|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
360
   |
Posted - 2013.10.25 15:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
You argument can be used against you as well.
Why are you assuming those 3 AVers taking out tanks are completely immune to all anti infantry?
What if all 3 AVer's die by the 15 other anti infantry? or the 12 others? or the 6 others? one 1 other bricked logi ARing all 3 down?
There are multiple instances that can occur on the battlefield, one being multiple AVers dominating all tanks, the other being all the AVers get dominated before they destroy a single tank, or before they destroy all the tanks.
That's not even considering the fact that killing **** doesn't always win the game. Drawing on 3+ people to take out a minimum of one tank could take people away from objectives.
I think the largest argument against such a style of gameplay is "In a game of rock/paper/scissors, why should I have to use 3 sheets of paper to take down 1 rock?"
|
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
360
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 16:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Duran Lex wrote:You argument can be used against you as well.
Why are you assuming those 3 AVers taking out tanks are completely immune to all anti infantry?
What if all 3 AVer's die by the 15 other anti infantry? or the 12 others? or the 6 others? one 1 other bricked logi ARing all 3 down?
There are multiple instances that can occur on the battlefield, one being multiple AVers dominating all tanks, the other being all the AVers get dominated before they destroy a single tank, or before they destroy all the tanks.
That's not even considering the fact that killing **** doesn't always win the game. Drawing on 3+ people to take out a minimum of one tank could take people away from objectives.
I think the largest argument against such a style of gameplay is "In a game of rock/paper/scissors, why should I have to use 3 sheets of paper to take down 1 rock?"
Great, but I don't actually care about any of that. Use your team which consists of guys with anti-infantry weapons to stop my team which consists of one or more tanks and guys with anti-infantry weapons to stop my guys from killing you or something. All I'm trying to point out is the complete and utter idiocy of claiming that because it takes three guys to kill one tank, it will for some inexplicable reason take six guys to kill two. In the end, I'll always be able to solo a tank, whether I do it with a forge gun or a railgun. Doesn't really matter to me.
You are acting like these aren't possibilities.
Lets say 3 AVers are chasing around one good tank for 5 minutes. Now we can argue left and right on those 3 AVers not having any skill and thats why they can't take down a tank...but lets not sidetrack ourselves on useless banter. 3 AVers are unable to kill a single tank for 5 minutes. That means for 5 minutes, its effectively been a team of 13vs15.
Lets add more hypothetical **** to this mess.
Those 3 AV are chasing a single tank for 5 minutes, and the enemy team calls out another tank. Now that 2nd tank either has free reign over the battlefield, or more people have to switch to AV to counter the new tank, or help the 3 possibly incompetent AV take out the one tank, which still leaves a problem on the battlefield during that time frame.
Or lets use your example.
One side calls out 5 tanks, and theres only 3 AVer's on the other side. You have 5 tanks absolutely dominating the entire play field against weak Anti Infantry, while the other side waits for those 3 AV to take out all the tanks. If all the tanks were spread out around the battlefield, it could take upwards of 5-10 minutes to take em all out with sheer travel time being the biggest factor. And again, thats not even considering the fact that the rest of your entire team, as well as the tanks, are firing upon the AVers trying to run around and kill the tanks. By the time they DO destroy all the tanks, they could have already easily lost the entire match by being 30% behind on MCC destruction.
Edit - Having 3 people to take out 1 person, can in multiple situations, unbalance an entire game. (accidentally hit post before finishing) |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
361
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 17:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:
Also anti infantry players can also carry tge cruch knows as packed av nades. Thysly enabeling them to take on said tank as well as other infantry. If 6 anti ifantry merca have packed av nades then any tank that gets near them is dead and they didnt have to sacrifice anti infantry ability. Most good av players I know use their sidearm usually an ishicone assult smg as a primary antiinfantry wepon and swich wepon to swarms when tackling a tank. Any av player who tryes to taeget a tank right infront of reds deserves to die. Tactical thinking is the key.
Yes, and tanks can have their anti infantry team picking off AV. Or 3 people with AV nades can rush a tank with LAV's and let em loose. Or the AV's with the SMG's can get picked off by AR's and snipers. Or a dropship carrying AVers and anti-infantry can throw them down directly on top of a tank. Or you can just orbital both AVers and Tankers and make it all moot point.
Discussing counters and tactics was never a part of this thread, since it's just an endless loop of "who could have done what and when".
It was a discussion on the ramifications of it taking 3 AVers to take on a single HAV.
Thanks for your input on an entirely different topic though.
|
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
361
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 17:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Duran Lex wrote:pegasis prime wrote:
Also anti infantry players can also carry tge cruch knows as packed av nades. Thysly enabeling them to take on said tank as well as other infantry. If 6 anti ifantry merca have packed av nades then any tank that gets near them is dead and they didnt have to sacrifice anti infantry ability. Most good av players I know use their sidearm usually an ishicone assult smg as a primary antiinfantry wepon and swich wepon to swarms when tackling a tank. Any av player who tryes to taeget a tank right infront of reds deserves to die. Tactical thinking is the key.
Yes, and tanks can have their anti infantry team picking off AV. Or 3 people with AV nades can rush a tank with LAV's and let em loose. Or the AV's with the SMG's can get picked off by AR's and snipers. Or a dropship carrying AVers and anti-infantry can throw them down directly on top of a tank. Or you can just orbital both AVers and Tankers and make it all moot point. Discussing counters and tactics was never a part of this thread, since it's just an endless loop of "who could have done what and when". It was a discussion on the ramifications of it taking 3 AVers to take on a single HAV. Thanks for your input on an entirely different topic though. Just another public servise from pegasis prime. Your welcom
Sure, why not. |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
370
|
Posted - 2013.10.26 01:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
CharCharOdell wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Duran Lex wrote:You argument can be used against you as well.
Why are you assuming those 3 AVers taking out tanks are completely immune to all anti infantry?
What if all 3 AVer's die by the 15 other anti infantry? or the 12 others? or the 6 others? one 1 other bricked logi ARing all 3 down?
There are multiple instances that can occur on the battlefield, one being multiple AVers dominating all tanks, the other being all the AVers get dominated before they destroy a single tank, or before they destroy all the tanks.
That's not even considering the fact that killing **** doesn't always win the game. Drawing on 3+ people to take out a minimum of one tank could take people away from objectives.
I think the largest argument against such a style of gameplay is "In a game of rock/paper/scissors, why should I have to use 3 sheets of paper to take down 1 rock?"
Great, but I don't actually care about any of that. Use your team which consists of guys with anti-infantry weapons to stop my team which consists of one or more tanks and guys with anti-infantry weapons to stop my guys from killing you or something. All I'm trying to point out is the complete and utter idiocy of claiming that because it takes three guys to kill one tank, it will for some inexplicable reason take six guys to kill two. In the end, I'll always be able to solo a tank, whether I do it with a forge gun or a railgun. Doesn't really matter t o me. You are acting like these aren't possibilities. Lets say 3 AVers are chasing around one good tank for 5 minutes. Now we can argue left and right on those 3 AVers not having any skill and thats why they can't take down a tank...but lets not sidetrack ourselves on useless banter. 3 AVers are unable to kill a single tank for 5 minutes. That means for 5 minutes, its effectively been a team of 13vs15. Lets add more hypothetical **** to this mess. Those 3 AV are chasing a single tank for 5 minutes, and the enemy team calls out another tank. Now that 2nd tank either has free reign over the battlefield, or more people have to switch to AV to counter the new tank, or help the 3 possibly incompetent AV take out the one tank, which still leaves a problem on the battlefield during that time frame. Or lets use your example. One side calls out 5 tanks, and theres only 3 AVer's on the other side. You have 5 tanks absolutely dominating the entire play field against weak Anti Infantry, while the other side waits for those 3 AV to take out all the tanks. If all the tanks were spread out around the battlefield, it could take upwards of 5-10 minutes to take em all out with sheer travel time being the biggest factor. And again, thats not even considering the fact that the rest of your entire team, as well as the tanks, are firing upon the AVers trying to run around and kill the tanks. By the time they DO destroy all the tanks, they could have already easily lost the entire match by being 30% behind on MCC destruction. Edit - Having 3 people to take out 1 person, can in multiple situations, unbalance an entire game. (accidentally hit post before finishing) Wouldn't happen in PC. Tanks are being balances for PC not pubs. If u don't like it, make friends with tankers.
I haven't heard that at all.
I've heard its being balanced in FW.
But then again, you are CharCharOdell, so i immediately should take anything you say with a grain of salt.
Get ready to be disappointed once the vehicle/AV changes hit. You won't have the god mode again that you miss so much. |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars
Amarr Empire
371
|
Posted - 2013.10.26 01:50:00 -
[6] - Quote
Arirana wrote:Atiim wrote:Arirana wrote:IMO it should take 3 AVers to take down one tank because AV is a low risk high reward class. You don't need to worry about the ISK cost when running AV as much as a tanker. Getting your 800k-2.5m tank solo'd by one guy in a 150k suit on top of a roof with no chance fighting back is not balanced.
The whole point of AV is to be able to combat vehicles without having to whip out an expensive ride yourself. AV should never be as effective against vehicles as other vehicles, the isk cost difference is why. Of course vehicles have AV capabilities AND anti infantry capabilities, but the trade off is it being an extremely expensive class to play, a very large and obvious target, with no real way to stealth.
AV can surprise f*ck a vehicle 10/10 times if played correctly. That is never okay, unless there is a significant amount of teamwork involved. Against 1 AVer, a tank should always have a fair chance of survival even when ambushed. Right now tanks are almost always popped by a single swarmer/FG on top of a building. That, or the tank is rendered useless and has to hide for the rest of the game or recall it.
No the point of AV is to be wait for it.... wait for it.... ANTI VEHICLE. Where in the description does it say that FGs and Swarms are for support? Nowhere. Stop pulling stuff out of your a** That's like saying "HAVs are meant for supporting AVs 3 people per tank adds up quickly. I don't need evidence, was using logic. Why use a vehicle when something that cost 1/10 of your tank can solo you? If tanks aren't supposed to be 3x better than a infantry, then why does it cost 3x as much?
Why use money as a form of balancing? Obviously CCP needs to lower the cost of tanks, because you aren't wrong. There is no point in spending that much money on a tank that isn't supposed to last forever. You should expect a tank to get destroyed anywhere there is AV present attacking you. It's rock/paper/scissors not rock/paper/scissors/HAV=nom nom nom.
Or should i start saying that because BPO fittings are so cheap they deserve a buff to compensate for protostomping?
|
|
|
| |
|