Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
CrotchGrab 360
Commando Perkone Caldari State
404
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 23:06:00 -
[91] - Quote
Bad idea.
Anybody play Company of Heroes?
Remember the tanks which took 0 damage from the wrong type of tanks? That's not balance, that's stupidity.
it FORCES you to play in a way which you don't want to.
Some people are reluctant to skill into AV, they sure as hell don't want to have to spec into tanks.
And as previously mentioned, it will be a matter of who has the best tank. |
Alpha 443-6732
239
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 23:15:00 -
[92] - Quote
CrotchGrab 360 wrote:Bad idea.
Anybody play Company of Heroes?
Remember the tanks which took 0 damage from the wrong type of tanks? That's not balance, that's stupidity.
it FORCES you to play in a way which you don't want to.
Some people are reluctant to skill into AV, they sure as hell don't want to have to spec into tanks.
And as previously mentioned, it will be a matter of who has the best tank.
You mean the most expensive tanks and the single use unique tank? All the allies tanks are designed around being spammed cheaply. You didn't know how to change your strategies from faction to faction?
With these nerfs, I can agree that AV weapons need to be easier to spec into. But that doesn't mean we should allow people to be lazy and nerf everything that they don't feel like dealing with! If you don't have enough SP into tanks to field a good tank (because to were to busing investing it into a slayer medium frame) don't whine and complain that you will have to spec into a single extra weapon just to be able to fight tanks. Laziness is never an excuse to nerf something.
AV =/= Completely dominate and render vehicles useless. AV = Counterpart of vehicles that combats vehicles.
|
Foundation Seldon
Gespenster Kompanie Villore Accords
236
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 23:47:00 -
[93] - Quote
Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote: Can we not just agree to removed the LARGE ******* BLASTER that's what you hate about HAV not the other turrets.
I think the Large Blaster turret could use some adjusting, but removal? That sounds a bit extreme. What would we replace it with? That's like removing SLs from the game. And I don't hate anything about HAVs. It's the 99.999999% of the HAV pilot community that I have a problem with.
Do you still think it needs adjusting with its higher heat gain, less damage due to the removal of the scattered variant, and 70% damage modifier to other vehicle large turret types in 1.7?
1.7 LAVs - Thoughts and Discussion
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
1563
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 23:49:00 -
[94] - Quote
Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Stop referring to the OP, it's pretty clear that he's a potato. Also, there is no point to even using combat vehicles if infantry have the best infantry killing weapons AND the best AV weapons.
Once again, STOP LOOKING AT BALANCE PURELY FROM AN OFFENSE/DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE. STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS THAT ALL OF US ONLY WANT TANKS TO COUNTER TANKS. THINGS CAN COUNTER THEMSELVES AND STILL NOT BE OP.
A tank is a support class, but it's support in the same way a real life HMG is a support weapon.
On an unrelated note, I'm betting that tanks in real life have a longer TTK even WITH the single man Javelin units, because of the trophy system, the fact that vehicle mounted weapons actually do their job (forcing the infantrymen to hid a distance and actually use TACTICS) and the fact that the weapons actually take time to be set up.
I know the OP is a "potato". I wouldn't necessary call him a "potato" but he really is something.
And I have no problem with tanks countering other tanks, as along with any other role, class, suit, or weapon, HAVs can already do so. A good example of this is the Large Railgun Turret.
I can be a counter to AV when I'm AV as well. If I'm in my AV fit and I see an enemy holding a Swarm Launcher or Forge Gun, I can easily whip my SMG shred them to bits. But should that be the best counter?
You can be a counter all you want. You just can't be a worse or better counter than AV. Especially when that class is dedicated to doing nothing but destroying you.
And trust me when I say that if this game was like real life, we'd have the most broken and unplayable game mechanics New Eden has ever managed to create. And the EvE players would be $#!tting themselves at the mere thought of EvE being nearly as broken.
My Very First Thread About Tanks
-HAND
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Generals General Tso's Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2013.12.03 23:55:00 -
[95] - Quote
Zero Harpuia wrote:Son-Of A-Gun wrote:SILVERBACK 02 wrote:the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK
do you agree?
personally i agree.. i think tanks should be a dominating presence on the battlefield as is such the case in real life.
air strikes from fast air seem to be the only counter.. iv seen CHALLENGER 2 battle tanks shrug off rpg-7s and anti tank mines. A two man javelin tank buster team will put any tank down. If the rest of the world had tech like the javelin, I'm sure you would quickly start to see American tank being mounted with computer controled mini guns, like the anti-air guns on most navel ships, the sea wiz. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0Dh6qJ3RE&feature=youtube_gdata_player Sunnovabitch just pisses ammunition away doesn't it? Also, forget two man team, someone just posted a link of a single Javelin getting a K-Kill on a main battle tank. There wasn't much of anything left after it hit. The HAV pundits can scream all they like, but AV will forever be the main threat to V, as it should be. They trade immunity to small arms for vulnerability to AV weapons, and they are One-Man crews. Fair is fair guys. You know how much one of those things cost, 143k for the launcher itself than 86k per missile 1 missile and one launcher costs 230K.
Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........
Tanker/Logi
Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
1563
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 00:00:00 -
[96] - Quote
Foundation Seldon wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote: Can we not just agree to removed the LARGE ******* BLASTER that's what you hate about HAV not the other turrets.
I think the Large Blaster turret could use some adjusting, but removal? That sounds a bit extreme. What would we replace it with? That's like removing SLs from the game. And I don't hate anything about HAVs. It's the 99.999999% of the HAV pilot community that I have a problem with. Do you still think it needs adjusting with its higher heat gain, less damage due to the removal of the scattered variant, and 70% damage modifier to vehicle hulls in 1.7? Where it was a great all around turret for most situations pre-1.7 it's being geared for purely anti-infantry after the patch. He's reffering to the Large Blaster Turret in this current build.
And our Swarm damage is getting nerfed as well. So HTFU about your turret damage.
And small missile launchers will have 300HP of splash damage? And you think you have a right to complain?
Though I do believe that the Large Blasters need some serious range adjusting.
My Very First Thread About Tanks
-HAND
|
Foundation Seldon
Gespenster Kompanie Villore Accords
238
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 00:45:00 -
[97] - Quote
Atiim wrote: And our Swarm damage is getting nerfed as well. So HTFU about your turret damage.
And small missile launchers will have 300HP of splash damage? And you think you have a right to complain?
Though I do believe that the Large Blasters need some serious range adjusting.
1. You really need to work on the way you address people in your post. I'm not complaining about anything, just pointing out the facts and asking whether or not your stance on X or Y issue has changed based on what we know is going to happen in 1.7. This forum is meant for discussion and I asked you a simple question, do you think the changes that we know are happening in 1.7 will be sufficient to bring Large Blasters to where you think they need to be?
2. I'm not sure what Small Missiles have to do with what I brought up? Yeah, they're going to be almost as powerful as they were in Chromosome. I'm happy that people might be willing to jump in the turret of my LAV again and rack up kills. I'm happy that people might begin to fear Dropships again.
3. Though it has nothing to do with what I brought up I think Swarms were nerfed to bring them in line with what we know about the new vehicle stats. The fact that Forges weren't nerfed seems to imply that CCP wants there to be a distinction between Light and Heavy AV as well.
1.7 LAVs - Thoughts and Discussion
|
Jacques Cayton II
Providence Guard Templis Dragonaors
194
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 01:14:00 -
[98] - Quote
SILVERBACK 02 wrote:the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK
do you agree?
personally i agree.. i think tanks should be a dominating presence on the battlefield as is such the case in real life.
air strikes from fast air seem to be the only counter.. iv seen CHALLENGER 2 battle tanks shrug off rpg-7s and anti tank mines. Hey brother look not to seem like a weapons expert but tanks are not CQC the worst thing for tanks honestly is infantry. Javelins the tank killer, oh wait I forgot about at4s and smaws. Rpgs are weak compared to the above weapon systems as weapons become stronger tanks become more like artillery. Don't bring real situations into a video game
We fight for the future of the State not our
personal goals
|
Jacques Cayton II
Providence Guard Templis Dragonaors
194
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 01:17:00 -
[99] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Zero Harpuia wrote:Son-Of A-Gun wrote:SILVERBACK 02 wrote:the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK
do you agree?
personally i agree.. i think tanks should be a dominating presence on the battlefield as is such the case in real life.
air strikes from fast air seem to be the only counter.. iv seen CHALLENGER 2 battle tanks shrug off rpg-7s and anti tank mines. A two man javelin tank buster team will put any tank down. If the rest of the world had tech like the javelin, I'm sure you would quickly start to see American tank being mounted with computer controled mini guns, like the anti-air guns on most navel ships, the sea wiz. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0Dh6qJ3RE&feature=youtube_gdata_player Sunnovabitch just pisses ammunition away doesn't it? Also, forget two man team, someone just posted a link of a single Javelin getting a K-Kill on a main battle tank. There wasn't much of anything left after it hit. The HAV pundits can scream all they like, but AV will forever be the main threat to V, as it should be. They trade immunity to small arms for vulnerability to AV weapons, and they are One-Man crews. Fair is fair guys. You know how much one of those things cost, 143k for the launcher itself than 86k per missile 1 missile and one launcher costs 230K. Compared to a multi million tank lol worth it
We fight for the future of the State not our
personal goals
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Generals General Tso's Alliance
266
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 01:27:00 -
[100] - Quote
Jacques Cayton II wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Zero Harpuia wrote:Son-Of A-Gun wrote:SILVERBACK 02 wrote:the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK
do you agree?
personally i agree.. i think tanks should be a dominating presence on the battlefield as is such the case in real life.
air strikes from fast air seem to be the only counter.. iv seen CHALLENGER 2 battle tanks shrug off rpg-7s and anti tank mines. A two man javelin tank buster team will put any tank down. If the rest of the world had tech like the javelin, I'm sure you would quickly start to see American tank being mounted with computer controled mini guns, like the anti-air guns on most navel ships, the sea wiz. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0Dh6qJ3RE&feature=youtube_gdata_player Sunnovabitch just pisses ammunition away doesn't it? Also, forget two man team, someone just posted a link of a single Javelin getting a K-Kill on a main battle tank. There wasn't much of anything left after it hit. The HAV pundits can scream all they like, but AV will forever be the main threat to V, as it should be. They trade immunity to small arms for vulnerability to AV weapons, and they are One-Man crews. Fair is fair guys. You know how much one of those things cost, 143k for the launcher itself than 86k per missile 1 missile and one launcher costs 230K. Compared to a multi million tank lol worth it I am only saying if you want to take out multimillion ISK tanks with ease it is only fair that you should have to put up over 200k for the weapon itself and that their should be more of an ISK penalty on you when I kill you.
Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........
Tanker/Logi
Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
|
|
Alpha 443-6732
240
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 05:09:00 -
[101] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Stop referring to the OP, it's pretty clear that he's a potato. Also, there is no point to even using combat vehicles if infantry have the best infantry killing weapons AND the best AV weapons.
Once again, STOP LOOKING AT BALANCE PURELY FROM AN OFFENSE/DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE. STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS THAT ALL OF US ONLY WANT TANKS TO COUNTER TANKS. THINGS CAN COUNTER THEMSELVES AND STILL NOT BE OP.
A tank is a support class, but it's support in the same way a real life HMG is a support weapon.
On an unrelated note, I'm betting that tanks in real life have a longer TTK even WITH the single man Javelin units, because of the trophy system, the fact that vehicle mounted weapons actually do their job (forcing the infantrymen to hid a distance and actually use TACTICS) and the fact that the weapons actually take time to be set up.
I know the OP is a "potato". I wouldn't necessary call him a "potato" but he really is something. And I have no problem with tanks countering other tanks, as along with any other role, class, suit, or weapon, HAVs can already do so. A good example of this is the Large Railgun Turret. I can be a counter to AV when I'm AV as well. If I'm in my AV fit and I see an enemy holding a Swarm Launcher or Forge Gun, I can easily whip my SMG shred them to bits. But should that be the best counter? You can be a counter all you want. You just can't be a worse or better counter than AV. Especially when that class is dedicated to doing nothing but destroying you. And trust me when I say that if this game was like real life, we'd have the most broken and unplayable game mechanics New Eden has ever managed to create. And the EvE players would be $#!tting themselves at the mere thought of EvE being nearly as broken.
Infantry are not the only class dedicated to AV, so this comparison is flawed. I'll be running AV gunnlogi missile tanks post 1.7, so we may even end up working together. Which is to say, AV can be either vehicle based or infantry based. We aren't asking for another be all end all weapon like the current blaster turret (which will be put in its place), but we want to have some pros for the cons we accept as tanks.
Also, warfare in real life isn't as "unbalanced" as people seem to think, as there is at least place for every role on the battlefield.
AV =/= Completely dominate and render vehicles useless. AV = Counterpart of vehicles that combats vehicles.
|
Alpha 443-6732
240
|
Posted - 2013.12.04 05:21:00 -
[102] - Quote
Also, I think that this is how it will work for infantry AV past 1.7:
Swarms and PLC (plasma cannons will be viable, as they suffered no nerf to damage):
Purely for infantry AV support on the fly -PLC will be slightly more rewarding in damage to reward skill -Swarms will be available to all, offering easy, free damage
Forge Guns:
Will either camp objectives or move with a vehicle unit to support vehicles in combat as a dedicated infantry AV unit
Each will have their own unique playstyle. Not only does this reward people for specializing in a heavy suit, it rewards people who use the PLC over the swarm launcher as well (though the swarms still retain their reliable damage).
AV =/= Completely dominate and render vehicles useless. AV = Counterpart of vehicles that combats vehicles.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |