|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
SHANN da MAN
D3LTA FORC3
99
   |
Posted - 2013.10.25 16:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:Foundation Seldon wrote: With this in mind ... YES! What this means is that more than likely it'll require a bit of teamwork to take out a well fit vehicle and the act of soloing a tank is going to be a much more difficult endeavor. THIS IS OKAY because Tanks will be in no way as dominant as they were in previous builds of the game because they'll have to keep ammo sufficiently supplied in order to be effective. If it takes a team of infantry to take down a tank then of course the tank is dominant. If one player can do something that requires several players on the opposing side to counter it, then that thing provides a decisive numerical advantage. Rocks-paper-scissors requires that one 'paper' (AV) can beat one 'rock' (tank). If it takes two or three AV to beat one tank, then AV is futile, as you'd be better off just bringing out your own tank. In other words, you don't have rock-paper-scissors but rather tank>infantry.
The problem with your scenario is that AV is not the paper, it is just the sharp end of the scissors (Infantry)
In the ROCK-PAPER-SCISSORS scenario, ROCK = Vehicles, SCISSORS = Infantry, PAPER = Aircraft
There is not a problem with AV ... the Problem is that there are no Attack/Bomber Aircraft (PAPER) to counter the HAV's (ROCK)
If CCP would provide Effective Bomber Dropships, or anti-Vehicle weapons for dropships, the balance would be restored. |
SHANN da MAN
D3LTA FORC3
99
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 17:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Grimmiers wrote:Aeon Amadi wrote:This is somewhat alarming, actually... The Assault Rail Rifle outperforms -EVERYTHING- else in terms of Damage and Range. I don't see any reason to continue using the Assault Rifle when it doesn't even do what it's supposed to anymore: High damage in close quarters combat.
Comparable Level Assault Variant Rifles, in order from highest to lowest DPS:
-Stuff
Well I was going to wait and see how the rail rifle's rof and .2 second charge up time will balance it out for cqc fights. As of now it does seem like the rail rifle plays like the op breach rifle back in the day. Take a look at the Plasma Cannon with it's 0.6 charge-up time and you'll change your mind, lol. 0.2 seconds is nothing, the human eye blinks at a speed of 0.4 seconds.
Blink speed is actually 0.004 seconds on average ...
Average Blink Speed |
SHANN da MAN
D3LTA FORC3
99
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 19:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Goric Rumis wrote:SHANN da MAN wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:Foundation Seldon wrote: With this in mind ... YES! What this means is that more than likely it'll require a bit of teamwork to take out a well fit vehicle and the act of soloing a tank is going to be a much more difficult endeavor. THIS IS OKAY because Tanks will be in no way as dominant as they were in previous builds of the game because they'll have to keep ammo sufficiently supplied in order to be effective. If it takes a team of infantry to take down a tank then of course the tank is dominant. If one player can do something that requires several players on the opposing side to counter it, then that thing provides a decisive numerical advantage. Rocks-paper-scissors requires that one 'paper' (AV) can beat one 'rock' (tank). If it takes two or three AV to beat one tank, then AV is futile, as you'd be better off just bringing out your own tank. In other words, you don't have rock-paper-scissors but rather tank>infantry. The problem with your scenario is that AV is not the paper, it is just the sharp end of the scissors (Infantry) In the ROCK-PAPER-SCISSORS scenario, ROCK = Vehicles, SCISSORS = Infantry, PAPER = Aircraft There is not a problem with AV ... the Problem is that there are no Attack/Bomber Aircraft (PAPER) to counter the HAV's (ROCK) If CCP would provide Effective Bomber Dropships, or anti-Vehicle weapons for dropships, the balance would be restored. The problem with your argument is that one would then have to expect infantry to be highly effective against aircraft--or else, effective against whatever is effective against aircraft. The reason AV fits the rock-paper-scissors scenario is because AV infantry is weak against AI infantry. Besides, you're missing the point: if a tank needs to be opposed by several people in order to neutralize it, it unbalances the entire field of play. If it takes four infantry to neutralize a tank, for example, you're now fighting a 12 v 15 battle instead of 16 v 16. That's a big deal. All the same, I don't have an issue with the swarm launcher changes just yet. I think the range nerf is good, and the damage nerf is probably necessary after the recent ROF buff. We'll have to test it out against the changes to vehicles.
I did not miss the point of the original argument, I offered a counterpoint.
Infantry AV is highly effective vs. aircraft - most dropships cannot survive more than a minute vs. a competent Infantry AV soldier (Forge or Swarm).
It Should take more than one Infantry (or a great effort by one individual) to destroy a HAV, a HAV's primary predator Should be Air Power, but there are no AV Aircraft (ie. Bombers or Dropship AV Weapons) in the Game.
I have edited my original post to more clearly describe my point.
|
SHANN da MAN
D3LTA FORC3
99
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 19:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
Krom Ganesh wrote:That link states 400 milliseconds... which is 0.4 seconds.
yes, it also states 4/1000ths of a second which is 0.004 seconds ... it contradicts itself, bad link ... never trust a wiki ... |
|
|
| |
|