| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
CommanderBolt
Isuuaya Tactical
Caldari State
426
   |
Posted - 2013.12.15 14:04:00 -
[61] - Quote
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. |
Mortedeamor
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL
Top Men.
999
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 14:08:00 -
[62] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:A simple question. I've heard the argument that a sica costs 57k isk and your proto suit costs 200k+, which isn't fair. Didn't tankers say the same thing when tanks were upwards of a million isk, and yall said that wasn't a valid excuse? Be honest, yall know who you are that did this. 
mlt tanks that are that cheap generally have bpo's on them |
Zero Harpuia
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
1373
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 04:49:00 -
[63] - 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
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 07:57:00 -
[64] - Quote
I'm all for HAVs requiring multiple people to man properly. As long as they are as strong as they are now. They are final in a good place. LEt's not change numbers around and go back to how it was in 1.6 and earlier. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
4188
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 08:28:00 -
[65] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:A simple question. I've heard the argument that a sica costs 57k isk and your proto suit costs 200k+, which isn't fair. Didn't tankers say the same thing when tanks were upwards of a million isk, and yall said that wasn't a valid excuse? Be honest, yall know who you are that did this.
I like how the people who say this are comparing an UNFITTED Sica's price to their fully-fitted Protosuit. My usual Sica fit is a little over 100k, and I have Gunnlogis anywhere from 150k up to more than that 200k Protosuit they're complaining about.
When it was the tankers complaining about price, we actually counted the cost of a full AV fitting, not just the suit or that Prototype Swarm Launcher without anything else to put it on. |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
354
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 08:53:00 -
[66] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:A simple question. I've heard the argument that a sica costs 57k isk and your proto suit costs 200k+, which isn't fair. Didn't tankers say the same thing when tanks were upwards of a million isk, and yall said that wasn't a valid excuse? Be honest, yall know who you are that did this.
Well you have a point and there have alwys been AVler that said tanking should cost less. But changing a bad thing by simply flipping the coin is not better.
Now we have the same situation just the other way round is this balance? |
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
308
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 08:59:00 -
[67] - Quote
I never said, nor will I say, that it is balanced. It is just so funny to see AV players trying to use the same logic they discounted pre-1.7. |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
354
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 10:59:00 -
[68] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:I never said, nor will I say, that it is balanced. It is just so funny to see AV players trying to use the same logic they discounted pre-1.7.
We could argue about tthat endlessly as this is basicly truth for both sides of this discussion. And I think this is the reason we won't get any form of balance anytime soon. My prediction is CCP will nerf vehicles again in a month or two and we will discuss everythin again... |
BL4CKST4R
warravens
League of Infamy
1363
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 11:52:00 -
[69] - Quote
ALT2 acc wrote:Justin Tymes wrote:I never once said the price cut was the problem. Proto AV being needed to take down Militia tanks is the problem. Anything above that is a fools errand without RE spam. I also believe those complaining about the price decrease wasn't counting on their AV getting nerfed without its price going down as well.
But since you have brought it up, Tanks have turned from an expensive DPS multiplier to flat-out outclassing Infantry in gameplay AND ISK sustainability. The main(and pretty much only) reason there is to not to use tanks right now is kamikaze jeeps, since it nets them a slight ISK gain while awarding them 150+ SP. if you lose a STD tank, you lose a match payout
You must be bad if you cant make 70k+ in 1 match. |
BL4CKST4R
warravens
League of Infamy
1363
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 11:54:00 -
[70] - Quote
Korvin Lomont wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:A simple question. I've heard the argument that a sica costs 57k isk and your proto suit costs 200k+, which isn't fair. Didn't tankers say the same thing when tanks were upwards of a million isk, and yall said that wasn't a valid excuse? Be honest, yall know who you are that did this. Well you have a point and there have alwys been AVler that said tanking should cost less. But changing a bad thing by simply flipping the coin is not better. Now we have the same situation just the other way round is this balance?
It feels like when CCP tries to do "balance" they always forget ISK cost. |
|
|
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
354
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 11:56:00 -
[71] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:Korvin Lomont wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:A simple question. I've heard the argument that a sica costs 57k isk and your proto suit costs 200k+, which isn't fair. Didn't tankers say the same thing when tanks were upwards of a million isk, and yall said that wasn't a valid excuse? Be honest, yall know who you are that did this. Well you have a point and there have alwys been AVler that said tanking should cost less. But changing a bad thing by simply flipping the coin is not better. Now we have the same situation just the other way round is this balance? It feels like when CCP tries to do "balance" they always forget ISK cost.
CCP forget al lot of things when they "balance" ^^ |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |