|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
444
   |
Posted - 2013.08.24 12:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
an idea was mentioned elsewhere so please tell me what you think
1: reduce large turrets effectiness against infantry, making them primarily AV oriented
2: increase effectivness of small turrets against infantry
3:inscrease survivability slightly
this would have the effect of wanting to fill your tank with gunners against infantry, and have a squad oriented tank.
would this be in line with your idea?
can you input any changes to this idea to make it more in line with your vision? |
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
444
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 12:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Chances Ghost wrote:an idea was mentioned elsewhere so please tell me what you think
1: reduce large turrets effectiness against infantry, making them primarily AV oriented
2: increase effectivness of small turrets against infantry
3:inscrease survivability slightly
this would have the effect of wanting to fill your tank with gunners against infantry, and have a squad oriented tank.
would this be in line with your idea?
can you input any changes to this idea to make it more in line with your vision? i don't think that is drastic enough to fix the underlying problems
what else would you add/change to the equation?
|
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
448
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 12:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Chances Ghost wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Chances Ghost wrote:an idea was mentioned elsewhere so please tell me what you think
1: reduce large turrets effectiness against infantry, making them primarily AV oriented
2: increase effectivness of small turrets against infantry
3:inscrease survivability slightly
this would have the effect of wanting to fill your tank with gunners against infantry, and have a squad oriented tank.
would this be in line with your idea?
can you input any changes to this idea to make it more in line with your vision? i don't think that is drastic enough to fix the underlying problems what else would you add/change to the equation? that is basicly what i said but it needs to be a drastic change to create a distinctive gap between the vehicles and infantry rather than just shifting that damage to a different weapon but increasing survivability at the same time. 80% reduction to damage to infantry basicly accounts for the inability to target a small fast moving target such as a person. the other turrets should be more supressive as the primary role of a tank should be to provide heavy av support. 80% reduction to damage taken from infantry weapons doesn't mean we cant take the vehicle out but adds survivability when infantry is everywhere. overall infantry survival against tanks is up meaning less proto av is needed and vehicle survival is up meaning lower loss bills for them and less hiding and more supporting. no more 1 man army's in tanks or av
they need to have SOME anti infantry ability or they are restricted to anti tank.
and there would be no reason to bbring out tanks if their only role is to kill other tanks, whos only role is to kill the first tanks....
it would create a system where there are two seperate fights going on, tanks trying to kill each other for fun but not really helpful to the team, and infantry actuallly fighting for ground.
|
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
453
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 12:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Chances Ghost wrote:
they need to have SOME anti infantry ability or they are restricted to anti tank.
and there would be no reason to bbring out tanks if their only role is to kill other tanks, whos only role is to kill the first tanks....
it would create a system where there are two seperate fights going on, tanks trying to kill each other for fun but not really helpful to the team, and infantry actuallly fighting for ground.
they would still be able to kill infantry as they will still be putting out allot of dps even with a reduction through all the weapon systems onboard. what you dont get in direct kills you will make back in sheer volume of assists im an AV player. my only role is to take out vehicles. if i see infantry i attempt to flee first as i'm not suited to that in my current role. add in the fact they can now be used as cover or mobile cru's without the threat of everyone using av on them from all ranges then the enemy would be daft not to bring out their own to take it out.
makes sence the massive assist mobile wouldnt be too bad concidering its effectivness against vehicles would be top notch.
i actually realy like this balance |
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
456
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 13:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Chances Ghost wrote:
makes sence the massive assist mobile wouldnt be too bad concidering its effectivness against vehicles would be top notch.
i actually realy like this balance
i'm glad someone can see the point i'm trying to make.
theres not enough peopel around here listening to ideas and developing them into viable plans
they just like to argue without purpose.
asking questions is alot more effective at weeding out bad ideas then yelling at peopple. |
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
459
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 14:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Delta 749 wrote:Rei Shepard wrote:Delta 749 wrote:Heres a problem with you basing some of this on real life
A RPG-29 from the 80s is still able to penetrate the frontal hull armor of a Challenger II main battle tank, a vehicle with 10 years of armor advancement between it and the RPG-29
So honestly if you want to base tank and AV balance on real life its going to give properly positioned AV players many great ways to bust tanks while the tank itself only gets countermeasures such as flare launchers or Nakidka camouflage to lower the enemies ability to lock on them
I honestly really dont know where people get this idea that real life tanks are impervious to your average soldier on foot if he has the gear for it, I mean its not like we spent decades advancing weapon technology to make destroying them easier and easier which is why they are primarily infantry support vehicles now Ow god you used Support and Vehicle in the same sentence /gasp, you just killed every 12 year old in this game ! In that case I believe I deserve a medal for my pre teen slaughter
in real life tanks fill the role of "super long range combat" that infantry cant fit into (outside snipers)
int he game they cant really do that.
so by your "real life" definition of what tanks should be in the game they shouldnt be doing much of anything, ever, just sitting around lobbing artillery at each other and the ocasional infantry encampment from distances longer than what our redline even alows
so care to come up with something relevant to the game we are playing rather than trying to fit things into a real life model? |
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
459
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 14:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Delta 749 wrote:Chances Ghost wrote:Delta 749 wrote:Rei Shepard wrote:Delta 749 wrote:Heres a problem with you basing some of this on real life
A RPG-29 from the 80s is still able to penetrate the frontal hull armor of a Challenger II main battle tank, a vehicle with 10 years of armor advancement between it and the RPG-29
So honestly if you want to base tank and AV balance on real life its going to give properly positioned AV players many great ways to bust tanks while the tank itself only gets countermeasures such as flare launchers or Nakidka camouflage to lower the enemies ability to lock on them
I honestly really dont know where people get this idea that real life tanks are impervious to your average soldier on foot if he has the gear for it, I mean its not like we spent decades advancing weapon technology to make destroying them easier and easier which is why they are primarily infantry support vehicles now Ow god you used Support and Vehicle in the same sentence /gasp, you just killed every 12 year old in this game ! In that case I believe I deserve a medal for my pre teen slaughter in real life tanks fill the role of "super long range combat" that infantry cant fit into (outside snipers) int he game they cant really do that. so by your "real life" definition of what tanks should be in the game they shouldnt be doing much of anything, ever, just sitting around lobbing artillery at each other and the ocasional infantry encampment from distances longer than what our redline even alows so care to come up with something relevant to the game we are playing rather than trying to fit things into a real life model? I can imagine you getting half a stiffy thinking you made a point with all your QQ Oh look, heres something I grabbed just by googling "tank combat role" and it explains a tanks role in urban combat as infantry support, how about that Oh and your "Tanks are super long range combat in the real world" falls apart since we have other better and cheaper options to use, granted those options dont exist in this game Tanks as a bombarding death machine have been on the decline for decades, longer than you or I have likely been alive, and have shifted into a new role In other words they didnt want to die so they adapted, maybe you should do the same Inb4 QQ about how you did adapt but still die, or you ironically complain about render distance while being in a corp that exploited the hell out of a true invisibility glitch
i complained about invisability too, and low and behold it got fixed
next your going to tell me i shouldnt be exploiting the hell out of this form of invisability in order to get it fixed?
last time people called for our heads.... what will happen if i get the corp doing it this time as well?
im wrong if i exploit it and get it fixed that way, im wrong if i try to use reason and logic.
how exaclty is one supposed to get it fixed then? |
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
459
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 14:58:00 -
[8] - Quote
Delta 749 wrote:Provide video proof to CCP that is truly is a glitch, that it can be exploited, and can be triggered by the player whenever they please
Thats how you bring stuff to their attention, not by using it to cheat your asses off
So far your "reason and logic" is you whining like a ***** telling people there is this glitch out there most people havent experienced and then making limp dicked thinly veiled threats about how you can exploit it while at the same time attempting to take some asinine sort of moral high ground saying "but we totally wont this time"
And you wonder why I dont take you or anything you say about balance seriously
bugg reports have been filed, just like with invisability.
picture evidence was forwarded along with it since video isnt feasable with the tools we have.
that was a month ago, unlike the invisable shotgunner spree wich got fixed in like 2 weeks
this has been exploited for a few months now, its nothing new.
loads of people are aware of this glitch on BOTH sides, and aparently just because YOU havnt heard of it means it doesnt exsist. |
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
462
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 15:22:00 -
[9] - Quote
Delta 749 wrote:Chances Ghost wrote:Delta 749 wrote:Provide video proof to CCP that is truly is a glitch, that it can be exploited, and can be triggered by the player whenever they please
Thats how you bring stuff to their attention, not by using it to cheat your asses off
So far your "reason and logic" is you whining like a ***** telling people there is this glitch out there most people havent experienced and then making limp dicked thinly veiled threats about how you can exploit it while at the same time attempting to take some asinine sort of moral high ground saying "but we totally wont this time"
And you wonder why I dont take you or anything you say about balance seriously bugg reports have been filed, just like with invisability. picture evidence was forwarded along with it since video isnt feasable with the tools we have. that was a month ago, unlike the invisable shotgunner spree wich got fixed in like 2 weeks this has been exploited for a few months now, its nothing new. loads of people are aware of this glitch on BOTH sides, and aparently just because YOU havnt heard of it means it doesnt exsist. Honestly I dont believe you What I do believe is that render distances inside the vehicle are bad and most drivers get tunnel vision anyway so describe a lot of things as invisible when they arent minus the actual swarm cluster itself since its rendering is handled poorly I also find it hard to believe that something that has been exploited for months according to you has had no evidence brought to public light in all that time, that all the tankers that have apparently experienced it for months have waited until the past few weeks to start bringing it up en masse, and that for months and hundreds of matches played with thousands of players that not one single time that I have gone Av hunting have I encountered this bug that is being widely exploited according to you Bring some proof if you want to make these claims otherwise its easy as hell to shoot down and exposes the weakness of your position, especially since its all you keep restating Edit: Taking off in like 15 minutes, got laundry to do and a new sink faucet to install and other things to do today
bug report forum, first page
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=74777&find=unread
first post from may 9th
if you want more search "invisable swarm" "invisable forge" "invisable sniper" "invisable players"
you will find 40+ threads on the issues surrounding rendering and mentions of invisable AVers dating back all the way to the first week of the rendering changes
recreating the glitches boils down to "go to this exact point on the map, stand there and shoot AV untill you run out of ammo, then scuicide and do it again."
i cant release the exact locations due to forum rules, nore do i want them to be widely known as enough people know about it to make it a hastle already. |
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
500
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 12:02:00 -
[10] - Quote
i agree, tanks NEEDS to be infantry centric
infantry should want tanks around, they should be benificial to the team in many ways, but limited in others.
i see tanks being more important on open ground
tanks should be about defending their infantry, providing mobile cover and a place to hide, supporting infantry with cover fire and protecting them from enamy tanks
i think tanks need a damage reduction and a survivability boost (or an AV nerf causing a survivability boost) but their overall killing power should depend ont heir infantry.
the assaist machine you came up with is a nice representation of this.
thgey can still kill infantry, but they are more about focused firepower over a whole squad then a solo killing machine.
alone a tank should have trouble killing infantry off
in a squad the combine fire should make quick work of enamy infantry.
that would ensure a tank has a role, but isnt the be all end all bettlefield presence, as well as make sure that its not a complete pushover.
i think tanks should be more about defence than offence |
|
|
Chances Ghost
Inf4m0us
500
|
Posted - 2013.08.25 12:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
yup im with ya, you get more epic battles that way.
and i came here for the epic battles |
|
|
| |
|