DUST Search - Reserved

Shijima Kuraimaru wrote:

EnglishSnake wrote:

Shijima Kuraimaru wrote:

EnglishSnake wrote:

Purona wrote:

I don't think CCP will ever give us prototype tanks. Since at most it will give us an low slot on shield tanks or an extra high slot on armor tanks and an increase in powergrid CPU armor and shields.

What we need are better modules. The modules are what makes the tank . You can put a madrugar on the field with no modules and die in moments.Put a soma on the field with modules and you can easily out live the madrugar

right now modules stop at level 3

.25 for an active hardener imagine if it was .35 or even .40 instead of 414 every second for 15 second what if it was 522 or even near 600

Ive mentioned modules

Compared to dropsuit mods they go upto lvl 5 and are basic/adv/proto where as vehicles are lvl 1-3 and are just basic and then a bit better

As for the tanks i suspect it maybe like the sagari and surya, 1 extra slot in a secondary area which tends to be useless

I would like with adv to have at least 1 extra slot for BOTH high and low slots and then the same again for proto or even maybe 2 extra because you can have a basic dropsuit being 2h/2L and get a proto suit with 5h/4L

If its anything like the enforcers then we are screwed because they claim to be advanced by they have what the slot layout of basic+ but the CPU/PG of a milita tank

You want 9 slot proto hulls? How about 5 slot proto hulls? If PG/CPU gets fixed, a 9 slot proto hull tank, I'm pretty sure, would be nearly, if not completely, immune to infantry based AV.

5 slot proto hulls are milita hulls

Basic are 7

Enforcer/sagaris/surya are 8slot hulls but the slots are in the wrong places and also the PG/CPU increases are meh

9slot hull should be advanced at least, 1 slot extra per high and low so it would be 3h/6l and then proto 4h/7l with PG/CPU increases for it to be useful

I stand corrected.

However, while I agree HAVs should be useful, and they are, and I agree that they need a PG/CPU fix, I think HAVs should have to balance between tank and gank. To be able to fit the best of both would probably make them too strong and subject to nerf hammering.

I wish I had 8 slots. LOL


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Alpha 443-6732 G.R.A.V.E 5	Posted - 2013.06.17 00:41:00 - [1] - Quote Bump for truth; if we put the investment into tanks we should get the reward. It is what eve in general is all about. Also I think AV grenades are basically on the same level as the TAC AR; an exploit. The small weakness of AV grenades is nullified by the use of LAVs; sneak up to tank when tank is hiding (or waiting for reps to come back, for example), lay down nanohives, then proceed to ~1500 dps (rough estimate) with packed proto nades. Also, think of this from a serious point of view and not a video game point of view... tanks were designed to dominate infantry, at a high cost. AV users are still infantry, using HANDHELD WEAPONS. They really should prove to be a big challenge to tankers, instead of dominating them. I think its reasonable for a fully decced out solo proto forge gun fit to be an even match for a fully decced out basic tank. Railguns are AV also, but are mounted on a turret. Why would they make such compromises to the size of the weapon when a forge gun (capable of being handheld) is just as effective? Why don't we have large scale forge guns mounted on our tanks? In addition to this, having a little experience with tanks in general, I can say that this tank behaves like a heavy tank (not to be confused with heavy assault vehicle HAV). It is slow, massive and cumbersome, but it does not have the defense to back it up. (Note: an M1 Abrams is a MBT, a main battle tank, which are derived from medium tanks used during WW2. It is not on the same level as a slow and heavy tank like the ones we have here) Also, why would a single assault AV nader be able to destroy a fully fit tank? The tanker risks 850,000 just for a decent fit and can lose it very quickly (sluggish, difficult to maneuver in general). The assault doesnt have to make any sacrifices to his fit, can die 1 or 2 times yet can still make a decent profit and on top of that (with a nanohive and AV nades), severely wound or destroy a tank entirely. People also dont like to consider how impossible it is to hit any decent anti vehicle user. They can use cover to become almost invincible, while we can only poorly do so. A suggestion for the future is to have mobile infantry AV emplacements, moved by hand, that is basically a portable medium mounted AV turret. It could have a low profile (in shape), and protection for the user(s) from sniper fire. A respectable defensive AV tool. Also I am going to say that I have been a succesful tanker (both shield and armor), since the day open beta started 3-1/2 months, so take from my info what you will. Also I have good experience tanking in "semi" sims like Red Orchestra Ostfront, and playing tank based games like WoT.
Alpha 443-6732 G.R.A.V.E 7	Posted - 2013.06.18 02:35:00 - [2] - Quote Bump for life
Alpha 443-6732 G.R.A.V.E 8	Posted - 2013.06.19 00:08:00 - [3] - Quote bump because yolo swaggins
Alpha 443-6732 G.R.A.V.E 8	Posted - 2013.06.20 01:16:00 - [4] - Quote Truly, I think that forge guns are ok for the most part other than the assault being a tad too strong. However, swarms and AV grenades are too easy to use, unavoidable for the most part, high damage, and low skill weapons. The AV grenades should have half their damage taken away and have a slowing effect instead (25% engine power loss for 4 seconds, additional grenades remove power at an exponential rate and reset the timer) e.g. bill has an LAV that is accelerating at 5 m/s/s with a top speed of 20 m/s. After 3 seconds, an AV grenade is thrown at him, making his speed (15(0.75)^1 = 11.25 m/s) and his acceleration rate (5(0.75)^1 = 3.75m/s/s ). 1 second later (11.25 + 3.75 = 15m/s) , he gets hit with another grenade, making his speed (15(0.75)^1 = 11.25 m/s) and his acceleration rate (5(0.75)^2 =2.81m/s/s). 1 second later (11.25 + 2.81 = 14.06 m/s), he gets hit with a final grenade making his speed (14.06(0.75)^1 = 10.46 m/s) and his acceleration rate (5(0.75)^3) = 2.11m/s/s) and so on and so on. Although I think the slow effect would be balanced more around the 30-35% mark.
Alpha 443-6732 G.R.A.V.E 8	Posted - 2013.06.23 02:58:00 - [5] - Quote Shijima Kuraimaru wrote: EnglishSnake wrote: Shijima Kuraimaru wrote: EnglishSnake wrote: Purona wrote: I don't think CCP will ever give us prototype tanks. Since at most it will give us an low slot on shield tanks or an extra high slot on armor tanks and an increase in powergrid CPU armor and shields. What we need are better modules. The modules are what makes the tank . You can put a madrugar on the field with no modules and die in moments.Put a soma on the field with modules and you can easily out live the madrugar right now modules stop at level 3 .25 for an active hardener imagine if it was .35 or even .40 instead of 414 every second for 15 second what if it was 522 or even near 600 Ive mentioned modules Compared to dropsuit mods they go upto lvl 5 and are basic/adv/proto where as vehicles are lvl 1-3 and are just basic and then a bit better As for the tanks i suspect it maybe like the sagari and surya, 1 extra slot in a secondary area which tends to be useless I would like with adv to have at least 1 extra slot for BOTH high and low slots and then the same again for proto or even maybe 2 extra because you can have a basic dropsuit being 2h/2L and get a proto suit with 5h/4L If its anything like the enforcers then we are screwed because they claim to be advanced by they have what the slot layout of basic+ but the CPU/PG of a milita tank You want 9 slot proto hulls? How about 5 slot proto hulls? If PG/CPU gets fixed, a 9 slot proto hull tank, I'm pretty sure, would be nearly, if not completely, immune to infantry based AV. 5 slot proto hulls are milita hulls Basic are 7 Enforcer/sagaris/surya are 8slot hulls but the slots are in the wrong places and also the PG/CPU increases are meh 9slot hull should be advanced at least, 1 slot extra per high and low so it would be 3h/6l and then proto 4h/7l with PG/CPU increases for it to be useful I stand corrected. However, while I agree HAVs should be useful, and they are, and I agree that they need a PG/CPU fix, I think HAVs should have to balance between tank and gank. To be able to fit the best of both would probably make them too strong and subject to nerf hammering. I wish I had 8 slots. LOL Keep in mind we only have HANDHELD av and weak proximity mines in here atm (not including other tanks and basic installations). Custom large installations and more av vehicles should be coming. Also, this "rock paper scissors" thing is also flawed, because AV users are also infantry at the same time, not dedicated AV. Handheld AV should not directly counter heavy tanks and ruin its day. Dedicated AV emplacements, AV mines, etc should directly counter heavy tanks and ruin its day. EDIT: Also, proximity mines need a large buff
Alpha 443-6732 Not Guilty EoN. 10	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:03:00 - [6] - Quote Eurydice Itzhak wrote: Nguruthos IX wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Where is CCP Blam? Where is CCP Blam?
Alpha 443-6732 Not Guilty EoN. 10	Posted - 2013.07.09 18:28:00 - [7] - Quote Always people *** and moan about how powerful a tank is. I see it as a similar situation to how people complained about heavies a while back. Sure it has more health. It also has weapons that do thousands of damage and either lock onto it or have such a high projectile velocity that no lock on is insignificant. Sure it does more damage. It also is a massive target, hard to maneuver around obstacles and poor hit detection allows ballerina swarms and AV grenadiers to do their silly dances of death around the tank and avoid half the rounds being shot at them. People don't seem to understand that the ** poor mobility and high profile of the tank is what warrants high defensive and offensive power, very similar to how heavies should be. On a side not, the HMG is a joke. It should absolutely destroy the gallente AR at all ranges (why is a heavy weapon a CQC weapon again? Where is the logic?). The balance of the heavy as well as the tank comes from its poor maneuverability and large hitbox/high profile. Silly AVers and assault scrubs just want their weapons and defense to be on par with us while we suffer all of our downsides. People claim that a forge gun takes skill when it has a higher projectile velocity than a RAILGUN, does equal damage, fires faster, etc. You can go up to the highest point of a map with your forgegun and dominate ALL vehicles. Tanks cannot hit you, dropships cannot reach you and the only threat to you is a sniper, which can easily be taken care of by another sniper on your team.
Alpha 443-6732 Not Guilty EoN. 12	Posted - 2013.07.10 03:22:00 - [8] - Quote bump
Alpha 443-6732 Not Guilty EoN. 13	Posted - 2013.07.12 15:41:00 - [9] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Shion Typhon wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Your whole argument is invalid because you base it on a pub match where the other team can be drooling retards So what if we get proto vehicles and it requires 3 proto AV to kill it? it will happen in a PC match but i dont care if it rarely happens in a pub match because the other team are tryhards with AR and wont use AV You roll the dice when you play a pub match and if proto tanks are ther then tough but we need them and if they are tough enough to dominate in a pub match then tough Because the game consists of multiple modes and you can balance for both modes at once. If you over-balance for one mode and ignore the other then half your game falls apart. You may not care what happens outside PC matches but fortunately the developers do. Lastly, you clearly don't understand my point because I am also saying that a tank needs to be able to survive in the shitstorm of a PC match. Nope You balance it for PC not for pub matches PC proto stuff everywhere Pubs milita everywhere Its chalk and cheese So what if it unbalances pub matches, they are already unbalanced as it is anyways because of tryhard AR Agreed. Why do the Assaults get gear that is viable to bring into PC AND pubstomp, while dropships and tanks get the short end of the stick? Why shouldn't our top tier tanks be balanced with all the other top tier gear?
Alpha 443-6732 Not Guilty EoN. 13	Posted - 2013.07.12 15:42:00 - [10] - Quote Also, where the **** is CCP BLAM!?

Alpha 443-6732 Not Guilty EoN. 14	Posted - 2013.07.14 01:13:00 - [11] - Quote Live thread! Live!!!
Alpha 443-6732 Not Guilty EoN. 24	Posted - 2013.07.14 16:09:00 - [12] - Quote EnglishSnake wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Also, where the **** is CCP BLAM!?
Alpha 443-6732 Not Guilty EoN. 28	Posted - 2013.07.15 02:04:00 - [13] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: EnglishSnake wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Also, where the **** is CCP BLAM!?
Alpha 443-6732 Not Guilty EoN. 31	Posted - 2013.07.16 16:17:00 - [14] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: EnglishSnake wrote: EnglishSnake wrote: Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Also, where the **** is CCP BLAM!?
Alpha 443-6732 Not Guilty EoN. 43	Posted - 2013.07.19 16:40:00 - [15] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: CCP Eterne wrote: As for vehicles, we'll be saying something about them in the next day or two. https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1066153#post1066153 Finally some news pilots Oooo, I also heard 1.4 is going to be the vehicle update.