. Say that the tank is indestructible, it's also a bullshit. A tank is ineffective when you have only +2 AV on the field. In the better case, the pilot go to his redline to save the vehicle, or he looses 1,2 mil ISK. But yeah, vehicles are too OP for their ******* price. You need to play 4 pub matchs to buy ONLY 1 proto tank, but yeah they are too OP for their price. Moreover, compare hit box of an infantry player, and of a tank. Yeah, it's so hard to hit a tank compared to others classes. Try to play with a rail gun or missile launcher, before complains about vehicles. Vehicles are playing for a typical strategy. A tank is useless in the city, and very vulnerable. Their utility is only in outside. I play PC since 2 years, and I'm pilot since the closed beta, and except for the bridge map, tank spam never was the solution for the win. But well, let's go, nerf vehicles again. I love people who cry on the vehicles, and who never played with them. And when you have a pilot in your side who help you to push on the field, and who try to destroy others vehicles, nobody complain about that? Vehicles is not an only anti-infantry class (you know, blaster is not the only turret of the game), it's a versatile class who help the team. Vehicles are not the easy part of the game. If it was the case, explain me why players with the best KDR (except duna, he play only for the KDR with tank spam) are infantry players, and not pilots? Few months ago (when proto tank was released), tank was OP, but now it's not the case. If you nerf vehicles again, or rebuff AV as the past, remove vehicles, it would be more simple. I don't want to wait 1,5 year to play in vehicle if I know it's useless for my team, I will be more efficient with my gun. Wait I'm restocking... // DUST 514 - Get Rekt: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLx9VURwhIB1N2kNbg6hFCiRMhJ07e041L
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.11.19 21:46:00 - [32] - Quote I'd rather tweak the performance of HAV's in general (large turret revamps, adjusting modules to become more involved, say making reps active, making/returning the variation of pre 1.7, etc.) and then tuning the monetary gains for pilots to where they can make a decent living, but at the same time has to put up a risk to have such utility. Having cheap destructible **** won't be fun imo. Top lel
maybe deadcatz Serris Inc 1	Posted - 2015.11.20 02:49:00 - [33] - Quote I swear....... IS THERE A ***** FACEPALM SYMBOL WE CAN USE HERE FOR FOCKING PETES SAKE?!? do you really think that a 1.2 million isk tank with several million sp invested in the skills to even make it work should be able to be killed by one focking scrub with a swarm launcher in a suit that costs maybe 1/5th at most?** You. Focking.wh0t.m8. Cat_facepalm.PNG *flips desk. Ha!You can't kill me! I'm already dead!
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.11.20 07:26:00 - [34] - Quote THEAMAZING POTHEAD wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: THEAMAZING POTHEAD wrote: Commandos means theres always 3-7 swarms near every red berry furball. Until theres not an average 4 av'ers every game that can insta pop everything that comes near them, you cant talk about 1v1 balance. In chrome a proto aver could solo maxed out tanks but it wasnt a huge problem because there was only 1 or 2 proto avers ever in a game, and redline rail gunnys kept other tanks, in redlines anyways. I'd have no problem with proto av 1v1 killing tanks if tere weren't 4 on average each game. And who did you get that info from? Any time I play I do so with my girlfriend and we're the only 2 AV players in the entire match 9 times out of ten because most people these days would rather avoid the triple hardened fortresses trying to camp them rather than attempt to fight them alone. But just like your little tale, mine is purely annecdotal as well and has no bearing on the average match. Instead of using av and following a tank after its running away, then saying you dont see any av- pull out a tank, see how long you last, and see if you can get over 5 kills with it. When a tank does run it's often only gone for about 20 seconds tops, even with proto AV denying an area to a tank that's ADV or above and stacking hardeners with one or two AV players is virtually impossible unless the pilot is completely inept. When there's 1 person who's counterable by a squad, what happens when there's 4 tanks? That means one squad of proto tanks working together are counterable by.... the entire enemy team? Where's the balance there? I don't have a solution to the issues facing AV and tanks, but I'm also not going to sit quietly and let people completely misrepresent the situation without a proper counter argument. So far I've yet to see a good reason for why tanks should not be able to be killed 1v1, the only thing offered is price points and I've already covered that in my responses to True. añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ *"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.11.20 07:29:00 - [35] - Quote maybe deadcatz wrote: do you really think that a 1.2 million isk tank with several million sp invested in the skills to even make it work should be able to be killed by one focking scrub with a swarm launcher in a suit that costs maybe 1/5th at most? Yes. For the same reason I think a 0 SP starter fit should be able to nade spam and kill a fully kitted officer suit. Balance. This is about gameplay, not price points. añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ *"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
Arcadiia Kain The Naughty Ninjas 133	Posted - 2015.11.20 11:20:00 - [36] - Quote I'm sorry, but i'm going to have to agree with the earlier comment about you just being bad at AV. I run lai dais on nearly ever light and medium frame I run. I solo tanks on a regular basis. Hitting tanks from behind with Lai Dai doesn't always ensure a hit to the weak spot, but it gets it near every time. I also regularly run calmando with swarms. I do occassionaly manage solo kills, but against HAV, it isn't meant to. The commando is a MULTIPURPOSE suit meant to deal with a variety of situations, but that does not make it an AV specialist, and it shouldn't be. My preferance is a GK.0 scout with swarms, lai dais, hive and proxy with a magsec primary. This suit has done the job very well, with the ability to cover distance quickly, allowing me to proxy an tank's escape root, then hit them from the other direction. My corp and I run regular AV squads, and HAV squads, often coordinating both. With the profileration of proto tanks on the field (played in matches with 4 red pro tanks at one many times), practing and coordinating good AV tactics is not only necesary, but also quite profitable. That said, as the dedicated rail gunner in Rookie's tanks, I can tell you that Lai Dais are our worst nightmare. More than any officer FG, kubo's PLC, or beacon. Maybe instead of yelling for a nerf, you should be reevaluating your tactics, because they obviously are not working. The Naughty Ninjas Just another player. Gk.0 logi, scout, sentinel, assault. Mk.0 commando
Union118 TH3 STRUGGL3 979	Posted - 2015.11.20 12:43:00 - [37] - Quote Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. Ways to fix since I put this here... 1 keep tanks strong, but take away their acceleration 2 make tanks weak, but keep the acceleration. 3 add dispertion to all hybrid large turrets, and nerf the range on them. Hey, let me know if any of these things happen so I can actually enjoy a game not based on tank vs tank warfare only. Life is not fair in your world. Starter Fit Suits are OP :-)
Union118 TH3 STRUGGL3 979	Posted - 2015.11.20 12:45:00 - [38] - Quote Tebu Gan wrote: Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. Ways to fix since I put this here... 1 keep tanks strong, but take away their acceleration 2 make tanks weak, but keep the acceleration. 3 add dispertion to all hybrid large turrets, and nerf the range on them. Hey, let me know if any of these things happen so I can actually enjoy a game not based on tank vs tank warfare only. I honestly feel sorry for you. It take a lot to admit a fault like this. "I can't kill a well built soma with AV" man I'm sooo sorry dude. Best advice I can give you, Get Gud. Maybe try pulling out some proto AV and mix it up with some AV nades. I though generally just sneezed in a MLT tanks general direction and watched a pretty explosion back when I played. Maybe try a different game that isn't nearly as difficult, like Yoshi's Island. Little big planet should work. Starter Fit Suits are OP :-)
Ice Royal Glantix 0.P. 306	Posted - 2015.11.20 16:08:00 - [39] - Quote For all of you defending the tank side of the argument, I remind you that ISK cost should never be considered when balancing an item, simply due to the extreme wealth of many players. However, for those of you who think that a single AVer should be able to destroy a tank, your just a little stupid. The point of a tank is battlefield presence. By running a tank, compared to an assault/scout/sentinel, a player understands he is sacrificing kills. A tank simply cannot kill as much as a properly run slayer suit. If one person could easily destroy a tank, it totally ruins the idea of creating a large presence that must be dealt with. If a tank is causing you trouble, you can always just hide from it. If a tank is causing your team trouble, your team can deal with it. If you could destroy a tank with just one person, then the tanker would be better off in an assault. If you want to 1 v 1 a tank, use a tank. Sincerely, Glantix / Ice "Solitude is not a burden; it is a gift, for independence allows us to realize our own potential." Glantix / Ice
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.11.22 22:24:00 - [40] - Quote Ice Royal Glantix wrote: For all of you defending the tank side of the argument, I remind you that ISK cost should never be considered when balancing an item, simply due to the extreme wealth of many players. However, for those of you who think that a single AVer should be able to destroy a tank, you're just a little stupid. The point of a tank is battlefield presence over killing ability. By running a tank, compared to an assault/scout/sentinel, a player understands he is sacrificing kills. A tank simply cannot kill as much as a properly run slayer suit. If one person could easily destroy a tank, it totally ruins the idea of creating a large presence that must be dealt with. If a tank is causing you trouble, you can always just hide from it. If a tank is causing your team trouble, your team can deal with it. If you could destroy a tank with just one person, then the tanker would be better off in an assault or other dropsuit. If you want to 1 v 1 a tank, use a tank. Sincerely, Glantix / Ice This is perhaps one of the more lucid responses I've heard to the issue, despite it still being wrong. +1 for understanding price points aren't to be balanced around however, that's a rare trait at least among those who run tanks and post on the forums. Now I'm not going to just say your wrong and leave it there, that would appear derisive and that isn't my intent. I'll explain it as briefly as I can. Even if I were to concede that tankers sacrifice kills (which is hard to do since I see proper tankers regularly getting in the top 3 with more kills than most of the rest of their team), logi suits sacrifice killing potential as well as survivability for the ability to simply have access to more gear all at once than other suits and have a minor bonus for their racial one. They are susceptible to every weapon in the game barring swarms while also being just much a priority target for infantry to remove as a tank if not moreso due to their ability to maintain a group of soldiers. And I won't even go into how hard ADS pilots have it. In short, even if tanks were sacrificing kills to be a presence on the field, sacrificing kills is no reason for someone to not be soloable. It should not take 1/4th of a team to counter 1/16th of the other team, you cannot have balance by trying to support numbers like that. añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ *"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.11.23 01:19:00 - [41] - Quote Ice Royal Glantix wrote: For all of you defending the tank side of the argument, I remind you that ISK cost should never be considered when balancing an item, simply due to the extreme wealth of many players. However, for those of you who think that a single AVer should be able to destroy a tank, you're just a little stupid. The point of a tank is battlefield presence over killing ability. By running a tank, compared to an assault/scout/sentinel, a player understands he is sacrificing kills. A tank simply cannot kill as much as a properly run slayer suit. If one person could easily destroy a tank, it totally ruins the idea of creating a large presence that must be dealt with. If a tank is causing you trouble, you can always just hide from it. If a tank is causing your team trouble, your team can deal with it. If you could destroy a tank with just one person, then the tanker would be better off in an assault or other dropsuit. If you want to 1 v 1 a tank, use a tank. Sincerely, Glantix / Ice While it is a fair statement to make that an in game currency should not significantly impact the characters abilities on a fundamental level with the design of EVE and Dust in general as well as the relative difference and coupled with the current met of Dust 514 it somewhat has to act as a balancer by incentivising or de-incentivising the vehicles deployment. In my mind there should be a currency aspect in the game that can be used as a resource to effectively allow players to acquire certain benefits in combat but should not cause a large power disparity between players. Though I stand by the ideal that players who commit large amounts of in game currency to the combat action should be suitable compensated as a result. As for your assessment of HAV.... I find myself agreeing with it in part. Presence is on thing that really does throw enemy players into complete disarray and denies them ground and cover they might other wise opt to use. However tanks are not nearly as useful of valuable to the team on most maps an another rifleman as they cannot capture objectives, cannot reach most objectives, have a very limited range, and are only viable to drive when hardeners are active. Nothing pisses off a tanker more or effectively takes them out of a fight as much as being blue-balled by infantry who continue to operate normally without engaging or presenting themselves. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Ice Royal Glantix T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K Damage LLC 315	Posted - 2015.11.23 01:51:00 - [42] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: -snip- It takes a very skilled tanker to pull off 30+ kill games, something your average assault can do in any game. A tank can easily be hid from and out maneuvered, making it hard to chase down what would be easy kills for any infantry member. Therefore, and I am repeating my main argument at this point, a tank really shines in terms of battlefield presence, not killing ability. It can keep accessible points on lockdown and prevent infantry from crossing open fields. These tasks are what a tank should strive to accomplish, and you know what? All it takes is a single person to stop a tank from doing this. Yes, a single AVer probably won't be able to destroy the tank, but he/she will be able to scare off the tank, thus removing its immense presence. This is no different than pushing a sniper off of objective overwatch or forcing an Amarr Logi to retreat, preventing him/her from from dropping links where they are needed. Both of these people will still be able to get kills, but they won't be able to do the job they were designed to do. That is all I have to ramble on about. My apologies if I was rude/offensive in this post; that was not the intention. Sincerely, Glantix / Ice "Solitude is not a burden; it is a gift, for independence allows us to realize our own potential." Glantix / Ice
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.11.23 04:30:00 - [43] - Quote Ice Royal Glantix wrote: It takes a very skilled tanker to pull off 30+ kill games, something your average assault can do in any game. A tank can easily be hid from and out maneuvered, making it hard to chase down what would be easy kills for any infantry member. Therefore, and I am repeating my main argument at this point, a tank really shines in terms of battlefield presence, not killing ability. It can keep accessible points on lockdown and prevent infantry from crossing open fields. These tasks are what a tank should strive to accomplish, and you know what? All it takes is a single person to stop a tank from doing this. Yes, a single AVer probably won't be able to destroy the tank, but he/she will be able to scare off the tank, thus removing its immense presence. This is no different than pushing a sniper off of objective overwatch or forcing an Amarr Logi to retreat, preventing him/her from from dropping links where they are needed. Both of these people will still be able to get kills, but they won't be able to do the job they were designed to do. That is all I have to ramble on about. My apologies if I was rude/offensive in this post; that was not the intention. Sincerely, Glantix / Ice An average assault player working with a squad can and does frequently clear 20 kills, 30 perhaps as an average for some of the moderately better players, but a solo assault is not going to be averaging 30 kills in an normal game. It takes a very skilled assault to pull off 30+ kill games playing solo as well. An average skill level solo assault is going to be bouncing widely between anywhere from 5-20 on average depending largely on who's on the other team, what gear the opposing team is running, gear the player is willing to risk running and the content of their own team (officer squads are a huge drain on kills for everyone else in the match, just as an example) which are numbers I also see average solo tankers frequently pulling. I play either solo or as a duo with my girlfriend exclusively these days, I never run in a full squad. I've been playing Dust since Replication and she's been playing since open beta and we both run both assault classes and AV and have done so for years now. A good match for us is when we top 20 kills individually, but typically we end up only averaging between 10 and 20 kills per game with bad games dipping into the single digits and really good games veering near the 30 mark. It's completely subjective for a solo player, and unless a tanker is good at working as a proper support for a squad (extrordinarily rare to see) they are basically a solo player whether they are in a squad or not (this being the reason for the emphasis on the solo assault experience). As for a solo AV player being able to scare off a tank - Yes, if they can get behind them and get enough alpha damage on them with AV grenades and whatever AV weapon they have on hand through their hardners (because a tank isn't going to sit there with it's hardners down). Then, if they can manage that while dodging enemy fire, that tank will rocket off into the distance nearly as fast as a top speed LAV only to return to the same spot 20 seconds later fully repped and aware that someone's pulled AV so they should probably farm kills in 3rd person for a while to keep an eye on their week spot. There is a very big balancing issue right now with making fits that are viable for tanks that aren't just triple hardened fortresses, I understand the issues there and don't deny that there is a big issue with that, however that doesn't excuse the abusability of the triple hardened tank. At MLT and basic levels it's not so bad, but once someone has fully specced into vehicle skills it can take a squad fully focused on AV just to scare off certain proto triple hardened tanks who know good routes and how to properly use cover. Now all of that said, a tanker working with a squad won't necessarily net more kills like an assault or heavy would in a squad. The tank has a very difficult obstical to overcome if it is ever to truly feel at home in Dust, and that is utility. It doesn't have enough seats to carry a squad, it's useless when stuck outside apart from parking on a hill and trying to fire into the doorways/windows, it requires modules to manage dispersion on it's main anti infantry turret, etc, etc, etc. The presence of a tank will keep people indoors, but forcing people into hiding in tight groups is counter productive as it forces your team to have to breach a room already fortified by a blob of enemies already forted up with hives and uplinks in most cases. This is not a role. The tank lacks a proper role. I personally preffered it much more back when I could 1v1 a tank and it was completely up in the air who would win because their rounds were deadly accurate and I had to duck in and out and between different available cover just to try and shoot at them. At least then they had a role, and that was being a deadly machine that could die relatively easily. People didn't all run indoors to avoid the tanks because they had faith that someone would be able to scare it away soon, whereas now no one expects anyone to do anything about them so they all GTFO of the way of the tank to try to save their own gear. Back then 4-6 shots and a tank would go down from my swarms, and 1-3 shots from their blaster and I was dead. Tanks weren't perfect, but they had options and they had an at least workable purpose. Sorry if my response seems grouchy or rattled, unable to sleep and my brain is hating me for trying to post through the haze of exhaustion. añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ *"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
Ice Royal Glantix CASSETTE 514 317	Posted - 2015.11.23 16:11:00 - [44] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: An average assault player working with a squad can and does frequently clear 20 kills, 30 perhaps as an average for some of the moderately better players, but a solo assault is not going to be averaging 30 kills in an normal game. It takes a very skilled assault to pull off 30+ kill games playing solo as well. An average skill level solo assault is going to be bouncing widely between anywhere from 5-20 on average depending largely on who's on the other team, what gear the opposing team is running, gear the player is willing to risk running and the content of their own team (officer squads are a huge drain on kills for everyone else in the match, just as an example) which are numbers I also see average solo tankers frequently pulling. I play either solo or as a duo with my girlfriend exclusively these days, I never run in a full squad. I've been playing Dust since Replication and she's been playing since open beta and we both run both assault classes and AV and have done so for years now. A good match for us is when we top 20 kills individually, but typically we end up only averaging between 10 and 20 kills per game with bad games dipping into the single digits and really good games veering near the 30 mark. It's completely subjective for a solo player, and unless a tanker is good at working as a proper support for a squad (extrordinarily rare to see) they are basically a solo player whether they are in a squad or not (this being the reason for the emphasis on the solo assault experience). While you make a legitimate point on what the average assault can do, solo or not is an irrelevant fact: Some people do better solo, some do better squaded. Either way, your average blaster tank still isn't going to compare in kills, earning roughly 10 or so per match. (Maybe 20 if the enemy team doesn't use AV) Baal Omniscient wrote: As for a solo AV player being able to scare off a tank - Yes, if they can get behind them and get enough alpha damage on them with AV grenades and whatever AV weapon they have on hand through their hardners (because a tank isn't going to sit there with it's hardners down). Then, if they can manage that while dodging enemy fire, that tank will rocket off into the distance nearly as fast as a top speed LAV only to return to the same spot 20 seconds later fully repped and aware that someone's pulled AV so they should probably farm kills in 3rd person for a while to keep an eye on their week spot. One swarmer engaging from any angle is enough to make a non-reckless tanker move, unless the tanker is utilising a fit capable of shrugging off the damage, in which case they'll have to retreat anyway to allow their hardeners to recharge. Baal Omniscient wrote: There is a very big balancing issue right now with making fits that are viable for tanks that aren't just triple hardened fortresses, I understand the issues there and don't deny that there is a big issue with that, however that doesn't excuse the abusability of the triple hardened tank. At MLT and basic levels it's not so bad, but once someone has fully specced into vehicle skills it can take a squad fully focused on AV just to scare off certain proto triple hardened tanks who know good routes and how to properly use cover. Just a question: Who the hell uses triple hardened fits? Baal Omniscient wrote: Now all of that said, a tanker working with a squad won't necessarily net more kills like an assault or heavy would in a squad. The tank has a very difficult obstical to overcome if it is ever to truly feel at home in Dust, and that is utility. It doesn't have enough seats to carry a squad, it's useless when stuck outside apart from parking on a hill and trying to fire into the doorways/windows, it requires modules to manage dispersion on it's main anti infantry turret, etc, etc, etc. The presence of a tank will keep people indoors, but forcing people into hiding in tight groups is counter productive as it forces your team to have to breach a room already fortified by a blob of enemies already forted up with hives and uplinks in most cases. This is not a role. The tank lacks a proper role. I personally preffered it much more back when I could 1v1 a tank and it was completely up in the air who would win because their rounds were deadly accurate and I had to duck in and out and between different available cover just to try and shoot at them. At least then they had a role, and that was being a deadly machine that could die relatively easily. People didn't all run indoors to avoid the tanks because they had faith that someone would be able to scare it away soon, whereas now no one expects anyone to do anything about them so they all GTFO of the way of the tank to try to save their own gear. Back then 4-6 shots and a tank would go down from my swarms, and 1-3 shots from their blaster and I was dead. Tanks weren't perfect, but they had options and they had an at least workable purpose. Sorry if my response seems grouchy or rattled, unable to sleep and my brain is hating me for trying to post through the haze of exhaustion. Suppression is a role, currently filled by tanks and to a certain extent commandos. I'm actually in a rush at the moment, so I cannot type out a full response. Sorry about that. Sincerely, Glantix / Ice "Solitude is not a burden; it is a gift, for independence allows us to realize our own potential." Glantix / Ice
Text Grant PIanet Express 442	Posted - 2015.11.26 05:00:00 - [45] - Quote Sure, suppression can be a role that tanks, and commandos do, but commandos can be one shotted by snipers for staying in one area, while tanks can take several clips from weapons specifically designed to "kill" them.
Ice Royal Glantix CASSETTE 514 319	Posted - 2015.11.26 16:06:00 - [46] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Sure, suppression can be a role that tanks, and commandos do, but commandos can be one shotted by snipers for staying in one area, while tanks can take several clips from weapons specifically designed to "kill" them. Designed to kill after a long period of constant fire. Tanks are suppression; AV is counter suppression. "Solitude is not a burden; it is a gift, for independence allows us to realize our own potential." Glantix / Ice
Ghost Steps G0DS AM0NG MEN 32	Posted - 2015.11.28 19:02:00 - [47] - Quote Why dont the tank use a 2 or 3 man to operate?,that would set a 2vs2 or 3vs3 on the AV vs Tank. Caldari Scouts should be Ninjas.
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 4	Posted - 2015.11.29 10:58:00 - [48] - Quote Until vehicles position in the game is accepted as what it should be there will never be balance. The lack of that decision is why this is the greatest of all never ending balance cycles. In a FPS vehicles are a FORCE MULTIPLIER. They are meant to be naturally weaker than infantry when they are run solo. Why should one person get to call in a tank and enter god mode just because he went tanks instead of infantry in an infantry game? It also does not help that we have some kind of ghetto excuse for AV which is also being balanced versus infantry for some reason. Why should the PLC or the forge take a nerf against everything just because it was killing infantry too effectively? A/V weapons, specifically the high alpha ones should do a flat 10% of their damage to infantry. This makes them ineffective as a killing tool but still allows them to assist in defending the area along with their squad. Show there is a future #CCPSpeakOn514
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.11.29 16:40:00 - [49] - Quote Suppression was actually tried as a role, but it failed. People started bitching that "Big HAV was killing me, and I can't kill it easily, nerf!". AV was an option, but people refused to use it. And "Suppression" doesn't pay for losses, nor did it ever on the vehicle price scaling, so it's not a viable role tbh. Vehicles as a whole didn't do suppression either (or they shouldn't, and were nerfed). Vehicles in general needs to relieve roles, actual roles. I have some ideas actually, but a lot of them simply aren't possible atm. At this point in time, the only real thing that can fix vehicles is a port, with a rework within that port. Top lel
deezy dabest IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP Evil Syndicate Alliance. 4	Posted - 2015.11.29 16:46:00 - [50] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Suppression was actually tried as a role, but it failed. People started bitching that "Big HAV was killing me, and I can't kill it easily, nerf!". AV was an option, but people refused to use it. And "Suppression" doesn't pay for losses, nor did it ever on the vehicle price scaling, so it's not a viable role tbh. Vehicles as a whole didn't do suppression either (or they shouldn't, and were nerfed). Vehicles in general needs to relieve roles, actual roles. I have some ideas actually, but a lot of them simply aren't possible atm. At this point in time, the only real thing that can fix vehicles is a port, with a rework within that port. Not once did I use the word suppression. I said even in all capital letters FORCE MULTIPLIER. Force multiplication is much than just suppression. It is providing cover for your team, delivering damage or kills to clear the way for your team, and in some case providing a semi safe staging point. The key here is nothing in that description says pull it out solo, easily destroy or avoid a/v, and generally run amok on the battle field. A vehicle should have to depend on its team just like its team should be able to take advantage of having a vehicle to assist. A port does absolutely nothing for poor design. We have seen 3 years and cumulatively 100s of changes made only to keep coming back to the same debate. Some of those changes even included removing a huge amount of content to try and make it easier. Show there is a future #CCPSpeakOn514

Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.11.29 16:58:00 - [51] - Quote deezy dabest wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Suppression was actually tried as a role, but it failed. People started bitching that "Big HAV was killing me, and I can't kill it easily, nerf!". AV was an option, but people refused to use it. And "Suppression" doesn't pay for losses, nor did it ever on the vehicle price scaling, so it's not a viable role tbh. Vehicles as a whole didn't do suppression either (or they shouldn't, and were nerfed). Vehicles in general needs to relieve roles, actual roles. I have some ideas actually, but a lot of them simply aren't possible atm. At this point in time, the only real thing that can fix vehicles is a port, with a rework within that port. Not once did I use the word suppression. I said even in all capital letters FORCE MULTIPLIER. Force multiplication is much than just suppression. It is providing cover for your team, delivering damage or kills to clear the way for your team, and in some case providing a semi safe staging point. The key here is nothing in that description says pull it out solo, easily destroy or avoid a/v, and generally run amok on the battle field. A vehicle should have to depend on its team just like its team should be able to take advantage of having a vehicle to assist. A port does absolutely nothing for poor design. We have seen 3 years and cumulatively 100s of changes made only to keep coming back to the same debate. Some of those changes even included removing a huge amount of content to try and make it easier. I wasn't actually speaking to you, I was talking to anyone who was speaking on the matter. And it's the same tune really. Force multipliers aren't profitable in this game on a vehicle pricing.Also, I never said that you shouldn't work with your team in a vehicle. I said that they need a role that can put the food on the table, and keep the lights on. And I like how you have no idea what my ideas are, yet you say something like that. This post is just a full on jumping the gun lol. Top lel
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 1	Posted - 2015.11.29 17:14:00 - [52] - Quote Vehicle price point IS a valid argument. In a new Eden that didn't see pc 1.0..... If you talk about killing pro HAV with anything less than a beacon, Aldin, or lai dai, you cannot be saved. If you have trouble killing sica/soma, maybe stay inside the sockets.. If you constantly lose pro HAV, maybe watch the map and plan ahead next time. Main problem here is the vortex paradox of "balance". I will explain. That will take too long, me me sum up. Tanks many modules/turrets - varied and crazy fits everywhere. Choices removed - one viable fit meta rises. Shield boosters changed to one off pulse - maddy rises. Hardener buff - maddy meta rises further. AV balance for OP maddy - rest of vehicles screwed. Turret ranges/reload/etc nerfed - HAV becomes moving target. Ads skill stack nerf - perpetuates maddy meta. Smalls become useless - solo tanker rises. LAV nerf - HAV only target for AV main. Pro hulls - maddy meta worsens. Blaster gets buff - missiles and rails get further nerf. Av tuned to fight pro HAV - anything < pro = screwed. Gunni shield buff - maddy still meta. Some finer points here and there I may have missed. But hopefully we see the pattern here. Again price should have dictated usage from the get go all the way to current meta. HelI, the price of pro dropsuits is supposed to be prohibitive... The anti HAV crowd has cried us DIRECTLY into the state we currently observe. But yeah, lets try more "balance"..... Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.11.29 18:12:00 - [53] - Quote Devadander wrote: Vehicle price point IS a valid argument. In a new Eden that didn't see pc 1.0..... If you talk about killing pro HAV with anything less than a beacon, Aldin, or lai dai, you cannot be saved. If you have trouble killing sica/soma, maybe stay inside the sockets.. If you constantly lose pro HAV, maybe watch the map and plan ahead next time. Main problem here is the vortex paradox of "balance". I will explain. That will take too long, me me sum up. Tanks many modules/turrets - varied and crazy fits everywhere. Choices removed - one viable fit meta rises. Shield boosters changed to one off pulse - maddy rises. Hardener buff - maddy meta rises further. AV balance for OP maddy - rest of vehicles screwed. Turret ranges/reload/etc nerfed - HAV becomes moving target. Ads skill stack nerf - perpetuates maddy meta. Smalls become useless - solo tanker rises. LAV nerf - HAV only target for AV main. Pro hulls - maddy meta worsens. Blaster gets buff - missiles and rails get further nerf. Av tuned to fight pro HAV - anything < pro = screwed. Gunni shield buff - maddy still meta. Some finer points here and there I may have missed. But hopefully we see the pattern here. Again price should have dictated usage from the get go all the way to current meta. HelI, the price of pro dropsuits is supposed to be prohibitive... The anti HAV crowd has cried us DIRECTLY into the state we currently observe. But yeah, lets try more "balance"..... Funny how you point fingers at this "Anti-HAV" group saying it's their fault, when for the most part Pilots and AV (most AV aren't anti-HAV, although some are) only asked for AV tweaks, and general QoL improvements before the "rework" was done. The rest of the stuff is a multitude of people trying to fix that mistake. Also, you say that as if balance isn't a universal thing that happens in most multiplayer games. It's not going away, deal with it. Also, instead of whining, how about you put up your ideas on how to solve the issues at hand? Top lel
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 1	Posted - 2015.11.29 18:22:00 - [54] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Devadander wrote: Vehicle price point IS a valid argument. In a new Eden that didn't see pc 1.0..... If you talk about killing pro HAV with anything less than a beacon, Aldin, or lai dai, you cannot be saved. If you have trouble killing sica/soma, maybe stay inside the sockets.. If you constantly lose pro HAV, maybe watch the map and plan ahead next time. Main problem here is the vortex paradox of "balance". I will explain. That will take too long, me me sum up. Tanks many modules/turrets - varied and crazy fits everywhere. Choices removed - one viable fit meta rises. Shield boosters changed to one off pulse - maddy rises. Hardener buff - maddy meta rises further. AV balance for OP maddy - rest of vehicles screwed. Turret ranges/reload/etc nerfed - HAV becomes moving target. Ads skill stack nerf - perpetuates maddy meta. Smalls become useless - solo tanker rises. LAV nerf - HAV only target for AV main. Pro hulls - maddy meta worsens. Blaster gets buff - missiles and rails get further nerf. Av tuned to fight pro HAV - anything < pro = screwed. Gunni shield buff - maddy still meta. Some finer points here and there I may have missed. But hopefully we see the pattern here. Again price should have dictated usage from the get go all the way to current meta. HelI, the price of pro dropsuits is supposed to be prohibitive... The anti HAV crowd has cried us DIRECTLY into the state we currently observe. But yeah, lets try more "balance"..... Funny how you point fingers at this "Anti-HAV" group saying it's their fault, when for the most part Pilots and AV (most AV aren't anti-HAV, although some are) only asked for AV tweaks, and general QoL improvements before the "rework" was done. The rest of the stuff is a multitude of people trying to fix that mistake. Also, you say that as if balance isn't a universal thing that happens in most multiplayer games. It's not going away, deal with it. Also, instead of whining, how about you put up your ideas on how to solve the issues at hand? Many of those changes were due to howling on the forums. So yeah, I have to go with anti-av crowd as main. (There are always outliers) So far all the suggestions from non-pilots in this particular thread have been counter-productive to any actual balance being achieved. And I do suggest changes and ideas and suggestions and such. Wonder where I would post such things?.... Guaranteed not in a thread named such as this one. Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.11.29 20:08:00 - [55] - Quote Devadander wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Devadander wrote: Vehicle price point IS a valid argument. In a new Eden that didn't see pc 1.0..... If you talk about killing pro HAV with anything less than a beacon, Aldin, or lai dai, you cannot be saved. If you have trouble killing sica/soma, maybe stay inside the sockets.. If you constantly lose pro HAV, maybe watch the map and plan ahead next time. Main problem here is the vortex paradox of "balance". I will explain. That will take too long, me me sum up. Tanks many modules/turrets - varied and crazy fits everywhere. Choices removed - one viable fit meta rises. Shield boosters changed to one off pulse - maddy rises. Hardener buff - maddy meta rises further. AV balance for OP maddy - rest of vehicles screwed. Turret ranges/reload/etc nerfed - HAV becomes moving target. Ads skill stack nerf - perpetuates maddy meta. Smalls become useless - solo tanker rises. LAV nerf - HAV only target for AV main. Pro hulls - maddy meta worsens. Blaster gets buff - missiles and rails get further nerf. Av tuned to fight pro HAV - anything < pro = screwed. Gunni shield buff - maddy still meta. Some finer points here and there I may have missed. But hopefully we see the pattern here. Again price should have dictated usage from the get go all the way to current meta. HelI, the price of pro dropsuits is supposed to be prohibitive... The anti HAV crowd has cried us DIRECTLY into the state we currently observe. But yeah, lets try more "balance"..... Funny how you point fingers at this "Anti-HAV" group saying it's their fault, when for the most part Pilots and AV (most AV aren't anti-HAV, although some are) only asked for AV tweaks, and general QoL improvements before the "rework" was done. The rest of the stuff is a multitude of people trying to fix that mistake. Also, you say that as if balance isn't a universal thing that happens in most multiplayer games. It's not going away, deal with it. Also, instead of whining, how about you put up your ideas on how to solve the issues at hand? Many of those changes were due to howling on the forums. So yeah, I have to go with anti-av crowd as main. (There are always outliers) So far all the suggestions from non-pilots in this particular thread have been counter-productive to any actual balance being achieved. And I do suggest changes and ideas and suggestions and such. Wonder where I would post such things?.... Guaranteed not in a thread named such as this one. The first few were reactionary changes by the devs, with no input or calls for by the players, and the rest were people actually trying to figure out what is wrong with the system. It was a lot of calling for things on both sides. You're just going to point fingers like a little kid. And if you want to change anything, even perceptions and attitudes, that is not how you do it. Unless you're just shitposting, in which, why are you even here? Top lel
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 1	Posted - 2015.11.29 20:34:00 - [56] - Quote This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost... If you don't like me, take that to the locker room. I simply pointed out the road that brought us here. Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it. Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Text Grant PIanet Express 444	Posted - 2015.11.29 21:22:00 - [57] - Quote Devadander wrote: This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost... If you don't like me, take that to the locker room. I simply pointed out the road that brought us here. Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it. Actually, the suggestions were quite reasonable for the literate :D
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 1	Posted - 2015.11.29 21:47:00 - [58] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Devadander wrote: This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost... If you don't like me, take that to the locker room. I simply pointed out the road that brought us here. Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it. Actually, the suggestions were quite reasonable for the literate :D So two personal attacks, and nothing to actually further any kind of discussion. Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
Text Grant PIanet Express 444	Posted - 2015.11.29 22:20:00 - [59] - Quote Devadander wrote: Text Grant wrote: Devadander wrote: This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost... If you don't like me, take that to the locker room. I simply pointed out the road that brought us here. Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it. Actually, the suggestions were quite reasonable for the literate :D So two personal attacks, and nothing to actually further any kind of discussion. I was replying to what you were speaking of. You didn't comment on the post, so I assumed you couldn't read. Maybe you just forgot to read? Either way, you didn't read.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.11.30 00:57:00 - [60] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Devadander wrote: Text Grant wrote: Devadander wrote: This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost... If you don't like me, take that to the locker room. I simply pointed out the road that brought us here. Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it. Actually, the suggestions were quite reasonable for the literate :D So two personal attacks, and nothing to actually further any kind of discussion. I was replying to what you were speaking of. You didn't comment on the post, so I assumed you couldn't read. Maybe you just forgot to read? Either way, you didn't read. Simply put the suggestions are simply too basic and not fleshed out enough, moreover you don't address any of the core concerns that typically get brought up in discussions of vehicle vs AV balance. Finally you suggest giving a turret type marred by a very noticeable and quite frankly ridiculous dispersion which is more like to miss a running target at short range that hit it a lesser range and also greater projectile dispersion. While the Large Blaster has no place as an Anti Tank Turret making such changes would see it pushed to the point of disuse. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.

Ghost Steps G0DS AM0NG MEN 32	Posted - 2015.11.30 01:01:00 - [61] - Quote Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen. They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick). Caldari Scouts should be Ninjas.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.11.30 02:23:00 - [62] - Quote Ghost Steps wrote: Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen. They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick). Limiting fitting options is a terrible idea unless infantry like the idea of being limited to one shield hardener or armour repairer. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Text Grant PIanet Express 446	Posted - 2015.11.30 22:46:00 - [63] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Ghost Steps wrote: Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen. They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick). Limiting fitting options is a terrible idea unless infantry like the idea of being limited to one shield hardener or armour repairer. I never liked the idea of limiting items. IMO if a module is too powerful, nerf it. Like, nerf the miofibs, and take away the limit. Also, nerf hardeners.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.01 00:59:00 - [64] - Quote Text Grant wrote: True Adamance wrote: Ghost Steps wrote: Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen. They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick). Limiting fitting options is a terrible idea unless infantry like the idea of being limited to one shield hardener or armour repairer. I never liked the idea of limiting items. IMO if a module is too powerful, nerf it. Like, nerf the miofibs, and take away the limit. Also, nerf hardeners. Agreed. It's simply need to be changed so that it only confers say a 20% resistance to damage at maximum. To compensate we should be looking at a higher tier if plating and or Shield Extender to confer Raw HP. Ideally what would happen is that tanks can remain on field even when their hardeners are down and not be instantly destroyed by AV while at the same time the amount of damage mitigated by hardeners is reduced. Beyond that we also need active armour reps, much lower constant shield regen, a few other utility modules and large turrets that are slow firing but have an Area of Effect upon resolution. Don't mistake me either when I say powerful single shot cannon. I mean it. You get hit by one directly as and infantryman and you are rendered instantly about as dead as they come. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Ghost Steps G0DS AM0NG MEN 32	Posted - 2015.12.05 06:40:00 - [65] - Quote Text Grant wrote: True Adamance wrote: Ghost Steps wrote: Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen. They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick). Limiting fitting options is a terrible idea unless infantry like the idea of being limited to one shield hardener or armour repairer. I never liked the idea of limiting items. IMO if a module is too powerful, nerf it. Like, nerf the miofibs, and take away the limit. Also, nerf hardeners. Setting a limit is not necessary bad, remember (as u mentioned) myofibrilants are limited to 3 as cloacks on scouts or change the perspective, why dont sset hardener as some kind of equipment, perma module (included on the tank) or the like. Caldari Scouts should be Ninjas.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2015.12.05 11:55:00 - [66] - Quote AHEM HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That is all. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Text Grant OSG Planetary Operations 446	Posted - 2015.12.05 12:02:00 - [67] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: AHEM HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! That is all. Sorry, but you have no place in a vehicle balance thread. Your idea of balance is with tanks killing everything. How did you even become cpm when you are so biased?
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations 945	Posted - 2015.12.05 12:07:00 - [68] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Sorry, but you have no place in a vehicle balance thread. Your idea of balance is with tanks killing everything. How did you even become cpm when you are so biased? I dunno if I'd call Breakin biased in favour of tanks. I've seen him arguing in favour of AV more than I've seen him argue in favour of tanks. Purifier. First Class.
Text Grant OSG Planetary Operations 446	Posted - 2015.12.05 12:23:00 - [69] - Quote Megaman Trigger wrote: Text Grant wrote: Sorry, but you have no place in a vehicle balance thread. Your idea of balance is with tanks killing everything. How did you even become cpm when you are so biased? I dunno if I'd call Breakin biased in favour of tanks. I've seen him arguing in favour of AV more than I've seen him argue in favour of tanks. Which AV? Forge?
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations 945	Posted - 2015.12.05 12:29:00 - [70] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Megaman Trigger wrote: Text Grant wrote: Sorry, but you have no place in a vehicle balance thread. Your idea of balance is with tanks killing everything. How did you even become cpm when you are so biased? I dunno if I'd call Breakin biased in favour of tanks. I've seen him arguing in favour of AV more than I've seen him argue in favour of tanks. Which AV? Forge? All of them. Purifier. First Class.

Text Grant OSG Planetary Operations 446	Posted - 2015.12.05 12:42:00 - [71] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: Buntly I am opposed to blanket buffs to any AV weapons without testing the ramifications of what will happen first. At the very least kill models need to be done via spreadsheet to determine the balance points at a baseline to figure out what breaks. But here is my item-by-item response to your suggestions. My answers are italicized: 1 change the proficiency on the swarm launcher to bypass hardeners 5% bypassed per level. There are no provisions for hardener penetration, and negating the purpose of having hardeners in the first place is pretty lame. Reducing hardeners to 1 per tank would make it possible for a swarmer to kill an HAV, but not trivially. Combined, your suggestions make doing so a trivial affair. 2 slow down the acceleration on tanks, making them more vulnerable when they camp infantry. Maybe. This has been tossed around as a balancing factor as chrome tanks were a lot slower, and the fast speeds of today's tanks came as a bit of a shock to everyone. This might help. But for now, there are more likely to work solutions. 3 add permanent dispertion on all large turrets. No heat buildup required. No. Railguns would be rendered worthless entirely for anything except shooting tanks at near point blank and killing stationary installations. Heavy Missile turrets are only good in the hands of a badass tank monkey and even then, aren't the best option. Blasters have obnoxious dispersion that requires a module that is an activated unit with a time duration to make them truly viable for infantry hitting. 4 nerf the range on all turrets to 100 meters. It's the swarmer's job to kill vehicles. He shouldn't be sniped by the thing he is trying to kill simply because of bad game mechanics. Of course, this could also be fixed by giving swarms a 300 meter lock on again. Hell no, get out. Your premise "He shouldn't be sniped by the thing he is trying to kill simply because of bad game mechanics." is flawed because it is an opinion, and anecdotal at best. Finally, Swarms are not meant to be the go-to AV option that is superior to all choices. Swarms are an AV choice. Your change suggestions would by and large render swarms superior to the Forge Gun and Plasma Cannon in just about every possible way, on the AV platform with the flat-out highest baseline DPS of any infantry AV weapon in the game. I know this because I have TESTED these permutations. I have gone over them with tank drivers who aren't rabid win butan fanatics, and AV gunners who aren't of the opinion that having an AV weapon should mean an automatic kill against a vehicle. I would suggest more thought and consideration to the problem and examining it both from the AV and from the driver's seat of a tank before providing one-sided solutions to acknowledged problems that benefit only your playstyle if you wish said suggestions taken more seriously. He certainly isn't for helping out AV any. He sounds like a tanker to me
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2015.12.05 13:01:00 - [72] - Quote Text Grant wrote: He certainly isn't for helping out AV any. He sounds like a tanker to me I'm amused that never once has anyone assumed that as an AV gunner, I might actually know what the hell I'm talking about. But you know...I've clearly never done any constructive work on the topic at all. For reference, I was kicking this around with CPM1 before I ever settled on actually running for the post. WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
Xenu Khanid ScReWeD uP InC Devil's Descendants 9	Posted - 2015.12.05 16:49:00 - [73] - Quote Text Grant wrote: Breakin Stuff wrote: Buntly I am opposed to blanket buffs to any AV weapons without testing the ramifications of what will happen first. At the very least kill models need to be done via spreadsheet to determine the balance points at a baseline to figure out what breaks. But here is my item-by-item response to your suggestions. My answers are italicized: 1 change the proficiency on the swarm launcher to bypass hardeners 5% bypassed per level. There are no provisions for hardener penetration, and negating the purpose of having hardeners in the first place is pretty lame. Reducing hardeners to 1 per tank would make it possible for a swarmer to kill an HAV, but not trivially. Combined, your suggestions make doing so a trivial affair. 2 slow down the acceleration on tanks, making them more vulnerable when they camp infantry. Maybe. This has been tossed around as a balancing factor as chrome tanks were a lot slower, and the fast speeds of today's tanks came as a bit of a shock to everyone. This might help. But for now, there are more likely to work solutions. 3 add permanent dispertion on all large turrets. No heat buildup required. No. Railguns would be rendered worthless entirely for anything except shooting tanks at near point blank and killing stationary installations. Heavy Missile turrets are only good in the hands of a badass tank monkey and even then, aren't the best option. Blasters have obnoxious dispersion that requires a module that is an activated unit with a time duration to make them truly viable for infantry hitting. 4 nerf the range on all turrets to 100 meters. It's the swarmer's job to kill vehicles. He shouldn't be sniped by the thing he is trying to kill simply because of bad game mechanics. Of course, this could also be fixed by giving swarms a 300 meter lock on again. Hell no, get out. Your premise "He shouldn't be sniped by the thing he is trying to kill simply because of bad game mechanics." is flawed because it is an opinion, and anecdotal at best. Finally, Swarms are not meant to be the go-to AV option that is superior to all choices. Swarms are an AV choice. Your change suggestions would by and large render swarms superior to the Forge Gun and Plasma Cannon in just about every possible way, on the AV platform with the flat-out highest baseline DPS of any infantry AV weapon in the game. I know this because I have TESTED these permutations. I have gone over them with tank drivers who aren't rabid win butan fanatics, and AV gunners who aren't of the opinion that having an AV weapon should mean an automatic kill against a vehicle. I would suggest more thought and consideration to the problem and examining it both from the AV and from the driver's seat of a tank before providing one-sided solutions to acknowledged problems that benefit only your playstyle if you wish said suggestions taken more seriously. He certainly isn't for helping out AV any. He sounds like a tanker to me This is literally the single funniest post I have read today.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 567	Posted - 2015.12.05 17:52:00 - [74] - Quote Text Grant wrote: True Adamance wrote: Ghost Steps wrote: Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen. They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick). Limiting fitting options is a terrible idea unless infantry like the idea of being limited to one shield hardener or armour repairer. I never liked the idea of limiting items. IMO if a module is too powerful, nerf it. Like, nerf the miofibs, and take away the limit. Also, nerf hardeners. It is worth noting that the Myofibs where limited just because it was too powerful, but because of the reason it was too powerful, the stacking penalties where working in reverse past 3 and they couldn't figure out why (Legacy Code!)...so it was limited to an acceptable level rather than spend precious dev time figuring out why 1 module had broken stacking penalties (at least, this is my understanding from the dev posts and community investigation into the issue when the limited it). Edit: That aside, I too am against arbitrary module limitations wherever possible, that is at least something we can agree on Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
Flix Keptick Red Star. 4	Posted - 2015.12.21 20:15:00 - [75] - Quote Why do you even want to kill tanks? It's not like they can reliably kill infantry anyways... They just sit there, trying (and failing) to kill things. Vehicle addict // caldari scout
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.21 21:07:00 - [76] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: Why do you even want to kill tanks? It's not like they can reliably kill infantry anyways... They just sit there, trying (and failing) to kill things. Basically, unless the tank has good gunners (let's face it that never happens) it will have a harder time engaging infantry than infantry has engaging it. I honestly wish I had a co-axial small turret. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
HOLY PERFECTION Fourth Nature 179	Posted - 2015.12.23 14:56:00 - [77] - Quote Text Grant wrote: True Adamance wrote: Ghost Steps wrote: Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen. They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick). Limiting fitting options is a terrible idea unless infantry like the idea of being limited to one shield hardener or armour repairer. I never liked the idea of limiting items. IMO if a module is too powerful, nerf it. Like, nerf the miofibs, and take away the limit. Also, nerf hardeners. You need to think. If you nerfed a armor hardener you will truly kill Tanks. And by the way about your other post, they are not going to refund you my friend. You obviously wanted to spend your money on DUst. If I charge, follow me. If I retreat, kill me. If I die, revenge me. I'm really hard headed
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 585	Posted - 2015.12.24 21:34:00 - [78] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Why do you even want to kill tanks? It's not like they can reliably kill infantry anyways... They just sit there, trying (and failing) to kill things. Basically, unless the tank has good gunners (let's face it that never happens) it will have a harder time engaging infantry than infantry has engaging it. I honestly wish I had a co-axial small turret. This...So much this...as much this as possible... Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.12.25 00:32:00 - [79] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Why do you even want to kill tanks? It's not like they can reliably kill infantry anyways... They just sit there, trying (and failing) to kill things. Basically, unless the tank has good gunners (let's face it that never happens) it will have a harder time engaging infantry than infantry has engaging it. I honestly wish I had a co-axial small turret. This...So much this...as much this as possible... Infantry (for some reason vov) won't let that happen until the large blaster loses it's ability to fire quickly (even though it's already inaccurate against them). Arguing otherwise will end up making them saying "You just want to be all powerful monsters!" or some dribble like that, and the conversation will end there, as it always has. Top lel
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 585	Posted - 2015.12.25 04:53:00 - [80] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Why do you even want to kill tanks? It's not like they can reliably kill infantry anyways... They just sit there, trying (and failing) to kill things. Basically, unless the tank has good gunners (let's face it that never happens) it will have a harder time engaging infantry than infantry has engaging it. I honestly wish I had a co-axial small turret. This...So much this...as much this as possible... Infantry (for some reason vov) won't let that happen until the large blaster loses it's ability to fire quickly (even though it's already inaccurate against them). Arguing otherwise will end up making them saying "You just want to be all powerful monsters!" or some dribble like that, and the conversation will end there, as it always has. Well...I'm pretty sure you know I want blaster mechanics to change, but that's because I want the turrets on the HAVs to feel like MBT turrets (also...a high RoF makes landing the individual shots less important...so there's that balance reasoning xD), but I respect that some people do like the fast firing turret as-is. So I will still campaign for something like a giant shotgun or Plasma cannon, I won't say that you are flat out wrong for liking what we have/had Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC

Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.12.27 22:41:00 - [81] - Quote Ghost Steps wrote: Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen. They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick). I like how people ignore (still) that hardeners were barely changed, and is surrounded by a bunch of other more heavy changes, such as a complete rework of regen. But let's just point at one singular thing and say it's that thing's fault. Top lel
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.12.27 22:54:00 - [82] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Godin Thekiller wrote: Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: True Adamance wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Why do you even want to kill tanks? It's not like they can reliably kill infantry anyways... They just sit there, trying (and failing) to kill things. Basically, unless the tank has good gunners (let's face it that never happens) it will have a harder time engaging infantry than infantry has engaging it. I honestly wish I had a co-axial small turret. This...So much this...as much this as possible... Infantry (for some reason vov) won't let that happen until the large blaster loses it's ability to fire quickly (even though it's already inaccurate against them). Arguing otherwise will end up making them saying "You just want to be all powerful monsters!" or some dribble like that, and the conversation will end there, as it always has. Well...I'm pretty sure you know I want blaster mechanics to change, but that's because I want the turrets on the HAVs to feel like MBT turrets (also...a high RoF makes landing the individual shots less important...so there's that balance reasoning xD), but I respect that some people do like the fast firing turret as-is. So I will still campaign for something like a giant shotgun or Plasma cannon, I won't say that you are flat out wrong for liking what we have/had Fair enough. Although, I wonder what AC's would be. Top lel
kickin six Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 28	Posted - 2016.01.02 19:46:00 - [83] - Quote I'm a FG'er and this is an age-old situation that CCP makes worse on every release. I don't want to be able to take a tank out without some hard ass work but to even things I think they should lose one of their advantages when 1/2 damaged; Speed, Repairing or Firing. Disable any one and that's closer to fairness. Or maybe if they are severely damaged then high-acceleration increases the damage. That would give FG one more chance from long-distance. I still take out a lot of tanks but I also die more since their aim precision was improved. Just part of the game. Other than picking off someone running in the open from 150m, there's nothing funner than watching a tank try to get away and not make it. Cheers
ROMULUS H3X research lab 928	Posted - 2016.01.02 21:22:00 - [84] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Richard Gamerich-R wrote: Don't forget, proto tank cost 1 200 000 ISK, your suit max 130 000. Balance tank/AV is good, if you play in coordinate squad, no vehicle can run as they want. So you're saying that a solo player in a tank is counterable by an entire squad. Yep, sounds totally balanced to me. Two more proto tanks get deployed FORGE/FLAYLOCK/FISTS PLASMA/PISTOL/PUNCH ALL OF YOU PUNKS GET HUMILIATED AFTER LUNCH!
Lightning35 Delta514 The Warlords Legion 3	Posted - 2016.01.03 01:58:00 - [85] - Quote Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. Ways to fix since I put this here... 1 keep tanks strong, but take away their acceleration 2 make tanks weak, but keep the acceleration. 3 add dispertion to all hybrid large turrets, and nerf the range on them. Hey, let me know if any of these things happen so I can actually enjoy a game not based on tank vs tank warfare only. Wtf you talking about? I can destroy all but proto and well fitted adv tanks with Plc and packed AV nades. Take out shields quickly with plasma cannon and finish off with AV nades. You're not doing something right if you can't take out a soma. CEO of T-W-L YT- LD3514 Gallente Loyalist- ION PISTOL FOR LIFE! GFQ!
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2016.01.04 01:16:00 - [86] - Quote kickin six wrote: I'm a FG'er and this is an age-old situation that CCP makes worse on every release. I don't want to be able to take a tank out without some hard ass work but to even things I think they should lose one of their advantages when 1/2 damaged; Speed, Repairing or Firing. Disable any one and that's closer to fairness. Or maybe if they are severely damaged then high-acceleration increases the damage. That would give FG one more chance from long-distance. I still take out a lot of tanks but I also die more since their aim precision was improved. Just part of the game. Other than picking off someone running in the open from 150m, there's nothing funner than watching a tank try to get away and not make it. Cheers I'll accept this when I can shoot at infantry and disable them too. Also, unless they've actually changed something since the last time I checked (2 weeks ago), precision on not a single turret, or anything else has improved. Top lel
Medical Crash Systematic Engineers Unlimited 411	Posted - 2016.01.04 05:35:00 - [87] - Quote Just take out that module that increases tanks speed temporarily out of the game (can't remember it's name). See how OP armour tanks are after that. My YouTube Channel
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2016.01.04 22:58:00 - [88] - Quote Medical Crash wrote: Just take out that module that increases tanks speed temporarily out of the game (can't remember it's name). See how OP armour tanks are after that. Then remove all forms of maneuverability modules from infantry. Top lel
sullen maximus Deadspace Knights 14	Posted - 2016.01.06 22:25:00 - [89] - Quote I love reading the "i should be able to take out a tank by myself!" arguments from infantry only players. If anything this game needs a massive buff to the low end tanks considering their value. The lowest level milita tanks will cost easily 40% of everything you make in a game IF you win the game. Even building a standard issue tank will cost more than all the winnings of a single battle. Losing a single 'enhanced' tank will take you the rest of your night to recoup should you lose it. This means if you lose even a single tank you better start walking with the other infantry cause you're already in the hole. Given the stupid amount of SP required to even use tanks effectively it's pretty disheartening to even attempt to consistently use them. I've been playing since the beta and planed to be a vehicle primary from the get go. Looking back now it's disheartening to see how much SP is essentially wasted in vehicle skills that I may get to utilized 1 - 2 times a night. To flip the tables. I would love to see how you would react if you dumped millions upon millions of SP into your infantry suit and then after a single lost were negated to doing nothing but being a side turret on a vehicle..... If anything. They should reduce the cost of all tanks, but also reduce the initial hp for all of them. To counter this skills should do 2x the benefit they currently do. That way not every joe can just hop into a soma and do damage, but someone who truly committed to vehicles can be a serious contender.
DUST Fiend 17	Posted - 2016.01.09 15:16:00 - [90] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. . I think you are not aiming for a realistic balanced situation, at all. The underlined part sounds an awful lot like: Quote: Until any AV'er can kill 1 tanker Even if you mean maximized proto AV vs maximized proto tank and not lesser AV variations, that is not good gameplay balance. The reason why that is broken balance is that if in all theoretical 1v1 scenarios (impossible btw) both tank and infantryman are "on balance", the tank gets absolutely wrecked, instagibbed and all totaled if two infantrymen casually open fire together. Let's face it: infantry, dropships, tanks (and even scouts and sentinels) play differently. I understand your point, but at the same time this point can be boiled down 'Tanks shouldn't be able to be killed 1v1 because then when they get into a 2v1 situation they are f*cked'. Which is the same scenario for every other non-vehicle player on the field. 2v1 with equivalent gear and the 1 is in trouble. It's not an even analogy because of the differences between infantry and vehicle combat, but the fact is that you can currently have people soloing in a fitting that cannot be killed by another player soloing in a fitting meant to counter the first. And with hardeners in their current state a solo Av player is better off trying to avoid a hardner stacked tank because they will accomplish nothing more than drawing it's attention to them. At best, scaring it away for a few seconds. The meta is broken and needs fixing. I'm not advocating any particular action, but in the end vehicles need to be able to be killed in a 1v1 fight. But do infantry players have to wait to call in their dropsuits? Are their dropsuits vulnerable to destruction and theft while being called and recalled? Can vehicles cap points? Do infantry have a supply cap? As far as tanks go, are full proto fits equivilent to Infantry? Why should one player have to go through so many more hurdles, in and even before match, just to be easily wrecked by a single player? And, to add icing to that tasty cake, after you go up in flames to that one idiot and wait all that time to get another vehicle up and running, that numskull wanders over to a supply depot and goes back to being rambo before switching out again for more free points. I've personally always advocated for less infantry killing power and simply make vehicles the best counter to vehicles, that way AV is more of a support role if alone yet can still function as primary AV in small groups of 2-3 If any of my posts seem severely negative, it's probably because they are.

True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2016.01.10 01:07:00 - [91] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. . I think you are not aiming for a realistic balanced situation, at all. The underlined part sounds an awful lot like: Quote: Until any AV'er can kill 1 tanker Even if you mean maximized proto AV vs maximized proto tank and not lesser AV variations, that is not good gameplay balance. The reason why that is broken balance is that if in all theoretical 1v1 scenarios (impossible btw) both tank and infantryman are "on balance", the tank gets absolutely wrecked, instagibbed and all totaled if two infantrymen casually open fire together. Let's face it: infantry, dropships, tanks (and even scouts and sentinels) play differently. I understand your point, but at the same time this point can be boiled down 'Tanks shouldn't be able to be killed 1v1 because then when they get into a 2v1 situation they are fcked'. Which is the same scenario for every other non-vehicle player on the field. 2v1 with equivalent gear and the 1 is in trouble. It's not an even analogy because of the differences between infantry and vehicle combat, but the fact is that you can currently have people soloing in a fitting that cannot be killed by another player soloing in a fitting meant to counter the first. And with hardeners in their current state a solo Av player is better off trying to avoid a hardner stacked tank because they will accomplish nothing more than drawing it's attention to them. At best, scaring it away for a few seconds. The meta is broken and needs fixing. I'm not advocating any particular action, but in the end vehicles need to be able to be killed in a 1v1 fight. But do infantry players have to wait to call in their dropsuits? Are their dropsuits vulnerable to destruction and theft while being called and recalled? Can vehicles cap points? Do infantry have a supply cap? As far as tanks go, are full proto fits equivilent to Infantry? Why should one player have to go through so many more hurdles, in and even before match, just to be easily wrecked by a single player? And, to add icing to that tasty cake, after you go up in flames to that one idiot and wait all that time to get another vehicle up and running, that numskull wanders over to a supply depot and goes back to being rambo before switching out again for more free points. I've personally always advocated for less infantry killing power and simply make vehicles the best counter to vehicles, that way AV is more of a support role if alone yet can still function as primary AV in small groups of 2-3 When it comes to infantry killing power I consider now that it's not so much that HAV need less of it.... they just need to be able to do it in a different way. I'm for the idea that Anti Infantry Firepower should be put in the hands of secondary and tertiary gunners who crew your gun turrets (these solo player tanks are stupid as all hell) though for that to happen the small turrets themselves would have to function a bit better each in their intended role. Blasters and Auto Cannon As Anti Infantry Missiles as Semi Lockable AV Railguns as Powerful Direct Damage AV However when it comes to the main turrets it's not that HAV need less capacity to kill infantry only more more suitable way of representing their killing power befitting the type of powerful vehicle main cannon they have equipped. High Explosive Splash Damage weapons that kill upon direct hits and can be used to bombard areas or clear out cover with accurate shots. Also if we simply reduce HAV capacity to kill infantry without giving them on map strategic options, goals, etc that do directly influence infantry gameplay such as destroying turrets, generators, etc we're simply making them less enjoyable to play than they already are. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.*
Medical Crash Systematic Engineers Unlimited 418	Posted - 2016.01.10 02:55:00 - [92] - Quote True Adamance wrote: [quote=DUST Fiend][quote=Baal Omniscient][quote=KEROSIINI-TERO][quote=Text Grant]I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. Adamance I like your idea. Let the Tanks Main gun only be useable on other vehicles, while the only way for them to hurt infantry is with their secondary gunners. (Secondary guns may need major buffs to make up for this???) Also, remove "Nitrous" modules from the game. Squirm tankers squirm. AV weapons have been getting tyrannosaurus rekt-nerfed for too long now, let the tankers have a taste of their own medicine. What they did to my Breach FG DMG and it's effective range is unbelievable. What is it's effective max range now, like 300 M? Can't remember, but that needs to be returned to what it was before the nerf. At least for the Breach FG, reward users of this weapon for all it's drawbacks. My YouTube Channel
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2016.01.10 05:56:00 - [93] - Quote Medical Crash wrote: Adamance I like your idea. Let the Tanks Main gun only be useable on other vehicles, while the only way for them to hurt infantry is with their secondary gunners. (Secondary guns may need major buffs to make up for this???) Also, remove "Nitrous" modules from the game. Squirm tankers squirm. AV weapons have been getting tyrannosaurus rekt-nerfed for too long now, let the tankers have a taste of their own medicine. What they did to my Breach FG DMG and it's effective range is unbelievable. What is it's effective max range now, like 300 M? Can't remember, but that needs to be returned to what it was before the nerf. At least for the Breach FG, reward users of this weapon for all it's drawbacks. That's not really my idea, nor do I agree with it. I feel HAV main guns should primarily be an Anti Tank gun however it should have a sizable AOE effect enough that it can threaten infantry with well placed shots. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2016.01.10 11:45:00 - [94] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: kickin six wrote: I'm a FG'er and this is an age-old situation that CCP makes worse on every release. I don't want to be able to take a tank out without some hard ass work but to even things I think they should lose one of their advantages when 1/2 damaged; Speed, Repairing or Firing. Disable any one and that's closer to fairness. Or maybe if they are severely damaged then high-acceleration increases the damage. That would give FG one more chance from long-distance. I still take out a lot of tanks but I also die more since their aim precision was improved. Just part of the game. Other than picking off someone running in the open from 150m, there's nothing funner than watching a tank try to get away and not make it. Cheers I'll accept this when I can shoot at infantry and disable them too. Also, unless they've actually changed something since the last time I checked (2 weeks ago), precision on not a single turret, or anything else has improved. I'll accept disabling infantry when infantry get active hardeners. Your argument boils down to 'that functions different than mine, so no'. Well, closer to 'that makes mine function more different than yours'. You can go around and around all day arguing like that and get nowhere. I am not saying that his suggestion is a good one, but your response is not a counter point in the slightest. añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ *"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2016.01.10 12:00:00 - [95] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Baal Omniscient wrote: KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. . I think you are not aiming for a realistic balanced situation, at all. The underlined part sounds an awful lot like: Quote: Until any AV'er can kill 1 tanker Even if you mean maximized proto AV vs maximized proto tank and not lesser AV variations, that is not good gameplay balance. The reason why that is broken balance is that if in all theoretical 1v1 scenarios (impossible btw) both tank and infantryman are "on balance", the tank gets absolutely wrecked, instagibbed and all totaled if two infantrymen casually open fire together. Let's face it: infantry, dropships, tanks (and even scouts and sentinels) play differently. I understand your point, but at the same time this point can be boiled down 'Tanks shouldn't be able to be killed 1v1 because then when they get into a 2v1 situation they are fcked'. Which is the same scenario for every other non-vehicle player on the field. 2v1 with equivalent gear and the 1 is in trouble. It's not an even analogy because of the differences between infantry and vehicle combat, but the fact is that you can currently have people soloing in a fitting that cannot be killed by another player soloing in a fitting meant to counter the first. And with hardeners in their current state a solo Av player is better off trying to avoid a hardner stacked tank because they will accomplish nothing more than drawing it's attention to them. At best, scaring it away for a few seconds. The meta is broken and needs fixing. I'm not advocating any particular action, but in the end vehicles need to be able to be killed in a 1v1 fight. But do infantry players have to wait to call in their dropsuits? Are their dropsuits vulnerable to destruction and theft while being called and recalled? Can vehicles cap points? Do infantry have a supply cap? As far as tanks go, are full proto fits equivilent to Infantry? Why should one player have to go through so many more hurdles, in and even before match, just to be easily wrecked by a single player? And, to add icing to that tasty cake, after you go up in flames to that one idiot and wait all that time to get another vehicle up and running, that numskull wanders over to a supply depot and goes back to being rambo before switching out again for more free points. I've personally always advocated for less infantry killing power and simply make vehicles the best counter to vehicles, that way AV is more of a support role if alone yet can still function as primary AV in small groups of 2-3 In a situation where vehicles and av were balanced I would not be opposed to coding a limit to the number of fits allowed who have an AV weapon. As for the differences between vehicles and infantry, those are not the fault of infantry. A balanced game requires a meta that is evenly matched between av and vehicles in a 1v1 situation. Whatever is required to make that happen I will support because I want a game that is properly balanced for everyone who plays. A solo av player ambushed by a proto tank while crossing a map shouldn't be completely helpless anymore than a solo tank ambushed by a proto AV player. That's balance añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ "Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."* añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
SLY AVENGER G0DS AM0NG MEN RUST415 0	Posted - 2016.01.10 17:02:00 - [96] - Quote Text Grant wrote: I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP. Ways to fix since I put this here... 1 keep tanks strong, but take away their acceleration 2 make tanks weak, but keep the acceleration. 3 add dispertion to all hybrid large turrets, and nerf the range on them. Hey, let me know if any of these things happen so I can actually enjoy a game not based on tank vs tank warfare only. You see the thing is, if you can't kill a soma within 3 lai dai packed Av nades, then something is wrong. Beyond that, a TANK is a TANK for a reason. At proto militia and standard gear bounce of a tank like rubber toys, making it harder to kill. It costs more because its DESIGNED to be more impenetrable, as you can see nornal AR bullets don't do much. You need multiple people to work together and kill a tank. As a half Dust Veteran I've never seen one person take on a proto tank without some form of assistance. I'm probably wrong xD I'll teach you how to be the epitome of Failure!
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.01.11 00:27:00 - [97] - Quote I've done it a lot. It's just by and large not worth the effort. Shield tanks are too easy, madrugars are a chore, not a challenge. IMO madrugars are too hard to hit infantry with, too resilient if you use the cookie cutter fits. Gunnlogis are too squishy and the railguns involve more luck. When they had splash damage versus sentinel splash resistance things were more interesting. But i wouldn't call av/v interactions fun. One side thinks tanks should be invulnerable to skilled gunners. The other side thinks that having a swarm launcher means a tank should always die. Those of us in the middle get conflated with the morons on both extreme. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.
sullen maximus Rawdy Horde 15	Posted - 2016.01.11 18:28:00 - [98] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: I've done it a lot. It's just by and large not worth the effort. Shield tanks are too easy, madrugars are a chore, not a challenge. IMO madrugars are too hard to hit infantry with, too resilient if you use the cookie cutter fits. Gunnlogis are too squishy and the railguns involve more luck. When they had splash damage versus sentinel splash resistance things were more interesting. But i wouldn't call av/v interactions fun. One side thinks tanks should be invulnerable to skilled gunners. The other side thinks that having a swarm launcher means a tank should always die. Those of us in the middle get conflated with the morons on both extreme. This all is a common problem among games which allow instantaneous load out modification. It's been a problem I refer to as the "battlefield" problem. I call it that because of the battlefield series which has always struggled between balance when it came to anti vehicle weapons. Where is the balance when any player at any time can respawn with vehicle killing noob canons? Make it too powerful and any group with 2 players knowing what they're doing can effectively shut down the enemy teams vehicles. Too weak and anything short of half the team focusing fire will make the vehicle invincible. Battlefield controlled this to some extent by regulating vehicle respawns. Halo did it by regulating the vehicles AND anti vehicle weapons to respawn timers. Dust has neither and adds a level of complexity by having different levels of the same tanks. TBH i'm not quite sure how the developers can fix this. So long as it's simply an n+1 of both the tanks and anti-tanks you will always have the problem of low end tanks being worthless to high end anti-tank and low end anti-tank being pointless to use. To compare in eve, when getting better ships of the same type (tech 2 or tech 3) generally the ships have additional special features which are the real benefit. What I would have preferred to see is something where enhanced and proto anti-tank weapons have 'other' characteristics to make them more desirable aside from simply a n+1 damage scenario. For example enhanced could have the effect of being able to lock on through buildings, or retain locks withouth line of sight. Proto could then further this by having semi smart missiles that are capable of following around buildings and obstacles to some extent. With this model you could then lower the proto damage and raise the basic anti vehicles to a closer margin. The same could then be done with tanks to similar effect with the higher tanks get more 'extra features' from the lower. things like built in cru, semi-auto small turrets, etc. There are lots of options. With this model the over all hp of the high tanks could be significantly lowered along with there costs.
sullen maximus Rawdy Horde 15	Posted - 2016.01.11 22:50:00 - [99] - Quote Medical Crash wrote: Adamance I like your idea. Let the Tanks Main gun only be useable on other vehicles, while the only way for them to hurt infantry is with their secondary gunners. (Secondary guns may need major buffs to make up for this???) Also, remove "Nitrous" modules from the game. Squirm tankers squirm. AV weapons have been getting tyrannosaurus rekt-nerfed for too long now, let the tankers have a taste of their own medicine. What they did to my Breach FG DMG and it's effective range is unbelievable. What is it's effective max range now, like 300 M? Can't remember, but that needs to be returned to what it was before the nerf. At least for the Breach FG, reward users of this weapon for all it's drawbacks. Taste of their own medicine? Let me ask you how many times is it Proto tanks which you are having an issue destroying vs the militia, standard, and enhanced? Other than the proto the other types get rofl raped by AV weapons in the game currently. Seriously stop the "i have AV therefore I should be able to single handedly take out tanks mentality"
Devadander Woodgrain Atari 1	Posted - 2016.01.12 04:34:00 - [100] - Quote sullen maximus wrote: Medical Crash wrote: Adamance I like your idea. Let the Tanks Main gun only be useable on other vehicles, while the only way for them to hurt infantry is with their secondary gunners. (Secondary guns may need major buffs to make up for this???) Also, remove "Nitrous" modules from the game. Squirm tankers squirm. AV weapons have been getting tyrannosaurus rekt-nerfed for too long now, let the tankers have a taste of their own medicine. What they did to my Breach FG DMG and it's effective range is unbelievable. What is it's effective max range now, like 300 M? Can't remember, but that needs to be returned to what it was before the nerf. At least for the Breach FG, reward users of this weapon for all it's drawbacks. Taste of their own medicine? Let me ask you how many times is it Proto tanks which you are having an issue destroying vs the militia, standard, and enhanced? Other than the proto the other types get rofl raped by AV weapons in the game currently. Seriously stop the "i have AV therefore I should be able to single handedly take out tanks mentality" This is the rock wall I find my forehead against ATM. Trying to write an overhaul for AV/V, except we have the x* problem. * being however many people can be arsed to pull AV. Sometimes this is 0, others >6. Add in the fact that on paper, std and adv HAV sound good, but aren't when faced with half skilled av/V. Coupled with std only DS/LAV... And topped with officer AV......... Even then, with our watered down selection of modules, viable fits echo our current meta. The only sheet I'm not thoroughly sick of is my "dream" sheet. Complete stat/module/AV variant rebuild. And dreaming up new AV variants is where I run dry... After actually trying to rebuild and crunch new numbers, I've come to realize why CCP has left vehicles in the cold so long. Without a full rebuild, its impossible. Even then.. Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~

KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 2	Posted - 2016.01.12 05:43:00 - [101] - Quote Nothing Certain wrote: I reaaly don't get this, vehicle/AV balance is in a good place, if anything vehicles could use a small buff with the exception of the hardened Maddy. That is pretty much broken, a swarm user has no effect on it. They can eat all your swarms and Lai Dai's and just roll up on to you. Good tankers are hard to kill but sometimes they get too cocky because they are almost invulnerable. Not Lai Dais. NOT Lai Dais. The biggest dps in the whole game. "Cut cut cut - Trim trim trim!" KERO-TRADER is my official Eve character for Dust trading.
Thaddeus Reynolds Facepunch Security 610	Posted - 2016.01.12 05:52:00 - [102] - Quote Devadander wrote: sullen maximus wrote: Medical Crash wrote: Adamance I like your idea. Let the Tanks Main gun only be useable on other vehicles, while the only way for them to hurt infantry is with their secondary gunners. (Secondary guns may need major buffs to make up for this???) Also, remove "Nitrous" modules from the game. Squirm tankers squirm. AV weapons have been getting tyrannosaurus rekt-nerfed for too long now, let the tankers have a taste of their own medicine. What they did to my Breach FG DMG and it's effective range is unbelievable. What is it's effective max range now, like 300 M? Can't remember, but that needs to be returned to what it was before the nerf. At least for the Breach FG, reward users of this weapon for all it's drawbacks. Taste of their own medicine? Let me ask you how many times is it Proto tanks which you are having an issue destroying vs the militia, standard, and enhanced? Other than the proto the other types get rofl raped by AV weapons in the game currently. Seriously stop the "i have AV therefore I should be able to single handedly take out tanks mentality" This is the rock wall I find my forehead against ATM. Trying to write an overhaul for AV/V, except we have the x* problem. * being however many people can be arsed to pull AV. Sometimes this is 0, others >6. Add in the fact that on paper, std and adv HAV sound good, but aren't when faced with half skilled av/V. Coupled with std only DS/LAV... And topped with officer AV......... Even then, with our watered down selection of modules, viable fits echo our current meta. The only sheet I'm not thoroughly sick of is my "dream" sheet. Complete stat/module/AV variant rebuild. And dreaming up new AV variants is where I run dry... After actually trying to rebuild and crunch new numbers, I've come to realize why CCP has left vehicles in the cold so long. Without a full rebuild, its impossible. Even then.. Pretty much the conclusion I came to with my MASSIVE SPREADSHEET OF DOOM! during the HAV bring back initiative. Any sort re-balance has to be with the One Player can take on One Player system (which there is nothing inherently wrong with), while making HAVs when fit like MBTs feel like MBTs. The conclusion I came to boiled down to increasing the hell out of Buffer, Modifying Duration on Current Mitigation, and Significantly nerfing sources of Passive Regeneration (while adding options for Active Regeneration on Armor)...so I figured, while we're at it, let's look at LAVs...and DSs...and look at what the stats on MAVs might be...and try to add in old armor, while converting their old fitting stats over to the new fitting system. Because change one thing with vehicles and everything else falls out of alignment. Also...AV weapons need help, the Vanilla Forge Gun does less damage than the Assault? The Breach has way too low DPS (and/or not enough alpha to justify such low DPS)...and there is only the Plasma Cannon for Anti-Shield AV...Progression on some items made no sense...Vehicle Operators need Fitting Skill Options (as current CPU/PG are far too restrictive)... Khanid Logi and Tanker, sometimes AV Heavy or Sniper. #PortDust514 ...Preferably to both PS4 and PC
Slayer Deathbringer Planetary Response Organisation FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE 15	Posted - 2016.02.12 02:27:00 - [103] - Quote Thaddeus Reynolds wrote: Devadander wrote: sullen maximus wrote: Medical Crash wrote: Adamance I like your idea. Let the Tanks Main gun only be useable on other vehicles, while the only way for them to hurt infantry is with their secondary gunners. (Secondary guns may need major buffs to make up for this???) Also, remove "Nitrous" modules from the game. Squirm tankers squirm. AV weapons have been getting tyrannosaurus rekt-nerfed for too long now, let the tankers have a taste of their own medicine. What they did to my Breach FG DMG and it's effective range is unbelievable. What is it's effective max range now, like 300 M? Can't remember, but that needs to be returned to what it was before the nerf. At least for the Breach FG, reward users of this weapon for all it's drawbacks. Taste of their own medicine? Let me ask you how many times is it Proto tanks which you are having an issue destroying vs the militia, standard, and enhanced? Other than the proto the other types get rofl raped by AV weapons in the game currently. Seriously stop the "i have AV therefore I should be able to single handedly take out tanks mentality" This is the rock wall I find my forehead against ATM. Trying to write an overhaul for AV/V, except we have the x* problem. * being however many people can be arsed to pull AV. Sometimes this is 0, others >6. Add in the fact that on paper, std and adv HAV sound good, but aren't when faced with half skilled av/V. Coupled with std only DS/LAV... And topped with officer AV......... Even then, with our watered down selection of modules, viable fits echo our current meta. The only sheet I'm not thoroughly sick of is my "dream" sheet. Complete stat/module/AV variant rebuild. And dreaming up new AV variants is where I run dry... After actually trying to rebuild and crunch new numbers, I've come to realize why CCP has left vehicles in the cold so long. Without a full rebuild, its impossible. Even then.. Pretty much the conclusion I came to with my MASSIVE SPREADSHEET OF DOOM! during the HAV bring back initiative. Any sort re-balance has to be with the One Player can take on One Player system (which there is nothing inherently wrong with), while making HAVs when fit like MBTs feel like MBTs. The conclusion I came to boiled down to increasing the hell out of Buffer, Modifying Duration on Current Mitigation, and Significantly nerfing sources of Passive Regeneration (while adding options for Active Regeneration on Armor)...so I figured, while we're at it, let's look at LAVs...and DSs...and look at what the stats on MAVs might be...and try to add in old armor, while converting their old fitting stats over to the new fitting system. Because change one thing with vehicles and everything else falls out of alignment. Also...AV weapons need help, the Vanilla Forge Gun does less damage than the Assault? The Breach has way too low DPS (and/or not enough alpha to justify such low DPS)...and there is only the Plasma Cannon for Anti-Shield AV...Progression on some items made no sense...Vehicle Operators need Fitting Skill Options (as current CPU/PG are far too restrictive)... flux nades are shield AV but yes the vanilla and breach forge guns need a buff I can say that as a forge gun user that the vanilla is better vs infantry than any other forge gun in terms of accuracy also why not also address punching as an AV option because reasons.. "It's not my fault that you lost a 1 mill isk suit to a 1k isk forge gun"
Jammeh McJam Dead Man's Game Preatoriani 460	Posted - 2016.02.12 19:52:00 - [104] - Quote Why is there no dislike button? Steam name - Jammeh McJam PC master race
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 22	Posted - 2016.02.15 19:52:00 - [105] - Quote Jammeh McJam wrote: Why is there no dislike button? What specifically do you dislike in the discussion. Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Breakin Stuff Goonfeet Special Planetary Emergency Response Group 12	Posted - 2016.02.19 03:59:00 - [106] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Jammeh McJam wrote: Why is there no dislike button? What specifically do you dislike in the discussion. Probably that Breakin Stuff guy. He's a jerkass. Imagine a gigantic, shiny bug zapper. Embrace your destiny.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 22	Posted - 2016.02.22 22:52:00 - [107] - Quote Breakin Stuff wrote: True Adamance wrote: Jammeh McJam wrote: Why is there no dislike button? What specifically do you dislike in the discussion. Probably that Breakin Stuff guy. He's a jerkass. I'd say he's more of an 'Assbutt' Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.
Jenny Tales Eternal Beings I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 31	Posted - 2016.02.26 08:04:00 - [108] - Quote is this guy trolling or...? tanks are WAY more balanced now its not even funny how OP they used to be a year ago
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 22	Posted - 2016.02.27 09:21:00 - [109] - Quote Jenny Tales wrote: is this guy trolling or...? tanks are WAY more balanced now its not even funny how OP they used to be a year ago Um.... you are aware that Shield tanks, which arguably were the ones that were out of balance, are more potent than they ever have been in exactly the same way they were over powered last year.... Waves that dye the land gold. Blessed breath to nurture life in a land of wheat. A path the Sef descend drawn in ash.


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.

The enemies of God stand broken before us. The light of the Reclaiming shines over them!