DUST Search - Decrease The Time Of Armor Hardener Module Activation

All Channels

Feedback/Requests

Decrease The Time Of Armor Hardener Module Activation

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.01 15:39:00 - [1] - Quote I feel that the Armor Hardener Module for vehicles should be used to allow vehicles to escape to safety. What I see now, specifically from Tanks, is they will activate the Armor Hardener Module and then continue to go about slaughtering everyone near them. I suggest reverting Tanks and Dropships back to what they were before they were nerfed, remove passive Armor Repair from Tanks and Dropships, and decrease substantially the amount of time a Armor Hardener Module can stay active. What are your thoughts?
CRO' OLACHAN Elysium's Electorate 50	Posted - 2015.12.01 16:24:00 - [2] - Quote Cut the speed of tanks by 50% and add a higher penalty for armor (120mm and 60mm) it's a tank. Not a bat out of hell.
Jackkkkkkkkkkkkkkky jack CASSETTE 514 320	Posted - 2015.12.01 16:39:00 - [3] - Quote madruger gv0 is too op already.... its im possible to destroy when hardener on just found cal assault op^^ welcome to Taiwan ^^
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.01 16:44:00 - [4] - Quote CRO' OLACHAN wrote: Cut the speed of tanks by 50% and add a higher penalty for armor (120mm and 60mm) it's a tank. Not a bat out of hell. I would like the speed of the tanks when going in reverse to be reduced. I have never heard of a vehicle transmission having just as many gears for going in reverse as it does for going forward.
Lightning35 Delta514 The Warlords Legion 2	Posted - 2015.12.01 18:09:00 - [5] - Quote Mmmm.....The problem is double hardened. Make it so we can only got one hardener. It's quite easy to destroy tanks with only one. You are right about the slag jetting part but (idk if you tank or not) Thad part of the tank survival procedure, which involves firstly taking out the treat. The reason it's op is again cuz 2 hardeners. If we were to be restricted to 1, AV to tabks would be much more balanced and there would be a better change of infantry wiping out tanks. I have been destroyed with team work. (4swarmandos all locked in and killed me). It shouldn't take 1 person to destroy a well fitted 1m isk tank but they shouldn't be invincible to more than 2 AV-ers. It, again, all comes down to the double hardened fitting. CEO of T-W-L Gallente Loyalist- basic gear OP!!! GALLENTE!!! FREEDOM!!! QUAFE!!!
Avallo Kantor 1	Posted - 2015.12.01 18:58:00 - [6] - Quote I think hardeners should simply reduce the speed of a vehicle by some large %. (And have it stacking) That way a double hardened tank may be very hard to take down, but it's mobility will become so low that it can't escape the moment you are doing well against it. "Mind Blown" - CCP Rattati
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.01 19:08:00 - [7] - Quote Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: Mmmm.....The problem is double hardened. Make it so we can only got one hardener. It's quite easy to destroy tanks with only one. You are right about the slag jetting part but (idk if you tank or not) Thad part of the tank survival procedure, which involves firstly taking out the treat. The reason it's op is again cuz 2 hardeners. If we were to be restricted to 1, AV to tabks would be much more balanced and there would be a better change of infantry wiping out tanks. I have been destroyed with team work. (4swarmandos all locked in and killed me). It shouldn't take 1 person to destroy a well fitted 1m isk tank but they shouldn't be invincible to more than 2 AV-ers. It, again, all comes down to the double hardened fitting. I disagree that 1 person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. If I hop on top of a tank and he starts moving I should move with the tank since I am standing on top of it. I should be able to hop on top of a tank, throw down a nanohive, and then repeatedly throw AV grenades down on the tank until it either blows up or the person driving the tank gets out to try to kill me. ** this easy mode ****. My issue with a tank earlier today was within a different scenario though. I ran up behind a tank and hit it with three AV grenades. The tank took substantial damage then drove off about 30 meters in one direction while I ran to a supply depot about 20 meters in the opposite direction to restock my AV grenades. When I went back after the tank I noticed his hardener was activated so I waited for the hardener to die down before engaging again. Finally when the hardener deactivated I go up to attack the tank just to find out that the tank was able to repair all of its armor during the timeframe of the hardener being activated. I hit the tank with 3 more AV grenades and the tank drove off about another 30 meters. The entire time this is happening the tank is slaughtering my teammates who were at that particular objective point. Now I find myself in the situation where the Supply Depot is 50 meters away from me with the tank being 80 meters from it; that's 130 meters I have to quickly travel in enough time to attack the tank again before he is able to reactivate the hardener. This is ******.
Lightning35 Delta514 The Warlords Legion 2	Posted - 2015.12.01 19:43:00 - [8] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: Mmmm.....The problem is double hardened. Make it so we can only got one hardener. It's quite easy to destroy tanks with only one. You are right about the slag jetting part but (idk if you tank or not) Thad part of the tank survival procedure, which involves firstly taking out the treat. The reason it's op is again cuz 2 hardeners. If we were to be restricted to 1, AV to tabks would be much more balanced and there would be a better change of infantry wiping out tanks. I have been destroyed with team work. (4swarmandos all locked in and killed me). It shouldn't take 1 person to destroy a well fitted 1m isk tank but they shouldn't be invincible to more than 2 AV-ers. It, again, all comes down to the double hardened fitting. I disagree that 1 person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. If I hop on top of a tank and he starts moving I should move with the tank since I am standing on top of it. I should be able to hop on top of a tank, throw down a nanohive, and then repeatedly throw AV grenades down on the tank until it either blows up or the person driving the tank gets out to try to kill me. ** this easy mode ****. My issue with a tank earlier today was within a different scenario though. I ran up behind a tank and hit it with three AV grenades. The tank took substantial damage then drove off about 30 meters in one direction while I ran to a supply depot about 20 meters in the opposite direction to restock my AV grenades. When I went back after the tank I noticed his hardener was activated so I waited for the hardener to die down before engaging again. Finally when the hardener deactivated I go up to attack the tank just to find out that the tank was able to repair all of its armor during the timeframe of the hardener being activated. I hit the tank with 3 more AV grenades and the tank drove off about another 30 meters. The entire time this is happening the tank is slaughtering my teammates who were at that particular objective point. Now I find myself in the situation where the Supply Depot is 50 meters away from me with the tank being 80 meters from it; that's 130 meters I have to quickly travel in enough time to attack the tank again before he is able to reactivate the hardener. This is ******. Yes that happens a lot to me, but that's where the problem would be. Why should a 1.3m tank fit die to 120k AV fit? Unhardened, tanks should be able to, if not fully survive, at least barely survive by tier. That's where hardeners come it. That's the AV counter. The problem is the double hardeners where the double AV counter kicks in and causes unbalance. Tanks should be limited to 1 only. For stats- My pro maddie-(still skilling but I already fitted it just waiting to use it) 1.3m isk Maddy Ion cannon Pro hardener Pro plate (4.5k armor) Pro rep (150 rep) Pro pg Pro damage (20%) Pro fuel Pro scanner 120k My AV fit- Gko Allotek plasma Creodron ion pistol Lai dai AV nade Ishukone nanohives Pro Kincat 2 pro ferroscale 2 pro reps 3 krins mods Un hardened and not moving, this for can pretty much destroy the pro maddy with one full salvo (1 plasma, 3 nades) Hardened is a whole new story. CEO of T-W-L Gallente Loyalist- basic gear OP!!! GALLENTE!!! FREEDOM!!! QUAFE!!!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.01 19:59:00 - [9] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: I feel that the Armor Hardener Module for vehicles should be used to allow vehicles to escape to safety. What I see now, specifically from Tanks, is they will activate the Armor Hardener Module and then continue to go about slaughtering everyone near them. I suggest reverting Tanks and Dropships back to what they were before they were nerfed, remove passive Armor Repair from Tanks and Dropships, and decrease substantially the amount of time a Armor Hardener Module can stay active. What are your thoughts? I fundamentally disagree with your assertion on what the module should do. In the present meta HAV do not nearly have enough RAW HP to sustain themselves in combat long enough to use the Armour Hardener Module solely as a means of escape from combat, nor in my mind should it be a tool specifically designed for such. The armour hardener module to me represents a tactical active module designed to be used to extent the vehicles ability to operate while under fire for a short duration by mitigating a set amount of damage. However that damage mitigation should not be in excess of 20% per module. Moreover the HAV should have enough raw HP to avoid the almost instantaneous death mechanics of modern AV. There should also be no restriction of module usage for vehicles unless infantry want to get used to the idea of combat with one armour repairer or shield extender. I've already seen multiple players establish in this thread that a tank with one modern hardener is not difficult to engage. There is no reason why under the only model vehicle modules should be restricted in number per fitting. I suggest reverting vehicles back to how they were pre- Uprising 1.7 though keeping the positive advancement along the vein of ammunition and such. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.01 22:44:00 - [10] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I feel that the Armor Hardener Module for vehicles should be used to allow vehicles to escape to safety. What I see now, specifically from Tanks, is they will activate the Armor Hardener Module and then continue to go about slaughtering everyone near them. I suggest reverting Tanks and Dropships back to what they were before they were nerfed, remove passive Armor Repair from Tanks and Dropships, and decrease substantially the amount of time a Armor Hardener Module can stay active. What are your thoughts? I fundamentally disagree with your assertion on what the module should do. In the present meta HAV do not nearly have enough RAW HP to sustain themselves in combat long enough to use the Armour Hardener Module solely as a means of escape from combat, nor in my mind should it be a tool specifically designed for such. The armour hardener module to me represents a tactical active module designed to be used to extent the vehicles ability to operate while under fire for a short duration ... I put in bold the words "short duration". The armor hardener allows for a long duration of blasting people away while receiving heavy damage. People complain about how indestructible the gv.0 is on a regular basis because of what armor hardeners allow them to do. Also, I am under the impression that tanks were nerfed. I am suggesting reverting the tanks back to where they were before the nerf and instead nerfing the Armor Hardener Module.

Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.01 22:55:00 - [11] - Quote Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: Summa Militum wrote: Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: Mmmm.....The problem is double hardened. Make it so we can only got one hardener. It's quite easy to destroy tanks with only one. You are right about the slag jetting part but (idk if you tank or not) Thad part of the tank survival procedure, which involves firstly taking out the treat. The reason it's op is again cuz 2 hardeners. If we were to be restricted to 1, AV to tabks would be much more balanced and there would be a better change of infantry wiping out tanks. I have been destroyed with team work. (4swarmandos all locked in and killed me). It shouldn't take 1 person to destroy a well fitted 1m isk tank but they shouldn't be invincible to more than 2 AV-ers. It, again, all comes down to the double hardened fitting. I disagree that 1 person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. If I hop on top of a tank and he starts moving I should move with the tank since I am standing on top of it. I should be able to hop on top of a tank, throw down a nanohive, and then repeatedly throw AV grenades down on the tank until it either blows up or the person driving the tank gets out to try to kill me. ** this easy mode ****. My issue with a tank earlier today was within a different scenario though. I ran up behind a tank and hit it with three AV grenades. The tank took substantial damage then drove off about 30 meters in one direction while I ran to a supply depot about 20 meters in the opposite direction to restock my AV grenades. When I went back after the tank I noticed his hardener was activated so I waited for the hardener to die down before engaging again. Finally when the hardener deactivated I go up to attack the tank just to find out that the tank was able to repair all of its armor during the timeframe of the hardener being activated. I hit the tank with 3 more AV grenades and the tank drove off about another 30 meters. The entire time this is happening the tank is slaughtering my teammates who were at that particular objective point. Now I find myself in the situation where the Supply Depot is 50 meters away from me with the tank being 80 meters from it; that's 130 meters I have to quickly travel in enough time to attack the tank again before he is able to reactivate the hardener. This is ******. Yes that happens a lot to me, but that's where the problem would be. Why should a 1.3m tank fit die to 120k AV fit? Unhardened, tanks should be able to, if not fully survive, at least barely survive by tier. That's where hardeners come it. That's the AV counter. The problem is the double hardeners where the double AV counter kicks in and causes unbalance. Tanks should be limited to 1 only. For stats- My pro maddie-(still skilling but I already fitted it just waiting to use it) 1.3m isk Maddy Ion cannon Pro hardener Pro plate (4.5k armor) Pro rep (150 rep) Pro pg Pro damage (20%) Pro fuel Pro scanner 120k My AV fit- Gko Allotek plasma Creodron ion pistol Lai dai AV nade Ishukone nanohives Pro Kincat 2 pro ferroscale 2 pro reps 3 krins mods Un hardened and not moving, this for can pretty much destroy the pro maddy with one full salvo (1 plasma, 3 nades) Hardened is a whole new story. Hardeners are meant to help tank resist AV and take it out to continue to kill enemy. Without hardeners, tanks are useless. The problem is 2 hardeners that pretty much wipes out the AV threat. Tanks should only be able to fit 1. With one, 2 AV-era working together should be able to wipe a tank out. Ok. Well then I support limiting hardeners to just one. But I still want to be able to surf a tank if they try to drive off with me on top of it. Tanks shouldn't be stationary long enough for me to jump up onto them.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.02 00:37:00 - [12] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I feel that the Armor Hardener Module for vehicles should be used to allow vehicles to escape to safety. What I see now, specifically from Tanks, is they will activate the Armor Hardener Module and then continue to go about slaughtering everyone near them. I suggest reverting Tanks and Dropships back to what they were before they were nerfed, remove passive Armor Repair from Tanks and Dropships, and decrease substantially the amount of time a Armor Hardener Module can stay active. What are your thoughts? I fundamentally disagree with your assertion on what the module should do. In the present meta HAV do not nearly have enough RAW HP to sustain themselves in combat long enough to use the Armour Hardener Module solely as a means of escape from combat, nor in my mind should it be a tool specifically designed for such. The armour hardener module to me represents a tactical active module designed to be used to extent the vehicles ability to operate while under fire for a short duration ... I put in bold the words "short duration". The armor hardener allows for a long duration of blasting people away while receiving heavy damage. People complain about how indestructible the gv.0 is on a regular basis because of what armor hardeners allow them to do. Also, I am under the impression that tanks were nerfed. I am suggesting reverting the tanks back to where they were before the nerf and instead nerfing the Armor Hardener Module. Not that I disagree but a Hardener shouldn't become the de facto 'escape tool' because its duration is too short. In fact the duration of the module is relatively fine. What is not fine is the 40% of incoming damage it essentially allows you to ignore. Moreover if it is relegated to an escape tool only what do you propose to offer pilots to allow them a modicum of survivability without it? The current meta essentially means all non hardened vehicles need to vacate the battlefield or risk being insta-blapped by high alpha AV reminiscent of a Tiger H1 taking a HE round to the ammo stores. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.02 02:04:00 - [13] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I feel that the Armor Hardener Module for vehicles should be used to allow vehicles to escape to safety. What I see now, specifically from Tanks, is they will activate the Armor Hardener Module and then continue to go about slaughtering everyone near them. I suggest reverting Tanks and Dropships back to what they were before they were nerfed, remove passive Armor Repair from Tanks and Dropships, and decrease substantially the amount of time a Armor Hardener Module can stay active. What are your thoughts? I fundamentally disagree with your assertion on what the module should do. In the present meta HAV do not nearly have enough RAW HP to sustain themselves in combat long enough to use the Armour Hardener Module solely as a means of escape from combat, nor in my mind should it be a tool specifically designed for such. The armour hardener module to me represents a tactical active module designed to be used to extent the vehicles ability to operate while under fire for a short duration ... I put in bold the words "short duration". The armor hardener allows for a long duration of blasting people away while receiving heavy damage. People complain about how indestructible the gv.0 is on a regular basis because of what armor hardeners allow them to do. Also, I am under the impression that tanks were nerfed. I am suggesting reverting the tanks back to where they were before the nerf and instead nerfing the Armor Hardener Module. Not that I disagree but a Hardener shouldn't become the de facto 'escape tool' because its duration is too short. In fact the duration of the module is relatively fine. What is not fine is the 40% of incoming damage it essentially allows you to ignore. Moreover if it is relegated to an escape tool only what do you propose to offer pilots to allow them a modicum of survivability without it? The current meta essentially means all non hardened vehicles need to vacate the battlefield or risk being insta-blapped by high alpha AV reminiscent of a Tiger H1 taking a HE round to the ammo stores. I would suggest the pilots move their vehicles regularly throughout the match instead of camping in one spot for several minutes at a time. Incorporate the art of committing drive by shootings. Try taking cover behind buildings when being shot at. Give tankers and especially Assault Drop Ships a warning siren that goes off whenever someone is attempting to lock onto them. Honestly, if I were able to surf a tank and place a nanohive on top of it I probably wouldn't be complaining right now.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.02 02:09:00 - [14] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: I would suggest the pilots move their vehicles regularly throughout the match instead of camping in one spot for several minutes at a time. Incorporate the art of committing drive by shootings. Try taking cover behind buildings when being shot at. Give tankers and especially Assault Drop Ships a warning siren that goes off whenever someone is attempting to lock onto them. Honestly, if I were able to surf a tank and place a nanohive on top of it I probably wouldn't be complaining right now. Tanks aren't and frankly shouldn't be designed for drive by shootings and Defilade is a core concept of modern tank warfare and I encourage any ground based vehicle pilot to learn how to apply the concept correctly. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.02 02:26:00 - [15] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I would suggest the pilots move their vehicles regularly throughout the match instead of camping in one spot for several minutes at a time. Incorporate the art of committing drive by shootings. Try taking cover behind buildings when being shot at. Give tankers and especially Assault Drop Ships a warning siren that goes off whenever someone is attempting to lock onto them. Honestly, if I were able to surf a tank and place a nanohive on top of it I probably wouldn't be complaining right now. Tanks aren't and frankly shouldn't be designed for drive by shootings and Defilade is a core concept of modern tank warfare and I encourage any ground based vehicle pilot to learn how to apply the concept correctly. So how about you tell me what to do. What do I do when I am on a team with a bunch of idiots who do not have the common sense to try to destroy the tank that is slaughtering our team? I want to be able to drop my own Warbarge strike from the Warbarge I have. Upon me getting 1000 WPs I should be able to summon from the heavens above my vengeance to strike down on anyone who brings out a gv.0 in Pubs.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.02 03:01:00 - [16] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I would suggest the pilots move their vehicles regularly throughout the match instead of camping in one spot for several minutes at a time. Incorporate the art of committing drive by shootings. Try taking cover behind buildings when being shot at. Give tankers and especially Assault Drop Ships a warning siren that goes off whenever someone is attempting to lock onto them. Honestly, if I were able to surf a tank and place a nanohive on top of it I probably wouldn't be complaining right now. Tanks aren't and frankly shouldn't be designed for drive by shootings and Defilade is a core concept of modern tank warfare and I encourage any ground based vehicle pilot to learn how to apply the concept correctly. So how about you tell me what to do. What do I do when I am on a team with a bunch of idiots who do not have the common sense to try to destroy the tank that is slaughtering our team? I want to be able to drop my own Warbarge strike from the Warbarge I have. Upon me getting 1000 WPs I should be able to summon from the heavens above my vengeance to strike down on anyone who brings out a gv.0 in Pubs. The simplest way is to build up infrastructure and spawn points around a point you want to control and ignore the HAV in question. There aren't exactly a huge number of maps upon which HAV have a grand effect and can control entire points. Nothing pisses and HAV pilot off more than being completely ignored. For example I played a few matched against Duna and his lot 3-4 HAV on the field more often than not and they lost every game because we just sat on the points and didn't press them. The other is simply a matter of meta but with the proliferation of AV capable soldiers on the rise your team will eventually reach a critical mass of AV. As long as they aren't trying to engage an HAV from open ground your team has the edge in pressing back vehicles of all kinds. But this is getting off topic. The OP was about Hardeners which I have expressed my opinions about. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.02 03:17:00 - [17] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I would suggest the pilots move their vehicles regularly throughout the match instead of camping in one spot for several minutes at a time. Incorporate the art of committing drive by shootings. Try taking cover behind buildings when being shot at. Give tankers and especially Assault Drop Ships a warning siren that goes off whenever someone is attempting to lock onto them. Honestly, if I were able to surf a tank and place a nanohive on top of it I probably wouldn't be complaining right now. Tanks aren't and frankly shouldn't be designed for drive by shootings and Defilade is a core concept of modern tank warfare and I encourage any ground based vehicle pilot to learn how to apply the concept correctly. So how about you tell me what to do. What do I do when I am on a team with a bunch of idiots who do not have the common sense to try to destroy the tank that is slaughtering our team? I want to be able to drop my own Warbarge strike from the Warbarge I have. Upon me getting 1000 WPs I should be able to summon from the heavens above my vengeance to strike down on anyone who brings out a gv.0 in Pubs. The simplest way is to build up infrastructure and spawn points around a point you want to control and ignore the HAV in question. There aren't exactly a huge number of maps upon which HAV have a grand effect and can control entire points. Nothing pisses and HAV pilot off more than being completely ignored. For example I played a few matched against Duna and his lot 3-4 HAV on the field more often than not and they lost every game because we just sat on the points and didn't press them. The other is simply a matter of meta but with the proliferation of AV capable soldiers on the rise your team will eventually reach a critical mass of AV. As long as they aren't trying to engage an HAV from open ground your team has the edge in pressing back vehicles of all kinds. But this is getting off topic. The OP was about Hardeners which I have expressed my opinions about. You're right. This is getting off topic.
TheEnd762 SVER True Blood RUST415 842	Posted - 2015.12.02 04:04:00 - [18] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Nothing pisses and HAV pilot off more than being completely ignored. I dunno. Getting jihad jeeped pisses them off pretty good.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.02 04:07:00 - [19] - Quote TheEnd762 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Nothing pisses and HAV pilot off more than being completely ignored. I dunno. Getting jihad jeeped pisses them off pretty good. That hasn't happened in a very long time.... in hind sight even back in the day it wasn't so bad because you could shot off the remote explosives with that pin point blaster. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.02 04:10:00 - [20] - Quote TheEnd762 wrote: True Adamance wrote: Nothing pisses and HAV pilot off more than being completely ignored. I dunno. Getting jihad jeeped pisses them off pretty good. Would all I have to do is ram the jeep into them and the explosion from the jeep would set off the REs or do I have to get out of the vehicle and detonate the REs myself?

CLONE117 True Pros Forever 930	Posted - 2015.12.04 21:48:00 - [21] - Quote should we just take the cost equation out of vehicles and av and then balance from there? some days i wonder how much would change if we just made every isk item free for a few days. it should take some serious effort, persistence, and tenacity. in order to take out a vehicle. regardless of the situation or scenario. they need to be a serious threat and game changer on the battle field where they roam. and at the same time. av should technically be more nimble and agile. and not be capable of insta killing every single thing in sight. av needs the capability to flank vehicles hit em from the sides and from places where they are pretty much safe from return fire of the hav. they have this capability already. but from these places it should take alot more in order to kill the vehicles as these particular av units are safe from harm and its basically risk free. the other way though. riskier having to get closer to the vehicle it self and hit it in the weak spots. attack the weakpoints. which do alot more damage to the vehicle. this is where agility comes in. attacking from the front/ head on should never be a viable means of taking out an hav. or in short it should be considered suicide. unless your in another hav or vehicle designed to counter it from such a direction. great potential is always there.. it just has yet to be realized
Megaman Trigger OSG Planetary Operations 942	Posted - 2015.12.04 23:39:00 - [22] - Quote Personally, the biggest complaint I have with HAVs isn't the Hardeners, it's the acceleration and top speed allowing to withdraw far too quickly while under fire. A HAV shouldn't be capable of 100% speed in reverse any more than infantry, hence the back-peddle we reduction not too long ago. If Armour Hardeners came with an acceleration and speed penalty while active, we'd probably have less issues. Passive Reps don't really help the matter either. Purifier. First Class.
Baal Omniscient Qualified Scrub 2	Posted - 2015.12.05 15:13:00 - [23] - Quote Change hardner duration to 10 seconds, change damage reduction amount to 45%, make repairs stronger but active, add a very low base repair rate on hulls (around 90-120 seconds to heal from empty to full on an unfitted hull). Hardners become an escape module instead of a farming one, repairs return to requiring attention but due to small native reps you don't need to waste an active repair to top off your health before re-engaging. Increase the top speed of tanks slightly but increase acceleration time and cut the effect of speed mods in half. Alternatively... Make tanks incapable of firing with hardeners active. 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
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.12.05 21:02:00 - [24] - Quote I like how people avoid the fact that the only reason gardeners can keep ANYTHING reasonably safe is because of passive reps. Top lel
CLONE117 True Pros Forever 930	Posted - 2015.12.05 21:49:00 - [25] - Quote ive always preferred to rep tank. but as it stands tanks dont last nearly as long in our typical engagements with out hardeners.. the fact that hardeners are easier to fit than reps or plates doesnt help either. honestly i bet if we could get hp closer to that of those large turret installations. and greatly nerf hardeners. tanks would have sufficient hp to deal with most encounters. speed could then take a hit. and possibly reps too. if it proves to be "To Much" for av to handle. great potential is always there.. it just has yet to be realized
Stefan Stahl Seituoda Taskforce Command 1	Posted - 2015.12.05 21:51:00 - [26] - Quote Slightly different twist: Reduce hardener up-time by 67%, also reduce hardener downtime by 67%. The basic idea is that right now, per HAV-HAV or HAV-infantry fight hardeners are (mostly) only activated once. Either the fight is won before the hardener runs out or one party bails. This is not exciting gameplay. With the reduced hardener cycle time a pilot needs to time his hardener's uptime precisely to the incoming damage. The 10 seconds of hardening are worth nothing while the enemy is reloading his turret or while line of sight is denied. If one pilot is better at anticipating the flow of a fight and timing his hardener accordingly he will win over a pilot who doesn't. The same theory can be applied to damage modules. However I advise against choosing too small cycle times as it'll make the micromanagement of modules a chore (two hardeners, a damage mod, a shieldbooster / fuel injector and maybe a scanner all operating on 20 second cycles? That'd be one module activation every 4 seconds on average).
KEROSIINI-TERO The Rainbow Effect 2	Posted - 2015.12.06 22:22:00 - [27] - Quote Nah, for the armor vehicles, the delay is well justified. But, for Shield Hardeners - YES reduce delay, they deserve it! There is a huge logical difference between those two, and shields are still underhand currently. KERO-TRADER is my official Eve character for Dust trading. Search "KEROSKIN" for list of skins for sale!
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.06 22:53:00 - [28] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Nah, for the armor vehicles, the delay is well justified. But, for Shield Hardeners - YES reduce delay, they deserve it! There is a huge logical difference between those two, and shields are still underhand currently. Tank vs Tank.... maybe but they more than make up for it when you stick gunners onto them..... vs infantry well I haven't lost a shield HAV yet even when under fire from 3 AVers. The shield HAV is now essentially as OP vs AV as it was last build in the same way as it was last build..... just more so with an extra 1300 shielding. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.08 21:57:00 - [29] - Quote Baal Omniscient wrote: Change hardner duration to 10 seconds, change damage reduction amount to 45%, make repairs stronger but active, add a very low base repair rate on hulls (around 90-120 seconds to heal from empty to full on an unfitted hull). Hardners become an escape module instead of a farming one, repairs return to requiring attention but due to small native reps you don't need to waste an active repair to top off your health before re-engaging. Increase the top speed of tanks slightly but increase acceleration time and cut the effect of speed mods in half. Alternatively... Make tanks incapable of firing with hardeners active. I have to completely oppose both of these suggestions. Not because they are wrong but because they push HAV in a direction I don't think would be health either for infantry players nor HAV pilots. Rebalancing Hardeners to such incredibly low durations on serves to push vehicles pilots further into a corner where the only viable means to engaging infantry whatsoever is to play hit and run from the back of the map. It's doesn't much matter if the hardener yield is more powerful the active duration means that for every ten seconds of viability/survivability vs modern AV you have the remaining 50 seconds of the minute in down time out of the combat area. Without a decent amount of RAW HP a modern vehicle simply cannot withstand the effects of AV fire in a meaningful way enough to have an effect on the map and with the majority of maps favouring objectives placed in area HAV cannot even fire into they are then even further reduced in role versatility. As for not being able to fire with Hardeners on........ well there's already a glitch that does that and frankly such a change would make HAV absolutely useless as in their current form they cannot withstand any amount of meaningful AV fire without their hardeners. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.08 23:35:00 - [30] - Quote Oh snap! This thread is still going. I readjusted how I attack tanks so my stance on decreasing the activation time for Armor Hardener Modules no longer applies (I might resurrect my original opinion later on when I get more experience but for now it's dead to me). Now I think my issue is with the quick acceleration tanks have when they go from not moving at all to moving but until I find out whether or not the quick acceleration is caused by a module I'm not going to harp on this one too much. Plus, let's be honest; the root cause of all my issues with tanks is with other people on my team not having a class fitted with AV Grenades that they can use to help me take down a tank and the fact that most people seem to try to avoid tanks instead of going after to destroy them. I have an 'APEX' and a 'Proto' fit appropriately named Fk You Tank. I wish for more people to have fittings designed around the idea of flanking up on tanks and destroying them. Shoving AV Grenades and a Plasma Cannon up a tanks @$$ (the rear of the tank is where the weak spot is at) is very effective for one person to destroy or at least scare off a tank; two people shoving AV Grenades and a Plasma Cannon up a tanks @$$ will destroy almost any Proto Tank.

ANON Cerberus TerranProtossZerg 937	Posted - 2015.12.09 00:56:00 - [31] - Quote Just ignore it m8s! Just ignore the HAV...... yes this is what DUST has devolved to. No wonder this game is sinking faster than a lead ballon. CCP have NEVER took the reigns and stated clearly what they wanted the role of vehicles to be, always flim-flamming around with buffs and nerfs that seem to contradict the previous intentions. No wonder people are lost and saying things like "Just ignore the HAV".
sullen maximus Deadspace Knights 14	Posted - 2015.12.09 23:04:00 - [32] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: Mmmm.....The problem is double hardened. Make it so we can only got one hardener. It's quite easy to destroy tanks with only one. You are right about the slag jetting part but (idk if you tank or not) Thad part of the tank survival procedure, which involves firstly taking out the treat. The reason it's op is again cuz 2 hardeners. If we were to be restricted to 1, AV to tabks would be much more balanced and there would be a better change of infantry wiping out tanks. I have been destroyed with team work. (4swarmandos all locked in and killed me). It shouldn't take 1 person to destroy a well fitted 1m isk tank but they shouldn't be invincible to more than 2 AV-ers. It, again, all comes down to the double hardened fitting. I disagree that 1 person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. If I hop on top of a tank and he starts moving I should move with the tank since I am standing on top of it. I should be able to hop on top of a tank, throw down a nanohive, and then repeatedly throw AV grenades down on the tank until it either blows up or the person driving the tank gets out to try to kill me. ** this easy mode ****. My issue with a tank earlier today was within a different scenario though. I ran up behind a tank and hit it with three AV grenades. The tank took substantial damage then drove off about 30 meters in one direction while I ran to a supply depot about 20 meters in the opposite direction to restock my AV grenades. When I went back after the tank I noticed his hardener was activated so I waited for the hardener to die down before engaging again. Finally when the hardener deactivated I go up to attack the tank just to find out that the tank was able to repair all of its armor during the timeframe of the hardener being activated. I hit the tank with 3 more AV grenades and the tank drove off about another 30 meters. The entire time this is happening the tank is slaughtering my teammates who were at that particular objective point. Now I find myself in the situation where the Supply Depot is 50 meters away from me with the tank being 80 meters from it; that's 130 meters I have to quickly travel in enough time to attack the tank again before he is able to reactivate the hardener. This is ******. It's a tank.....if he dies it will take 5 games to make back what the one vehicle cost.... so no you in your lone suit shouldn't be able to single handed take it out.
sullen maximus Deadspace Knights 14	Posted - 2015.12.09 23:05:00 - [33] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: Oh snap! This thread is still going. I readjusted how I attack tanks so my stance on decreasing the activation time for Armor Hardener Modules no longer applies (I might resurrect my original opinion later on when I get more experience but for now it's dead to me). Now I think my issue is with the quick acceleration tanks have when they go from not moving at all to moving but until I find out whether or not the quick acceleration is caused by a module I'm not going to harp on this one too much. Plus, let's be honest; the root cause of all my issues with tanks is with other people on my team not having a class fitted with AV Grenades that they can use to help me take down a tank and the fact that most people seem to try to avoid tanks instead of going after to destroy them. I have an 'APEX' and a 'Proto' fit appropriately named Fk You Tank. I wish for more people to have fittings designed around the idea of flanking up on tanks and destroying them. Shoving AV Grenades and a Plasma Cannon up a tanks @$$ (the rear of the tank is where the weak spot is at) is very effective for one person to destroy or at least scare off a tank; two people shoving AV Grenades and a Plasma Cannon up a tanks @$$ will destroy almost any Proto Tank. it's called an overdrive module. if it's a gallente tank those things don't turn or accelerate fast at all. So if you're seeing them do this it's all module.
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.10 00:08:00 - [34] - Quote sullen maximus wrote: Summa Militum wrote: Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: Mmmm.....The problem is double hardened. Make it so we can only got one hardener. It's quite easy to destroy tanks with only one. You are right about the slag jetting part but (idk if you tank or not) Thad part of the tank survival procedure, which involves firstly taking out the treat. The reason it's op is again cuz 2 hardeners. If we were to be restricted to 1, AV to tabks would be much more balanced and there would be a better change of infantry wiping out tanks. I have been destroyed with team work. (4swarmandos all locked in and killed me). It shouldn't take 1 person to destroy a well fitted 1m isk tank but they shouldn't be invincible to more than 2 AV-ers. It, again, all comes down to the double hardened fitting. I disagree that 1 person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. If I hop on top of a tank and he starts moving I should move with the tank since I am standing on top of it. I should be able to hop on top of a tank, throw down a nanohive, and then repeatedly throw AV grenades down on the tank until it either blows up or the person driving the tank gets out to try to kill me. ** this easy mode ****. My issue with a tank earlier today was within a different scenario though. I ran up behind a tank and hit it with three AV grenades. The tank took substantial damage then drove off about 30 meters in one direction while I ran to a supply depot about 20 meters in the opposite direction to restock my AV grenades. When I went back after the tank I noticed his hardener was activated so I waited for the hardener to die down before engaging again. Finally when the hardener deactivated I go up to attack the tank just to find out that the tank was able to repair all of its armor during the timeframe of the hardener being activated. I hit the tank with 3 more AV grenades and the tank drove off about another 30 meters. The entire time this is happening the tank is slaughtering my teammates who were at that particular objective point. Now I find myself in the situation where the Supply Depot is 50 meters away from me with the tank being 80 meters from it; that's 130 meters I have to quickly travel in enough time to attack the tank again before he is able to reactivate the hardener. This is ******. It's a tank.....if he dies it will take 5 games to make back what the one vehicle cost.... so no you in your lone suit shouldn't be able to single handed take it out. I disagree.
Aver Amarn Team Destructo Kitty Force x3 50	Posted - 2015.12.10 16:50:00 - [35] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: I feel that the Armor Hardener Module for vehicles should be used to allow vehicles to escape to safety. What I see now, specifically from Tanks, is they will activate the Armor Hardener Module and then continue to go about slaughtering everyone near them. I suggest reverting Tanks and Dropships back to what they were before they were nerfed, remove passive Armor Repair from Tanks and Dropships, and decrease substantially the amount of time a Armor Hardener Module can stay active. What are your thoughts? As a tank and dropship pilot, I'd have some conditions of my own. We use these things because people abuse plasma cannons and swarm launchers. Without a hardener, you would never see us attacking. That'd probably be fine to you, but when a tank costs 1.3 million ISK and a dropship costs 400K ISK, I'd think it would be fine to be a little safer with our stuff. The Armor and Shield Hardeners do not make us invincible, one barrage of the Wiyrkomi Swarm Launchers, or a Gastun's Forge Gun, and we're backing the f* off. Those weapons allow us no range of movement. I lose plenty of money when you destroy one of my vehicles, so please don't try to make them worse. Our vehicles are really hard to make efficient (CPU & PG). If we hit a wall while moving away from a target, we have a 2-5 second cooldown before we are able to move. I also saw a part of the thread that vehicles are able to move away quickly. This is a direct result of a module we use to escape warbarges and other tanks. The fuel injector a short lived boost to acceleration and speed. Also hardeners the way me and a buddy use them ARE for running away, but mostly, we use them when fighting other tanks, if they were to go away, the tankV.tank game would be all sorts of f*ed up. My personal conditions would be, if these changes were made: A.) In favor of tanks and dropships: all anti vehicle weapons should have shorter range, and less damage output. We should also have less stall time when we hit a wall because our hardeners wouldn't be on so long. B.) In favor of infantry: Only one hardener, and I could live with about 3/4 passive armor repair. Teamwork is the key to destroying a tank. Remember this. Forge+swarm=dead Plus if you're so mad at a tank, don't shoot it with an assault rifle. Cause if that gun turns on you, you're probably gonna be shot at. Aver's Wares Trading Shop
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.10 22:37:00 - [36] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: sullen maximus wrote: Summa Militum wrote: Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: Mmmm.....The problem is double hardened. Make it so we can only got one hardener. It's quite easy to destroy tanks with only one. You are right about the slag jetting part but (idk if you tank or not) Thad part of the tank survival procedure, which involves firstly taking out the treat. The reason it's op is again cuz 2 hardeners. If we were to be restricted to 1, AV to tabks would be much more balanced and there would be a better change of infantry wiping out tanks. I have been destroyed with team work. (4swarmandos all locked in and killed me). It shouldn't take 1 person to destroy a well fitted 1m isk tank but they shouldn't be invincible to more than 2 AV-ers. It, again, all comes down to the double hardened fitting. I disagree that 1 person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. If I hop on top of a tank and he starts moving I should move with the tank since I am standing on top of it. I should be able to hop on top of a tank, throw down a nanohive, and then repeatedly throw AV grenades down on the tank until it either blows up or the person driving the tank gets out to try to kill me. ** this easy mode ****. My issue with a tank earlier today was within a different scenario though. I ran up behind a tank and hit it with three AV grenades. The tank took substantial damage then drove off about 30 meters in one direction while I ran to a supply depot about 20 meters in the opposite direction to restock my AV grenades. When I went back after the tank I noticed his hardener was activated so I waited for the hardener to die down before engaging again. Finally when the hardener deactivated I go up to attack the tank just to find out that the tank was able to repair all of its armor during the timeframe of the hardener being activated. I hit the tank with 3 more AV grenades and the tank drove off about another 30 meters. The entire time this is happening the tank is slaughtering my teammates who were at that particular objective point. Now I find myself in the situation where the Supply Depot is 50 meters away from me with the tank being 80 meters from it; that's 130 meters I have to quickly travel in enough time to attack the tank again before he is able to reactivate the hardener. This is *****. It's a tank.....if he dies it will take 5 games to make back what the one vehicle cost.... so no you in your lone suit shouldn't be able to single handed take it out. I disagree. Then Tanks need to be cheaper. They aren't worth 5+ profitable battles. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.*
Justice Darling Horizons' Edge 87	Posted - 2015.12.10 22:47:00 - [37] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: I feel that the Armor Hardener Module for vehicles should be used to allow vehicles to escape to safety. What I see now, specifically from Tanks, is they will activate the Armor Hardener Module and then continue to go about slaughtering everyone near them. I suggest reverting Tanks and Dropships back to what they were before they were nerfed, remove passive Armor Repair from Tanks and Dropships, and decrease substantially the amount of time a Armor Hardener Module can stay active. What are your thoughts? one plasma shoot and 3 Lai Dai Packed AV Grenade will do the trick for the most part solo unless you are fighting a shield tanker, they take two plasma shoots first then maybe 2 Lai Dai or 3 pending on rep time. It's like my mother always told me! Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana , and codeine and god dammed it, you little mother!
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.11 00:25:00 - [38] - Quote Justice Darling wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I feel that the Armor Hardener Module for vehicles should be used to allow vehicles to escape to safety. What I see now, specifically from Tanks, is they will activate the Armor Hardener Module and then continue to go about slaughtering everyone near them. I suggest reverting Tanks and Dropships back to what they were before they were nerfed, remove passive Armor Repair from Tanks and Dropships, and decrease substantially the amount of time a Armor Hardener Module can stay active. What are your thoughts? one plasma shoot with an Allotek Plasma Cannon and 3 Lai Dai Packed AV Grenade will do the trick for the most part solo unless you are fighting a shield tanker, they take two plasma shoots first then maybe 2 Lai Dai or 3 pending on rep time. That is pretty much how my **** Your Tank classes are set up. My 'APEX' version has Packed Lai Dai's and a 'Quafe' Plasma Cannon and my Proto version has Packed Lai Dai's and a Kubo's Plasma Cannon.
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.11 00:29:00 - [39] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: sullen maximus wrote: Summa Militum wrote: Lightning35 Delta514 wrote: Mmmm.....The problem is double hardened. Make it so we can only got one hardener. It's quite easy to destroy tanks with only one. You are right about the slag jetting part but (idk if you tank or not) Thad part of the tank survival procedure, which involves firstly taking out the treat. The reason it's op is again cuz 2 hardeners. If we were to be restricted to 1, AV to tabks would be much more balanced and there would be a better change of infantry wiping out tanks. I have been destroyed with team work. (4swarmandos all locked in and killed me). It shouldn't take 1 person to destroy a well fitted 1m isk tank but they shouldn't be invincible to more than 2 AV-ers. It, again, all comes down to the double hardened fitting. I disagree that 1 person shouldn't be able to take out a tank. If I hop on top of a tank and he starts moving I should move with the tank since I am standing on top of it. I should be able to hop on top of a tank, throw down a nanohive, and then repeatedly throw AV grenades down on the tank until it either blows up or the person driving the tank gets out to try to kill me. ** this easy mode ****. My issue with a tank earlier today was within a different scenario though. I ran up behind a tank and hit it with three AV grenades. The tank took substantial damage then drove off about 30 meters in one direction while I ran to a supply depot about 20 meters in the opposite direction to restock my AV grenades. When I went back after the tank I noticed his hardener was activated so I waited for the hardener to die down before engaging again. Finally when the hardener deactivated I go up to attack the tank just to find out that the tank was able to repair all of its armor during the timeframe of the hardener being activated. I hit the tank with 3 more AV grenades and the tank drove off about another 30 meters. The entire time this is happening the tank is slaughtering my teammates who were at that particular objective point. Now I find myself in the situation where the Supply Depot is 50 meters away from me with the tank being 80 meters from it; that's 130 meters I have to quickly travel in enough time to attack the tank again before he is able to reactivate the hardener. This is ******. It's a tank.....if he dies it will take 5 games to make back what the one vehicle cost.... so no you in your lone suit shouldn't be able to single handed take it out. I disagree. Then Tanks need to be cheaper. They aren't worth 5+ profitable battles. I might disagree. I am currently pumping a lot of SP into Tanks right now so I can create an expensive and powerful tank to use to do a cost-benefit analysis on them.
True Adamance Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris 21	Posted - 2015.12.11 00:45:00 - [40] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: I might disagree. I am currently pumping a lot of SP into Tanks right now so I can create an expensive and powerful tank to use to do a cost-benefit analysis on them. Simply consider the economics of HAV units. An investment at its highest tier of game-play at roughly 1.143 or 4-6 100% profit conflicts. Any losses while deploying these vehicles sets you back a further 4-6 games. To earn the same amount as an infantryman would take even longer. Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.

Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.11 01:16:00 - [41] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I might disagree. I am currently pumping a lot of SP into Tanks right now so I can create an expensive and powerful tank to use to do a cost-benefit analysis on them. Simply consider the economics of HAV units. An investment at its highest tier of game-play at roughly 1.143 or 4-6 100% profit conflicts. Any losses while deploying these vehicles sets you back a further 4-6 games. To earn the same amount as an infantryman would take even longer. After completing my assessment I will have considered the economics of HAV units relative to how much I view driving around in a Tank to be "easy mode" relative to infantrymen. That's right...I said "easy mode".
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.12.14 03:27:00 - [42] - Quote CLONE117 wrote: ive always preferred to rep tank. but as it stands tanks dont last nearly as long in our typical engagements with out hardeners.. the fact that hardeners are easier to fit than reps or plates doesnt help either. honestly i bet if we could get hp closer to that of those large turret installations. and greatly nerf hardeners. tanks would have sufficient hp to deal with most encounters. speed could then take a hit. and possibly reps too. if it proves to be "To Much" for av to handle. And you completely skipped over my comment as if it meant nothing. K Top lel
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.12.14 03:29:00 - [43] - Quote Stefan Stahl wrote: Slightly different twist: Reduce hardener up-time by 67%, also reduce hardener downtime by 67%. The basic idea is that right now, per HAV-HAV or HAV-infantry fight hardeners are (mostly) only activated once. Either the fight is won before the hardener runs out or one party bails. This is not exciting gameplay. With the reduced hardener cycle time a pilot needs to time his hardener's uptime precisely to the incoming damage. The 10 seconds of hardening are worth nothing while the enemy is reloading his turret or while line of sight is denied. If one pilot is better at anticipating the flow of a fight and timing his hardener accordingly he will win over a pilot who doesn't. The same theory can be applied to damage modules. However I advise against choosing too small cycle times as it'll make the micromanagement of modules a chore (two hardeners, a damage mod, a shieldbooster / fuel injector and maybe a scanner all operating on 20 second cycles? That'd be one module activation every 4 seconds on average). That means any HAV with a active tank will get easily nuked. There is no point. How about fixing reps and tuning plates to be a choice beside hardeners? Making them useless is silly. Top lel
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.12.14 03:30:00 - [44] - Quote KEROSIINI-TERO wrote: Nah, for the armor vehicles, the delay is well justified. But, for Shield Hardeners - YES reduce delay, they deserve it! There is a huge logical difference between those two, and shields are still underhand currently. Considering that shield hardeners should be a quick high end defense module that doesn't last long, makes sense. Top lel
Godin Thekiller Negative-Feedback. Negative-Feedback 3	Posted - 2015.12.14 03:37:00 - [45] - Quote Summa Militum wrote: True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I might disagree. I am currently pumping a lot of SP into Tanks right now so I can create an expensive and powerful tank to use to do a cost-benefit analysis on them. Simply consider the economics of HAV units. An investment at its highest tier of game-play at roughly 1.143 or 4-6 100% profit conflicts. Any losses while deploying these vehicles sets you back a further 4-6 games. To earn the same amount as an infantryman would take even longer. After completing my assessment I will have considered the economics of HAV units relative to how much I view driving around in a Tank to be "easy mode" relative to infantrymen. That's right...I said "easy mode". I will await the "I drove past a group and they easily blew up my 2 mil ISK HAV" posting. Top lel
Summa Militum Abstract Requiem 1	Posted - 2015.12.14 07:37:00 - [46] - Quote Godin Thekiller wrote: Summa Militum wrote: True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I might disagree. I am currently pumping a lot of SP into Tanks right now so I can create an expensive and powerful tank to use to do a cost-benefit analysis on them. Simply consider the economics of HAV units. An investment at its highest tier of game-play at roughly 1.143 or 4-6 100% profit conflicts. Any losses while deploying these vehicles sets you back a further 4-6 games. To earn the same amount as an infantryman would take even longer. After completing my assessment I will have considered the economics of HAV units relative to how much I view driving around in a Tank to be "easy mode" relative to infantrymen. That's right...I said "easy mode". I will await the "I drove past a group and they easily blew up my 2 mil ISK HAV" posting. Why would I just drive past a group? What kind of suicide missions do you think I'm going to be running?
Shamarskii Simon The Hundred Acre Hood 545	Posted - 2015.12.16 21:54:00 - [47] - Quote or..... lower the harden %? I don't understand why armor tanks have 1.7 hardeners again.. been on my mind... just posting don't mind me. Potential Pilot Proposal? Yes!
rayakalj9 Opus Arcana 63	Posted - 2015.12.17 05:02:00 - [48] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Summa Militum wrote: I might disagree. I am currently pumping a lot of SP into Tanks right now so I can create an expensive and powerful tank to use to do a cost-benefit analysis on them. Simply consider the economics of HAV units. An investment at its highest tier of game-play at roughly 1.143 or 4-6 100% profit conflicts. Any losses while deploying these vehicles sets you back a further 4-6 games. To earn the same amount as an infantryman would take even longer. i need you to teach me the way of a tanker, i got 3mil sp that can give me a decent tank? born jamaican


Pages: 1 2 :: [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.