DUST Search - Why Tanks Are Over-Powered (now with the numbers!)

Aeon Amadi wrote:

EDITORIAL NOTE: My math was wrong and I have changed the post accordingly - please see bottom of post for further information.

This build the AV/Tank balance is just ridiculous. Here's why.

Here's the stacking penalties on using more than one Shield Resistance on an HAV.

-25% 1 Shield Resist
-46.75% 2 Shield Resists
-61% 3 Shield Resists
-68% 4 Shield Resists
-82% 4 Shield Resists + Damage Control

Now, for the sake of argument, we're going to assume that a Sagaris with two resistances, a shield extender, a damage control, and a booster.

6000 (approximately) HP with 60.75% resistance.

Now we'll pit it against an Officer Forge Gun, which does 1080 damage - base - and with Weaponry 5 and Proficiency 3 would be an 24% increase to a grand total of 1340.

Now, we're going to take the resistances and apply it to our forge gun, which now makes it at 536.

6,000 divided by 536 = 11.19, approximately. This is about two magazines from your Officer Forge Gun.

This means that with two (officer) forge gunners firing at the same Tank, taking into account charge up times, it would take 10 Seconds for both gunners to exhaust their magazines and theoretically deplete the tank's shields. Round about's 20, for one gunner. In this time frame the tank has already disengaged the battle and has retreated to an area that it can use it's booster - all the while using a large array of weaponry to fire back at it's opponents.

Whatever happened in this build screwed over any balance there ever was between vehicles and Anti-Vehicle builds.

To counter the argument that Movement Nullifiers will "fix everything", you're very wrong. Movement Nullifiers will help but they won't solve the issue at hand - as this math is directed for -ONE TANK- and I have seen as many as five in a single match.

I'm curious as to what CCP was even thinking when they came out with the AV "hotfix" in the first place, to be honest. Reducing the speed on the tanks isn't the problem - it's their absolutely ridiculous invulnerability to conventional methods.

EDITORIAL NOTE: I know that the Officer Forge Gun has 6 rounds in the mag - but a Proto Forge Gun does about the same damage so it's a moot point.

FURTHER EDITORIAL NOTE: I realized that 804 was the 60% of the damage from the forge gun - that number was what was being removed from the equation, and replaced it with the 40% left over -after- the resistances were taken into account.

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
General Rian Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2012.09.11 19:20:00 - [31] - Quote Scholar Him wrote: Gooly wrote: I still think the solution is needing more than one player for a tank to work so they're not just giant win buttons and become more of a strategic deployment. Exactly. If it take 4 players to kill a tank, it should take 4 players to operate a tank. Fair should be fair, in a game at least. That would only be fair if the tank and the AV suits were both free. There's plenty of balance currently. 3 people in a tank vs 4 people on the ground. It takes 1 more person to take out the tank because the tank is usually far more expensive than the 4 AV suits being used to take it out. I'm talking reasonably fit suits and a reasonably fit tank. Obviously going cheaper on either shoves the favor into the other side's favor.
Billi Gene Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 130	Posted - 2012.09.11 23:28:00 - [32] - Quote /confused how many suicide gankers does it take to bring a mining barge down? cost =/= survivability <--strawman?
General Rian Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2012.09.11 23:38:00 - [33] - Quote Billi Gene wrote: /confused how many suicide gankers does it take to bring a mining barge down? cost =/= survivability <--strawman? The best you can do is bring up an aspect of Eve that CCP was readily willing to admit was flawed? You do know they patched/updated the mining barges for that very reason right? The core idea behind Eve is that increased cost brings increased reward, but also increases your risk... regardless of the occasional thing that goes against this, it still is what Eve is all about. Dust is following a pattern of going right along that same patch. Increased cost for a vehicle should most certainly give the player benefits that someone unwilling to invest as much isk should not receive. A tank isn't cheap, so it should be tough and it should do substantially more damage than an infantry player should be able to do. This game isn't about fair... it's about winning. And in this game, the side willing to risk more isk SHOULD have an advantage over the enemy proportionate to how much more they risk. But alas, all you guys are going to do is scream "nerf". And if you get what you want, HAVs will just be nerfed into the ground to the point of no one wanting to use them. Even more so when CCP introduces more weapons, airships geared directly for combat, etc etc.
CyberDoo Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 12	Posted - 2012.09.12 03:36:00 - [34] - Quote Hey Tyas, I'm pretty noobish at this game, been playing two weeks, so excuse my noobishness when I ask you, how the hell you can stand there telling me you can eat a marauder with your assualt two + level 2 swarmer? I've got a level 1 heavy and level 1 logi. I've packed a single damage modifier, level 5 swarmer, with my level 3 swarm prof, level 2 all light weap skills with level 3 reload and capacity and the best I can do is take maybe 25 percent of a marauder's shields down after a full 5 rounds shot at him. Please explain your skills or your setup so I can be fuckin rambo like you. Personally, I say leave the tanks as they are. It should however be reasonable that a single gun with a proto launcher and six rounds into the tank should do the job. Don't say it isn't fair if the right guy with the right equipment can take you down. Tanks in real life don't need a squad of AV to take them down. Should be the same in this game, just cooler when we do.
Martin0 Brancaleone Maphia Clan Corporation CRONOS. 191	Posted - 2012.09.12 08:42:00 - [35] - Quote You know that people are not supposed to be able to solo-kill Marauders? 3+ People with proto forge should be able to kill a marauder, the real problem are people not coordinating. I've been a tank driver before the wipe and can tell you that when 2 or 3 people start shooting you with proto assault forge gun you have to RUN OR EXPLODE. But i agree that heavies need an HP buff and the forgegun a little range buff.
Gelan Corbaine BetaMax. 103	Posted - 2012.09.12 12:56:00 - [36] - Quote General Rian wrote: [ That would only be fair if the tank and the AV suits were both free. There's plenty of balance currently. 3 people in a tank vs 4 people on the ground. It takes 1 more person to take out the tank because the tank is usually far more expensive than the 4 AV suits being used to take it out. I'm talking reasonably fit suits and a reasonably fit tank. Obviously going cheaper on either shoves the favor into the other side's favor. I disagree ..... right now in terms isk balance is heavily tipped toward tankers . Right now a Proto Forge alone costs more than a Militia Railgun Sica alone . Yet the Sica is more effective and less vulnerable then the Forge Gunner relatively .... AV troops also tend to make less than other professions .. SO Tank Low risk high reward ......AV Gun High risk Low Reward ... Anyone see the problem here ?
KEROSIINI-TERO Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 248	Posted - 2012.09.13 03:03:00 - [37] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: Once they re-buff AV and put in the Stasis Webifier mines, the current stats on HAVs are going to make operating them suicidal. You mix up operating tanks and solopwning with tanks.
Terminus Decimus 37	Posted - 2012.09.13 03:56:00 - [38] - Quote Im still having a hard time playing a RTS from a FPS view. I mean really, player skill is second to ones bank account. Its a weird thing to me having played lots of FPS's and most all from a PC. In a FPS you should be able to take a skilled player and give him crap equipment and they will still do good if not better than a non skilled player in better equipment. Its as if you could grab some 13yo off the street and stick him in a tank and then give a vet some AV weapon and proceed to watch the tank pwn. Now I'm not saying that the tankers are unskilled but relatively you don't need that much "schooling" to learn to tank in this game, on the other hand you just about have to go to college (complete with the bills) just to be able to get some decent suits and AV gear so you can "make a tank run away"
KEROSIINI-TERO Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 248	Posted - 2012.09.13 04:10:00 - [39] - Quote Tyas Borg wrote: People seem obsessed with this idea that 1-2 guys should insta pop a tank. You even say yourself that 2 forge gunners would make a tank run. I'd go as far to say that one can. The point here is that the tank HAS to move and your denying it whatever it was doing. The fact it's not dead isn't the issue, the AV has done it's job and the tank is gone. Besides the fact that if the tank didn't run, then it'd be dead so AV is fine?, no?. It seems awfully lot that you, sir, are obsessed by letting the HAV driver of infinite stupidity live through the worst case scenario. The example above is a goldfish case, a laboratory setting, where AV gunners get their best theoretical shots without any distractions whatsoever. On that I agree that forcing the tank to back up is a minor tactical victory, albeit a temporary one delaying the inevitable. Tyas Borg wrote: I can kill Marauders and make them run like girls on my own with lvl 2 Swarms... That sounds like from an entirely different game altogether. I claim that swarms are next to useless vs tanks. I find that to be no problem if swarms role is supposed to be vs aerials with only small bonus as ability to poke tanks. Hell, a full clip wont always even breach the droships shields. Tyas Borg wrote: I've seen organised groups of 4 devastate a tank, just because they can't be solo'd doesn't mean they're OP. There I agree with you, solo AV soldier shouldn't be able to destroy a marauder unless in very exceptional situations. Tyas Borg wrote: I will admit that there's an issue with how many tanks we see in a single match however, but this could all be eliminated through the use of War Points cost to deploy or just limiting the amount of tanks. I see no problem there. HAV limit is not the result, the less artificial barriers the better. Better way of 'creating' limiter would be to make tanks dependant on infantry being their eyes and keeping the back of the tank clear.
Supercakers Algintal Core Gallente Federation 45	Posted - 2012.09.13 18:10:00 - [40] - Quote A bit of a long read here (aka more than two sentences.) I hopped on here specifically because of tanks. I just started playing about 5-6 days ago, and the main problem is the disparity of one team having tanks when the other does not. Even a couple makes a huge difference. It doesn't really matter how much damage AV rounds do against tanks when one tank basically has two main weapons, like the Segaris. Missiles and main gun. The missiles only take a couple of shots to kill you depending on your dropsuit. One big problem in maps, is tanks acting like artillery. They can get up on a ridge and just snipe, but with a massive main gun and the long range secondary to boot. So now you are worrying about snipers, AND a tank sniping you. A tank with two weapons, which can be fired every 1-2 seconds at most! That is a barrage of damage, oh and it seems to be infinite ammo too. They can just fire as long as they want, and never worry about batteries charging to power the rail gun, or running out of missiles. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption. Another part of the problem is the fact that some AV weapons like swarms seem to be quite bugged at times. Dumb fire swarm shots are just awful, they flare out in a huge radius managing to hit anything within 10 feet off to your sides, then come back in a little but they still just don't seem to work that well. Also quite often I am noticing that tanks are taking almost 0 damage from getting hit by a full cluster of rockets whether it is from dumb fire or a lock. So here I am trying to attack a tank with an AV weapon that does no damage a lot of the time, firing every 3-4 seconds at best if you are trying to lock on. And they have two weapons firing every 1-2 seconds at most, one of which obliterates you unless you are in heavy armor, in which case it takes two maybe 3 shots if you are lucky to only take the edge of the splash damage. I think that the weapons for tanks should be switched. They should not be one-man squad annihilators, which I have seen many times, even with 1-2 members of a squad having AV weapons. They just get crushed in a few seconds, one shot at a time. I think the driver should get control of the secondary anti-infantry weapon and the second person in the tank controls the main gun. That way you must have TWO people in the tank for it to be 100% effective. This means you are more likely to have a lower number of tanks, which will still be effective, but you wont have 3-5 tanks slaughtering people with another 7-8 people on foot as well. If a team wants to field 5 tanks, it will take 10 people total to man the main guns, leaving only a few ground troops. TLDR - Tanks have massive damage, very fast rate of fire, multiple long range weapons as well as incredibly solid defenses.

Rhadiem Algintal Core Gallente Federation 496	Posted - 2012.09.13 23:12:00 - [41] - Quote AV is currently broken in both Swarm Launchers and Forge guns. But the real solution to tanks (which are fine IMHO) is in combat air vehicles - gunships and fighters. Right now the tank killers are weak or nonexistent. This is where fixing is needed. Btw, I've played 90% AV all of E3 patch as well as now.
Amazigh Stormrage Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 36	Posted - 2012.09.13 23:22:00 - [42] - Quote Aeon Amadi wrote: EDITORIAL NOTE: My math was wrong and I have changed the post accordingly - please see bottom of post for further information. This build the AV/Tank balance is just ridiculous. Here's why. Here's the stacking penalties on using more than one Shield Resistance on an HAV. -25% 1 Shield Resist -46.75% 2 Shield Resists -61% 3 Shield Resists -68% 4 Shield Resists -82% 4 Shield Resists + Damage Control Now, for the sake of argument, we're going to assume that a Sagaris with two resistances, a shield extender, a damage control, and a booster. 6000 (approximately) HP with 60.75% resistance. Now we'll pit it against an Officer Forge Gun, which does 1080 damage - base - and with Weaponry 5 and Proficiency 3 would be an 24% increase to a grand total of 1340. Now, we're going to take the resistances and apply it to our forge gun, which now makes it at 536. 6,000 divided by 536 = 11.19, approximately. This is about two magazines from your Officer Forge Gun. This means that with two (officer) forge gunners firing at the same Tank, taking into account charge up times, it would take 10 Seconds for both gunners to exhaust their magazines and theoretically deplete the tank's shields. Round about's 20, for one gunner. In this time frame the tank has already disengaged the battle and has retreated to an area that it can use it's booster - all the while using a large array of weaponry to fire back at it's opponents. Whatever happened in this build screwed over any balance there ever was between vehicles and Anti-Vehicle builds. To counter the argument that Movement Nullifiers will "fix everything", you're very wrong. Movement Nullifiers will help but they won't solve the issue at hand - as this math is directed for -ONE TANK- and I have seen as many as five in a single match. I'm curious as to what CCP was even thinking when they came out with the AV "hotfix" in the first place, to be honest. Reducing the speed on the tanks isn't the problem - it's their absolutely ridiculous invulnerability to conventional methods. EDITORIAL NOTE: I know that the Officer Forge Gun has 6 rounds in the mag - but a Proto Forge Gun does about the same damage so it's a moot point. FURTHER EDITORIAL NOTE: I realized that 804 was the 60% of the damage from the forge gun - that number was what was being removed from the equation, and replaced it with the 40% left over -after- the resistances were taken into account. lol, are you stupid? 1 shield resist = 100% effect of it, 2 shield resist = each have 75% of its effetiency 3 shield resist give all 3 50% of their effecienty. Having more then 2 shield resist doesnt have an effect anymore, 2 shield resist of +2 25% modules at 75% effecienty = 37.5% 3 shield resist of 25% turns them into 50% effecienty meaning also 37,5% resistance. Ur talking about ** while you know nothing of it. cause if it were like you said, hell, gunnlogi and sagaris have 5 highslots, if the ** you were talking about would be correct then i would put 5x 25% shield ward amplifiers, giving my tank 100% resistance IMU. Idiot this is towards the players, cause DEV does know i'm correct in this
Vascillar Mandate Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2012.09.14 19:32:00 - [43] - Quote Amazigh Stormrage wrote: lol, are you stupid? 1 shield resist = 100% effect of it, 2 shield resist = each have 75% of its effetiency 3 shield resist give all 3 50% of their effecienty. Having more then 2 shield resist doesnt have an effect anymore, 2 shield resist of +2 25% modules at 75% effecienty = 37.5% 3 shield resist of 25% turns them into 50% effecienty meaning also 37,5% resistance. Ur talking about ** while you know nothing of it. cause if it were like you said, hell, gunnlogi and sagaris have 5 highslots, if the you were talking about would be correct then i would put 5x 25% shield ward amplifiers, giving my tank 100% resistance IMU. Idiot this is towards the players, cause DEV does know i'm correct in this Hah! The irony! It is palpable! Please, no one correct Amazigh, this is delicious. Anyway. The problem isn't that simple though, it's in making the tank effective enough on it's own to not be torn down too fast, while allowing for fits to make a difference. If a tank gets taken down in 3 shots, adding resists would be nearly useless if they're going to contribute maybe a shot or so more. The problem is in making them _just powerfull enough_ so that there isn't an optimal strategy in piloting them. IMO A tank should need infantry support (historically tanks were never designed to be standalone weapons, their strength is both in numbers and in the support they get). Making them weak enough that you'd want a Logi repping you but strong enough that you need at least 2 guys to take you down (assuming no support in the latter case) or one very presistent/skilled one. The point here is that this is supposed to be a team game. Tanks should be strongest when the team plays together, not when one kid decides to push a win button. Edit: this could mean providing AA cover or needing several players to weild one effectively. Or making tanks less effective against infantry unless specifically anti-infantry turrets are mounted. And i don't know if the cost is really an issue when you can get them as salvage... Seriously, how the hell does one get entire tanks** as salvage? Do you just pick it up off the ground and stuff it into your bag of trans-dimentionnal holding?
Wolf Ritter vonKaldari Zumari Force Projection Caldari State 97	Posted - 2012.09.14 19:55:00 - [44] - Quote Vascillar Mandate wrote: Seriously, how the hell does one get entire tanks as salvage? Do you just pick it up off the ground and stuff it into your bag of trans-dimentionnal holding? Obviously. It wouldn't be an RPG if it didn't have Type V Bags of Holding. Now I just need to find a +1 Keen Vorpal Assault Rifle of Wounding.
Amazigh Stormrage Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 36	Posted - 2012.09.14 21:13:00 - [45] - Quote Wolf Ritter vonKaldari wrote: Vascillar Mandate wrote: Seriously, how the hell does one get entire tanks as salvage? Do you just pick it up off the ground and stuff it into your bag of trans-dimentionnal holding? Obviously. It wouldn't be an RPG if it didn't have Type V Bags of Holding. Now I just need to find a +1 Keen Vorpal Assault Rifle of Wounding. intire tanks, ur only getting the hull, nothing more
Vascillar Mandate Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2012.09.14 23:48:00 - [46] - Quote Amazigh Stormrage wrote: intire tanks, ur only getting the hull, nothing more My bad, only the hull. Which still weighs several tonns and measures at least 40 cubic meters. And you can still get the turrets as salvage. Basically it comes down to this: Kyy Seiska wrote: [...]anything that doesn't require a team to operate shouldn't take a team or even a squad to take down. Single person with correct equipment should be more than enough. Argument for the above: Because otherwise there would be no reason to spec to anything else.
Vascillar Mandate Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2012.09.14 23:50:00 - [47] - Quote [deleted] oops, double-post
Scurvy Granger ZionTCD Legacy Rising 75	Posted - 2012.09.15 05:17:00 - [48] - Quote Gooly wrote: I still think the solution is needing more than one player for a tank to work so they're not just giant win buttons and become more of a strategic deployment. I actually agree with this, tanks should be a force not to be taken lightly, but at the same time they should not be all over the field. With the implementation of titan suits or squad leader suits it would be possible to control the amount of tanks on the field. I don't think that a dropsuit should be able to drop in front of a tank and one shot it or even solo it. I mean it's a tank, they are supposed to help control the field, that is their purpose. Making it necessary for coordination in order to deploy tanks would lower the amount of tanks fielded on any given battlefield. 1. You make a loadout for a squad leader suit that enables members of his squad to call down Mechs, Air, Ground, etc. 2. The squad member that is a pilot for a class of vehicle must be in the squad with a squad leader with the loadout to call down that class 3. Limit the number of each class to 1 active vehicle per squad (1 ground per squad/1 Air per squad/1 Mech per squad) Total 3 vehicles allowed per squad, or however many classes there ends up being 4. The pilot can still drive and shoot the vehicle, and even solo operate the vehicle, but he needs to be in a coordinated squad to do so. The result is the same as it is currently, if you have coordination then you dominate the field, but if you don't then, as it would go in RL, you're gonna get your kitten stomped. This is all about factional warfare right, team up and win or solo and get some kills while you get stomped. I don't want to see tanks being hit with the nerf bat so hard that they are useless, but I also don't want to see a line of tanks rolling around because they are too strong. Sure even under this setup a well organized corporation can flood the field with vehicles, but if they are better organized they will win anyway.
Onizuka-GTO Houdan Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 8	Posted - 2012.09.15 07:57:00 - [49] - Quote the obvious answer is...Mecha. Tanks should take at leased two people to operate at 100%. Mecha are the one man tank. Tanks should be invulnerable to infantry, find a group of AV infantry dangerous. Find more then one Mecha? DEADLY. Mecha should find AV Infantry deadly, find Tanks dangerous but manageable and can be solo if they play like AV infantry. It's the only solution! Mecha. It solves everything! :D
Dusty Mokong ZionTCD Legacy Rising 61	Posted - 2012.09.15 13:18:00 - [50] - Quote Onizuka-GTO Houdan wrote: the obvious answer is...Mecha. Tanks should take at leased two people to operate at 100%. Mecha are the one man tank. Tanks should be invulnerable to infantry, find a group of AV infantry dangerous. Find more then one Mecha? DEADLY. Mecha should find AV Infantry deadly, find Tanks dangerous but manageable and can be solo if they play like AV infantry. It's the only solution! Mecha. It solves everything! :D I believe they call it MTACs in the EVE world ;)

Onizuka-GTO Houdan Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 8	Posted - 2012.09.16 16:16:00 - [51] - Quote Dusty Mokong wrote: Onizuka-GTO Houdan wrote: the obvious answer is...Mecha. Tanks should take at leased two people to operate at 100%. Mecha are the one man tank. Tanks should be invulnerable to infantry, find a group of AV infantry dangerous. Find more then one Mecha? DEADLY. Mecha should find AV Infantry deadly, find Tanks dangerous but manageable and can be solo if they play like AV infantry. It's the only solution! Mecha. It solves everything! :D I believe they call it MTACs in the EVE world ;) Gimmme!!!
Scurvy Granger ZionTCD Legacy Rising 75	Posted - 2012.09.17 04:03:00 - [52] - Quote Onizuka-GTO Houdan wrote: the obvious answer is...Mecha. Tanks should take at leased two people to operate at 100%. Mecha are the one man tank. Tanks should be invulnerable to infantry, find a group of AV infantry dangerous. Find more then one Mecha? DEADLY. Mecha should find AV Infantry deadly, find Tanks dangerous but manageable and can be solo if they play like AV infantry. It's the only solution! Mecha. It solves everything! :D Don't forget the mecha guys should be able to be sniped, therefore keeping the infantry / light vehicles / heavy vehicles / M-Tech balance in check. You must keep infantry worth having around (plus I'm mainly a sniper )


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