|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rogatien Merc
Red Star.
EoN.
846
   |
Posted - 2013.08.29 13:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Panther Alpha wrote:Yeah... small problem with you logic ... AV weapons only kills Vehicles .. turrets kills EVERYTHING.
This x 100000.
A guy with STANDARD [insert light, sidearm, or grenade weapon here] cannot ass **** your tank. The dropsuits on which those AV weapons reside are more vulnerable. |
Rogatien Merc
Red Star.
EoN.
847
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 13:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Panther Alpha wrote:Leovarian L Lavitz wrote:I see infantry going over 35 kills a match. You are telling me that tanks are doing worse than infantry. And how many times infantry dies ? .. some times i get 30 kills.. "sometimes", but i die a minimum of 8 times in the process. Tanks can potentially get 30 kills without dying ones... is a very big difference ...Imagine if AV nades cost 300k .. 8 X 350k = 2,800,000 isk. Yeah but you can run an ISK profit every game with infantry unless you are stupid and run proto. My 2.2m SP alt runs ADV and makes a profit every game. If AV grenades cost 300k, people would think before slapping them onto an assault suit not meant for AV. I'm not saying that they should cost that much, but a price increase in AV will make people think twice before slapping on AV. And proto forges need to cost at least half of a proto large turret. The amount of proto forges that are being run is astonishing, as the risk v reward is extremely low for them on top of towers. If they cost more, people would think twice before starting a match with an IAFG before any vehicles have been called in.
Implying tankers are supposed to be solo-viable and profitable. 
/end troll
Seriously though, current cost-to-income ratios imply tanks are squad/team/corp support assets. Means you need to rely on corporation financial support to consistently run tanks. A loose "New Eden Precedent" for this "dependent on others" gameplay exists in the form of super capital ships in EvE that require support. (Not an argument in favor of this fact, just a sidenote and explanation of where I'm coming from when discussing hypothetical CCP logic)
Tanks were more solo-viable before they rat ****** the skill tree and de-coupled infantry and vehicle support skills. When support skills were shared, situational usage of vehicles was more viable as the character could also be spec into infantry skillsets.
I... I can't even go on. This frustrates me.
My God they have ****** this game up haven't they? |
Rogatien Merc
Red Star.
EoN.
852
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 14:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Panther Alpha wrote:ResistanceGTA wrote:Jack McReady wrote:btw swarms have only one real valid target: armor tanks
-shield tanks are too resistant due to explo resistance
-llav are invincible
-dropships outrun swarms with AB, once they are at 1/3 health they just fly away and come back later with full health
-untanked vehicles can be also taken out by militia swarms, not an argument
the price for swarms is fine. Why does everyone say LLAVs are invincible? They are no where near invincible. It just takes some tactics to kill them, but they burn quite nice. Sorry, not the point of the thread, I just get really annoyed when I see people say this. When you hit a LLAV with an AVD Plasma Cannon with Damage modules.. and the shield "doesn't" goes down.. i'll say that makes them invincible... remember that the Plasma Cannon is supposed to be designed to break through Vehicles Shields.
actually not. it's a CQC weapon. read the description in-game. but that's beside the point lol.
swarms are getting nerfed in 1.4 (clip size)
LLAVs are getting nerfed in 1.4
... big things are apparently coming in 1.5
We shall see. |
|
|
| |
|