|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1038
   |
Posted - 2013.08.24 19:24:00 -
[1] - Quote
Drud Green wrote:Tanker......swap the T for a W and you have found the core of the issue.
HAHAHAHAHA ROFLMFAO OMG I CANT BREATH AHAHAHAHA
+1 that's just too funny |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1038
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 19:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bittersteel the Bastard wrote:Chances Ghost wrote:Bittersteel the Bastard wrote:Until it takes multiple people to operate a HAV, I believe it shouldn't take multiple people to take down an HAV.
They should however lower the cost of the tanks. it takes 3 people to operate an HAV fully theres just no incentive to do so, and usually is a liability more than an advantage. so you probably mean "some way to force tankers to have gunners"? or at least enough incentive for them to have gunners? Yes if tanks need multiple people to take down then they should be forced to have multiple people operating it. As it is now I find many tankers complaining about the ISK loss and how because they spent so much ISK they should not be taken down by AV. You cannot justify wanting to have supremacy over the battlefield just because you paid to do so. That is the very definition of P2W. Yes I understand that tanks cost a lot (so they should reduce the price). However by making it so that multiple people are required to take down a tank the opposing side loses players to PTFO or to handle the enemy infantry. It becomes on 1-3, where one team now has 13 players facing 15 and has no become disadvantaged through no fault of their own.
you mean something like this?
the way I would balance things is like this:
1 prototype tank = 3 prototype AV
1 advanced tank = 3 advanced AV
1 standard tank = 3 standard AV
however, if you have blue in your turrets, they will give you an extra survivability only if they have the same skill set as you do, this would also be needing the vehicle lock function we all want, that way if the right people were in the tank, it would be indestructible, but if its only the pilot, the tank would be killable but still do massive amounts of damage, nothing less.
this would greatly encourage the teamwork you want us to use, but it would have to be done right, and by right, I mean the pilot needs to have complete dominance over his own asset, otherwise tanks and vehicles in general would just be like BF.
also:
Pay to Win: Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1038
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 19:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
also, if you were to separate the main gunner from the pilot seat, you would remove all incentive and want to skill up into driving it |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1039
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 20:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Skyhound Solbrave wrote:Void Echo wrote:Bittersteel the Bastard wrote:Chances Ghost wrote:Bittersteel the Bastard wrote:Until it takes multiple people to operate a HAV, I believe it shouldn't take multiple people to take down an HAV.
They should however lower the cost of the tanks. it takes 3 people to operate an HAV fully theres just no incentive to do so, and usually is a liability more than an advantage. so you probably mean "some way to force tankers to have gunners"? or at least enough incentive for them to have gunners? Yes if tanks need multiple people to take down then they should be forced to have multiple people operating it. As it is now I find many tankers complaining about the ISK loss and how because they spent so much ISK they should not be taken down by AV. You cannot justify wanting to have supremacy over the battlefield just because you paid to do so. That is the very definition of P2W. Yes I understand that tanks cost a lot (so they should reduce the price). However by making it so that multiple people are required to take down a tank the opposing side loses players to PTFO or to handle the enemy infantry. It becomes on 1-3, where one team now has 13 players facing 15 and has no become disadvantaged through no fault of their own. you mean something like this? the way I would balance things is like this: 1 prototype tank = 3 prototype AV 1 advanced tank = 3 advanced AV 1 standard tank = 3 standard AV however, if you have blue in your turrets, they will give you an extra survivability only if they have the same skill set as you do, this would also be needing the vehicle lock function we all want, that way if the right people were in the tank, it would be indestructible, but if its only the pilot, the tank would be killable but still do massive amounts of damage, nothing less. this would greatly encourage the teamwork you want us to use, but it would have to be done right, and by right, I mean the pilot needs to have complete dominance over his own asset, otherwise tanks and vehicles in general would just be like BF. also: Pay to Win: Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalanced even for people who have skill in the game without paying. I'm glad you're not a dev. It should NEVER take more than one person to take out one other person. Your balancing sounds "fine" with small numbers, but increase the numbers a bit and you can see how unbalanced it is. 1 tank = 3 AV (half a squad to take out on person) 2 tanks = 6 AV (whole squad to take out 2 people) 5 tanks = 15 AV (whole team to take out a single squad) See the pattern? That's not balance, that's a crutch. It should take one DEDICATED AVer to take out one dedicated tanker of the same meta level. Not an assault suit with AV grenades, but a fully specced and fitted AVer. If you notice, it already works out like this if you pit Std AV gear against std tanks. There is no problen between AV and Tanks except for cost and the lack of ADV and PRO HAVs.
so your saying that 3 av guys are too unreliable to destroy more than tank? |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1039
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 20:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
with my version of it, if you have more than one tank on the field all you need is 3 AV guys on you team, they would be able to destroy each enemy tank in a 3 man group, your saying that AVers are too unreliable to take down more than one tank so you say it needs a full team...
why in your head does this mean that you need an entire team? in my head all you need is 3 people to kill us off, if 3 av = 1 tank, then those same 3 would be used to kill the others off.. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1039
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 21:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
Bittersteel the Bastard wrote:Void Echo wrote:with my version of it, if you have more than one tank on the field all you need is 3 AV guys on you team, they would be able to destroy each enemy tank in a 3 man group, your saying that AVers are too unreliable to take down more than one tank so you say it needs a full team...
why in your head does this mean that you need an entire team? in my head all you need is 3 people to kill us off, if 3 av = 1 tank, then those same 3 would be used to kill the others off.. You realize if you stay in AV you are disadvantaged to infantry on the other team? You'll still be 3 men down in infantry.
yeah, iv skilled into av before and I didn't spec to kill infantry, I skilled to kill vehicles.. |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1039
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 21:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Skyhound Solbrave wrote:Void Echo wrote:with my version of it, if you have more than one tank on the field all you need is 3 AV guys on you team, they would be able to destroy each enemy tank in a 3 man group, your saying that AVers are too unreliable to take down more than one tank so you say it needs a full team...
why in your head does this mean that you need an entire team? in my head all you need is 3 people to kill us off, if 3 av = 1 tank, then those same 3 would be used to kill the others off.. That's assuming the three tanks are seperated and can be dealt with individually. What if those tanks stick together? There are tankers that do this now and can completely dominate a match. Nice try grabbing at straws though.
easy, just kill one at a time |
Void Echo
Echo Galactic Industries
1040
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 23:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
Surt gods end wrote:Cosgar wrote:Surt gods end wrote:Again cause some on here would rather not hear it, for the simple fact of "DUST IS NOT A FPS! IT DOESNT HAVE TO FOLLOW ITS RULES!"
There is a reason why in Almost all FPS games, TANKS ARE NOT A PRIMARY ROLE. THEY ALWAYS FALL UNDER "SUPPORT"
You want to see tanks and DS all over the field? LOWER THE PRICE. BUT to those that feel that you need 4 guys to down a tank, come on!
So a scrub that never touched a FPS can jump in a tank and wipe the floor with PLAYERS THAT HAVE PLAYED FPS GAMES? 50-2 for a fairy that never touched a FPS game? NO. How come people can use RL examples on how the AR should be balanced, but when HAV come into play that goes out the window? Double standard much? At the end of the day, everyone wants their time/ISK/SP invested in their role to mean something. (Most) Infantry have that, why not vehicles? We don't use RL examples for HAV's cause if that was the case, havs drivers would throw more of a fit. lol In RL it takes one guy to take our a tank. two at most. Tanks in RL play support roles. hence why it's that way in many FPS games.
ROFL that's all infantry ever uses against vehicles here is real life |
|
|
| |
|