DUST Search - Cost Effectiveness of Tanks

All Channels

General Discussions

Cost Effectiveness of Tanks

» 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)
Ellen Mobius Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2012.12.23 13:49:00 - [1] - Quote I love dust 514 so far. I really enjoy playing it and It's very different from any earlier sci-fi shooters. I also love tanks and I love fps games that includes at a lot of tank play such as the battlefield series. I think I spent like more than 2000 hours ~ driving tanks which is kind of insane if you ask me =) I think tanks in dust 514 are very interesting and the ability to customize different modules really gives you an opportunity to develop different kinds of play styles. However there are some things that concerns me. Rather than saying that this or that is OP I will look a broader perspective and the cost effectiveness of tanks in general. Cost-effectiveness of tank ( ISK ) If you have tank vs infantry scenario lets say 3 man tank team vs a 3 man AV team. With the equal amount of ISK spent the tank team. The tank team will lose because of immobility. Even tho the tank is superior in firepower it still loses because it can't hide from swarm launchers or forge guns. This is because swarm launchers auto-lock and forge guns have about zero angle of elevation for its trajectory and high damage. Even tho you have 3 turrets it's still difficult to kill all of the AV team before anyone can fire and due to the difference in ISK they are also allowed to re spawn. If you don't believe me compare the cost of 3 heavy militia suits + militia forges guns vs a militia tank. Cost-effectiveness of tank ( manpower ) Instead of having a 3 man tank team you could instead have the tank player playing solo and the two other players specialize in assault or any other close/medium range specialization. This way it you would put pressure on the AV team and make it difficult for the AV team to properly engage the tank. Rather than staying along side the tank the assault players just run in front. So this would in theory be a better way to be more cost-effective against a 3 man AV team. If this is true then what is the purpose of having additional manned slots in a tank? You would think that a 3 man tank team should be more cost-effective than any 3 man AV infantry team or at least equal as effective. Effectiveness of large HAV turrets Because small turrets requires several team members I will only focus on large turrets. The main thing about large turrets is that they should decide role of the tank. If you mount a blaster then the tank is more effective versus infantry and should be used as a anti-infantry tank. If it's mounted with a railgun its purpose is to deny enemy tanks and installations. Missile launcher is supposed to be somewhere in between or maybe focused more against air. So how effective are each of these turrets? Blaster is great versus infantry but still suffers from the cost-effectiveness in ISK. A lower ISK AV team will probably take you out unless you got good infantry support. Due to the effective range of the blaster the tank can not really fight that well at long range. Missile turrets, are better than blaster but suffers again from not being cost-effective and still requires the tank to be so what close to the enemy. The main weakness of blaster and missile turrets is that they are hard-countered by rail guns. If there is a railgun tank on the field it's practically useless to have a blaster or a missile turret unless you have a railgun tank of your own. Now railguns are interesting, they have high damage, they can should rather fast, they shut down practically any tank or air play and they do not need to be close to the enemy. Therefore they purpose less risk to the tank player due to having longer effective range. This promote gameplay where you basically have one tank staying behind acts more as a stationary turret. Unless you have a railgun of your own you would have to hide your tank until the battle is over as just showing your tank would mean the death of you. Infantry support doesn't matter as the effective range of the railgun allows the tank to stay out of any swarm launcher or forge gun range. Tank vs tank play Basically a railgun tank is better than any other tank combination due to high damage and high rate of fire. Mobility does not count due to the low elevation of angle of the trajectory. If you have several tanks on the battlefield, the one with more railguns wins. IGÇÖll not discuss the usage of air play vs tanks but I feel that railguns shut down air units pretty good which shouldnGÇÖt be the case. In general air units should always be superior to tanks. Shield and armor I will not discuss shield and armor because there several discussions on this topic. But in general the combination of different modules for either shield or armor will increase the manpower effectiveness, the tank will enable to take more damage on its own however due the expensiveness of these modules a shield or armored tank will never be more effective in ISK compared to a AV team.
Ellen Mobius Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2012.12.23 13:49:00 - [2] - Quote Conclusion Tanks are not that effective in term of ISK Tanks are not that effective in term of manpower when using all manned slots. Tanks using large blaster and missile turrets are useless vs railgun tank Railgun tanks promote unfun gameplay, Tanks are mobile protection and firepower not a stationary turret installation. Suggestions Redesign rail guns and forge guns completely, add a high angle of elevation for its trajectory and make the speed of the projectile slower, compensate with more aoe damage or direct damage also lower the rate of f. This would make railguns harder to use at long range but easier at close range. This promotes any use of mobility, if you are moving fast you are harder to hit. This is not the case with the current railguns. An alternative is to decrease the effective range of railguns, this exposes railgun tanks to infantry. Reduce the cost of tanks and tanks modules in general. Reduce the effectiveness of shield modules for compensation. armored modules need no change due to mobility. Change swarm launcher to be able to dumb fire and lock at close range with upgrade. Increasing the effective range will of course increase the lock range. This will mean that AVs are more easily used in close quarters but can miss a longer range if the enemy tank is moving. Edit: I apologize for the lack of grammar :3
Sir Meode Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 317	Posted - 2012.12.23 14:10:00 - [3] - Quote I'm sorry but your suggestion is a bit ridiculus. Why change rail guns to something that they arnt supposed to be??
Kaze Eyrou ROGUE SPADES 53	Posted - 2012.12.23 14:12:00 - [4] - Quote A good read. I skimmed through your post and I like how the Forge Guns and Railguns are right now so I can't agree with the redesign of the railguns and forge guns, however, I will counter later once I have more thoroughly read through your post. One thing I did want to point out though: Swarm launchers, from my understanding, DO have the ability to dumbfire. The one's that don't are the Militia Swarm Launchers. This change occurred when people were using the Militia Swarm Launcher to get kills by dumbfiring the missile launcher at infantry. Now, the free Militia Swarms can not dumbfire, however, the bought variants (those that require at least level 1 Swarm Launcher Operation) CAN dumbfire.
Ellen Mobius Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2012.12.23 14:16:00 - [5] - Quote Sir Meode wrote: I'm sorry but your suggestion is a bit ridiculus. Why change rail guns to something that they arnt supposed to be?? True a name change would probably be needed as well.
Ellen Mobius Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2012.12.23 14:21:00 - [6] - Quote Kaze Eyrou wrote: One thing I did want to point out though: Swarm launchers, from my understanding, DO have the ability to dumbfire. The one's that don't are the Militia Swarm Launchers. This change occurred when people were using the Militia Swarm Launcher to get kills by dumbfiring the missile launcher at infantry. Now, the free Militia Swarms can not dumbfire, however, the bought variants (those that require at least level 1 Swarm Launcher Operation) CAN dumbfire. Ah I see! This is good but it should be the other way around don't you think? If dumb fire really is a problem then you should make it harder to use it against infantry.
Kaze Eyrou ROGUE SPADES 53	Posted - 2012.12.23 14:57:00 - [7] - Quote Ellen Mobius wrote: Ah I see! This is good but it should be the other way around don't you think? If dumb fire really is a problem then you should make it harder to use it against infantry. I believe CCP's solution to make it harder to use against infantry was to kill the dumbfire on the militia swarm variant. Think about it like this: The cost of the militia swarm launcher fitting was 0 ISK. Free to deploy. Going against someone that had advanced gear or suit or a combination of both had no risk but great reward. So people were using the tactic of using that fit against people who had higher risk suits and weapons (those that cost ISK or AUR) in order to win against them. I don't know if anyone complained by I believe CCP wanted to either have the missiles used against armor or stop from having an "I win" button with no risk involved, so they removed the dumbfire on just the militia swarms. All other swarms have dumbfire (I believe, someone can correct me if I'm wrong).
Makuta Miserix Better Hide R Die 33	Posted - 2012.12.23 15:23:00 - [8] - Quote Kaze Eyrou wrote: Ellen Mobius wrote: Ah I see! This is good but it should be the other way around don't you think? If dumb fire really is a problem then you should make it harder to use it against infantry. I believe CCP's solution to make it harder to use against infantry was to kill the dumbfire on the militia swarm variant. Think about it like this: The cost of the militia swarm launcher fitting was 0 ISK. Free to deploy. Going against someone that had advanced gear or suit or a combination of both had no risk but great reward. So people were using the tactic of using that fit against people who had higher risk suits and weapons (those that cost ISK or AUR) in order to win against them. I don't know if anyone complained by I believe CCP wanted to either have the missiles used against armor or stop from having an "I win" button with no risk involved, so they removed the dumbfire on just the militia swarms. All other swarms have dumbfire (I believe, someone can correct me if I'm wrong). Interesting find... I don't know if other varients of the Swarm Launchers can dumb-fire. But I can easily say I was one of those Swarm-to-Infantry players. (If I hadn't played Warhawk and Starhawk I would never have thought of it...)
Kaze Eyrou ROGUE SPADES 53	Posted - 2012.12.23 15:34:00 - [9] - Quote Makuta Miserix wrote: Interesting find... I don't know if other varients of the Swarm Launchers can dumb-fire. But I can easily say I was one of those Swarm-to-Infantry players. (If I hadn't played Warhawk and Starhawk I would never have thought of it...) As was I once I started getting the hang of it. However, I noticed it required a bit of skill and height advantage to use Swarms in a Swarm-vs-Infantry fight, not to mention waiting for them to initially fire. However, when they made the change, I thought it was appropriate since the Swarm Launcher was intended for Anti-Armor, like the starter fit indicates.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1058	Posted - 2012.12.23 15:38:00 - [10] - Quote Here's what I think: make tanks much tougher as far as armor/shielding, but separate the driver's seat from the main turret controls. As far as blasters/missiles vs railguns: working as intended. an anti-tank weapon should be much better than anti infantry/lighter vehicle weapons in tank v tank combat.

Kaze Eyrou ROGUE SPADES 53	Posted - 2012.12.23 16:05:00 - [11] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Here's what I think: make tanks much tougher as far as armor/shielding, but separate the driver's seat from the main turret controls. Tanks were much stronger in the past but, from what I've heard, their resistances got nerfed into the ground after players complained about tanks being too powerful. Now many people say that tanks are paper, but I believe it takes some skill to operate them. You need a team to support you, clearing out those bringing out Swarms, Forges, and anything AV to get rid of your tank. I've lost plenty of tanks due to driving my tank away from my team and getting killed by several well placed Swarms and Forges. Bad tank driving on my part. I don't think they should separate the driver's seat from the main turret. Part of the tank operator's job is to also manage active modules, making driving and gunning more challenging (or more powerful, depending on your point of view I guess). It's one more thing to keep track of IMO. While having the main turret and the driving separate would make it more realistic and it might promote more teamwork while operating a tank, the way things are now, the last thing I need a random blueberry jumping in my tank and driving it into a trap or have them not use the main turret properly while I'm driving.
Icy Tiger Universal Allies Inc. 1026	Posted - 2012.12.23 16:09:00 - [12] - Quote I'm fine with them now.
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 1058	Posted - 2012.12.23 16:09:00 - [13] - Quote Kaze Eyrou wrote: Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Here's what I think: make tanks much tougher as far as armor/shielding, but separate the driver's seat from the main turret controls. I don't think they should separate the driver's seat from the main turret. Part of the tank operator's job is to also manage active modules, making driving and gunning more challenging (or more powerful, depending on your point of view I guess). It's one more thing to keep track of IMO. While having the main turret and the driving separate would make it more realistic and it might promote more teamwork while operating a tank, the way things are now, the last thing I need a random blueberry jumping in my tank and driving it into a trap or have them not use the main turret properly while I'm driving. In my point of view, if I have to deal with that as an LAV driver, why doesn't an HAV driver have to deal with it?
Kaze Eyrou ROGUE SPADES 53	Posted - 2012.12.23 16:17:00 - [14] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: In my point of view, if I have to deal with that as an LAV driver, why doesn't an HAV driver have to deal with it? Because as an LAV driver, my mission is to run people over; I could care less what my gunner does. I haven't missed your point though, I get it. If they were to make it where driver and gunner are separate, I would be a sad panda. In the mean time, I'll enjoy driving and gunning.
DarkShadowFox Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 238	Posted - 2012.12.23 17:01:00 - [15] - Quote also. to respond to your blasters are useless against shields, really? cause I tear them up.
Django Quik R.I.f.t 219	Posted - 2012.12.23 17:17:00 - [16] - Quote Kaze Eyrou wrote: One thing I did want to point out though: Swarm launchers, from my understanding, DO have the ability to dumbfire. The one's that don't are the Militia Swarm Launchers. This change occurred when people were using the Militia Swarm Launcher to get kills by dumbfiring the missile launcher at infantry. Now, the free Militia Swarms can not dumbfire, however, the bought variants (those that require at least level 1 Swarm Launcher Operation) CAN dumbfire. Wrong - no SL can currentloy dumbfire. I'm led to believe a far earlier build did allow it but at least not since Codex. Also, to the OP - secondary gunners on a tank can easily hop in and out to take out AV teams on foot if they get close enough. In fact this is the best use of tanks I really see and goes a long way to protecting your investment.
Ellen Mobius Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation 6	Posted - 2012.12.23 18:05:00 - [17] - Quote Scheneighnay McBob wrote: Here's what I think: make tanks much tougher as far as armor/shielding, but separate the driver's seat from the main turret controls. As far as blasters/missiles vs railguns: working as intended. an anti-tank weapon should be much better than anti infantry/lighter vehicle weapons in tank v tank combat. I'm completely fine with a turret which is AT oriented and better at it then any other turret, however the problem is that railguns simply denies everything, you stand no chance, not even with the greatest micro in the world. Mobility doesn't help because of the low angle of elevation in the trajectory. Just taking damage doesn't work due to damage and rate of fire. Even if you try to avoid the notification that you are hit by a railshot isn't that telling, you just simply die. The only option you have is to use a rail tank of your own or hide in a corner of the map. Lets say for example that a railgun had very low range. This would give non-railgun tanks a chance to run away if they are faster. Also it would put a big risk on the railgun player because he would be forced to be close to the enemy. But with the current build you're simply ****** because a railtank can stay in its deployment zone and simply snipe you. It's even worse for LAV and air because they get one shot with no chance to do anything about it. Of course this could be fixed by map design but promoting such a gameplay is not fun in my opinion, why would you spec into something just have it blown into pieces in two seconds. Of course you could say that I have to be smart and not taking risks, even if I have infantry support a railgun tank will still get me, against AV team maybe I have more of a chance. What I'm aiming for is to make tank driving more fun and more positional and mobility based rather than just "Who got the most railguns"
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. 2866	Posted - 2012.12.23 19:48:00 - [18] - Quote Swarm Launchers are incapable of killing infantry now. They are more likely to kill the guy launching than the infantry they hit. Also question to OP Have you made this evaluation post chromosome because ive seen a rather drastic change in turret usage since then.
Washlee UnReaL. 131	Posted - 2012.12.23 20:22:00 - [19] - Quote Usually I use my 1.8m ISk tank as a shield for my partners that are in a front line battle and just sit there as the other team just shoots bullets a me ^^.
Encharrion L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising 104	Posted - 2012.12.23 20:42:00 - [20] - Quote I don't think railgun turrets should be removed or replaced. Clearly the best option would be to use infantry to kill the anti-vehicle tank. I gather that the issue with that is getting close enough to do so, so here is what I think would fix this. Introduce anti-material sniper rifles, then increase the fitting costs of the railgun. The increased fitting cost would make tanking the tank harder, and encourage damage modifiers rather than tanking modules. The anti-material sniper would provide a way to deal damage to tanks at long range, but due to their relative safety, deal low damage. Since tanks with railguns would be designed to tank with difficulty and therefore have lower health, such tanks would be at greater risk from such weapons than other tanks. The anti-material sniper would be designed as to have a hard time hitting small targets like infantry, making their counter other snipers, and so the rock, paper, scissors circle continues.

Bhor Derri Legion of Eden 95	Posted - 2012.12.23 20:43:00 - [21] - Quote You are new to New eden aren't you blasters are close range Very high DPS Turrets meaning they are not meant to be used against infantry nor they should ever be , but they are Damn effective at doing so if you get close enough.
Sytonis Auran Valor Coalition RISE of LEGION 52	Posted - 2012.12.23 22:17:00 - [22] - Quote Bhor Derri wrote: You are new to New eden aren't you blasters are close range Very high DPS Turrets meaning they are not meant to be used against infantry nor they should ever be , but they are Damn effective at doing so if you get close enough. This is not how it works in Dust 514. Large blaster turrets can operate at short and medium ranges equally well. Small blaster turrets are short range only. Both large and small blaster turrets and blaster installations are primarily used against infantry.
NAV HIV The Generals 151	Posted - 2012.12.25 20:06:00 - [23] - Quote DarkShadowFox wrote: also. to respond to your blasters are useless against shields, really? cause I tear them up. Shields Wont last unless they have infantry support (MT Forge gunners, MT Swarmers FML)
Leither Yiltron KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 417	Posted - 2012.12.25 21:11:00 - [24] - Quote Ellen Mobius wrote: Even tho the tank is superior in firepower it still loses because it can't hide from swarm launchers or forge guns. This isn't true in the slightest. It's actually impossible to kill a high level tank that doesn't want to be killed that is manned by a good driver. Heavy suits are slower than tanks, and neither Forge Gunners nor people with Swarm Launchers can stand out in the open getting good shots on a tank. The only thing infantry AV can do is push a tank out of an area, but even then you have to devote at least 2 people to a single tank. This is more manpower than the single driver required in a tank, and 2 ground-based AV players are really not much of a deterrent. Ellen Mobius wrote: This promote gameplay where you basically have one tank staying behind acts more as a stationary turret. A stationary turret with the ability to move, I suppose. What you're missing here is that railgun tanks still have moderate effectiveness against infantry, and that tanks are much more mobile than your posts suggest. Ellen Mobius wrote: Tank vs tank play Basically a railgun tank is better than any other tank combination due to high damage and high rate of fire. Mobility does not count due to the low elevation of angle of the trajectory. If you have several tanks on the battlefield, the one with more railguns wins. That's the point of the turret system. CCP have constructed a one-dimensional range of effectiveness: Infantry - Vehicle. On the two ends you have Blaster - Railgun, and in the middle you have missiles. I'm not sure that there's a complaint stated here. Ellen Mobius wrote: IGÇÖll not discuss the usage of air play vs tanks but I feel that railguns shut down air units pretty good which shouldnGÇÖt be the case. In general air units should always be superior to tanks. Yes, Dropships are now useless. There's no reason they should outdo a tank at a tank's job by any stretch, but they certainly die way too easily to make them anything except flying death traps when any form of AV is on the field. Ellen Mobius wrote: a shield or armored tank will never be more effective in ISK compared to a AV team. This statement actually doesn't make sense. The element you're truly missing about how tanks work with relation to infantry-based AV is that a tank does not have to hide from an AV team for a large window of time, nor is it defenseless to other members of the enemy team. Meanwhile AV infantry have to hide from the tank they're shooting constantly while also worrying about enemy infantry AND trying to get clear shots on the tank, which isn't trivial. A fully done up Sagaris can easily take 10 or more shots from Forge Guns or Swarm Launchers before dipping into armor, which gives a tank ample time to duck away from battle when it's in danger. Meanwhile you only need 1 player in a tank, and anything less than 3 people in AV to combat a tank is laughable. The ISK cost doesn't matter, because a tank will rarely die when driven properly. Plus, a tank hiding behind a mountain can come back later with more health to terrorize the enemy again. 3 guys in AV who don't have a tank to shoot are a huge liability to a small team. Tanks are so hugely effective that right now the only proper way to counter a tank is with a railgun tank. Maybe when the player counts in corp battles are brought up to 16v16 and higher infantry based AV will come into its own, but if you have to devote even two people to infantry AV against a tank manned by 1 person, you've already lost an 8v8. In short, your conclusions are wrong. Tanks are one of the most cost effective weapons on the battlefield. If you're having a hard time winning with a tank, in pub games or in corp matches, you're doing something wrong (granted your enemy doesn't match your tank). Any further buffing would be nothing less than silly, except to Dropships which CCP still haven't actually looked at fixing for a long time.
Vanda-Kon Feast On Skulls 66	Posted - 2012.12.25 22:13:00 - [25] - Quote I wish people who buy tanks would use them, not park them or bring them out at the tail end of a match. Downside of ISK.
Jax Thrife L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising 1	Posted - 2013.01.01 15:27:00 - [26] - Quote Vanda-Kon wrote: I wish people who buy tanks would use them, not park them or bring them out at the tail end of a match. Downside of ISK. Park? you sure they are not heading for cover to make repairs from everyone hitting them with swarms av and forge guns. However I do hate it when someone pulls out a tank and take slight damage and then runs away from the batttlefield I mean if im gonna pull out a tank im gonna make sure I take out some infantry before they take me out. And as for the cost effectiveness the creator of this post was talking about, if tanks cost as much as an av fit everyone and i mean everyone would be pulling out tanks left and right but because of the expense you have to be smart on when to pull out a tank what type to go with (armor vs shield) and who is goin to be in the side turrets (personally I like a logi in one and a heavy in the other so one can make repairs while the other covers or takes out av infantry when needed). and just because the tank is more expensive doesnt mean its better. For example, my 1mil isk gunlogi would get ripped apart but after some modifications it is now a 798k isk tank that has high survivability and has taken out a sagaris before which honestly I dont know how i was able to do that
NAV HIV The Generals 151	Posted - 2013.01.01 15:36:00 - [27] - Quote DarkShadowFox wrote: also. to respond to your blasters are useless against shields, really? cause I tear them up. Blasters Eat shield as if they were Marshmallows. Specially the ION C... Well for the price and skills required, its expected...
Tzaar Bomba Doomheim 174	Posted - 2013.01.01 16:40:00 - [28] - Quote Mother of god, ok here i go. Railguns are not that effective against infantry, trust me i run a rail/armor combo. Damage is high, but blast radius is low. Then you've got the over heating issue. Yes they have all the range, but they dont fire fast enough to be an effective close range anti infantry weapon. Thats why blasters are necessary. They track quickly and fire quickly. They have a close range because they should have to run from a railgun not be able to outclass it. Just how it goes honestly. Now onto the matter of efficiency. Tanks are screwed plain out. They are big targets that cannot hide well. Which is understandable, to a degree. They have however made far too many A.V options. You do not have to spec into any A.V weapon to be effective. The militia swarm launcher is very effective against armor tanks. The militia forge really effective against shield tanks. They both do 1200 damage, with bonus damage to armor/shield. The militia forge gun actually does more then a base railgun. Infantry can run circles around armor tanks, and swarm it with AV nades, and theyve got no defense besides the two small turrets that have huge blind spots. It should take far more to destroy tanks then it currently does. Infantry should see a tank, ** themselves and either run or die. As it stands however when you hop into a tank, unless you redline like a tool you ALWAYS have to worry about some ***** with a militia swarm killing you. I propose reducing the damage of MILITIA av weaponry flatout. If im going to risk 900k+ you should have to spend an equal or greater amount to pose a significant risk 1v1. If not you should be teaming up or running. I would say reduce the range of the swarm launchers but, if youve ever played battlefield youd know they have an igla to jet issue. Learn from history. Im gonna say for the militia variants 150 damage a Missile. Militia forge should do 600.
Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming 2282	Posted - 2013.01.01 18:48:00 - [29] - Quote To the ppl saying that AV has to stand out in the open idk what game ur playin but thats not the case at all Swarms can acquire locks through cover atm and its easy for ppl to charge their FG while in cover peek out shoot and duck back in again only the breach FG u have to stand out in the open-ish for a period and good breach FG users usually find a high spot or just expose themselves enough to get the shot off No good FGer will give u his whole body to shoot at @ leither idk what type o FGers u have but no tank will tank 10 or more FG hits in a row....sorry. swarms maybe but who uses swarms on a shield tank? lol
NAV HIV The Generals 151	Posted - 2013.01.01 19:01:00 - [30] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: To the ppl saying that AV has to stand out in the open idk what game ur playin but thats not the case at all Swarms can acquire locks through cover atm and its easy for ppl to charge their FG while in cover peek out shoot and duck back in again only the breach FG u have to stand out in the open-ish for a period and good breach FG users usually find a high spot or just expose themselves enough to get the shot off No good FGer will give u his whole body to shoot at @ leither idk what type o FGers u have but no tank will tank 10 or more FG hits in a row....sorry. swarms maybe but who uses swarms on a shield tank? lol +1

Jax Thrife L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising 1	Posted - 2013.01.01 23:46:00 - [31] - Quote Yeah if you use a railgun its best for tank sniping wouldn't call them crazy infantry killers and downing militia weaponry would be nice for if you can come in with a cheap to free suit and take out a tank that has well over 5k shield or armor in a couple of hits something isn't right
Bojo The Mighty Bojo's School of the Trades 428	Posted - 2013.01.02 00:28:00 - [32] - Quote What of the near uselessness of a Railgun on infantry? The rail-gun is long range (now shortened a bit) and very much AA. Large Blasters are very good against infantry, but not very effective against vehicles, per shot. However, a consistent blaster engagement does deal a good amount of damage against Vehicles. It's just that the Rail Gun will beat it most of the time. But that's where it's balanced. Also, HAVs have a blind spot from above, so a well armed Prometheus should take care of such a rail HAV, if they are smart enough. Railguns: +Heavy Armor, -Infantry Blasters: +Infantry, -Heavy Armor That works out, and missile turrets are the twain between them. OP mentioned how Railgun Tanks can sit comfortably out of harms way, sniping vehicles. Actually, maps have been designed so that vehicles, like a Rail HAV, are either vulnerable or useless in redzones. To explain, some maps have their main base behind a hill and far away (Manus Peak), or visible to battleground but vulnerable (Line Harvest). Of course, there is always the peek-a-boo strategy, but that can be solved by using another Rail HAV! When they hide, find a railgun, and blow them to smithereens. So Railgun Sniping is overstated on OP's end. AV: AV has had numerous balancing issues, but Swarm Launchers are a more balanced weapon. They are highly visible, very slow in relation to all other weapons, and highly manipulative. Swarms will follow your vehicle, but all you have to do is go around a bend and they crash into the rockface. You can also hear them fairly well. Forges, are too cheap in my opinion, but easily hindered by Infantry and are very burdensome because they can only be used by Heavies. So Forges, that have some other unlisted issues, are balanced in the scheme of things. Militia forges are also pretty whimpy. Good for nothing but low tier stuff. Also, 3 AV versus one HAV would win because a HAV occupies one spot. 3 AV can occupy 3 spots and play Peek-a-Boo. It's actually very strategic. If you had 3 forges in the road versus your HAV, depending on the set-ups, a HAV could very easily defeat the forges in a Sit-Still and Shoot-out competition. It's just the varying locations that throw off the HAV. HAVs are expensive, that's a fact. HAV's are effective, that's a fact. Have a HAV roll up to an Objective, and it's practically yours if you're smart about it. Really here, the issue is Wits vs. Numbers. So I will leave you with a question to ponder: If a Baloch destroys a Sagaris, is the Baloch OP?
Jason Punk DUST University Ivy League 71	Posted - 2013.01.02 03:53:00 - [33] - Quote I want to give this post a thumbs up purely based on the fact that OP recognized the absolute paramount point of this game, "cost-effectiveness". Nothing is really OP if you have to pay a **** load for it on a secondary market (eventually) and while that doesn't mean things shouldn't be tweaked and unbroken, people are going to be voting with their feet. If something is so advantageous that people are going to flock to it, you should just sell it to them at that value ^^ As for the HAV's, I absolutely agree with 1 and 2, but I have personally taken down plenty of Rails with a Large Militia Blaster. It's just a question of ground and tactics. But I can agree that it is not designed to be easy. The primary issues I'd like to settle with the cost-effectiveness isn't necessarily to revamp the whole system from causality (ie. relative arcs for Mach 10 projectiles), but rather to find a way of countering or using a tit-for-tat strategy for cost. Tanks are expensive, no doubt about that, but I might suggest rather than focusing entirely on their numbers, it may be better to focus on improving their malleability for roles on the battlefield. For simplicity let's play with a few examples: Basic Tin-Can/ M4 Sherman Model: This is were we focus on low-cost; high weapon variety. Allowing players a light-medium tank to be focused on common battlefield goals, we provide the ability to drop a 70-100k fitted armored tank down with a lot of support and suppression abilities for keeping things interesting. This is essentially the cheap weapons platform and the more turret options and speed, the better. Tank v Tank proliferation in this sense, can only be good if you can achieve a 2-3 suit: 1 tank ratio as people will be able to call in their own support rather equally. Tank Hunters: Extremely mobile, lightweight and low-HP Role. Medium-Long Range Projectile or Laser Weapons designed for to be a check for overly aggressive cheap tanks. Don't need to actually make this a new vehicle, just allow what we have to achieve this role better and more aggressively (ie. taking out a turret for a high-grade tank scope or a damage amplifier). The objective of this tank is to not only check tank swarming, but to achieve the one-man tank role with mobility advantages and relatively low-costs. Main Battle Tank: I think for the most part what we have is rather suited for this role. I'd like to see the flexibility of this Tank increased, but overall it's pretty satisfactory. Maybe a decrease in prices, but hopefully the secondary market will be helpful in this. King/Tiger Tank: Marauders and Fully Skilled-Fitted Tanks already play this role pretty well. Would like to see more of a dominance of this role in the future though. The cost is massive and if not perfectly fitted, it's one hell of a mistake with not a lot to show for itself. Getting more vehicles on the ground would probably increase this role far better than giving it bells and whistles, but I wouldn't be opposed to both ^^ Support/ US-Bradley Model: Infantry support role designed to both provide strategic support and tactical anti-infantry firepower. The Blaster HAV does this well enough, but it a lot of ways, it would be nicer to have a somewhat cheap fit with the ability to heal nearby infantry/ Resupply/ and or transport troops and clones. ...just a few thoughts and hopefully many more variants to follow, but the idea is to give some more versatility to tanks rather than purely more damage/ shields. Also on that same note, I would be thrilled to see an increase in the weapon types capable of being used on vehicle platforms. Flamers or Flachette Launchers would make some of the CQC maps and hopefully later situations be a little more bearable for tanks on infantry. Plasma and Laser Turrets would make for some interesting roles in terms of heat management and using the same mechanics the infantry-variants have to use versus tanks. Artillery or indirect fire could also be useful. Honestly, the destruction of my tanks wouldn't be so painful if we had a better run of destruction for the cost. Going back to bed. Goodnight
Cerebral Wolf Jr Immobile Infantry 760	Posted - 2013.01.02 04:17:00 - [34] - Quote I've not taken the time to read the whole thread yet as it's 4am and i'm tired, i've just spent the last 3 hours saving supers in EVE from being welped which brings me to my point. It wasn't technically cost effective because we lost a lot more than we killed but then technically we saved a lot of assets too. You've not taken into account the cost of what assets the tanks save because its difficult to quantify but also and mainly, the tank is also going to be a very large, mobile anti support platform in the future when we get to call down turrets and structures which will bring the tanks cost effectiveness into play more when it's destroying turrets and clone vats etc that cost 1m isk a pop You're only looking at the picture right in front of you at the moment, not the whole thing.
Sandromin Hes Sand Mercenary Corps Inc. 204	Posted - 2013.01.02 04:39:00 - [35] - Quote Well, to counter your arguments, I would like to propose my own: In the future, there will be more types of turrets. Current uses for the turrets are intended; we haven't seen all the maps yet, and there will definitely be CQC maps in eventuality. Once close quarters is established, blasters will become dominant. Missiles are to counteract armor vehicles, so your idea of its purpose is slightly off. Now, to introduce the 3 types of turrets: Hybrids, Lasers, and Ballistics. The hybrid turret class includes both blasters and railguns, each having a respective range. They do equal damage to armor and shields, which makes them the jack of all trades in their range. So, to fight vehicles they have the railgun, but the blaster can be used as well. The blaster however does better against infantry. These turrets have already been included... Next is the ballistic class; it includes the Autocannon, Artillery, and the Missile launcher. They do damage primarily to armor. They happen to slice through armor tanks very well, so it makes them optimal against Suryas, Somas, and Madrugars. The Autocannon I presume will be used for closer range combat; it will be like a modern tank turret. However, the artillery will be used in converse, and will be for anti-tank and longer ranges. If you added trajectory to a railgun as well as gravity, you'd have the artillery. So no, we cannot do that to railguns; they're in the right place right now. Then finally you have the missile launcher. Again, for armor, but good against infantry as well. Finally is the laser turrets. They do damage to shielding. There are 2 types: Burst and continuous. Continuous is good for longer ranges; like the railgun, it shoots straight. Then the burst shoots burst rounds; better for infantry and close range combat. Any questions?
Mavado V Noriega SyNergy Gaming 2282	Posted - 2013.01.02 05:36:00 - [36] - Quote Cerebral Wolf Jr wrote: I've not taken the time to read the whole thread yet as it's 4am and i'm tired, i've just spent the last 3 hours saving supers in EVE from being welped which brings me to my point. It wasn't technically cost effective because we lost a lot more than we killed but then technically we saved a lot of assets too. You've not taken into account the cost of what assets the tanks save because its difficult to quantify but also and mainly, the tank is also going to be a very large, mobile anti support platform in the future when we get to call down turrets and structures which will bring the tanks cost effectiveness into play more when it's destroying turrets and clone vats etc that cost 1m isk a pop You're only looking at the picture right in front of you at the moment, not the whole thing. good points but thing is how far down the road are these other things? are any of these things coming for launch? i would assume being able to call down structures an such would tie in with the conquest mode they have planned which would have us in control of the MCC and given the battlefield commander role. Its nice to look into the distant future and see what the game has planned but the more immediate future success would determine if we even get to witness the plans for the distant future.
xMarauder Doomheim 139	Posted - 2013.01.02 05:41:00 - [37] - Quote Jax Thrife wrote: Vanda-Kon wrote: I wish people who buy tanks would use them, not park them or bring them out at the tail end of a match. Downside of ISK. Park? you sure they are not heading for cover to make repairs from everyone hitting them with swarms av and forge guns. However I do hate it when someone pulls out a tank and take slight damage and then runs away from the batttlefield I mean if im gonna pull out a tank im gonna make sure I take out some infantry before they take me out. And as for the cost effectiveness the creator of this post was talking about, if tanks cost as much as an av fit everyone and i mean everyone would be pulling out tanks left and right but because of the expense you have to be smart on when to pull out a tank what type to go with (armor vs shield) and who is goin to be in the side turrets (personally I like a logi in one and a heavy in the other so one can make repairs while the other covers or takes out av infantry when needed). and just because the tank is more expensive doesnt mean its better. For example, my 1mil isk gunlogi would get ripped apart but after some modifications it is now a 798k isk tank that has high survivability and has taken out a sagaris before which honestly I dont know how i was able to do that I believe he means park them in the redzone.
Jax Thrife L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising 1	Posted - 2013.01.02 14:15:00 - [38] - Quote ah well the only thing to do to counter that would be railgun, orbital, forge, swarms show them that nowherere they hide is safe


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.