|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
535
   |
Posted - 2013.06.01 07:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
slap26 wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:Just a quick update from our developers: Tank combat (Tank vs Tank) is getting investigated and worked on for the next update.
Your feedback already proved to be very valuable, but further constructive suggestions and experience feedback would be most welcome. They obviously didn't read a damned thing in this thread Edit: tanking is in the exact situation that was presented here.
not a word of it and thought it was crazy idea... well welcome to what you created CCP. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
537
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 09:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
shield HAVs are slower then armor HAVs so more "maneuverable" goes to armor HAVs. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
538
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 09:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
EXASTRA INVICTAS wrote:ladwar wrote:shield HAVs are slower then armor HAVs so more "maneuverable" goes to armor HAVs. Any armor HAV with a single plate for tanking instantly becomes slower than the shield tank, even with the smallest armor plating. Shield HAVs also have enough high slots to spare for a nitrous injector if they so choose (slights their tank a little)
armor HAV have high slots that are mostly un-used for armor for nitrous injector without losing any tank so saying shield HAV have high slots is like saving a gun has a type of ammo for it. means nothing. armor HAVs have enough low slot for powerplants |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
576
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
slap26 wrote:CCP please balance
^ |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative
Lokun Listamenn
576
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
slap26 wrote:Horse Schitt wrote:Many people are only seeing the stats here. Tanking is more than just how many shots it will take to destroy another. A shield tanks by nature has to be faster and more manuverable than an armor tank. A shield tank should have the ability to disengage from a fight, depending on the situation.
I think CCP and others should look at World of Tanks or similar MMOs. Whoever wins doesn't always come down to has more tank or more damage. If a guy with a railgun/shield tank is 200m out from an armor/blaster tank, obviously the armor is going down. But what about a shield/railgun vs an armor/railgun?
Well. whenever I use railguns I always use a caldari shield tank. The shield tank allows for me to be faster, and get into a position (Usually above the target) where I can shoot at him, but he can't shoot me. This is how I think shield tanks are supposed to be. Fast, but not a brawler.
Something I notice is that people tend to treat their shield tanks as a brawler, which leads to them complaining on the forum. Now, let's look at EVE. If a guys using a kite fit is playing like a brawler, should CCP rebalance the modules or the guns? No, because they aren't playing to their advantages, which makes it easier for the enemy to take them out.
1) Armor tanks are faster then shield tanks currently. 2) An armor railgun will always beat the brakes off of a shield railgun. 3) In WoT you can bounce a shot, In dust if you hit you automatically do damage. So it does come down to who has more tank if the damage is so miniscule as it is now.
and because the repairer on armor are that better its a clear cut winner for armor. |
|
|
| |
|