| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shattered Mirage
D.A.R.K Academy
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
137
   |
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:05:00 -
[91] - Quote
DJINN leukoplast wrote:Void Echo wrote:
3 things I have to say about your post..
1: your also ignoring my points when im talking about introducing teamplay like you want into tanks while still making it worth for a pilot to personally skill into them.
2: you fail to realize that when tankers spec into tanks, we completely give up our ability to fight outside of tanks unless we have enough SP to skill into infantry also, so don't come and talk to me about sacrifice.
3: I thought you were rational and un biased and actually looking for a decent conversation on the subject. guess I was wrong about you
Tanks are good against EVERYTHING, vehicles and infantry alike and have a crap ton of health along with OP modules. Tanks are also impervious to most infantry weapons, except AV.AV is only good against vehicles, we are as squishy as any other infantry player and are vulnerable to EVERYTHING. You know less about sacrifice then you think. I play this game to kill infantry (this is a FPS, remember that), not to hunt down annoying vehicles and tanks for some meager reward (if I can get the kill) cause they are terrorizing me and my team and ruining the match. And you knew going into this that I was not a fan of tanks, so don't give me that.
You want an AR to take down a tank? funny thing is... it won't be considered OP if that does happen. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1008
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:06:00 -
[92] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo, I'm curious to know how you think it's balanced if it requires 3 people to take out 1 tanker. That effectively takes three people off the field to combat the one person in the tank. Why is it necessary that a solo tank requires multiple people to kill?
I would understand it if each person in the HAV roughly meant another AV specialist required, but only if they were specced into vehicles as well. (Side note on this - I can't believe CCP still aren't working on vehicle locks.)
So I have a question - Do you think it should take multiple AV specialists to destroy one HAV with one pilot in, or do you think that it should be reserved for when you have multiple people in the tank?
If you think it should take multiple AV per solo HAV, could you explain what balances that, in your eyes? yes I do, mainly because its a 50-ton or heavier vehicle that's over 3x larger than infantry is... and even irl it occasionally takes one brave person to toss in a grenade but it also more times takes multiple people with rockets to destroy one, and look t the statistics, NONE of the modern American tanks have been destroyed yet. (that was for you people wanting this game to be like real life which is plain stupid as hell). imho, size determines it all, look at eve (the game this game is MEANT to be made after), titans require multiple ships to destroy them, they can never be soloed. I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately. Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now. I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor? What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy?
since the beginning of the game, tanks are the biggest weapons able to be used by infantry, not the MCC thus making the tanks the largest sized assets in battle, im not saying that tanks will always be the biggest because CCP has mentioned things a lot bigger being brought into this game. but for now, tanks are the titans of dust. |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:06:00 -
[93] - Quote
Shattered Mirage wrote:DJINN leukoplast wrote:Void Echo wrote:
3 things I have to say about your post..
1: your also ignoring my points when im talking about introducing teamplay like you want into tanks while still making it worth for a pilot to personally skill into them.
2: you fail to realize that when tankers spec into tanks, we completely give up our ability to fight outside of tanks unless we have enough SP to skill into infantry also, so don't come and talk to me about sacrifice.
3: I thought you were rational and un biased and actually looking for a decent conversation on the subject. guess I was wrong about you
Tanks are good against EVERYTHING, vehicles and infantry alike and have a crap ton of health along with OP modules. Tanks are also impervious to most infantry weapons, except AV.AV is only good against vehicles, we are as squishy as any other infantry player and are vulnerable to EVERYTHING. You know less about sacrifice then you think. I play this game to kill infantry (this is a FPS, remember that), not to hunt down annoying vehicles and tanks for some meager reward (if I can get the kill) cause they are terrorizing me and my team and ruining the match. And you knew going into this that I was not a fan of tanks, so don't give me that. You want an AR to take down a tank? funny thing is... it won't be considered OP if that does happen.
You want a Tank to be able to take down the MCC?
See? i can say random **** too.
|
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1008
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:08:00 -
[94] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo, I'm curious to know how you think it's balanced if it requires 3 people to take out 1 tanker. That effectively takes three people off the field to combat the one person in the tank. Why is it necessary that a solo tank requires multiple people to kill?
I would understand it if each person in the HAV roughly meant another AV specialist required, but only if they were specced into vehicles as well. (Side note on this - I can't believe CCP still aren't working on vehicle locks.)
So I have a question - Do you think it should take multiple AV specialists to destroy one HAV with one pilot in, or do you think that it should be reserved for when you have multiple people in the tank?
If you think it should take multiple AV per solo HAV, could you explain what balances that, in your eyes? yes I do, mainly because its a 50-ton or heavier vehicle that's over 3x larger than infantry is... and even irl it occasionally takes one brave person to toss in a grenade but it also more times takes multiple people with rockets to destroy one, and look t the statistics, NONE of the modern American tanks have been destroyed yet. (that was for you people wanting this game to be like real life which is plain stupid as hell). imho, size determines it all, look at eve (the game this game is MEANT to be made after), titans require multiple ships to destroy them, they can never be soloed. .... Alright, then by your logic since Bowser is 3 times the size of Mario...i guess Mario shouldn't be able to defeat him? See how bringing in logic from other games does nothing to help your cause? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Mario has nothing to do with this genre of games, LOL Mario doesn't even come close to anything like fps. im comparing it to EVE Online because it specifically sais that Dust 514 is part of the EVE universe and meant to be like it Yet the genre of games are completely different. Maybe you should follow your own advice.
so your saying that if i have a COD game that i really like and the same company decides to make another game that's meant to be like COD on another set and able to connect in some sort of real time way, that the new game should be nothing like what its said to be like? |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
183
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:08:00 -
[95] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo, I'm curious to know how you think it's balanced if it requires 3 people to take out 1 tanker. That effectively takes three people off the field to combat the one person in the tank. Why is it necessary that a solo tank requires multiple people to kill?
I would understand it if each person in the HAV roughly meant another AV specialist required, but only if they were specced into vehicles as well. (Side note on this - I can't believe CCP still aren't working on vehicle locks.)
So I have a question - Do you think it should take multiple AV specialists to destroy one HAV with one pilot in, or do you think that it should be reserved for when you have multiple people in the tank?
If you think it should take multiple AV per solo HAV, could you explain what balances that, in your eyes? yes I do, mainly because its a 50-ton or heavier vehicle that's over 3x larger than infantry is... and even irl it occasionally takes one brave person to toss in a grenade but it also more times takes multiple people with rockets to destroy one, and look t the statistics, NONE of the modern American tanks have been destroyed yet. (that was for you people wanting this game to be like real life which is plain stupid as hell). imho, size determines it all, look at eve (the game this game is MEANT to be made after), titans require multiple ships to destroy them, they can never be soloed. I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately. Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now. I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor? What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy? since the beginning of the game, tanks are the biggest weapons able to be used by infantry, not the MCC thus making the tanks the largest sized assets in battle, im not saying that tanks will always be the biggest because CCP has mentioned things a lot bigger being brought into this game. but for now, tanks are the titans of dust.
That's where your mentality is flawed.
Tanks are the tanks of dust. That is all.
Until EVE develops tanks for use in their game, comparing tanks to spaceships is pretty ******* out there. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1008
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:09:00 -
[96] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Shattered Mirage wrote:DJINN leukoplast wrote:Void Echo wrote:
3 things I have to say about your post..
1: your also ignoring my points when im talking about introducing teamplay like you want into tanks while still making it worth for a pilot to personally skill into them.
2: you fail to realize that when tankers spec into tanks, we completely give up our ability to fight outside of tanks unless we have enough SP to skill into infantry also, so don't come and talk to me about sacrifice.
3: I thought you were rational and un biased and actually looking for a decent conversation on the subject. guess I was wrong about you
Tanks are good against EVERYTHING, vehicles and infantry alike and have a crap ton of health along with OP modules. Tanks are also impervious to most infantry weapons, except AV.AV is only good against vehicles, we are as squishy as any other infantry player and are vulnerable to EVERYTHING. You know less about sacrifice then you think. I play this game to kill infantry (this is a FPS, remember that), not to hunt down annoying vehicles and tanks for some meager reward (if I can get the kill) cause they are terrorizing me and my team and ruining the match. And you knew going into this that I was not a fan of tanks, so don't give me that. You want an AR to take down a tank? funny thing is... it won't be considered OP if that does happen. You want a Tank to be able to take down the MCC? See? i can say random **** too.
um... yeah no.... we never wanted tanks to destroy MCCs, where the hell did you get that idea from? |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
184
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:09:00 -
[97] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:
so your saying that if i have a COD game that i really like and the same company decides to make another game that's meant to be like COD on another set and able to connect in some sort of real time way, that the new game should be nothing like what its said to be like?
No, but if one game is an MMORPG, and another is an FPS...they are two different genres regardless of their link to each other. |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon 514
2731
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:10:00 -
[98] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo, I'm curious to know how you think it's balanced if it requires 3 people to take out 1 tanker. That effectively takes three people off the field to combat the one person in the tank. Why is it necessary that a solo tank requires multiple people to kill?
I would understand it if each person in the HAV roughly meant another AV specialist required, but only if they were specced into vehicles as well. (Side note on this - I can't believe CCP still aren't working on vehicle locks.)
So I have a question - Do you think it should take multiple AV specialists to destroy one HAV with one pilot in, or do you think that it should be reserved for when you have multiple people in the tank?
If you think it should take multiple AV per solo HAV, could you explain what balances that, in your eyes? yes I do, mainly because its a 50-ton or heavier vehicle that's over 3x larger than infantry is... and even irl it occasionally takes one brave person to toss in a grenade but it also more times takes multiple people with rockets to destroy one, and look t the statistics, NONE of the modern American tanks have been destroyed yet. (that was for you people wanting this game to be like real life which is plain stupid as hell). imho, size determines it all, look at eve (the game this game is MEANT to be made after), titans require multiple ships to destroy them, they can never be soloed. I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately. Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now. I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor? What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy? since the beginning of the game, tanks are the biggest weapons able to be used by infantry, not the MCC thus making the tanks the largest sized assets in battle, im not saying that tanks will always be the biggest because CCP has mentioned things a lot bigger being brought into this game. but for now, tanks are the titans of dust.
That's not what I'm asking - size isn't really an effective gameplay factor. It certainly does have some bearing on things, but does raw size make it worth multiple people to take out? So bigger = better in this case?
I'm not trying to disagree with you here, but I'm trying to figure out why you believe a lone HAV is worth several AVers. |
Shattered Mirage
D.A.R.K Academy
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
137
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:10:00 -
[99] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Shattered Mirage wrote:DJINN leukoplast wrote:
Tanks are good against EVERYTHING, vehicles and infantry alike and have a crap ton of health along with OP modules. Tanks are also impervious to most infantry weapons, except AV.
AV is only good against vehicles, we are as squishy as any other infantry player and are vulnerable to EVERYTHING. You know less about sacrifice then you think. I play this game to kill infantry (this is a FPS, remember that), not to hunt down annoying vehicles and tanks for some meager reward (if I can get the kill) cause they are terrorizing me and my team and ruining the match.
And you knew going into this that I was not a fan of tanks, so don't give me that.
You want an AR to take down a tank? funny thing is... it won't be considered OP if that does happen. You want a Tank to be able to take down the MCC? See? i can say random **** too.
Random ****, eh?
This  Quote:You want an AR to take down a tank? was in response to Quote:anks are also impervious to most infantry weapons, except AV. which makes it seem as if you want a weapon being effective at both AV and AI. |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
184
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:10:00 -
[100] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Shattered Mirage wrote:DJINN leukoplast wrote:Void Echo wrote:
3 things I have to say about your post..
1: your also ignoring my points when im talking about introducing teamplay like you want into tanks while still making it worth for a pilot to personally skill into them.
2: you fail to realize that when tankers spec into tanks, we completely give up our ability to fight outside of tanks unless we have enough SP to skill into infantry also, so don't come and talk to me about sacrifice.
3: I thought you were rational and un biased and actually looking for a decent conversation on the subject. guess I was wrong about you
Tanks are good against EVERYTHING, vehicles and infantry alike and have a crap ton of health along with OP modules. Tanks are also impervious to most infantry weapons, except AV.AV is only good against vehicles, we are as squishy as any other infantry player and are vulnerable to EVERYTHING. You know less about sacrifice then you think. I play this game to kill infantry (this is a FPS, remember that), not to hunt down annoying vehicles and tanks for some meager reward (if I can get the kill) cause they are terrorizing me and my team and ruining the match. And you knew going into this that I was not a fan of tanks, so don't give me that. You want an AR to take down a tank? funny thing is... it won't be considered OP if that does happen. You want a Tank to be able to take down the MCC? See? i can say random **** too. um... yeah no.... we never wanted tanks to destroy MCCs, where the hell did you get that idea from?
The same place the idea of an AR taking down a tank came from.
|
|
|
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1008
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:11:00 -
[101] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo, I'm curious to know how you think it's balanced if it requires 3 people to take out 1 tanker. That effectively takes three people off the field to combat the one person in the tank. Why is it necessary that a solo tank requires multiple people to kill?
I would understand it if each person in the HAV roughly meant another AV specialist required, but only if they were specced into vehicles as well. (Side note on this - I can't believe CCP still aren't working on vehicle locks.)
So I have a question - Do you think it should take multiple AV specialists to destroy one HAV with one pilot in, or do you think that it should be reserved for when you have multiple people in the tank?
If you think it should take multiple AV per solo HAV, could you explain what balances that, in your eyes? yes I do, mainly because its a 50-ton or heavier vehicle that's over 3x larger than infantry is... and even irl it occasionally takes one brave person to toss in a grenade but it also more times takes multiple people with rockets to destroy one, and look t the statistics, NONE of the modern American tanks have been destroyed yet. (that was for you people wanting this game to be like real life which is plain stupid as hell). imho, size determines it all, look at eve (the game this game is MEANT to be made after), titans require multiple ships to destroy them, they can never be soloed. I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately. Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now. I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor? What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy? since the beginning of the game, tanks are the biggest weapons able to be used by infantry, not the MCC thus making the tanks the largest sized assets in battle, im not saying that tanks will always be the biggest because CCP has mentioned things a lot bigger being brought into this game. but for now, tanks are the titans of dust. That's where your mentality is flawed. Tanks are the tanks of dust. That is all. Until EVE develops tanks for use in their game, comparing tanks to spaceships is pretty ******* out there.
tanks and ships are vehicles aren't they?
your saying that a modern day gun that is able to shoot lead round out of it is completely different than a pipe that i could fill with gun powder and shoot a lead ball out of it... yes they are different designs, but they are the same type of thing, guns.. |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
184
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:14:00 -
[102] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:
tanks and ships are vehicles aren't they?
your saying that a modern day gun that is able to shoot lead round out of it is completely different than a pipe that i could fill with gun powder and shoot a lead ball out of it...
No, but a vehicle that can navigate in the closed vacuum of space in an entirely different game, is fundamentally different then a vehicle that can only navigate on the surface of a planet.
You know, a circle is a different shape then a square. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1008
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:15:00 -
[103] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo, I'm curious to know how you think it's balanced if it requires 3 people to take out 1 tanker. That effectively takes three people off the field to combat the one person in the tank. Why is it necessary that a solo tank requires multiple people to kill?
I would understand it if each person in the HAV roughly meant another AV specialist required, but only if they were specced into vehicles as well. (Side note on this - I can't believe CCP still aren't working on vehicle locks.)
So I have a question - Do you think it should take multiple AV specialists to destroy one HAV with one pilot in, or do you think that it should be reserved for when you have multiple people in the tank?
If you think it should take multiple AV per solo HAV, could you explain what balances that, in your eyes? yes I do, mainly because its a 50-ton or heavier vehicle that's over 3x larger than infantry is... and even irl it occasionally takes one brave person to toss in a grenade but it also more times takes multiple people with rockets to destroy one, and look t the statistics, NONE of the modern American tanks have been destroyed yet. (that was for you people wanting this game to be like real life which is plain stupid as hell). imho, size determines it all, look at eve (the game this game is MEANT to be made after), titans require multiple ships to destroy them, they can never be soloed. I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately. Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now. I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor? What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy?
well other than the obvios, what about the incentive to skill into vehicles in the 1st place, if they are **** like they are now, nobody will want them, and look at that. hardly anyone does. |
DJINN leukoplast
Hellstorm Inc
League of Infamy
1074
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:17:00 -
[104] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo, I'm curious to know how you think it's balanced if it requires 3 people to take out 1 tanker. That effectively takes three people off the field to combat the one person in the tank. Why is it necessary that a solo tank requires multiple people to kill?
I would understand it if each person in the HAV roughly meant another AV specialist required, but only if they were specced into vehicles as well. (Side note on this - I can't believe CCP still aren't working on vehicle locks.)
So I have a question - Do you think it should take multiple AV specialists to destroy one HAV with one pilot in, or do you think that it should be reserved for when you have multiple people in the tank?
If you think it should take multiple AV per solo HAV, could you explain what balances that, in your eyes? yes I do, mainly because its a 50-ton or heavier vehicle that's over 3x larger than infantry is... and even irl it occasionally takes one brave person to toss in a grenade but it also more times takes multiple people with rockets to destroy one, and look t the statistics, NONE of the modern American tanks have been destroyed yet. (that was for you people wanting this game to be like real life which is plain stupid as hell). imho, size determines it all, look at eve (the game this game is MEANT to be made after), titans require multiple ships to destroy them, they can never be soloed.
If size (and HP) is the name of the game, then why do I get popped by solo snipers as a heavy forger gunner? I mean it should require at least 3 snipers to take me out cause I have so much HP and girth. 
- Sniper meets HMG heavy in the street head to head... sniper gets stomped before they even realizes WTF happened.
- Heavy meets sniper on a map, sniper has extreme range and the heavy has no idea where the shots are coming from... heavy gets stomped trying to run away in a direction he hopes is the correct one at the speed of slow.
Seems very similar, doesn't it?
|
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1008
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:18:00 -
[105] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote:
tanks and ships are vehicles aren't they?
your saying that a modern day gun that is able to shoot lead round out of it is completely different than a pipe that i could fill with gun powder and shoot a lead ball out of it...
No, but a vehicle that can navigate in the closed vacuum of space in an entirely different game, is fundamentally different then a vehicle that can only navigate on the surface of a planet. You know, a circle is a different shape then a square.
yet they are both shapes, and have the same properties, they are similar in that they are basically the same type of thing..
the only thing that's different in your post is the navigation type, might i also remind you that tanks will be able to fight in space once CCP gives us space maps |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
184
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:18:00 -
[106] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo, I'm curious to know how you think it's balanced if it requires 3 people to take out 1 tanker. That effectively takes three people off the field to combat the one person in the tank. Why is it necessary that a solo tank requires multiple people to kill?
I would understand it if each person in the HAV roughly meant another AV specialist required, but only if they were specced into vehicles as well. (Side note on this - I can't believe CCP still aren't working on vehicle locks.)
So I have a question - Do you think it should take multiple AV specialists to destroy one HAV with one pilot in, or do you think that it should be reserved for when you have multiple people in the tank?
If you think it should take multiple AV per solo HAV, could you explain what balances that, in your eyes? yes I do, mainly because its a 50-ton or heavier vehicle that's over 3x larger than infantry is... and even irl it occasionally takes one brave person to toss in a grenade but it also more times takes multiple people with rockets to destroy one, and look t the statistics, NONE of the modern American tanks have been destroyed yet. (that was for you people wanting this game to be like real life which is plain stupid as hell). imho, size determines it all, look at eve (the game this game is MEANT to be made after), titans require multiple ships to destroy them, they can never be soloed. I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately. Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now. I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor? What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy? well other than the obvios, what about the incentive to skill into vehicles in the 1st place, if they are **** like they are now, nobody will want them, and look at that. hardly anyone does.
I would find your argument relevant, if there wasn't a patch coming next month that is reworking the entirety of the Vehicle and AV.
So, until that happens....yea, we know initially skilling into tanks means you are water balloons ready to pop until you get 8mil SP to start skilling into proper resistances.
but that wasn't your argument this whole time was it? |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1009
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:20:00 -
[107] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo, I'm curious to know how you think it's balanced if it requires 3 people to take out 1 tanker. That effectively takes three people off the field to combat the one person in the tank. Why is it necessary that a solo tank requires multiple people to kill?
I would understand it if each person in the HAV roughly meant another AV specialist required, but only if they were specced into vehicles as well. (Side note on this - I can't believe CCP still aren't working on vehicle locks.)
So I have a question - Do you think it should take multiple AV specialists to destroy one HAV with one pilot in, or do you think that it should be reserved for when you have multiple people in the tank?
If you think it should take multiple AV per solo HAV, could you explain what balances that, in your eyes? yes I do, mainly because its a 50-ton or heavier vehicle that's over 3x larger than infantry is... and even irl it occasionally takes one brave person to toss in a grenade but it also more times takes multiple people with rockets to destroy one, and look t the statistics, NONE of the modern American tanks have been destroyed yet. (that was for you people wanting this game to be like real life which is plain stupid as hell). imho, size determines it all, look at eve (the game this game is MEANT to be made after), titans require multiple ships to destroy them, they can never be soloed. I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately. Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now. I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor? What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy? well other than the obvios, what about the incentive to skill into vehicles in the 1st place, if they are **** like they are now, nobody will want them, and look at that. hardly anyone does. I would find your argument relevant, if there wasn't a patch coming next month that is reworking the entirety of the Vehicle and AV. So, until that happens....yea, we know initially skilling into tanks means you are water balloons ready to pop until you get 8mil SP to start skilling into proper resistances. but that wasn't your argument this whole time was it?
both yes and no.....
im not only trying to do something for myself, im trying to make tanking better so new people will actually want to skill into vehicles, so that this game doesn't end up as another boring regular FPS.
(i need to sleep, its 3 in the morning and im tired, il continue tomorrow) |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:21:00 -
[108] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote:
tanks and ships are vehicles aren't they?
your saying that a modern day gun that is able to shoot lead round out of it is completely different than a pipe that i could fill with gun powder and shoot a lead ball out of it...
No, but a vehicle that can navigate in the closed vacuum of space in an entirely different game, is fundamentally different then a vehicle that can only navigate on the surface of a planet. You know, a circle is a different shape then a square. yet they are both shapes, and have the same properties, they are similar in that they are basically the same type of thing.. the only thing that's different in your post is the navigation type, might i also remind you that tanks will be able to fight in space once CCP gives us space maps
Also the size, cost, speed, defensive/offensive output, and list of usable weapons tend to distinguish themselves from tanks.
They are almost exactly the same thing. |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon 514
2731
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:21:00 -
[109] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:
I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately.
Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now.
I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor?
What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy?
well other than the obvios, what about the incentive to skill into vehicles in the 1st place, if they are **** like they are now, nobody will want them, and look at that. hardly anyone does.
Again, claiming tanks are **** (which again, I don't disagree with) doesn't suggest a valid reason for making tanks take multiple AV to destroy.
Can we try and have a productive discussion? I'm sure you're perfectly capable of suggesting actual gameplay factors, as an experienced tanker, but to do that we need to throw away ideas of 'This is how it should be' and come up with 'This is how it should be BECAUSE -reason-'. What is the gameplay reason for your suggestion? How can it be justified? |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:22:00 -
[110] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:
both yes and no.....
im not only trying to do something for myself, im trying to make tanking better so new people will actually want to skill into vehicles, so that this game doesn't end up as another boring regular FPS.
Yet thats not your job. It's CCP's job to balance out vehicles and AV to make it better for new people.
Hence the reason they are doing patch 1.5.
Again, another argument thats invalid. |
|
|
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1009
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:23:00 -
[111] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:
I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately.
Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now.
I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor?
What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy?
well other than the obvios, what about the incentive to skill into vehicles in the 1st place, if they are **** like they are now, nobody will want them, and look at that. hardly anyone does. Again, claiming tanks are **** (which again, I don't disagree with) doesn't suggest a valid reason for making tanks take multiple AV to destroy. Can we try and have a productive discussion? I'm sure you're perfectly capable of suggesting actual gameplay factors, as an experienced tanker, but to do that we need to throw away ideas of 'This is how it should be' and come up with 'This is how it should be BECAUSE -reason-'. What is the gameplay reason for your suggestion? How can it be justified?
plus, this isn't my thread, i would do this on my own thread only. |
DJINN leukoplast
Hellstorm Inc
League of Infamy
1075
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:23:00 -
[112] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:
well other than the obvios, what about the incentive to skill into vehicles in the 1st place, if they are **** like they are now, nobody will want them, and look at that. hardly anyone does.
If tanks and vehicles were so feeble and useless, then why would anybody complain about them? I mean if all I had to do was whip out some std AV nades and militia swarms to defeat every vehicle in the game with no effort at all, why would I complain about their power and strength?
Don't see too many "Plasma cannon is OP" or "Laser rifle needs a nerf" threads do we? Can you count on one hand how many time you have gotten killed by these weapons? |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:24:00 -
[113] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:
I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately.
Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now.
I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor?
What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy?
well other than the obvios, what about the incentive to skill into vehicles in the 1st place, if they are **** like they are now, nobody will want them, and look at that. hardly anyone does. Again, claiming tanks are **** (which again, I don't disagree with) doesn't suggest a valid reason for making tanks take multiple AV to destroy. Can we try and have a productive discussion? I'm sure you're perfectly capable of suggesting actual gameplay factors, as an experienced tanker, but to do that we need to throw away ideas of 'This is how it should be' and come up with 'This is how it should be BECAUSE -reason-'. What is the gameplay reason for your suggestion? How can it be justified? plus, this isn't my thread, i would do this on my own thread only.
............
|
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1009
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:25:00 -
[114] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote:
both yes and no.....
im not only trying to do something for myself, im trying to make tanking better so new people will actually want to skill into vehicles, so that this game doesn't end up as another boring regular FPS.
Yet thats not your job. It's CCP's job to balance out vehicles and AV to make it better for new people. Hence the reason they are doing patch 1.5. Again, another argument thats invalid.
look at how much of a job theyv done so far... theyv screwed up every build, i know you don't understand because your class hasn't been nerfed every single build.
im tired of their bull and i know many many other who are also tired of it.
someone has to do something, and it hasn't been CCP doing it for a very long time. |
Arkena Wyrnspire
Turalyon 514
2731
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:26:00 -
[115] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:
I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately.
Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now.
I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor?
What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy?
well other than the obvios, what about the incentive to skill into vehicles in the 1st place, if they are **** like they are now, nobody will want them, and look at that. hardly anyone does. Again, claiming tanks are **** (which again, I don't disagree with) doesn't suggest a valid reason for making tanks take multiple AV to destroy. Can we try and have a productive discussion? I'm sure you're perfectly capable of suggesting actual gameplay factors, as an experienced tanker, but to do that we need to throw away ideas of 'This is how it should be' and come up with 'This is how it should be BECAUSE -reason-'. What is the gameplay reason for your suggestion? How can it be justified? plus, this isn't my thread, i would do this on my own thread only.
I don't understand why this presents an obstacle to explaining your reasoning. You were apparently perfectly happy to do it earlier on, yet when I ask for clarification you say you won't explain it here?
Is there another thread you would like to continue this discussion?
|
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
429
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:26:00 -
[116] - Quote
lets look at the tanks role
if it was just as effective as infantry then it wouldnt have a purpose as it would be more benifitial to stay infantry because of the cost involved.
so it has to be more effective then being infantry
how do we do that?
well we can do any number of things
make it more survivable than infantry
this is done by making it so only AV weapons have any real chance of killing it
make it better at killing things then infantry
aparently people dont like this fact about tanks
specialise its targets, make it better at killing other tanks than infantry AV giving them the ultimate role in anti-tank with infantry based AV support as a tie breaker
balance revolves around making it so anyone who has speced into both tanks and infantry, givin that they have no preferance for either or, would find himself torn between running either or not based on effectiveness but rather situation.
balance means its a tactical choice rather than a power based choice
the problem is CCP hasnt really defined its role properly. do they WANT it to be the king of AV with anti infantry capabilities ont he side?
do they want it to specialise its weapon to choose between AV and infantry effectiveness? in wich case it would still have to be more effective at AV then infantry to justify its cost or else theres no point in its exsistance.
do they want it to be more effective against infantry then a single infantry unit?
well this one is depends on the others.
if they want it to be the king of AV with a side of infantry then it can actually be worse against infantry as a tradeoff, BUT if this is the case then infantry AV has to be alot weaker to make room for tank vs tank that would decide weather tanks live or die, infantry only being a support AV role in this case as a way to gain an edge against the other tank
this would entail that it would take many infantry AV working together to achieve what tank AV could achieve alone
this is what most tankers are talking about when they refer to them wanting it to take multiple infantry to kill them, they want tank vs tank combat to be where the vehicle domanance is decided.
currently infantry reign supreme, it takes 1 slightly above average infantry to control the vehicle population down to 0
so infantry is the deciding factor meaning in this metagame a tanks worth is decided not by its AV poential but its infantry killing potential, because it needs to kill off the infantry before it kills him off, and it only takes 1 to get through your teams blockade to you to kill you, (or int he case of our current situation, it takes one guy in a high place abusing rendering glitches to control the entire map AV wise and remain invisable and therefore invulnerable to attack)
the problem with placing AV domkinance in the hands of infantry is that it renders vehicles obsolete, and therefore renders infantry AV obsolete (in theory but not in practice since it doesnt matter if they are worth it or not people will still run tanks)
the only way to have a healthy tanking metagame is to make TANKS the kings of anti vehicle combat and leave infantry AV in a support role as a means of tie breaking tank stalemates and creating interesting and unpredictable tank engagements.
so yes, infantry AV needs to be nerfed, and in return you will see the return of massive tank vs tank combat as we fight each other instead of fighting you guys on the forums for change.
|
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1009
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:27:00 -
[117] - Quote
DJINN leukoplast wrote:Void Echo wrote:
well other than the obvios, what about the incentive to skill into vehicles in the 1st place, if they are **** like they are now, nobody will want them, and look at that. hardly anyone does.
If tanks and vehicles were so feeble and useless, then why would anybody complain about them? I mean if all I had to do was whip out some std AV nades and militia swarms to defeat every vehicle in the game with no effort at all, why would I complain about their power and strength? Don't see too many "Plasma cannon is OP" or "Laser rifle needs a nerf" threads do we? Can you count on one hand how many time you have gotten killed by these weapons?
because you hate them, i know you and a few others in this thread do, why would you complain about something you hate being UP?
i saw a lot of you complaining about your logi suits getting nerfed into logi suits, claiming that it was unwarranted and unwanted, that when tanks have been through every build. |
demonkiller 12
Seraphim Auxiliaries
124
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:27:00 -
[118] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:so, you took 8 shots in 15 minutes?
that's not even one a minute. MY tank could survive that, and I'm ONLY 8mil into speccing. Yea, you are absolutely correct. See, i take my time to line up my shots. Who cares if it doesn't make sense? Glad to know someone is so keen on my state of mind.
so tldr im not reading back to older posts,
lets assume you were using a wyka breach with 5 prof and 2 dmg mods
you get like 3.8k dmg or something per shot, +30% to shields -20% on armor
you fired 8 shots over 15 minutes, so you were doing like 31dps.... at about 1.9k a minute
really you should be chasing the tank in a charydbis hop out throw lai dais and finish with forge/swarms |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
185
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:28:00 -
[119] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Void Echo wrote:
both yes and no.....
im not only trying to do something for myself, im trying to make tanking better so new people will actually want to skill into vehicles, so that this game doesn't end up as another boring regular FPS.
Yet thats not your job. It's CCP's job to balance out vehicles and AV to make it better for new people. Hence the reason they are doing patch 1.5. Again, another argument thats invalid. look at how much of a job theyv done so far... theyv screwed up every build, i know you don't understand because your class hasn't been nerfed every single build. im tired of their bull and i know many many other who are also tired of it. someone has to do something, and it hasn't been CCP doing it for a very long time.
Yes, the Heavy suit hasn't been nerfed, The Forge gun was always registering hits correctly, and they didn't completely butcher the HMG from its previous glory, and I've only been waiting for armor to get buffed for...what, 8 months? Gotcha.
And yea man, someone has to do something! You know how to program and develop games right?
Give CCP a hand and start emailing them your code. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1010
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 08:28:00 -
[120] - Quote
Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:Void Echo wrote:Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:
I'm asking what the balancing gameplay factor is - "It's a 50 ton vehicle" doesn't really answer that, unfortunately.
Basing things in a game on how it works IRL is a silly way to do things, I agree - besides which shielding and armour systems are much much better than what we have right now.
I'm a little dubious about your example though - A titan can't really be soloed, no, but a battleship can be soloed by a frigate., for example. The titan is the edge case, much like the MCC. Do you mean to say that you think the cost is the balancing factor?
What do you think the balancing gameplay factor is to make tanks worth multiple AV to destroy?
well other than the obvios, what about the incentive to skill into vehicles in the 1st place, if they are **** like they are now, nobody will want them, and look at that. hardly anyone does. Again, claiming tanks are **** (which again, I don't disagree with) doesn't suggest a valid reason for making tanks take multiple AV to destroy. Can we try and have a productive discussion? I'm sure you're perfectly capable of suggesting actual gameplay factors, as an experienced tanker, but to do that we need to throw away ideas of 'This is how it should be' and come up with 'This is how it should be BECAUSE -reason-'. What is the gameplay reason for your suggestion? How can it be justified? plus, this isn't my thread, i would do this on my own thread only. I don't understand why this presents an obstacle to explaining your reasoning. You were apparently perfectly happy to do it earlier on, yet when I ask for clarification you say you won't explain it here? Is there another thread you would like to continue this discussion?
yeah, il make it tomorrow, il personally message you in game when i make it. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |