Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
1058
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 04:20:00 -
[31] - Quote
Kane Fyea wrote:1. Anti vehicle should be for ANY suit. If you make the heavy the best at AV then that would hurt overall diversity. 2. I agree with the swarms being stupid part but like I said heavies shouldn't be the only viable AV option (I want an RPG type of rocket launcher. The plasma cannon does not work like an RPG) 3. AV grenades should stay but they shouldn't be nearly as strong as they are.
1. I don't think making the heavy the primary AV hurts diversity. Scouts could still run the AV nade and swarm combo and do the fairy dance that they love so much, they just would need to bring two of them to assure a tank goes down.
By making the heavy the primary AV troop, you actually help diversity. When everyone can just drop 1 million SP into swarms, it means no one strictly needs to spec heavy, because the HMG isn't worth it. Right now the Forge is the only thing great about it. Nerf the splash damage, and it is not OP in anyway, but still very strong.
Heavies also need logis, thereby increasing suit diversity on the field as well. Additionally, a scout is a great counter to a fatty with a FG, so it isn't like there are not more options put out there by having the AV focus shifted to the heavy suit.
2. If the plasma cannon was worth a **** they could just remove the swarms altogether.
BUFF THE PLASMA CANNON!
3. Your call. |
Shattered Mirage
native warlords
299
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 04:40:00 -
[32] - Quote
Kane Fyea wrote:1. Anti vehicle should be for ANY suit. If you make the heavy the best at AV then that would hurt overall diversity. 2. I agree with the swarms being stupid part but like I said heavies shouldn't be the only viable AV option (I want an RPG type of rocket launcher. The plasma cannon does not work like an RPG) 3. AV grenades should stay but they shouldn't be nearly as strong as they are.
Like you infantry are one to talk about diversity...
If anything, this would promote diversity, you're just upset because it means that you would need more of an investment into AV weaponry. |
Shattered Mirage
native warlords
299
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 04:41:00 -
[33] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:So, I tank.
Lately, everyone is getting up in arms, and the tankers and the infantry are at each others throats, with a fairly consistent back and forth ensues between certain regular parties.
It has all gotten quite dull. There needs to be an effort to reach consensus, perhaps not on concrete details, but at least on the basic principles of AV and how it should interact with vehicles.
Here are some things I have been thinking about lately. Some of these things will upset tankers, and some will upset infantry. Hopefully you all get annoyed equally, and we can make some progress.
1. The heavy should be the primary AV specialist.
Ideally, they should have the best tool for the job, currently the forge gun. The suit itself needs protection from infantry, and is mobility limited. This enforces the need for one heavy suit to focus on tactics to tackle one tank. It also means that a tank must think tactically to avoid getting slapped by a heavy.
A well fitted heavy should be an effective counter to a tank. It then becomes a fight between the tank, which has greater mobility and HP, and the heavy, which has the potential to ambush, trap, use height, etc.
In this type of scenario, you could even bump up FG direct damage if you raised fitting costs to minimize protection on the fat suit. Or you could leave the damage as it is, and reduce fitting costs, to allow a heavy the chance to sit and trade with a tank.
2. Swarms are really pathetic.
The entire idea of how swarms work is completely silly. I don't care about any of the alleged reasons behind it, the behaviour of swarms ruins any type of engagement, because it is a no brainer. 2 guys with MLT swams can overwhelm almost any tank in less than 6 seconds. It is absurd. Beyond that, they are largely ineffective against their primary target, which I would assume to be DS's and LAV's, and instead get spammed onto tanks with hilarious results for the infantry, but deeply unpleasant for the tankers.
1 heavy with a FG should be able to output at least 3 swarm users output over the same time. This means a drastic nerf to the swarms. This promotes the proper relationship of suits, with tanks being powerful against infantry, AV being very strong against tanks, and the AV troop(heavy) being weak to infantry.
Non heavy suits should have an AV option, but it should not be the teams primary choice for AV work.
3. Nuclear baseballs.
I get it that infantry need an option for a rampaging tank on a spawn point. All I think needs to be done is to ramp up the fitting costs on the AV grenades and lower damage levels at ADV. I don't mind if someone wants to use a set of Lai Dais to deal me 6k damage. I can appreciate the balls. What I DO mind is them being able to effectively roll that option while having a very viable anti-infantry fit as well.
Packing AV grenades should mean that the infantry has made a choice to sacrifice either tank, or their anti-infantry capability in order to pack that type of AV damage.
The other way to do it is make them low damage, but instead of three, you get 5. That way, they can be spammed to keep vehicles at bay, but not kill anything but stupid tank drivers.
This is reasonable....
Yet, infantry will try to discredit it. |
Kane Fyea
DUST University Ivy League
1682
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 04:54:00 -
[34] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Kane Fyea wrote:1. Anti vehicle should be for ANY suit. If you make the heavy the best at AV then that would hurt overall diversity. 2. I agree with the swarms being stupid part but like I said heavies shouldn't be the only viable AV option (I want an RPG type of rocket launcher. The plasma cannon does not work like an RPG) 3. AV grenades should stay but they shouldn't be nearly as strong as they are. 1. I don't think making the heavy the primary AV hurts diversity. Scouts could still run the AV nade and swarm combo and do the fairy dance that they love so much, they just would need to bring two of them to assure a tank goes down. By making the heavy the primary AV troop, you actually help diversity. When everyone can just drop 1 million SP into swarms, it means no one strictly needs to spec heavy, because the HMG isn't worth it. Right now the Forge is the only thing great about it. Nerf the splash damage, and it is not OP in anyway, but still very strong. Heavies also need logis, thereby increasing suit diversity on the field as well. Additionally, a scout is a great counter to a fatty with a FG, so it isn't like there are not more options put out there by having the AV focus shifted to the heavy suit. 2. If the plasma cannon was worth a **** they could just remove the swarms altogether. BUFF THE PLASMA CANNON! 3. Your call. The reason why no one wants to use the heavy is because the suit sucks in general and that CCP hasn't made anymore heavy weapons. |
Kane Fyea
DUST University Ivy League
1682
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 04:57:00 -
[35] - Quote
Shattered Mirage wrote:Kane Fyea wrote:1. Anti vehicle should be for ANY suit. If you make the heavy the best at AV then that would hurt overall diversity. 2. I agree with the swarms being stupid part but like I said heavies shouldn't be the only viable AV option (I want an RPG type of rocket launcher. The plasma cannon does not work like an RPG) 3. AV grenades should stay but they shouldn't be nearly as strong as they are. Like you infantry are one to talk about diversity... If anything, this would promote diversity, you're just upset because it means that you would need more of an investment into AV weaponry. I have swarm op 5,swarm prof 4, and swarm ammo upgrades 4. How much more of an investment do I need? |
Shattered Mirage
native warlords
300
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 05:08:00 -
[36] - Quote
Kane Fyea wrote:Shattered Mirage wrote:Kane Fyea wrote:1. Anti vehicle should be for ANY suit. If you make the heavy the best at AV then that would hurt overall diversity. 2. I agree with the swarms being stupid part but like I said heavies shouldn't be the only viable AV option (I want an RPG type of rocket launcher. The plasma cannon does not work like an RPG) 3. AV grenades should stay but they shouldn't be nearly as strong as they are. Like you infantry are one to talk about diversity... If anything, this would promote diversity, you're just upset because it means that you would need more of an investment into AV weaponry. I have swarm op 5,swarm prof 4,and swarm ammo upgrades 4. How much more of an investment do I need?
Bait question is an obvious bait question.
Don't play stupid now. |
Kane Fyea
DUST University Ivy League
1683
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 05:10:00 -
[37] - Quote
Shattered Mirage wrote:Kane Fyea wrote:Shattered Mirage wrote:Kane Fyea wrote:1. Anti vehicle should be for ANY suit. If you make the heavy the best at AV then that would hurt overall diversity. 2. I agree with the swarms being stupid part but like I said heavies shouldn't be the only viable AV option (I want an RPG type of rocket launcher. The plasma cannon does not work like an RPG) 3. AV grenades should stay but they shouldn't be nearly as strong as they are. Like you infantry are one to talk about diversity... If anything, this would promote diversity, you're just upset because it means that you would need more of an investment into AV weaponry. I have swarm op 5,swarm prof 4,and swarm ammo upgrades 4. How much more of an investment do I need? Bait question is an obvious bait question. Don't play stupid now. Ok then.... |
echo47
Sebiestor Field Sappers Minmatar Republic
77
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 05:24:00 -
[38] - Quote
All I see in this post is nerf infantry vs tanks. If I am wrong correct me. This is why infantry can't take complaints by tankers seriously. Very few of these types of posts ask for counters and are too quick to ask nerfs.
The Attorney General wrote: 1. The heavy should be the primary AV specialist.
Ideally, they should have the best tool for the job, currently the forge gun. The suit itself needs protection from infantry, and is mobility limited. This enforces the need for one heavy suit to focus on tactics to tackle one tank. It also means that a tank must think tactically to avoid getting slapped by a heavy.
A well fitted heavy should be an effective counter to a tank. It then becomes a fight between the tank, which has greater mobility and HP, and the heavy, which has the potential to ambush, trap, use height, etc.
In this type of scenario, you could even bump up FG direct damage if you raised fitting costs to minimize protection on the fat suit. Or you could leave the damage as it is, and reduce fitting costs, to allow a heavy the chance to sit and trade with a tank.
So you basically want one v one with a heavy that has less defence than his suit normally affords. A sitting duck with little mobility.
The Attorney General wrote: 2. Swarms are really pathetic.
The entire idea of how swarms work is completely silly. I don't care about any of the alleged reasons behind it, the behaviour of swarms ruins any type of engagement, because it is a no brainer. 2 guys with MLT swams can overwhelm almost any tank in less than 6 seconds. It is absurd. Beyond that, they are largely ineffective against their primary target, which I would assume to be DS's and LAV's, and instead get spammed onto tanks with hilarious results for the infantry, but deeply unpleasant for the tankers.
1 heavy with a FG should be able to output at least 3 swarm users output over the same time. This means a drastic nerf to the swarms. This promotes the proper relationship of suits, with tanks being powerful against infantry, AV being very strong against tanks, and the AV troop(heavy) being weak to infantry.
Non heavy suits should have an AV option, but it should not be the teams primary choice for AV work.
Why make up numbers, 6 seconds. And lets ignore the fact that those two MLT swarms may have proficiency 4 maybe even 5. And they are very effective on DS's and LAV's. So as infantry we should have to get with in throwing range of a grenade to destroy a tank?
The Attorney General wrote: 3. Nuclear baseballs.
I get it that infantry need an option for a rampaging tank on a spawn point. All I think needs to be done is to ramp up the fitting costs on the AV grenades and lower damage levels at ADV. I don't mind if someone wants to use a set of Lai Dais to deal me 6k damage. I can appreciate the balls. What I DO mind is them being able to effectively roll that option while having a very viable anti-infantry fit as well.
Packing AV grenades should mean that the infantry has made a choice to sacrifice either tank, or their anti-infantry capability in order to pack that type of AV damage.
The other way to do it is make them low damage, but instead of three, you get 5. That way, they can be spammed to keep vehicles at bay, but not kill anything but stupid tank drivers.
Am I mistaken in thinking that you can sit in your tank in any fit you want. Also, your tank has passenger seats where your team members can sit in the tank in any fit they want. So you can roll out a tank and have a viable anti-infantry fit also. By fitting AV grenades we have made a sacrifice we can't fit explosive grenades that can come in handy against other infantry.
|
Rusty Shallows
Black Jackals
400
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 05:51:00 -
[39] - Quote
Keri Starlight wrote:As a shield tanker I completely disagree, the Forge gun IS my worst enemy, 90% of my deaths (tanking) are from the "Ishukone Forge Gun".
It outdamages my rail gun, I can't shoot back (elevation and distance), hell I can't even SEE the forge gunner, 8 seconds to fire the entire magazine (4 clip size), 2000+ damage per shot (+ bonus to shields), no chance to run away and no chance to take cover if the enemy is on a tower.
I repeat, I respectfully but completely disagree. Hybrid - Rail damage is minus ten percent to shields and at most the basic heavy frames can only have two complex damage mods. Even with zero resistances I can't figure out how someone is getting 2k+ iFG tower shots on your Gunlogi.
Please show the math I'd be very grateful.
Taking cover is also allot easier than people might think. I've shot at many HAVs that found intervening terrain. It's also harder to hit fast moving targets at range. Generally that's the case with speed tanking Dropships. On occasion I've seen HAVs pull it off as well. |
Rusty Shallows
Black Jackals
400
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 06:38:00 -
[40] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Snip There needs to be an effort to reach consensus, perhaps not on concrete details, but at least on the basic principles of AV and how it should interact with vehicles. That really does hit the nail on the head. It really does feel like the back and forth goes "kill-entitlement" verses "win-button."
Occasionally Devs provide general ideas of things being worked on. I'd like it if there was publicly provided design/development notes so we could better know what they are thinking.
The Attorney General wrote:Snip
1. The heavy should be the primary AV specialist. With how the Skill Tree has basically forced more specialization I can almost agree with this. Even when Ladwar offhandedly suggested making AV grenades require Large Capacity it gave me a pause. Even though these kinds of things could make Heavy suits more relevant it goes against the whole sandbox mentality.
The Attorney General wrote:2. Swarms are really pathetic.
snip
Non heavy suits should have an AV option, but it should not be the teams primary choice for AV work. This game favors medium dropsuit frames, period. Every time Dust 514 has seen a boost to light or heavy frames to support their "role" it was disastrous.
I can agree there is something very annoying about swarm launchers. It is a very disturbing though when people skip over squading with a FG in favor of waiting for someone who can stack complex damage mods with the option to switch fits from Gek to SLs and vice-versa in a medium frame that can keep pace with squad movement.
The Attorney General wrote:3. Nuclear baseballs. Many of my co-op vehicle kills have been with grunts throwing those. Someone else throwing an AV grenade has saved my clone a few times. Those large blasters always seem to swing my way even in a crowd.
The Attorney General wrote:Packing AV grenades should mean that the infantry has made a choice to sacrifice either tank, or their anti-infantry capability in order to pack that type of AV damage. That sounds allot like how contact grenades were nerfed to uselessness. Then again they had it coming.
At any rate thanks for the thread TAG. Interesting take on things. |
|
Cosgar
ParagonX
5381
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 06:47:00 -
[41] - Quote
Change the vehicle engineering skill back to 5% PG per level and watch how balanced HAV and AV will really be. They should do it as an act of good faith to dedicated pilots that had to put up with the constant string of nerfs until 1.7, 1.8, or whenever the hell they're supposed to be doing vehicle re-balancing.... |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
854
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 06:48:00 -
[42] - Quote
Nelo Angel0 wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote:I agree to an extent that forgeguns should be the most effective infantry AV weapon. However, I don't think that the forgegun should be as powerful as a vehicle mounted railgun.
In my opinion, infantry with AV (swarms, forges) should support vehicles with AV (railguns). They should be the backbone of the AV profession that can be spammed quickly, cheaply and easily and used to overwhelm vehicles with numbers (3 infantry AV = Equal meta level Tank, 1 infantry AV = equal meta level LAV, 2 infantry AV = equal meta level dropship). The big expensive vehicles should do the greatest damage by a long shot, but should have compromises to balance that out.
What I mean by this is:
Infantry AV: Soft counter to vehicles (3 infantry AV : 1 vehicle)
Vehicle AV: Hard counter to vehicles (1 vehicle : 1 vehicle)
My reasoning for this, is that infantry AV is more flexible than vehicle AV. They have the benefits of being infantry, while being to fight tanks. As it stands now, infantry is like the "AR" of roles; master of all trades. They are arguably the most effective at fighting vehicles (even more so than vehicles themselves), but can still slaughter infantry like no tomorrow. What Im saying is that infantry needs to be balanced according to its flexibility and adaptability, where it can do basically everything, but it isn't the best at everything.
All tanks can do is kill things that are out in the open and support points. Infantry can go anywhere they want and do whatever they want. you do know that you can have up to 3 tanks out? that would mean, by your math, it'd take 9 AVers to take a tank out. If the friendly tank tank gets taken out and the enemy has their tanks rolling out on the BF it would effectively shut the other teams ability to call vehicles safely no? Lol who told you 3 tanks? Vehicle max is 7. That means a max of 7 tanks. |
Adulng Beit
The ArchAng3Ls
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 07:36:00 -
[43] - Quote
Let me start off by saying that I am more or less a dedicated AV and have had some experience in destroying vehicles in many kinds of fittings.
Now I understand the HAV users point of view in that they want to up their survivability by nerfing AV because it cost so much ISK just to get on the ground. But having been at the wrong end of a HAV blaster far too many times let me say that it is not as easy to destroy a well fitted HAV or LAV as you Tankers seem to think. The only way I and destroy HAV is with a suit with at least 4.5 running speed and 500+ hp, with 3 well placed AVs with lots of support. And this is the very minimum. Dedicating heavy suit to AV is a bad idea because they lack the movement speed to position their shots. Heavies should only be their to make the drivers think twice about entering a location. And also let me say to you tankers that forge guns are a problem for everyone and you are not the only ones dying from them. It is my opinion that the average tanker should expect to lose at least one tank for every 4-7 matches and the expert Proto tanker to lose one every 7-15 matches. Losing your investment is part of the game.
With my ridicule of tankers complete let me give my solution on how to balance AV and tankers. To please the tankers I think the ISK cost for tanks should be decreased by 20-30% that way it will not be such a major lose when they lose their tank. And for a way for infantry to power against tanks is to up the WP reward for destroying and assisting in destroying a tank. I mean 75 WP for destroying a Proto Madie? It does not seem to do justice for the loss of ISK for the tanker or the effort on the part of the infantry. If the bonus was increased to say 300 WP for a vehicle kill and 50 WP for an assist that would be much more incentive to put AVs on one of your fittings. or perhaps a graduated scale depending on the quality of the tank. 125 for STD, 175 for ADV and 300 for PRO.
LAV and dropships are a whole different story and calls for different solutions. |
Ryme Intrinseca
Seraphim Auxiliaries
41
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 08:26:00 -
[44] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:So, I tank.
Lately, everyone is getting up in arms, and the tankers and the infantry are at each others throats, with a fairly consistent back and forth ensues between certain regular parties.
It has all gotten quite dull. There needs to be an effort to reach consensus, perhaps not on concrete details, but at least on the basic principles of AV and how it should interact with vehicles.
Here are some things I have been thinking about lately. Some of these things will upset tankers, and some will upset infantry. Hopefully you all get annoyed equally, and we can make some progress.
1. The heavy should be the primary AV specialist.
Ideally, they should have the best tool for the job, currently the forge gun. The suit itself needs protection from infantry, and is mobility limited. This enforces the need for one heavy suit to focus on tactics to tackle one tank. It also means that a tank must think tactically to avoid getting slapped by a heavy.
A well fitted heavy should be an effective counter to a tank. It then becomes a fight between the tank, which has greater mobility and HP, and the heavy, which has the potential to ambush, trap, use height, etc.
In this type of scenario, you could even bump up FG direct damage if you raised fitting costs to minimize protection on the fat suit. Or you could leave the damage as it is, and reduce fitting costs, to allow a heavy the chance to sit and trade with a tank.
2. Swarms are really pathetic.
The entire idea of how swarms work is completely silly. I don't care about any of the alleged reasons behind it, the behaviour of swarms ruins any type of engagement, because it is a no brainer. 2 guys with MLT swams can overwhelm almost any tank in less than 6 seconds. It is absurd. Beyond that, they are largely ineffective against their primary target, which I would assume to be DS's and LAV's, and instead get spammed onto tanks with hilarious results for the infantry, but deeply unpleasant for the tankers.
1 heavy with a FG should be able to output at least 3 swarm users output over the same time. This means a drastic nerf to the swarms. This promotes the proper relationship of suits, with tanks being powerful against infantry, AV being very strong against tanks, and the AV troop(heavy) being weak to infantry.
Non heavy suits should have an AV option, but it should not be the teams primary choice for AV work.
3. Nuclear baseballs.
I get it that infantry need an option for a rampaging tank on a spawn point. All I think needs to be done is to ramp up the fitting costs on the AV grenades and lower damage levels at ADV. I don't mind if someone wants to use a set of Lai Dais to deal me 6k damage. I can appreciate the balls. What I DO mind is them being able to effectively roll that option while having a very viable anti-infantry fit as well.
Packing AV grenades should mean that the infantry has made a choice to sacrifice either tank, or their anti-infantry capability in order to pack that type of AV damage.
The other way to do it is make them low damage, but instead of three, you get 5. That way, they can be spammed to keep vehicles at bay, but not kill anything but stupid tank drivers.
So basically, you want a slight buff to FG and a heavy nerf to SL and AV nades? In the typical pub you have maybe two heavies on each side, with one using the forge if you're lucky. So you're asking for the current five or six viable AV threats to a tank on the battlefield to be reduced to one. In other words, you want God Mode tanks.
If you ask me what I think balance would look like, I say it looks like what we have. Tanks still go 30-0 or 40-0 regularly, but can also pop quickly if they make mistakes or there's a concerted Av effort. It's rock (anti-infantry), paper (tank), scissors (AV). It you blunt the scissors, or make it so only a small minority can use them effectively, you upset the balance. |
Shattered Mirage
native warlords
301
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 13:04:00 -
[45] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:The Attorney General wrote:So, I tank.
Lately, everyone is getting up in arms, and the tankers and the infantry are at each others throats, with a fairly consistent back and forth ensues between certain regular parties.
It has all gotten quite dull. There needs to be an effort to reach consensus, perhaps not on concrete details, but at least on the basic principles of AV and how it should interact with vehicles.
Here are some things I have been thinking about lately. Some of these things will upset tankers, and some will upset infantry. Hopefully you all get annoyed equally, and we can make some progress.
1. The heavy should be the primary AV specialist.
Ideally, they should have the best tool for the job, currently the forge gun. The suit itself needs protection from infantry, and is mobility limited. This enforces the need for one heavy suit to focus on tactics to tackle one tank. It also means that a tank must think tactically to avoid getting slapped by a heavy.
A well fitted heavy should be an effective counter to a tank. It then becomes a fight between the tank, which has greater mobility and HP, and the heavy, which has the potential to ambush, trap, use height, etc.
In this type of scenario, you could even bump up FG direct damage if you raised fitting costs to minimize protection on the fat suit. Or you could leave the damage as it is, and reduce fitting costs, to allow a heavy the chance to sit and trade with a tank.
2. Swarms are really pathetic.
The entire idea of how swarms work is completely silly. I don't care about any of the alleged reasons behind it, the behaviour of swarms ruins any type of engagement, because it is a no brainer. 2 guys with MLT swams can overwhelm almost any tank in less than 6 seconds. It is absurd. Beyond that, they are largely ineffective against their primary target, which I would assume to be DS's and LAV's, and instead get spammed onto tanks with hilarious results for the infantry, but deeply unpleasant for the tankers.
1 heavy with a FG should be able to output at least 3 swarm users output over the same time. This means a drastic nerf to the swarms. This promotes the proper relationship of suits, with tanks being powerful against infantry, AV being very strong against tanks, and the AV troop(heavy) being weak to infantry.
Non heavy suits should have an AV option, but it should not be the teams primary choice for AV work.
3. Nuclear baseballs.
I get it that infantry need an option for a rampaging tank on a spawn point. All I think needs to be done is to ramp up the fitting costs on the AV grenades and lower damage levels at ADV. I don't mind if someone wants to use a set of Lai Dais to deal me 6k damage. I can appreciate the balls. What I DO mind is them being able to effectively roll that option while having a very viable anti-infantry fit as well.
Packing AV grenades should mean that the infantry has made a choice to sacrifice either tank, or their anti-infantry capability in order to pack that type of AV damage.
The other way to do it is make them low damage, but instead of three, you get 5. That way, they can be spammed to keep vehicles at bay, but not kill anything but stupid tank drivers.
So basically, you want a slight buff to FG and a heavy nerf to SL and AV nades? In the typical pub you have maybe two heavies on each side, with one using the forge if you're lucky. So you're asking for the current five or six viable AV threats to a tank on the battlefield to be reduced to one. In other words, you want God Mode tanks. If you ask me what I think balance would look like, I say it looks like what we have. Tanks still go 30-0 or 40-0 regularly, but can also pop quickly if they make mistakes or there's a concerted Av effort. It's rock (anti-infantry), paper (tank), scissors (AV). It you blunt the scissors, or make it so only a small minority can use them effectively, you upset the balance.
You talk as if there is balance in the first place. Funny guy. |
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
1061
|
Posted - 2013.09.23 16:18:00 -
[46] - Quote
echo47 wrote:All I see in this post is nerf infantry vs tanks. If I am wrong correct me. This is why infantry can't take complaints by tankers seriously. Very few of these types of posts ask for counters and are too quick to ask nerfs.
So you basically want one v one with a heavy that has less defence than his suit normally affords. A sitting duck with little mobility.
From reading suit descriptions, the heavy is supposed to be my main infantry based opponent. Ideally they should be the only suit that has the tank to stand and trade with a tank.
And yes, I would rather fight an infantry with a super high power straight shooting rail gun than someone who can dip behind cover or jump around while locking me up and then hurl rockets at me.
Are you calling a heavy who I can't see up on a roof top with great sightlines a sitting duck? Although true, he isn't a sitting duck for me. I need infantry help to drop him. The stronger his AV ability, the lower his tank should be. Right now, doing over 2200 damage is perfectly fine, and carrying around 12-1400 HP while doing it is a bit low. Heavies need more HP, and probably a speed bump, but that is for the suit in general, although it would greatly assist them in the AV role.
echo47 wrote: Why make up numbers, 6 seconds. And lets ignore the fact that those two MLT swarms may have proficiency 4 maybe even 5. And they are very effective on DS's and LAV's. So as infantry we should have to get with in throwing range of a grenade to destroy a tank?
Why do you act like me calling for a damage reduction in swarms will suddenly make them non viable? If you got proto swarm damage by 30% to bring it in line with the other weapon scales, it would not instantly make them useless, it would merely require more thought to their use, or for them to be used by more than one person to kill a tank. One person would still be able to drive off a tank, because only idiots hang around with swarms.
echo47 wrote: Am I mistaken in thinking that you can sit in your tank in any fit you want. Also, your tank has passenger seats where your team members can sit in the tank in any fit they want. So you can roll out a tank and have a viable anti-infantry fit also. By fitting AV grenades we have made a sacrifice we can't fit explosive grenades that can come in handy against other infantry.
In PC, you are not bringing passengers, and hopping out of your tank suddenly kills you. Coming to a complete stop in order to attempt to shoot an infantry user running at my tank hurling grenades is not an option, not counting the fact that I don't have a dropsuit that is for fighting, I am a tanker. If they would have given me a pilot suit I would be in that and even weaker on the ground.
Giving up a flux or a locus grenade is not enough of a sacrifice for gaining such strong AV capability. Increase fitting costs of AV grenades by 15%
|
echo47
Sebiestor Field Sappers Minmatar Republic
77
|
Posted - 2013.09.24 04:39:00 -
[47] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote: From reading suit descriptions, the heavy is supposed to be my main infantry based opponent. Ideally they should be the only suit that has the tank to stand and trade with a tank. And yes, I would rather fight an infantry with a super high power straight shooting rail gun than someone who can dip behind cover or jump around while locking me up and then hurl rockets at me. Are you calling a heavy who I can't see up on a roof top with great sightlines a sitting duck? Although true, he isn't a sitting duck for me. I need infantry help to drop him. The stronger his AV ability, the lower his tank should be. Right now, doing over 2200 damage is perfectly fine, and carrying around 12-1400 HP while doing it is a bit low. Heavies need more HP, and probably a speed bump, but that is for the suit in general, although it would greatly assist them in the AV role.
Team work is an excellent counter. This never gets mentioned in the calls by tankers to nerf AV. It is almost as if it does not exist with you guys that post on the forums. Tanks with infantry support can essentially lock maps down. When playing AV I fell my biggest asset is movement not HP, once that swarm is launched or that forge gun fired at a tank good infantry who understand how valuable that tank is rush swarm users. Notice how much brighter the flares form forges and swarms are now.
The Attorney General wrote: Why do you act like me calling for a damage reduction in swarms will suddenly make them non viable? If you got proto swarm damage by 30% to bring it in line with the other weapon scales, it would not instantly make them useless, it would merely require more thought to their use, or for them to be used by more than one person to kill a tank. One person would still be able to drive off a tank, because only idiots hang around with swarms.
Why nerf? Why not think in lines of a counter to swarms? Running around with a swarm launcher and a side arm to defend yourself against other infantry is a big risk. The reward is being able to take out out a tank. Tankers would have more cred if there were more post explaining why the isk cost and sp investments for tanks are too high. The main reason I personally will not spec into them. And again when dealing with swarms, personally I think that is what your squad mates are for. Nerfs IMHO are a cop out on the part of Devs and those who forum post for them. Counters are what make the game interesting and a challenge.
The Attorney General wrote: In PC, you are not bringing passengers, and hopping out of your tank suddenly kills you. Coming to a complete stop in order to attempt to shoot an infantry user running at my tank hurling grenades is not an option, not counting the fact that I don't have a dropsuit that is for fighting, I am a tanker. If they would have given me a pilot suit I would be in that and even weaker on the ground. Giving up a flux or a locus grenade is not enough of a sacrifice for gaining such strong AV capability. Increase fitting costs of AV grenades by 15%
I would not know anything about PC so I shouldn't comment, but I will, Not having a passenger sounds like a bad idea. I get thet there a serious challenges for tankers in this game. But the constant calls to nerf the only weapons we have to keep vehicles at bay need to stop. These are our only counters as good as AR's are the dont stop tank stomps. I am 100% behind the dropping the price and sp investments in tanks. But AV being OP I have not seen proof in actual gameplay that AV weaponry should be nerfed just a lack of teamwork , creativity and sp investment on tankers part.
So do you have any ideas to "fix" tanks other than nerfing AV? |
jerrmy12 kahoalii
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
9
|
Posted - 2013.09.24 06:03:00 -
[48] - Quote
echo47 wrote:[quote=The Attorney General] From reading suit descriptions, the heavy is supposed to be my main infantry based opponent. Ideally they should be the only suit that has the tank to stand and trade with a tank. And yes, I would rather fight an infantry with a super high power straight shooting rail gun than someone who can dip behind cover or jump around while locking me up and then hurl rockets at me. Are you calling a heavy who I can't see up on a roof top with great sightlines a sitting duck? Although true, he isn't a sitting duck for me. I need infantry help to drop him. The stronger his AV ability, the lower his tank you idiot they're no counters to swarms, when 1 burst from a militia swarm can take 1/1/3 hp off, imagine 2 or 3 av people. get skill stop trying to defend av. 3 tanks destroyed 1 game with militia swarm by MY SELF. ps heavy camping on tower with forge gun is beyond OP, tanks cant fight back. |
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
1063
|
Posted - 2013.09.24 12:38:00 -
[49] - Quote
echo47 wrote: Notice how much brighter the flares form forges and swarms are now.
Swarms fired from anything over 150m are almost 100% invisible. This includes anything from fired from 50 above the ground. Forges seem to draw a little further out, but still are largely invisible from 50% of their range out.
echo47 wrote: Why nerf? Why not think in lines of a counter to swarms? Running around with a swarm launcher and a side arm to defend yourself against other infantry is a big risk. The reward is being able to take out out a tank. Tankers would have more cred if there were more post explaining why the isk cost and sp investments for tanks are too high. The main reason I personally will not spec into them. And again when dealing with swarms, personally I think that is what your squad mates are for. Nerfs IMHO are a cop out on the part of Devs and those who forum post for them. Counters are what make the game interesting and a challenge.
Swarms do not help make the game interesting, and the issue at hand here is the enjoyment level for both parties. Sure, swarms are great fun to use for the infantry, becuase you roll up, huck a couple of Lai Dais and then start spamming your swarms. This makes the infantry feel strong and effective, but it makes tankers feel importent and remind them how fragile their platforms are. The far worse impact is that if one were to use either a missile or blaster tank, you have no put yourself at extreme risk just by not using a rail turret and staying out of FG and mostly out of swarm range. This limits diversity, and creates even more unhappiness because rail gunning is dull, and getting hit by a rail sniper makes infantry rage.
echo47 wrote: I would not know anything about PC so I shouldn't comment, but I will, Not having a passenger sounds like a bad idea. I get thet there a serious challenges for tankers in this game. But the constant calls to nerf the only weapons we have to keep vehicles at bay need to stop. These are our only counters as good as AR's are the dont stop tank stomps. I am 100% behind the dropping the price and sp investments in tanks. But AV being OP I have not seen proof in actual gameplay that AV weaponry should be nerfed just a lack of teamwork , creativity and sp investment on tankers part.
So do you have any ideas to "fix" tanks other than nerfing AV?
Buff the PLC to make it worthwhile. Buff the fatsuit to make it a better platform for the FG. Buff FG DD.
I am not saying nerf all AV, just the scrub types. The fire and forget swarms should be way below the PLC for damage, not triple them. The AV nade either needs to not home, or get its stats changed. |
echo47
Sebiestor Field Sappers Minmatar Republic
79
|
Posted - 2013.09.24 21:30:00 -
[50] - Quote
jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote:you idiot they're no counters to swarms, when 1 burst from a militia swarm can take 1/1/3 hp off, imagine 2 or 3 av people. get skill stop trying to defend av. 3 tanks destroyed 1 game with militia swarm by MY SELF. ps heavy camping on tower with forge gun is beyond OP, tanks cant fight back. Since there are no counters, why not put your thinking cap on and come up with some rather than nerfing, is my point. Thats why tanks are on a team so his team mates can help. How many skill points and how much experience did those tankers have? I come against tanks that I can pop in 2 or three volleys solo. And tanks with 3 AV players and the tank still end up owning the battlefield why because his squad has his back. I am saying simply nerfing one role in an attempt to find "balance" is bogus. What needs to get evaluated and I am sure it is by devs at this point is the overal performance of tanks on the battlefield.Tanks with adequate support and sp investment by the driver are fine, in my opinion. |
|
The Attorney General
ZionTCD
1066
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 05:48:00 -
[51] - Quote
echo47 wrote: Since there are no counters, why not put your thinking cap on and come up with some rather than nerfing, is my point. Thats why tanks are on a team so his team mates can help. How many skill points and how much experience did those tankers have? I come against tanks that I can pop in 2 or three volleys solo. And tanks with 3 AV players and the tank still end up owning the battlefield why because his squad has his back. I am saying simply nerfing one role in an attempt to find "balance" is bogus. What needs to get evaluated and I am sure it is by devs at this point is the overal performance of tanks on the battlefield.Tanks with adequate support and sp investment by the driver are fine, in my opinion.
So tanks have to run with a squad of support, but AV can be run by any suit, even Logis who can support themselves?
Seems fair and all, but maybe if you keep saying that Tanks need to use infantry support, how about infantry uses fat suit support to take out vehicles for them.
I have no problem leashing tanks to infantry, just as long as AV is linked to the fat suit, which cannot carry ammo and is a sitting duck to my infantry.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |