As I said in the other thread, what do you think that they should nerf on the HAV that doesn't make it OP, but doesn't make it's function inert?

Armor by half
People say its gonna be more expensive next build so keep it the same or just a little bit more expensive
No missiles just those machine gun things

4 people should take out a tank easily. In this game each of those people is going to die a few times trying to take out one person. It's OP whether you like it or not.

Armor by half
People say its gonna be more expensive next build so keep it the same or just a little bit more expensive
No missiles just those machine gun things

The tank can kill your whole group in 3.2 seconds. Thank you for supporting the Tanks are OP argument. I have watched it happen, I have done it.
The only problem is the 1.5 damage mod on Marauders. No one minds gunloggi's or militia tanks.

Must have been my mistake that the EX-11 packed explosive AV grenade has a throw range of less than a Remote Explosive and a Assualt Suit doesn't provide enough CPU to use the wikyromi AV grenade after armor and sheild modules.

Still have yet to hear about the magic involved that allows a tank turret to hit me at the base of the tube when the shell, projectile or blast (whatever you want to call it) launches and I am on top of it, no where near the point of egress of the tank fired main weapon.

Tell you what tank defenders, let me have a few games where my toon can throw the bigger AV grenade and oh yeah give me infinite grenade ammo (since you enjoy it) to destroy your tank and then your fat suit wearing tuckus when you finally do pop out of the tank.

Yes I know the nano's are going to resupply grenades, but I don't think it will be as fast as say the tank turret or missle launcher they currently enjoy.

Calling people Cod Kiddies seems to be the final resort for people who no longer want to argue against people who generally agree with first person shooters.

@ Omni, this is the best post I have seen you make. It was well thought out with valid points. I do agre that there is still work to be done. But as far as tanks are concerned, the do appear as OP. but we also don't have all AV items implemented at the moment. As the beta progresses, with proper grouping and ewar items in place, those tanks will start dropping pretty quick. Plus, with sp and isk gains at normal rates, I don't forsee many tanks on the field at once. I just hope to see sticky RE so they can be stuck to vehicles.

4 people should take out a tank easily. In this game each of those people is going to die a few times trying to take out one person. It's OP whether you like it or not.

4 people can take out a marauder that is well fit. Hell, 2 people can if the drivers dumb. AV personnel have to be persistent with damage. It's not an "Forge beats tank instantly" I come from both sides. I run a Surya but I also use a proto swarm. I have no problems killing marauders if I am persistent with my swarms.

Lost 3 in the last match. Proto forge hurt me

As I said in the other thread, what do you think that they should nerf on the HAV that doesn't make it OP, but doesn't make it's function inert?

4 people should take out a tank easily. In this game each of those people is going to die a few times trying to take out one person. It's OP whether you like it or not.

To all the people who believe tanks aren't OP, please answer this one question...
Would you be getting the same amount of kills while being infantry? Answer truthfully.

No one is really answering why there are no AV mines in the game. They are a fundamental weapon verses armor in all battles and serve to destroy or slow vehicles down. At the moment its almost impossible for defensive forces to create chocke points due to the high speed of tanks and lavs.

Being on defence usually means using natural and unnatural terrain features to your advantage (defense should have the advantage even if a small one).

At the moment the maps seem to allow vehicles to really dictate insertion to battles at extreme speeds, Which is further compounded by the use of drop links and drop ships.

At least if you could slow down the armor then protecting mission objectives would be a little easier for the defenders.

Even if CCP don't want a front line type of game style. Not having AV Mines makes little sense to me as they are such a basic weapon that it doesn't make sense that they are not in the game.

For the 4th time in 1 ******* day

Tanks are not OP against 12 morons who are as dumb as a lamp post

again, we are getting ewar which will change everything. if your concerned about being able to slow or stop tanks, dont be.

electronic warfare

Can you explain as I don't know what "ewar" is.

Getting 40 kills and zero deaths because of an advantage that you aren't entitled to is immoral and quite frankly unacceptable in the first person shooter community.

Arguments have been made to defend this style of gaming.

Research and experience show that what I say is truthful and valid.

Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1463797#post1463797

I love you CCP Soundwave. I can quote this into infinity whenever someone cries on the forums about "balancing".

Does the word skill mean anything to you?
Hint: I'm not talking about skill points or grinding.

GÇ£Why balancing is bad, monkeys are good, and how to design games with that in mind.GÇ¥

Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1463797#post1463797

I'm glad to know that EvE takes no skill and is simply grind to win. This is not and never will be EvE. Skill>Grind

I'm glad to know that EvE takes no skill and is simply grind to win. This is not and never will be EvE. Skill>Grind

I'm glad to know that EvE takes no skill and is simply grind to win. This is not and never will be EvE. Skill>Grind

I'm sorry but you create a long thread about tanks being overpowered, how they need to be nerfed, and how they require no skill, when you can't provide valid support or even a valid nerf for the tanks.

Tanks are a lot harder to manage than infantry. You have to know when and when not to turn modules on, when to pull out of the battle, estimating how long your tank will hold, and if you should engage or not. While when you're playing as infantry, you just hold down R1 and mess with the analog sticks.

I don't know how to nerf them, I'm not a developer. Sure, maybe they are harder to manage, but they sure are a lot easier to keep alive. I'm sure you would suck when your not hiding behind your tank.

Your wrong. You can hide infantry. Tanks are not able to hide very well. We have to pull out to spawn if we want to get away from something.

"I don't know how to nerf them, I'm not a developer."
Well then you can't possible say they are overpowered if you don't know what is OP about them.

"I'm sure you would suck when your not hiding behind your tank"
Comment of a 10 year old. I have a proto assault and proto shotgun set up. Stop assuming son.

Im sorry you are right. Tanks are underpowered. It's so hard to get kills with them. They don't have enough armor at all! Just because you have a setup doesn't mean you are good with it.

I never said they were underpowered. Assuming again.

Technically, I agreed with you at first. My next statement was a new, sarcastic idea. One of my own. You assumed that I assumed that you think tanks are underpowered. We could teach each other grammar and other technical aspects of English, or we can provide knowledgable and usable feedback for this beta.

Feedback=tanks are OP
support= it takes three to four infantry men to take down a heavily armored tank, while the tank can roam around the field taking out helpless infantrymen

If you think everything I wrote in here was useless than I am quite sorry for wasting your time. I observed something in game, and I wrote it on the game's forums. I did this so the developers could look in further to the point that I'm trying to get across. If you can't respect the fact that I want the best for the game, then I again apologize for wasting your time.

Even your EvE associates recognize and acknowledge the fact that this game isn't balanced. They say this will make for a boring game. I however, have a different point of view. If the game isn't balanced, it doesn't takes skill. This is true with all first person shooters. Remember this isn't EvE. No first person shooter wants a grind to win game.

Feedback=tanks are OP
support= it takes three to four infantry men to take down a heavily armored tank, while the tank can roam around the field taking out helpless infantrymen

If you think everything I wrote in here was useless than I am quite sorry for wasting your time. I observed something in game, and I wrote it on the game's forums. I did this so the developers could look in further to the point that I'm trying to get across. If you can't respect the fact that I want the best for the game, then I again apologize for wasting your time.

Even your EvE associates recognize and acknowledge the fact that this game isn't balanced. They say this will make for a boring game. I however, have a different point of view. If the game isn't balanced, it doesn't takes skill. This is true with all first person shooters. Remember this isn't EvE. No first person shooter wants a grind to win game.

The tank can roam around for most of the game and destroy hopeless infantrymen actually doing something for the team. They aren't making as much isk as you because they die more. Remember that.

I understand the concept will be similar, but lets be clear, no first person shooter wants a grind to win game.

Why must you have three people specialize in something that takes no skill and is boring? Instead of helping on the battlefield by defending and attacking our objectives, people have to go around waisting there time destroying tanks. This is how most team goes because of tank abuse.

Player 1. Assault
Player 2. Assault
Player 3. Assault
Player 4-6: Useless sniper
Player 7-8: AV person because they can't afford to lose any more money to tanks(These people could be useful as Assault players who take objectives).
Player 9: Someone who enjoys and takes pride in AV.
Player 10-12: Gunners or drivers of dropships/tanks

Tell me Omnipotent, how much does a Prototype Infantry Weapon cost? Maximum 15 000 ISK? And how many SP is it to get to Prototype Swarms/ Forge Gun? Max 1 000 000?

You expect your tiny weapons to take out our 200 000 ISK vehicles. That isn't balanced, now is it? Now. 3-4 Infantry guys I understand. But come on. You're just embarrasing yourself now.


Protoman likes tanks.

@nano
Other fps aren't really grind to win. They have enough to get by well if they have enough skill over the other players. Old player should never destroy new players based on the sole fact that they are new.

its way easier to use cover as an AV guy than it is for tanks. i know its hard to believe, but a tanks weakness is it's maneuverability, so saying they are way too fast is silly.

in my tank, id say i easily have 15 mil sp in it, probs more.

wasnt completely directed at you.

so tanks using cover is unfair but infantry using it isnt? SL are definately a anti-vehicle wep, but the forge guns are the tank busters, so obviously they are preferred. Ask any tank driver and he will say how SL are way more annoying because they do 90 degree turns around buildings and such and are very difficult to dodge once fired.

as far as the amount of sp required for a fitting to effectively work in either situation, tanks will always cost more sp and isk investment to be effective. They are tanks.

Remember this isn't EvE. No first person shooter wants a grind to win game.

https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=30261&find=unread

Gentlemen,

It is clear that you have passion and commitment to seeing that dust reaches its full potential

I, like many here, have fallen into the short sighted perspective that what we see and have been playing has anything to do with what we will see and be playing next week.

Whatch that video, every minute of it. Listen to how they talk and visualize what they're referring to in game. Then realize that this was march.

The kind of systems we have been playing with and the kind of systems CCP plays with on "Mainside" (name of the internal test server?) are very different. Imagine tanks dependent on capacitors for power to fie, repair or accelerate.

Please, keep posting you thoughts and ideas but realize that the WHOLE time we have been playing the game we haven't even been playing the real game. Not even the real test build.

Peace be with you

To all the people who believe tanks aren't OP, please answer this one question...
Would you be getting the same amount of kills while being infantry? Answer truthfully.

https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=30261&find=unread

Gentlemen,

It is clear that you have passion and commitment to seeing that dust reaches its full potential

I, like many here, have fallen into the short sighted perspective that what we see and have been playing has anything to do with what we will see and be playing next week.

Whatch that video, every minute of it. Listen to how they talk and visualize what they're referring to in game. Then realize that this was march.

The kind of systems we have been playing with and the kind of systems CCP plays with on "Mainside" (name of the internal test server?) are very different. Imagine tanks dependent on capacitors for power to fie, repair or accelerate.

Please, keep posting you thoughts and ideas but realize that the WHOLE time we have been playing the game we haven't even been playing the real game. Not even the real test build.

Peace be with you

there's 2 different kinds of balance in this thread. let me put it this way...

wanting to balance a prototype forge gun to make it useful against high end tanks, is perfectly valid. it's another piece of high end equipment. that is the sort of feedback we should be giving ccp.

wanting to balance a militia fit against a full prototype fit is not. otherwise why have varying "tiers" of equipment? if you're against grinding then fine, you are entitled to your opinion and to play at your own pace, but ccp can't just cut the progression system out of the game for you.


so when we debate balance, we need to consider the tech level of the equipment. of COURSE a creodron is better than a militia AR. and it should stay that way. if you can't accept that then why are you here? it's not like it was a big secret ccp sprung on you? progression was a SELLING POINT?!

but how about when compared to a duvolle?

or how about a properly fitted marauder being able to take so much damage, that a prototype swarm can literally never kill it? (as in it has more health than they can carry in ammo) THAT'S a balance issue.

or how about when a scout suit can dance around an equal tier heavy suit and never take damage? people have tried to compare this to eve: a battleship being unable to hit a speedy frigate, but what frigate can put out enough dps to solo a battleship?

or why can a 0 investment militia vehicle kill ANY dropsuit, by brushing lightly up against them? that's **** tier beating top end, THAT'S a balance issue.

or a piece of 10k SP and 2k ISK equipment being a guaranteed one shot kill to any infantry it touches? RE? working as intended?


there are plenty of legitimate balance issues in dust, but "more SP = better" isn't really one of them. you don't have to LIKE it, but you also don't have to play. there is literally every other shooter in the world for you where there is either 0 progression, or only token progression.

I say make the turn speed for the main gun 75% of the speed of what it is now, and make the top speed of the HAV 8.0m/s instead of the current 10m/s. This effectively nerfs tanks without people being able to complain their tank isn't a tank anymore.

ladies and gentlemen, he has a point. We are not playing with half the stuff that supposed to be in game. I understand there are players coming from other games where they are not used to having vehicles in game. I know there are passionate gamers with strong opinions on both sides on how they feel things should be. I know everyone wants a balance. But the fact remains, EVE isn't even balanced. CCP has even stated this. They want players to think outside the box, while playing in CCP's sandbox. But there are counters to everything in EVE. I know, this is not EVE. But it is CCP's idea, who created EVE. This game is part of the same universe, therefore, the same imbalance will still exist. There was a link in another thread to a presentation that CCP was giving on DUST. Not sure who it was that posted it, but it gave some good insight on how CCP wants this game. They were even discussing that the tanks were OP. But they continued talking about the counters that exist to battle them. Then continued on about how teamwork plays. Thats what they want to happen in game. TEAMWORK. They want corp members to work together. If you don't have that, you're going to pretty much screwed. As for tanks being OP, there will be counters for them, even if you don't have a cohesive team. Tanks will be a part of the game. They are going to OHK any infantry they see. I don't drive tanks. Don't intend to. But I do have an AV fit, and plan to continue having one. I currently have a proto SL. I can do hefty damage to most tanks. Sagaris tanks on the other hand, I hate those things. I have died to them numerous times. But I have learned how to come at them. Even if I'm the only one that has an AV fit, I can at least make them hide under the buildings, preventing them from slaughtering more teammates, while they continue capturing points.

As it stands now, sagaris tanks do seem OP. They are some extremely difficult to tank down, especially when under the control of someone who knows how to drive and fit them properly. But lets see what kind of new toys await us in the next build. If this was a release builid, yeah, I might say some adjustments need to be made. But we have lots of things ahead of us. Once the next build is released, we will probably forget all about tanks and cry about something else being OP. Especially OB. I can see when one of those wipes an entire squad, if in the wrong place at the wrong time, there will be lots of posts about it being OP.

I'm not suggesting nerf or don't nerf. I am saying, "patience young padawans". Much more awaits us. Be watchful of your surroundings. keep your eye out for nooks to hide in to ambush tanks. Watch your back at all times. Listen to comms. Watch radar. Always be prepared for anything on the battlefield.

On that note, let's put tank topics away for now. CCP is hearing you. That is aware by whats in the patch notes. They see the talk on tanks. If they feel adjustments need to be made, they will. They are always making adjustments to ships in EVE. They will continue to make adjustments here if needed after release. Let's continue forward!

your legitimate balance issues you brought up are all already adressed in the next build cheers my dude

People didn't seem to see this.
But really, this is the best solution I can see.

i know, they were examples, not news.

my real point was people complaining about the very existence of progression, and trying to handwave away any discussion of balance because "more sp = better so why bother?"

there you go, that's why bother. because there are things that can be fixed in the current framework and ccp seems willing to listen.

there are 2 kinds of imbalance, one of them (SP) is intentional and it's not going away. that doesn't mean we should give up and ignore the other kind.

there's 2 different kinds of balance in this thread. let me put it this way...

wanting to balance a prototype forge gun to make it useful against high end tanks, is perfectly valid. it's another piece of high end equipment. that is the sort of feedback we should be giving ccp.

wanting to balance a militia fit against a full prototype fit is not. otherwise why have varying "tiers" of equipment? if you're against grinding then fine, you are entitled to your opinion and to play at your own pace, but ccp can't just cut the progression system out of the game for you.


so when we debate balance, we need to consider the tech level of the equipment. of COURSE a creodron is better than a militia AR. and it should stay that way. if you can't accept that then why are you here? it's not like it was a big secret ccp sprung on you? progression was a SELLING POINT?!

but how about when compared to a duvolle?

or how about a properly fitted marauder being able to take so much damage, that a prototype swarm can literally never kill it? (as in it has more health than they can carry in ammo) THAT'S a balance issue.

or how about when a scout suit can dance around an equal tier heavy suit and never take damage? people have tried to compare this to eve: a battleship being unable to hit a speedy frigate, but what frigate can put out enough dps to solo a battleship?

or why can a 0 investment militia vehicle kill ANY dropsuit, by brushing lightly up against them? that's **** tier beating top end, THAT'S a balance issue.

or a piece of 10k SP and 2k ISK equipment being a guaranteed one shot kill to any infantry it touches? RE? working as intended?


there are plenty of legitimate balance issues in dust, but "more SP = better" isn't really one of them. you don't have to LIKE it, but you also don't have to play. there is literally every other shooter in the world for you where there is either 0 progression, or only token progression.

^ Grind to win doesn't work in fps.

good thing this isnt a simple fps.

Yeah but this is a very large scale. Overall, other hardcore fps players and I will be staying with this game. The newbies won't as said before. We need a player base.

if you really look at it, alot of the FPS games I have played are a "grind" in some way. You have to "perform x kills with x weapon" to unlock new gear.

Sorry, I skipped a couple pages, but just getting in, my well fitted tank cost me about 18 000 000 SP to get all the parts. Consider the armor, shields, turrets, large turret, repairers, damage control units, nano shielding, ninite armor, and the tank itself which is about 1 200 000 SP in itself to attain.


Meanwhile, my anti tank fit cost me around 5 000 000 SP. Prototype Forge, Prototype Heavy Suit, Carthum Scrambler, and the rest.

A lot of the skills actually overlap like mechanics, electronics, shield skills, armor upgrades and a few of the other basic skills. THerefore any discussion of which build takes more SP needs to exclude those skill sets and consider only the ones required to get into a proto forge and fat suit or the marauder and its guns lets say small missiles and large rail, the proto versions.

Note I am not picking on you Icy Tiger you were just a conveniently quote.

I think we need all or at least the majority of the weapons and gear before this discussion will be truly meaningful and less trolly and flame filled. Although this particular thread has not been nearly as bad as some of the others. So kudos to all for being at least a bit more civil.

Anyway ammount of SP should not equal to "I win" scenarios. The beauty of EVE is that the small guy can ruin the big fat fellow day, and the reason most PVP people fly affordable stuff and not pimped stuff most of the time.

there will always be a playerbase. you can play for free. why wouldnt someone want a game like this with infinite depth when all you have to do is download it?

Lol, you think people that download this free game play for a week go collectively 10k/150 D are going to want to keep playing???

Haha, a free downloaded game is just as easy to download as it is to delete my friend

IMHO playerbase is potentially the biggest downfall of this game. And balance issues is the #1 reason people leave console FPS's

https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=30261&find=unread

Gentlemen,

It is clear that you have passion and commitment to seeing that dust reaches its full potential

I, like many here, have fallen into the short sighted perspective that what we see and have been playing has anything to do with what we will see and be playing next week.

Whatch that video, every minute of it. Listen to how they talk and visualize what they're referring to in game. Then realize that this was march.

The kind of systems we have been playing with and the kind of systems CCP plays with on "Mainside" (name of the internal test server?) are very different. Imagine tanks dependent on capacitors for power to fie, repair or accelerate.

Please, keep posting you thoughts and ideas but realize that the WHOLE time we have been playing the game we haven't even been playing the real game. Not even the real test build.

Peace be with you

This is the most important point in the discussion right now. As soon as we start talking technical details we're obsoleting our analyses.

What we can still discuss intelligently is our expectations and why we have those expectations.

Expectations

1. Game design philosopy. Stupid Drunk1 said it best. Literal-minded balancing makes no-holds barred interstellar war bland, bland, bland. CCP's style of balancing is much more interesting and leaves a lot of room for clever, clever bastards to do their thing. I'm already afraid, because there are some clever, clever bastards in both the EVE and FPS communities and you just know they're going to get together and cook up awesome hideousness. This is just not possible in a 'balanced' game.
2. Tank balancing. I expect tanks to be tough and deadly. Why? Because THAT'S WHAT TANKS ARE. Sheesh. I also expect a well-trained, well-equipped 3-Merc AV team to have a fairly high success rate against tough tanks. If it turns out that this is not the case, then I'll be the first to admit it's time to worry about it.
3. AR infantry balancing, or expectations inherited from mainstream FPS games. I expect a 12 man team of the very best FPS killers in the very best gear all set up as AR infantry to get their asses handed to them on a regular basis. A group invested too heavily into any too-narrow category of strategies and tactics will see any competent enemy commander immediately exploit the weaknesses of that over-specialization. The enemy commander will do this without thinking, because it requires very little thought to exploit such a fundamental failure of judgement in an opponent. And yes, the decision to exploit is always situational.

The endgame of DUST is going to be about waging a real, genuine war with the tools at hand, and a lot less like a traditional FPS match. CCP will protect the traditional FPS playstyle in hisec, but anywhere else all bets are off. All one can really say about that is....Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

P.S. If anybody wants to know what I and many other EVE vets think of as 'balanced' gameplay, I suggest fitting up a good pvp ship in EVE and heading out to Rancer - that's where a lot of us learned about balance. I never thought I'd say this, but I'm actually missing Ginger Magician at this very moment, guys =p

I'm not even against grind to win. It sounds bad, but when you think about it... once you grind thru the first 5-6mil SP, you should be able to hang with most of the guys with 20mil+ SP. Law of diminishing return.

My concern is when you try and attract an audience. You get a newb who tries the game out for a week. They get rap3d hard by 20mil SP guys, and quit...never play again. Long term, this will be bad for the player population. Hopefully HiSec will take care of this.

2. Tanks take no skill to use. Things shouldn't get kills if they take no skill. I think the concept is simple enough.

First off tanks are not OP the missle splash dmg is. With better av options next build...the av gernade fix tanks will have much more difficult a time.

Having a "perfectly imbalanced" game does not work in dust, unless they allow for sp respec. There will be a dominant feature that emerges a "best " fitting, or a weapon that easily crosses from paper to scissor. If a counter to that is found, in the current state people cannot reallocate their sp to counter. We need more linear options that are viable to allow for unique play stylesnto.emerge. ccp can do that, or at least have the commitment to see it through.

Without strong cps mechanics this game will die. When grinding feels like a job necessary to be competitive the game loses its ability to be fun....a game should be fun. But this is so much more then a game it is a whole new world! ....sorry folks, just a game and like it was said before free can be deleted just as fast.

Ccp must deliver on fun or our sandbox will be very lonely.

Sitting in tanks holding down R1 is fun. You should try it this weekend.

1. CCP does not have a style of balancing. This is perfectly well and dandy in EvE(on the computer side), but this is not okay where we are. First person shooters need a steady balance to be considered skillful. We need a skillful games so we don't get wrecked by noobs as we are now.

2. Tanks take no skill to use. Things shouldn't get kills if they take no skill. I think the concept is simple enough.

3. The fps community will completely vanish without balance. This is a promise.

1. CCP does not have a style of balancing. This is perfectly well and dandy in EvE(on the computer side), but this is not okay where we are. First person shooters need a steady balance to be considered skillful. We need a skillful games so we don't get wrecked by noobs as we are now.

2. Tanks take no skill to use. Things shouldn't get kills if they take no skill. I think the concept is simple enough.

3. The fps community will completely vanish without balance. This is a promise.

Just out of curiosity please name what you consider to be a well "balanced" FPS title where the main component is multiplayer and has vehicles. My experience in recent years of FPS has unfortunately been limited due to a lack of funds on my part or other games and things I wanted or needed at the time. I have played a decent amount of the COD series and halo but not much else unfortunately I have missed out on MAG which I had heard very good things about.

MAG

MAG

Well I never got to play that one and I bet there were still plenty of people who.cried about some weapon or other being OP from day one until now it just changes with the flavor of the week I am sure.

Well I never got to play that one and I bet there were still plenty of people who.cried about some weapon or other being OP from day one until now it just changes with the flavor of the week I am sure.

Well I never got to play that one and I bet there were still plenty of people who.cried about some weapon or other being OP from day one until now it just changes with the flavor of the week I am sure.