DUST Search - More Tank Less Gank

Ranger SnakeBlood wrote:

Iam no tanker so i may be a bit biased in what i say. but i agree tanks should take a beating a sever one.

The main balance issue is see is large blasters is a anti infantry weapon and is very very effective at it i know this is most likely the scissors calling the rock op but hear me out if the large blaster is so good at killing infantry then what is the propose of small blasters on tanks do deal with infantry no?

My answer all main guns on tanks should be suppression or support based against infantry blasters should have far less rate of fire but have a decent splash area of effect to harass infantry but the primary method of killing them should be either other infantry or the small turrets on the tank or other vehicles. This would make small turrets useful and a good position to have filled.

Tanks should be very effective against light and medium vehicles but should take a good amount of effort to kill another tank. The before mentioned light and medium vehicles should be faster and much better at anti infantry than a tank, a good example of a medium vehicle that could excel at anti infantry but be weak against tanks is APCs, IFVs, Mtac or something like the lighting tank from planet side 2 a fast nimble tank with a medium turret on board.

As far as tanks and hp it has yes more would be good but tanks should also be heavy with very slow acceleration it can still go at same speed but cant just get up and go when it feel like its going down running away should be difficult to do. how many hits of AV weapons should a well fit standard tank take iam not sure iam thinking somewhere in the 6 to 8 region that's killable for a good AV team of 3 or 4,

Tank on tank battles should last at least 3 to 4 shots form the main turret assuming a fire rate similar to a shot from a rail gun perhaps a bit slower.

One of the better balances ive seen on the forums was make the driver have access to the front mounted small turret and the large turret be passenger controlled this would mean for a tank to be fielded effectively it would need at least a 2 man crew which balances against the av crew that would need to kill it, people can say isk balance all they want but currently its player per match that is main resource that needs to balance equipment.

One of the main issues i can see that stand in the way of properly having definite answer to whats wrong is we dont have alot of other vehicles or AV to see what effect they have on tanks or what effect tanks have on them so we can only balance what we got now which may hurt the something in some un seen way for example the only natural prey of tanks we have right now is LAV and i hope there will be more than that ov

Id like to know what the views of a tanker are on my suggestions as i said at the beginning i could be a bit biased.

Edit:Oh and last note they need to have a ammo bay that needs to be restocked by returning to base for example or by supply chains via vehicles supply depots, of specialised logis?

Ranger

Pages: 1 [2] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 874	Posted - 2013.04.23 06:19:00 - [31] - Quote ladwar wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: ladwar wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: FG do out damage railguns at base value which shouldnt happen Plus we dont have proto tanks either actually we do... look at surya/sagaris in combat-PRO as in prototype For the price hike and general tank increase its not proto Compare to the dropsuit way milita>basic>advanced>proto Tanks dont have the last link and AUR and PSN store tanks do not fill that gap either At best they are advanced militia>militia tanks basic>PSN tanks advanced> your gunn/mad tanks proto> surya/saragis hm i see it how can't you? Ridiculous. Militia and PSN tanks are exactly the same except the PSN ones are p2w in the sense that it has more PG/CPU Madrugar and Gunnlogi is Standard, requiring level 1 in their specific skill Sagaris (One Additional Low Slot) and Surya (One Additional High Slot) requires level 3 in their specific skill. Wheres our level 5 Tank? Wheres our level 5 Extenders? Level 5 Boosters? We have Level 5 turrets, but everything else ends at Level 3, and they're really crap compared to AV. Any tank is bent over by a Prototype Weapon, it's not a "challenge" for both players, it's "If you get hit by a proto weapon, run to the redline and sit there".
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 272	Posted - 2013.04.23 09:31:00 - [32] - Quote ladwar wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: ladwar wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: FG do out damage railguns at base value which shouldnt happen Plus we dont have proto tanks either actually we do... look at surya/sagaris in combat-PRO as in prototype For the price hike and general tank increase its not proto Compare to the dropsuit way milita>basic>advanced>proto Tanks dont have the last link and AUR and PSN store tanks do not fill that gap either At best they are advanced militia>militia tanks basic>PSN tanks advanced> your gunn/mad tanks proto> surya/saragis hm i see it how can't you? Because you have to buy them for money The dropsuits all have ISK varients and the difference in dropsuits from milita to proto is massive where as in HAVs is not that much espc for the price and SP needed to reach there
Godin Thekiller KNIGHTZ OF THE ROUND 41	Posted - 2013.04.23 10:41:00 - [33] - Quote ladwar wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: ladwar wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: FG do out damage railguns at base value which shouldnt happen Plus we dont have proto tanks either actually we do... look at surya/sagaris in combat-PRO as in prototype For the price hike and general tank increase its not proto Compare to the dropsuit way milita>basic>advanced>proto Tanks dont have the last link and AUR and PSN store tanks do not fill that gap either At best they are advanced militia>militia tanks basic>PSN tanks advanced> your gunn/mad tanks proto> surya/saragis hm i see it how can't you? Your both wrong, because vehicles are not set up for levels like dropsuits. Similar, but not the same. Let me show you what I mean and you'll understand: Std. HAV's: These consist of the MLT and the lvl 1 HAV's. Adv. Combat HAV's: These will consist of the Enforcer HAV's that are coming in Uprising. Adv. Logistics HAV's: We do not know what CCP's plans for these are yet. So, SOONtm for these PROTO Combat HAV's: These are the Maraudars we have now. PROTO Logistics HAV's: These will consist of the Black Ops HAV's we used to have, but CCP took them out tempoarily because they were broken (they had a reverse CRU on them that could spawn people instantly, but did not work. Same for the Logistic LAV's broken dropsuit repper. I'm still wondering why they didn't take those out....). They will come back SOONtm. That how the order goes. PSN HAV's go with the STD bacause all they are are slightly enhanced lvl 1 HAV's with no benefit that the Adv. and PROTO ones get. Peace, godin
pegasis prime The Shadow Cavalry Mercenaries 142	Posted - 2013.04.23 11:17:00 - [34] - Quote Jason Pearson wrote: ladwar wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: ladwar wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: FG do out damage railguns at base value which shouldnt happen Plus we dont have proto tanks either actually we do... look at surya/sagaris in combat-PRO as in prototype For the price hike and general tank increase its not proto Compare to the dropsuit way milita>basic>advanced>proto Tanks dont have the last link and AUR and PSN store tanks do not fill that gap either At best they are advanced militia>militia tanks basic>PSN tanks advanced> your gunn/mad tanks proto> surya/saragis hm i see it how can't you? Ridiculous. Militia and PSN tanks are exactly the same except the PSN ones are p2w in the sense that it has more PG/CPU Madrugar and Gunnlogi is Standard, requiring level 1 in their specific skill Sagaris (One Additional Low Slot) and Surya (One Additional High Slot) requires level 3 in their specific skill. Wheres our level 5 Tank? Wheres our level 5 Extenders? Level 5 Boosters? We have Level 5 turrets, but everything else ends at Level 3, and they're really crap compared to AV. Any tank is bent over by a Prototype Weapon, it's not a "challenge" for both players, it's "If you get hit by a proto weapon, run to the redline and sit there". Hehehe not allways a good tactic if im hunting you , but in line with the point of this thread I totally agree with a dsmage nerf in exchange for a defence buff thats my opinion as a tanker and a proto forger it stopped being as much fun when I can 3 shot a sagi with my forge and or rail tank.
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 945	Posted - 2013.05.03 13:12:00 - [35] - Quote BUMP
Den-tredje Baron The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 7	Posted - 2013.05.03 13:24:00 - [36] - Quote ladwar wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: FG do out damage railguns at base value which shouldnt happen Plus we dont have proto tanks either actually we do... look at surya/sagaris in combat-PRO as in prototype Sorry but are you referring to those PRO tanks that are NOT !! in the uprising build ?? The only thing tankers can get now are a glorified sniper tank that dies if you cough in the near vicinity of it. Hopefully all the great tankers out there ( will be pissed and angry ) stay with tanking as i hope CCP will put the B-ops and PRO tanks back and hopefully buff tanks ( and heavies ) to a point where spamming av nades isn't gonna be enough.
trollsroyce Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 331	Posted - 2013.05.03 14:56:00 - [37] - Quote Proto rails are glitches to receive twice the boost from damage mods. Fixing damage mods on rails should make a big difference. -10% overall damage due removal of passive skills will matter as its not stack penalized like gardeners. Kitten this auto correction. The biggest impact of downgrading temporarily to gunnlogi and madrugar is: there will be less need for ship precision strikes, as normal orbitals have a good chance of killing them.
Ranger SnakeBlood OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 137	Posted - 2013.05.03 17:43:00 - [38] - Quote Iam no tanker so i may be a bit biased in what i say. but i agree tanks should take a beating a sever one. The main balance issue is see is large blasters is a anti infantry weapon and is very very effective at it i know this is most likely the scissors calling the rock op but hear me out if the large blaster is so good at killing infantry then what is the propose of small blasters on tanks do deal with infantry no? My answer all main guns on tanks should be suppression or support based against infantry blasters should have far less rate of fire but have a decent splash area of effect to harass infantry but the primary method of killing them should be either other infantry or the small turrets on the tank or other vehicles. This would make small turrets useful and a good position to have filled. Tanks should be very effective against light and medium vehicles but should take a good amount of effort to kill another tank. The before mentioned light and medium vehicles should be faster and much better at anti infantry than a tank, a good example of a medium vehicle that could excel at anti infantry but be weak against tanks is APCs, IFVs, Mtac or something like the lighting tank from planet side 2 a fast nimble tank with a medium turret on board. As far as tanks and hp it has yes more would be good but tanks should also be heavy with very slow acceleration it can still go at same speed but cant just get up and go when it feel like its going down running away should be difficult to do. how many hits of AV weapons should a well fit standard tank take iam not sure iam thinking somewhere in the 6 to 8 region that's killable for a good AV team of 3 or 4, Tank on tank battles should last at least 3 to 4 shots form the main turret assuming a fire rate similar to a shot from a rail gun perhaps a bit slower. One of the better balances ive seen on the forums was make the driver have access to the front mounted small turret and the large turret be passenger controlled this would mean for a tank to be fielded effectively it would need at least a 2 man crew which balances against the av crew that would need to kill it, people can say isk balance all they want but currently its player per match that is main resource that needs to balance equipment. One of the main issues i can see that stand in the way of properly having definite answer to whats wrong is we dont have alot of other vehicles or AV to see what effect they have on tanks or what effect tanks have on them so we can only balance what we got now which may hurt the something in some un seen way for example the only natural prey of tanks we have right now is LAV and i hope there will be more than that ov Id like to know what the views of a tanker are on my suggestions as i said at the beginning i could be a bit biased. Ranger
Charlotte O'Dell Faabulous 255	Posted - 2013.05.04 12:28:00 - [39] - Quote CCP: "Your suggestion has been noted so u get a sniper tank."
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 986	Posted - 2013.05.04 12:32:00 - [40] - Quote Charlotte O'Dell wrote: CCP: "Your suggestion has been noted so u get a sniper tank." :(

Vyzion Eyri The Southern Legion RISE of LEGION 642	Posted - 2013.05.04 12:57:00 - [41] - Quote Let's start throwing in numbers. Goals: -Increasing the survivability and support capacity of HAVs -Decreasing the incredible damage output of large turrets My suggestions: -Per meta level, increase both resistances of shield and armour for HAVs by 1% -Increase base HP of either shields or armour (or both, depending on race) by 100%. (DOUBLE the amount of base HP.) -Give armour tanks a passive bonus to armor plating modules, perhaps 5-10% more effectiveness. This bonus would be higher (8-13%) for shield extenders on shield tanks. -Increase shield hardener active times to 20 seconds, decrease cooldowns to 10 seconds. -Increase movement speed penalty of armour plates by 3-5%, increase their HP bonus by 5-10%. -Decrease HP bonus of shield extenders by 10-20%, but make the extenders give a passive 15% damage resistance, to further boost the effectiveness of shield recharge. -Make large blaster turrets have HALF the current rate of fire, and increase their prices by around 20%. -Increase spool time for railguns (10-20%) and make them respool after every shot. (like forge guns) -Increase splash damage for railguns by 15% -Increase turret rotation speeds for large railguns by 20%, decrease blaster rotation speed by 10%. -Decrease turret elevation angle by 10% -Increase passenger space in HAVs by 1 slot. (cannot do anything in this slot, but completely protected) INDIRECT CHANGES (optional): -Reduce forge gun damage by 30%, increase splash radius by 20% -Allow forge guns to fire without spooling after a first shot. (can be a variant) -Increase damage of AV grenades (WAIT FOR IT) by 20% except for proto av nades, and remove homing mechanic. -Have AV grenades continue to explode on contact with vehicles. -If an AV grenade is not contacted by a vehicle for 3 seconds, it deactivates. -Give Prototype AV grenades the homing ability. Now if we can build on this, that's something, right?
Little Angus CowTek IT Infotech 2	Posted - 2013.05.08 19:12:00 - [42] - Quote Ranger SnakeBlood wrote: Iam no tanker so i may be a bit biased in what i say. but i agree tanks should take a beating a sever one. The main balance issue is see is large blasters is a anti infantry weapon and is very very effective at it i know this is most likely the scissors calling the rock op but hear me out if the large blaster is so good at killing infantry then what is the propose of small blasters on tanks do deal with infantry no? My answer all main guns on tanks should be suppression or support based against infantry blasters should have far less rate of fire but have a decent splash area of effect to harass infantry but the primary method of killing them should be either other infantry or the small turrets on the tank or other vehicles. This would make small turrets useful and a good position to have filled. Tanks should be very effective against light and medium vehicles but should take a good amount of effort to kill another tank. The before mentioned light and medium vehicles should be faster and much better at anti infantry than a tank, a good example of a medium vehicle that could excel at anti infantry but be weak against tanks is APCs, IFVs, Mtac or something like the lighting tank from planet side 2 a fast nimble tank with a medium turret on board. As far as tanks and hp it has yes more would be good but tanks should also be heavy with very slow acceleration it can still go at same speed but cant just get up and go when it feel like its going down running away should be difficult to do. how many hits of AV weapons should a well fit standard tank take iam not sure iam thinking somewhere in the 6 to 8 region that's killable for a good AV team of 3 or 4, Tank on tank battles should last at least 3 to 4 shots form the main turret assuming a fire rate similar to a shot from a rail gun perhaps a bit slower. One of the better balances ive seen on the forums was make the driver have access to the front mounted small turret and the large turret be passenger controlled this would mean for a tank to be fielded effectively it would need at least a 2 man crew which balances against the av crew that would need to kill it, people can say isk balance all they want but currently its player per match that is main resource that needs to balance equipment. One of the main issues i can see that stand in the way of properly having definite answer to whats wrong is we dont have alot of other vehicles or AV to see what effect they have on tanks or what effect tanks have on them so we can only balance what we got now which may hurt the something in some un seen way for example the only natural prey of tanks we have right now is LAV and i hope there will be more than that ov Id like to know what the views of a tanker are on my suggestions as i said at the beginning i could be a bit biased. Edit:Oh and last note they need to have a ammo bay that needs to be restocked by returning to base for example or by supply chains via vehicles supply depots, of specialised logis? Ranger I am someone who uses tanks only, and I think those ideas of yours is a bunch of garbage. That's my views on your big suggestions. My response is harsh, yes, but try using tanks only for a month, and see if you begin to think differently. Pay out lots of isk, then re-think the idea of having your passengers control the large turret of the tank you paid for. Think about your frustration when the passenger has the large turret and starts shooting at rocks, the ground, the MCC, etc. Not a good 'balance' in my opinion, just tipping the scales to FAIL.


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