DUST Search - Some Ideas: Diverse Sockets, AV Balance, Diverse Gameplay and more...

Canari Elphus wrote:

Killar-12 wrote:

Canari Elphus wrote:

Colonel Killar wrote:

Canari Elphus wrote:

5 GÇô AV Weapon adjustment. Right now AV weapons are designed based upon our current open map roaming of infantry and vehicles. By having more role specific sockets, we can finally adjust AV to suit it. At this point, we can talk about grenades, the plasma cannon and forge gun (swarms would be fine as is with the buff to survivability). Forge Guns and Plasma Launchers should be a short range and high damage deterrent for vehicles that get too close to a defended objective. For this, I propose that you increase the damage of the PL and reduce the projectile speed of the FG. This gives the PL more of a purpose and focuses the FG as more of an AV weapon and area denial (range for both would be decreased somewhat) for infantry and less of a sniper that it currently is. AV grenades should be much more niche and act as a support role for main AV weapons. They should have a specific use to them besides damage. I have thought a bit about this and I think that they should have more of a disabling role than outright damage. You would have grenades that are EMP style where they will disable a tanks movement for a set period of time (1 second for militia, 2 for standard, 3 for advanced and 5 for proto or however balance needs them to be) or you would have a heat grenade that would automatically raise the heat level of turrets which would require them to run through their cooldown phase before being able to be fired again. Both of these types would allow for infantry to use the grenades tactically for advancement to another point as well as give dedicated AV players a window to fire on their targets.

continued...

I'd say FG's are mid-long range but with damage equal to a railgun of similar level but have effective optimal reduced to 200m preventing siping

I think current AV nades are fine but vehicle scanners need a HUGE buff to becaus they're vehicles.

The reason why I want to have a diverse range of AV grenades is to help to improve tactics and make the game fun for more people. To be able to disable a tank for a short period without damaging it means that infantry can cross short distances without being killed but also means that tank drivers do not suffer the loss of an expensive piece of equipment. If you buff thanks then they can survive a few potshots but if you couple a dedicated AV person or two with those types of grenades then you can still take it out. For this game to survive, it needs to be about teamwork and tactics rather than running from point to point and small engagements. We were all drawn here because we wanted the feel of a real battle and that is what a real battle is. Its not Rambo taking out an entire squad, its tactics and discipline.

Over heat nades, No
Disabling nades, yes, and there's something similar in Eve but I can think of the name
Damage AV nades, yes with some tweaks though

for FG need a heavy, just reduce the Optimal range so the weaqqpon does damage at range similarly to your railgun

Fair enough. As I said, this isnt a 'I know everything' thread but to propose things that might make the game a little more fun and tactical.

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis League of Infamy 255	Posted - 2013.08.06 14:49:00 - [1] - Quote Warning: This is very long and there is no TL;DR beyond that I am putting out my ideas on how to make this game more enjoyable and complex with only slight adjustments and a possible roadmap moving forward. Since the beginning of time (sorry, Beta), people have been talking about the need for vehicle balance. Pretty much all of this talk has centered around the HAV and its role on the battlefield. What all of these GÇÿbalanceGÇÖ threads come from pertains to that of infantry versus vehicles. The cost of the vehicles versus the effectiveness of infantry AV. What the facts are: HAVs are quite expensive and the loss of one can negate multiple games worth of ISK HAVs can be very deadly in the hands of a skilled pilot and should be so HAVs cannot be allowed to completely dominate a match or will lead to a massive amount of pushback from community HAVs need to not be glass cannons. They are tanks and should be, well tanky The problem is that this puts the community in a very strange place in how to make this game enjoyable without ruining the reason why so many came to it in the first place which is diverse gameplay. I am by no means a game developer but I think that there have been people on this board who have come up with some very good ideas that, when meshed together, can lead to some possible solutions that everyone can get behind. 1 GÇô The diversity of infantry and vehicles means that there need to me more diverse environments that lead to niche styles of play. I am not talking about completely new maps here but more along the lines of new sockets. By making the new sockets have infantry only areas where objectives are located means that tanks become more niche to open areas and take on more of an area denial role. Lets take the medium facility socket that we see at the B objective on Manus Peak (the pyramid). In my opinion this is one of the best medium sockets in the game and has potential. The reason for this is that it allows for vertical battle. The catwalks and roof element gives players the ability to have a truly different set of tactics than what we have seen previously. In all honesty, more sockets need to be developed like this around objectives. The reasoning for this comes with my next point. 2 GÇô As Charlotte and I discussed on a thread a while ago, HAVs and Dropships need a buff for survivability. Right now they are too expensive and die too easily to make it a viable career track for players. They just cannot balance out the cost versus the reward. By doing this and creating sockets for infantry only, you allows tanks to rule the open terrain but balance out their ability to rule the battlefield. They become very strong deterrents but not masters of the game. It would also encourage the use of vehicles such as dropships to get from point to point. A buff to DSs would give them a much needed use on the field for getting around a solid HAV defense of a point. Sockets such as the one I previously mentioned would be perfect for this as they have a good breach point at the roof for a DS style insertion. 3 GÇô Vehicles need to gain a much larger ISK bonus during matches. There needs to be a bonus for vehicle users based upon how long a toon is piloting a vehicle. This bonus would not apply to secondary guns but only the person actually moving the vehicle outside of the redzone. This makes tanks a much more viable career option and encourages them to do something other than redline rail snipe. Increased survivability would also give them a reason to be in the thick of things. 4 GÇô Player count to accommodate new play style. Right now, the maps are too large to actually accommodate a defensive/offensive style of play. Much of the game is spent running to the next objective rather than actually having a defensive strategy to hold a point. Player count realistically needs to be 32 v 32 to handle what we have and promote diversity in loadouts to fill niche rolls. The reason that the AR and MD dominate is their ability to win in a 1v1 role. By increasing the survivability of vehicles (HAV and DS) and increasing the player count in a match, it promotes the use of specific squad tactics such as a full AV squad or defensive squad for a specific objective. 5 GÇô AV Weapon adjustment. Right now AV weapons are designed based upon our current open map roaming of infantry and vehicles. By having more role specific sockets, we can finally adjust AV to suit it. At this point, we can talk about grenades, the plasma cannon and forge gun (swarms would be fine as is with the buff to survivability). Forge Guns and Plasma Launchers should be a short range and high damage deterrent for vehicles that get too close to a defended objective. For this, I propose that you increase the damage of the PL and reduce the projectile speed of the FG. This gives the PL more of a purpose and focuses the FG as more of an AV weapon and area denial (range for both would be decreased somewhat) for infantry and less of a sniper that it currently is. AV grenades should be much more niche and act as a support role for main AV weapons. They should have a specific use to them besides damage. I have thought a bit about this and I think that they should have more of a disabling role than outright damage. You would have grenades that are EMP style where they will disable a tanks movement for a set period of time (1 second for militia, 2 for standard, 3 for advanced and 5 for proto or however balance needs them to be) or you would have a heat grenade that would automatically raise the heat level of turrets which would require them to run through their cooldown phase before being able to be fired again. Both of these types would allow for infantry to use the grenades tactically for advancement to another point as well as give dedicated AV players a window to fire on their targets. continued...
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis League of Infamy 255	Posted - 2013.08.06 14:50:00 - [2] - Quote 6 GÇô Balance through vehicle diversity. Just as in real life, the best counter to a vehicle is another vehicle. By diversifying vehicles through the introduction of speeders, MAVs, MTACs and Jets, you accomplish what the game is building towards with infantry and that is niche play. It would involve countering vehicles through something other than just firepower. It would involve ability to be involved in different environments (MTACs can enter areas that larger vehicles cannot) or through the ability to outmaneuver (Dropships, MAVs, speeders and LAVs) more powerful vehicles. There would also show the need for true transport vehicles (MAVs and Dropships) to successfully navigate the battlefield. Personally, It think MAVs should be more than just troop transports. I think they should have the ability to deliver MTACs as well to facility locations. This would mean that it would be a chess game between tanks trying to deter them and them trying to out flank the predator to get a valuable piece into the location. I think all of this is possible on the current terrain maps by simply designing more diverse large and medium sockets. These sockets and their ability to provide niche environments and cover for infantry with the adjustments to AV and vehicle survivability would, I feel, add a completely new feel to this game and possibly more enjoyment. It would allow people to specialize in a certain area and be rewarded for it beyond just 1v1 shooting (ARs and MDs). It would promote teamwork and coordination above all else. Feel free to disregard, poke holes or do the usual forum trolling. This was about getting my ideas out there and hopefully starting a meaningful discussion about how to get this game beyond a simple grind and game of musical chairs (objectives)
Anita Hardone Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 260	Posted - 2013.08.06 14:53:00 - [3] - Quote Nuke all the settings an items and start from scratch... its the only way.
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis League of Infamy 255	Posted - 2013.08.06 14:58:00 - [4] - Quote Anita Hardone wrote: Nuke all the settings an items and start from scratch... its the only way. While that would be an alternative for a Beta game (think FFARR), that might not be an alternative right now. Personally, I think of it as having a clear direction of where this game needs to head and the necessity of a roadmap of pushing it that way. Most of what we have seen so far has been reactive adjustments and additions without a strong sense of direction.

CCP Logibro C C P C C P Alliance 309	Posted - 2013.08.06 15:19:00 - [5] - Quote Moved to Feedback/Requests CCP Logibro // EVE Universe Community Team // Distributor of Nanites // Patron Saint of Logistics @CCP_Logibro

Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis League of Infamy 255	Posted - 2013.08.06 15:26:00 - [6] - Quote CCP Logibro wrote: Moved to Feedback/Requests Id be fine with that if I thought it would be a place where any type of real discussion would happen between players or even DEVs for that matter. Right now its still just a place where ideas go to die.
Meeko Fent Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State 531	Posted - 2013.08.06 16:00:00 - [7] - Quote Canari Elphus wrote: CCP Logibro wrote: Moved to Feedback/Requests Id be fine with that if I thought it would be a place where any type of real discussion would happen between players or even DEVs for that matter. Right now its still just a place where ideas go to die. It is. Look on the weekly update forum. Almost everything is from the feedback forums. Besides that point, plas one for your smarticles. I agree with all your piints
Colonel Killar Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire 179	Posted - 2013.08.06 16:07:00 - [8] - Quote Canari Elphus wrote: 5 GÇô AV Weapon adjustment. Right now AV weapons are designed based upon our current open map roaming of infantry and vehicles. By having more role specific sockets, we can finally adjust AV to suit it. At this point, we can talk about grenades, the plasma cannon and forge gun (swarms would be fine as is with the buff to survivability). Forge Guns and Plasma Launchers should be a short range and high damage deterrent for vehicles that get too close to a defended objective. For this, I propose that you increase the damage of the PL and reduce the projectile speed of the FG. This gives the PL more of a purpose and focuses the FG as more of an AV weapon and area denial (range for both would be decreased somewhat) for infantry and less of a sniper that it currently is. AV grenades should be much more niche and act as a support role for main AV weapons. They should have a specific use to them besides damage. I have thought a bit about this and I think that they should have more of a disabling role than outright damage. You would have grenades that are EMP style where they will disable a tanks movement for a set period of time (1 second for militia, 2 for standard, 3 for advanced and 5 for proto or however balance needs them to be) or you would have a heat grenade that would automatically raise the heat level of turrets which would require them to run through their cooldown phase before being able to be fired again. Both of these types would allow for infantry to use the grenades tactically for advancement to another point as well as give dedicated AV players a window to fire on their targets. continued... I'd say FG's are mid-long range but with damage equal to a railgun of similar level but have effective optimal reduced to 200m preventing siping I think current AV nades are fine but vehicle scanners need a HUGE buff to becaus they're vehicles.
ChromeBreaker SVER True Blood 983	Posted - 2013.08.06 16:13:00 - [9] - Quote Reduce Price... problems solved...
Killar-12 Molon Labe. League of Infamy 427	Posted - 2013.08.06 16:15:00 - [10] - Quote Or tank insurance like ship insurance in EVE.

Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis League of Infamy 258	Posted - 2013.08.06 16:15:00 - [11] - Quote Colonel Killar wrote: Canari Elphus wrote: 5 GÇô AV Weapon adjustment. Right now AV weapons are designed based upon our current open map roaming of infantry and vehicles. By having more role specific sockets, we can finally adjust AV to suit it. At this point, we can talk about grenades, the plasma cannon and forge gun (swarms would be fine as is with the buff to survivability). Forge Guns and Plasma Launchers should be a short range and high damage deterrent for vehicles that get too close to a defended objective. For this, I propose that you increase the damage of the PL and reduce the projectile speed of the FG. This gives the PL more of a purpose and focuses the FG as more of an AV weapon and area denial (range for both would be decreased somewhat) for infantry and less of a sniper that it currently is. AV grenades should be much more niche and act as a support role for main AV weapons. They should have a specific use to them besides damage. I have thought a bit about this and I think that they should have more of a disabling role than outright damage. You would have grenades that are EMP style where they will disable a tanks movement for a set period of time (1 second for militia, 2 for standard, 3 for advanced and 5 for proto or however balance needs them to be) or you would have a heat grenade that would automatically raise the heat level of turrets which would require them to run through their cooldown phase before being able to be fired again. Both of these types would allow for infantry to use the grenades tactically for advancement to another point as well as give dedicated AV players a window to fire on their targets. continued... I'd say FG's are mid-long range but with damage equal to a railgun of similar level but have effective optimal reduced to 200m preventing siping I think current AV nades are fine but vehicle scanners need a HUGE buff to becaus they're vehicles. The reason why I want to have a diverse range of AV grenades is to help to improve tactics and make the game fun for more people. To be able to disable a tank for a short period without damaging it means that infantry can cross short distances without being killed but also means that tank drivers do not suffer the loss of an expensive piece of equipment. If you buff thanks then they can survive a few potshots but if you couple a dedicated AV person or two with those types of grenades then you can still take it out. For this game to survive, it needs to be about teamwork and tactics rather than running from point to point and small engagements. We were all drawn here because we wanted the feel of a real battle and that is what a real battle is. Its not Rambo taking out an entire squad, its tactics and discipline.
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis League of Infamy 258	Posted - 2013.08.06 16:24:00 - [12] - Quote ChromeBreaker wrote: Reduce Price... problems solved... True, but then you have the same issue of the same old boring gameplay. Small engagements and just blowing up stuff can get boring when you have to do it over and over again. Having the sense of outwitting your opponent and a true adapt-or-die mentality due to diverse environments could possibly increase the retention. Imagine CQ fights in hallways where MDs may do more harm than good and weapons like shotguns or grenades would be king. Elevated points of cover over choke points where a TAC AR or MD may be the best option. I am promoting this heavily because we need elements of this game that truely promote the strengths and weaknesses of loadouts. There should be instances where a certain weapon is OP while in others it is far outclassed. This is not going to be solved by a simple post but there has to be a starting point where ideas can get a basis. Specialization means nothing if it doesnt have the context (environment) to be 'special'. Right now the maps are simple generic outposts that do not allow for that.
Killar-12 Molon Labe. League of Infamy 427	Posted - 2013.08.06 18:12:00 - [13] - Quote Canari Elphus wrote: Colonel Killar wrote: Canari Elphus wrote: 5 GÇô AV Weapon adjustment. Right now AV weapons are designed based upon our current open map roaming of infantry and vehicles. By having more role specific sockets, we can finally adjust AV to suit it. At this point, we can talk about grenades, the plasma cannon and forge gun (swarms would be fine as is with the buff to survivability). Forge Guns and Plasma Launchers should be a short range and high damage deterrent for vehicles that get too close to a defended objective. For this, I propose that you increase the damage of the PL and reduce the projectile speed of the FG. This gives the PL more of a purpose and focuses the FG as more of an AV weapon and area denial (range for both would be decreased somewhat) for infantry and less of a sniper that it currently is. AV grenades should be much more niche and act as a support role for main AV weapons. They should have a specific use to them besides damage. I have thought a bit about this and I think that they should have more of a disabling role than outright damage. You would have grenades that are EMP style where they will disable a tanks movement for a set period of time (1 second for militia, 2 for standard, 3 for advanced and 5 for proto or however balance needs them to be) or you would have a heat grenade that would automatically raise the heat level of turrets which would require them to run through their cooldown phase before being able to be fired again. Both of these types would allow for infantry to use the grenades tactically for advancement to another point as well as give dedicated AV players a window to fire on their targets. continued... I'd say FG's are mid-long range but with damage equal to a railgun of similar level but have effective optimal reduced to 200m preventing siping I think current AV nades are fine but vehicle scanners need a HUGE buff to becaus they're vehicles. The reason why I want to have a diverse range of AV grenades is to help to improve tactics and make the game fun for more people. To be able to disable a tank for a short period without damaging it means that infantry can cross short distances without being killed but also means that tank drivers do not suffer the loss of an expensive piece of equipment. If you buff thanks then they can survive a few potshots but if you couple a dedicated AV person or two with those types of grenades then you can still take it out. For this game to survive, it needs to be about teamwork and tactics rather than running from point to point and small engagements. We were all drawn here because we wanted the feel of a real battle and that is what a real battle is. Its not Rambo taking out an entire squad, its tactics and discipline. Over heat nades, No Disabling nades, yes, and there's something similar in Eve but I can think of the name Damage AV nades, yes with some tweaks though for FG need a heavy, just reduce the Optimal range so the weaqqpon does damage at range similarly to your railgun
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis League of Infamy 258	Posted - 2013.08.06 19:34:00 - [14] - Quote Killar-12 wrote: Canari Elphus wrote: Colonel Killar wrote: Canari Elphus wrote: 5 GÇô AV Weapon adjustment. Right now AV weapons are designed based upon our current open map roaming of infantry and vehicles. By having more role specific sockets, we can finally adjust AV to suit it. At this point, we can talk about grenades, the plasma cannon and forge gun (swarms would be fine as is with the buff to survivability). Forge Guns and Plasma Launchers should be a short range and high damage deterrent for vehicles that get too close to a defended objective. For this, I propose that you increase the damage of the PL and reduce the projectile speed of the FG. This gives the PL more of a purpose and focuses the FG as more of an AV weapon and area denial (range for both would be decreased somewhat) for infantry and less of a sniper that it currently is. AV grenades should be much more niche and act as a support role for main AV weapons. They should have a specific use to them besides damage. I have thought a bit about this and I think that they should have more of a disabling role than outright damage. You would have grenades that are EMP style where they will disable a tanks movement for a set period of time (1 second for militia, 2 for standard, 3 for advanced and 5 for proto or however balance needs them to be) or you would have a heat grenade that would automatically raise the heat level of turrets which would require them to run through their cooldown phase before being able to be fired again. Both of these types would allow for infantry to use the grenades tactically for advancement to another point as well as give dedicated AV players a window to fire on their targets. continued... I'd say FG's are mid-long range but with damage equal to a railgun of similar level but have effective optimal reduced to 200m preventing siping I think current AV nades are fine but vehicle scanners need a HUGE buff to becaus they're vehicles. The reason why I want to have a diverse range of AV grenades is to help to improve tactics and make the game fun for more people. To be able to disable a tank for a short period without damaging it means that infantry can cross short distances without being killed but also means that tank drivers do not suffer the loss of an expensive piece of equipment. If you buff thanks then they can survive a few potshots but if you couple a dedicated AV person or two with those types of grenades then you can still take it out. For this game to survive, it needs to be about teamwork and tactics rather than running from point to point and small engagements. We were all drawn here because we wanted the feel of a real battle and that is what a real battle is. Its not Rambo taking out an entire squad, its tactics and discipline. Over heat nades, No Disabling nades, yes, and there's something similar in Eve but I can think of the name Damage AV nades, yes with some tweaks though for FG need a heavy, just reduce the Optimal range so the weaqqpon does damage at range similarly to your railgun Fair enough. As I said, this isnt a 'I know everything' thread but to propose things that might make the game a little more fun and tactical.
Killar-12 Molon Labe. League of Infamy 427	Posted - 2013.08.06 19:44:00 - [15] - Quote Canari Elphus wrote: Killar-12 wrote: Canari Elphus wrote: Colonel Killar wrote: Canari Elphus wrote: 5 GÇô AV Weapon adjustment. Right now AV weapons are designed based upon our current open map roaming of infantry and vehicles. By having more role specific sockets, we can finally adjust AV to suit it. At this point, we can talk about grenades, the plasma cannon and forge gun (swarms would be fine as is with the buff to survivability). Forge Guns and Plasma Launchers should be a short range and high damage deterrent for vehicles that get too close to a defended objective. For this, I propose that you increase the damage of the PL and reduce the projectile speed of the FG. This gives the PL more of a purpose and focuses the FG as more of an AV weapon and area denial (range for both would be decreased somewhat) for infantry and less of a sniper that it currently is. AV grenades should be much more niche and act as a support role for main AV weapons. They should have a specific use to them besides damage. I have thought a bit about this and I think that they should have more of a disabling role than outright damage. You would have grenades that are EMP style where they will disable a tanks movement for a set period of time (1 second for militia, 2 for standard, 3 for advanced and 5 for proto or however balance needs them to be) or you would have a heat grenade that would automatically raise the heat level of turrets which would require them to run through their cooldown phase before being able to be fired again. Both of these types would allow for infantry to use the grenades tactically for advancement to another point as well as give dedicated AV players a window to fire on their targets. continued... I'd say FG's are mid-long range but with damage equal to a railgun of similar level but have effective optimal reduced to 200m preventing siping I think current AV nades are fine but vehicle scanners need a HUGE buff to becaus they're vehicles. The reason why I want to have a diverse range of AV grenades is to help to improve tactics and make the game fun for more people. To be able to disable a tank for a short period without damaging it means that infantry can cross short distances without being killed but also means that tank drivers do not suffer the loss of an expensive piece of equipment. If you buff thanks then they can survive a few potshots but if you couple a dedicated AV person or two with those types of grenades then you can still take it out. For this game to survive, it needs to be about teamwork and tactics rather than running from point to point and small engagements. We were all drawn here because we wanted the feel of a real battle and that is what a real battle is. Its not Rambo taking out an entire squad, its tactics and discipline. Over heat nades, No Disabling nades, yes, and there's something similar in Eve but I can think of the name Damage AV nades, yes with some tweaks though for FG need a heavy, just reduce the Optimal range so the weaqqpon does damage at range similarly to your railgun Fair enough. As I said, this isnt a 'I know everything' thread but to propose things that might make the game a little more fun and tactical. I mean a heavy with a FG moves slow, and DS'es and LAVs are nessecary to go fast. I like the disabling nades and the rest of your points about sockets +1
Void Echo Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 920	Posted - 2013.08.06 20:22:00 - [16] - Quote a lot of good points... and finally, a decent conversation without trolls
Killar-12 Molon Labe. League of Infamy 427	Posted - 2013.08.06 20:26:00 - [17] - Quote Void Echo wrote: a lot of good points... and finally, a decent conversation without trolls Trolls stay in the War Room or General Discussions.
Jimthefighter Ostrakon Agency Gallente Federation 5	Posted - 2013.08.06 21:33:00 - [18] - Quote Maybe even have a special nade type, flux AV. Right now, normal anti-infantry flux isn't really effective vs. vehicles because they don't explode on impact. By the time they explode, the vehicle will have ran away, or just be tickled by the one and move. So my response is to maybe have a special variation of the AV grenade that is effectively the flux variant of them, doing 100% damage vs shields and none vs armor. Tracking, explodes only against vehicles (so no anti-infantry for you, unless infantry is really close to the vehicle and gets caught in the radius), damage that's similar to normal AV grenades as they are now. How does that sound?
FLAYLOCK Steve Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 109	Posted - 2013.08.06 23:27:00 - [19] - Quote For the last fking time stop clumping the forge gun in the anti vehicle group. It is not a anti vehicle weapon. Read the damn description, it's a ANTI MATERIAL. MEANING INFANTRY, INSTALLATIONS AND VEHICLES. The forge gun is fine. Stop trying to nerf everything. Give it shorter range? Slower speed? Sure if you make tanks slower and their turents weaker.
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis League of Infamy 260	Posted - 2013.08.07 01:44:00 - [20] - Quote FLAYLOCK Steve wrote: For the last fking time stop clumping the forge gun in the anti vehicle group. It is not a anti vehicle weapon. Read the damn description, it's a ANTI MATERIAL. MEANING INFANTRY, INSTALLATIONS AND VEHICLES. The forge gun is fine. Stop trying to nerf everything. Give it shorter range? Slower speed? Sure if you make tanks slower and their turents weaker. Whoa there bucko. This thread is meant to be a constructive discussion. If you want to cry foul then please go somewhere else. Maybe if you read the whole thing then you would see where I am going with this. Maybe the forge guns dont need to be changed but that is absolutely minor compared to everything else I am speaking about.

Text Grant Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore 75	Posted - 2013.08.07 03:50:00 - [21] - Quote So buff all vehicles, and nerf forge guns range, and av nades? No thank you.
Canari Elphus Pro Hic Immortalis League of Infamy 260	Posted - 2013.08.07 07:00:00 - [22] - Quote http://www.rif.org/


Pages: 1 :: [one page]