DUST Search - to AVers

CommanderBolt wrote:

Jastad wrote:

Alena Ventrallis wrote:

CUT.

Try a Side Arm in PC, let's see your score. Then you can come out and Say such thing.
I was a Ground forger till Beta, I know what am i saying.

As long as Tank are moved by ONE people, ONE people must could take him down.
Not only they nerf the dmg of the Forge, They also nerd the charge timer, so now it took more time to shoot a tank.

Unite this thing to a Close time window of Module deactiv and ABSURD speed.

Shake.
And then you have your recipe to imbalance

I am not being an ******* - I'm just curious how the 'balance' stands up IF the tank is manned by 3 people? You know the driver with the main gun and an additional 2 small turret gunners? Should 1 AV infantryman be able to kill a 3 manned tank?

This is why balance is a hard thing I think.

Besides I'm of the mindset that (the pending) jets and bombers should be a good counter to tanks, as well as installations.

IF and WHEN we can deploy our own installations where ever we want, THAT will certainly change the dynamics of battle.
It is going to be very hard to achieve balance before the entire line up of weapons, equipment and 'stuff' is available to us.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1357	Posted - 2013.12.14 08:50:00 - [1] - Quote Shokhann Echo wrote: Jastad wrote: The cost is not the problem, the problem is the balance. 2/3 guy needed to take down 1 guys with a Tank is not good. its a ******* vehicle dumbass, in the future too... infantry cannot be god, you cannot expect to be superscrub every time you feel like it It's manned by one person, so it should be kill-able by one person. Stop being a douche. If a HAV comes across a standard infantryman, he should kill it. If an AV comes across a HAV, he should kill it. If a Infantry comes across an AV, he should kill it. It is a simple concept. Shields as Weapons
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1360	Posted - 2013.12.14 22:54:00 - [2] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Zero Harpuia wrote: Shokhann Echo wrote: Jastad wrote: The cost is not the problem, the problem is the balance. 2/3 guy needed to take down 1 guys with a Tank is not good. its a ******* vehicle dumbass, in the future too... infantry cannot be god, you cannot expect to be superscrub every time you feel like it It's manned by one person, so it should be kill-able by one person. Stop being a douche. If a HAV comes across a standard infantryman, he should kill it. If an AV comes across a HAV, he should kill it. If a Infantry comes across an AV, he should kill it. It is a simple concept. AV, however, stand a chance against infantry, since they carry a sidearm, and you can kill indfantry with the forge gun. Therefore, the model breaks apart. It shouldn't be a predecided thing. Just like a shotgun shouldn't always win a cqc battle. IT should only give you the advantage. Yes, but an HAV is equally capable of killing any infantry no matter what gun they carry, so I fail to see the point of pointing out a sidearm on an AV. A fire-type Pokemon can kill a water-type under the right conditions, but it isn't a position you want to be in. It isn't a strict rock-paper-scissors, just an effective cycle. The only side of the cycle that is let down is the standard infantry, AV nades excluded. My firm position is that HAVs should be somewhat easily fended off or killed by a single AV unit, just like a single Infantryman is easily fended off or killed by an HAV. As long as HAVs are only manned by a single player anyway... and no, the extra turret seats don't count. They are passengers at best. Shields as Weapons
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1361	Posted - 2013.12.14 22:57:00 - [3] - Quote Stinker Butt wrote: Ivy Zalinto wrote: Tanks shouldnt be able to be soloed by ANY player. That being said miltia tanks need to either be dropped or changed so you need to skill into them still. Its getting pretty bad when an actual tanker player cannot bring in a tank due to team quota. Nothing short of an orbital bombardment or another tank should be able to solo a tank. Well...maybe a mad bomber logi if they're sneaky enough... Why not? You have provided no arguement. Just one fools opinion. so here is my response. One person should be able to solo a tank. Think much? That sounds fair. There is only ONE person manning the HAV, so it should only take ONE person to remove him from play. Simple arithmetic. Shields as Weapons
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1365	Posted - 2013.12.15 01:49:00 - [4] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Zero Harpuia wrote: Stinker Butt wrote: Ivy Zalinto wrote: Tanks shouldnt be able to be soloed by ANY player. That being said miltia tanks need to either be dropped or changed so you need to skill into them still. Its getting pretty bad when an actual tanker player cannot bring in a tank due to team quota. Nothing short of an orbital bombardment or another tank should be able to solo a tank. Well...maybe a mad bomber logi if they're sneaky enough... Why not? You have provided no arguement. Just one fools opinion. so here is my response. One person should be able to solo a tank. Think much? That sounds fair. There is only ONE person manning the HAV, so it should only take ONE person to remove him from play. Simple arithmetic. Then the tanker has no motivation to play, since his tank can be canceled out by a single suit. He would be served just as well using a regular suit, and for cheaper. In this system the Infantryman has no motivation to play, since his suits and the suits of those around him are canceled out by a single HAV. He would be served just as well using a Militia HAV, and for cheaper than his ADV suit. See what I did there? Shields as Weapons
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1365	Posted - 2013.12.15 01:53:00 - [5] - Quote Shokhann Echo wrote: so in eve, a single fighter should be able to destroy a titan solo. A Titan would never be able to HIT a fighter, and as such it is not a comparable equation. An HAV can easily peg a footsoldier, but a Titan's XL cannons and Doomsday Device could literally never hit the fighter unless he stopped for about ten solid seconds. If the fighter had strong enough guns or bombs, he could indeed kill a loltanked Titan... it'd take a year and a day but it would eventually get done. The Titan wouldn't be able to run away either because it's slow as space-molasses. Shields as Weapons
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1373	Posted - 2013.12.16 04:49:00 - [6] - Quote CommanderBolt wrote: Jastad wrote: Alena Ventrallis wrote: CUT. Try a Side Arm in PC, let's see your score. Then you can come out and Say such thing. I was a Ground forger till Beta, I know what am i saying. As long as Tank are moved by ONE people, ONE people must could take him down. Not only they nerf the dmg of the Forge, They also nerd the charge timer, so now it took more time to shoot a tank. Unite this thing to a Close time window of Module deactiv and ABSURD speed. Shake. And then you have your recipe to imbalance I am not being an ******* - I'm just curious how the 'balance' stands up IF the tank is manned by 3 people? You know the driver with the main gun and an additional 2 small turret gunners? Should 1 AV infantryman be able to kill a 3 manned tank? This is why balance is a hard thing I think. Besides I'm of the mindset that (the pending) jets and bombers should be a good counter to tanks, as well as installations. IF and WHEN we can deploy our own installations where ever we want, THAT will certainly change the dynamics of battle. It is going to be very hard to achieve balance before the entire line up of weapons, equipment and 'stuff' is available to us. Just wanted to let you know that the other two people are not crewing the HAV. The people in the small turrets on an HAV are glorified passengers. If passengers should count as 'manned' then an LAV should be as sturdy as an HAV and a Dropship should be a flying brick of solid murder. In fact, if I had to say it, the HAV is the least intense piloting experience. An LAV needs to have a coordinated driver/gunner pair where both can be killed by small arms fire, and a Dropship needs a pilot who can deal with the physics of flight while still maintaining a Line-of-Sight for their gunner, and Armok help them if they try to accommodate two gunner's LoS (both of whom can be killed by small arms fire mind). Now, with an HAV the small gunners are as immortal to small arms as the HAV pilot is, and be completely honest with me, how many HAV pilots actually accommodate their small gunners? At all? How many have ranted and raved to remove those seats or install locks? How many take advantage of the seat-removal feature now that guns are attached to seats? I rest my case. There is only ONE was to make this a fair playing field for saying they are crew: making it inhumanely hard for Large Turrets to get infantry kills. After all, the only way to kill an HAV should be with another HAV, or so say many HAV pilots. So why should their guns be so effective against infantry? That would give the Small Turret gunners a significant enough roll in the manning of an HAV to count as essential crew, as they would be in charge of repelling infantry. They should also be as vulnerable as a Dropship Gunner, but that's me getting ahead of myself. Of course, that would require HAVs to give something up and compromise and 'rely on a (explicit deleted) blueberry' or run in squads, which would obviously be the coming of the vehicular anti-christ. I've had my rant, have fun telling me how I'm wrong and mentally damaged. Shields as Weapons