| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
274
   |
Posted - 2013.12.14 06:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
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.  |
Shokhann Echo
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
125
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 06:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
this one has a point.
Void Echo's Alt
Back-up Profile
Back on main 12-20-2013
|
calisk galern
BurgezzE.T.F
Public Disorder.
1509
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 06:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Shokhann Echo wrote:this one has a point.
not sure what that would be since the reference he is making resulted in tanks getting a ton cheaper and better. |
Kasote Denzara
A Vulture
1350
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 06:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Infantry also:
Are not immune to small arms.
Only have one weapon able to feasibly combat one another.
Not able to speed across the map at LAV speeds.
Do not have enough health to take multiple FG shots.
Do not have modules that decrease damage taken.
Do not have the ability to one-shot across the map (and no, you cannot say FGs do this since one shotting has only ever happened to weak vehicles and infantry).
(Corrected grammar.)
SWEET MOTHER OF TERESA ON THE HOOD OF A MERCEDES BENZ, YOU SOUND LIKE A MAJESTIC F*ING EAGLE! DO YOU SING?!
|
Justin Tymes
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
543
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 06:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
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. |
Text Grant
Death Firm.
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
260
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 07:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dropping 7 RE's on the tank will kill any tank. Trust me :) You can even die before you set them off. Although it is outrageous that this is what it takes now unless you have a tank |
Jastad
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
327
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 07:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
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.
Once the FORGE was with me.
Now i belong to the Dark side...My Forge is called Imperial Scrambler.
|
ALT2 acc
The dyst0pian Corporation
Zero-Day
24
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 07:47:00 -
[8] - Quote
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 |
ZeHealingHurts HurtingHeals
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
652
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 07:48:00 -
[9] - Quote
OOOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH!
My logi-code.
|
Galvan Nized
Deep Space Republic
380
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 07:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Dropping 7 RE's on the tank will kill any tank. Trust me :) You can even die before you set them off. Although it is outrageous that this is what it takes now unless you have a tank
How do you get 7 REs on 1 tank ? Either you got some friends or a hell of a lot of time to just there. And you MUST run a logi suit with 3 sets of REs or 1 or 2 sets with Nanohive.
It's actually cool when tanks don't notice my scout and I get REs planted. If I could carry just ONE more. |
|
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
279
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:30:00 -
[11] - Quote
To clarify, I was directing this only at the AV players who dismissed tankers objection about price differences and are now using the same excuse to complain about the new update. I know not all AV did it, but I couldn't miss adding insult to injury on those particular people. :)
That being said, I made another thread about limiting the amount of HAVs per side so that tanks can require more than one player to kill, but not making it so AV has no chance to coordinate.
A heavy vehicle should not be wrecked by a light weapon, except when that light weapon is deployed in numbers. But at the same time, there shouldn't be more than I'd say 2 tanks per side on the field at the same time. Maybe even one tank. |
Shokhann Echo
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
125
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:30:00 -
[12] - Quote
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
Void Echo's Alt
Back-up Profile
Back on main 12-20-2013
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
279
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:36:00 -
[13] - 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
Tanks should take 2-3 people to kill, yes. The issue is, with the amount of tanks that deploy each side (just saw 6 a few minutes ago) unless the entire team dedicates to AV, they will lose. I proposed making a limit to the amount of HAVs per side. Like only one per side, maybe two tops. Tanks get to keep our ridiculously awesome tanks, and AV doesn't have a tanker swarm to deal with. |
Text Grant
Death Firm.
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
263
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:39:00 -
[14] - Quote
Galvan Nized wrote:Text Grant wrote:Dropping 7 RE's on the tank will kill any tank. Trust me :) You can even die before you set them off. Although it is outrageous that this is what it takes now unless you have a tank How do you get 7 REs on 1 tank ? Either you got some friends or a hell of a lot of time to just there. And you MUST run a logi suit with 3 sets of REs or 1 or 2 sets with Nanohive. It's actually cool when tanks don't notice my scout and I get REs planted. If I could carry just ONE more.
Lvl 1 re and Lvl 3 re. The easiest way to do it is to put them on the front of a BPO jeep actually... |
Zero Harpuia
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
1357
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 08:50:00 -
[15] - 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
|
Galvan Nized
Deep Space Republic
382
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 10:02:00 -
[16] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Galvan Nized wrote:Text Grant wrote:Dropping 7 RE's on the tank will kill any tank. Trust me :) You can even die before you set them off. Although it is outrageous that this is what it takes now unless you have a tank How do you get 7 REs on 1 tank ? Either you got some friends or a hell of a lot of time to just there. And you MUST run a logi suit with 3 sets of REs or 1 or 2 sets with Nanohive. It's actually cool when tanks don't notice my scout and I get REs planted. If I could carry just ONE more. Lvl 1 re and Lvl 3 re. The easiest way to do it is to put them on the front of a BPO jeep actually...
You're talking jihad jeeps. While great fun, they are really stupid. Please, dear lord, CCP do not balance based around jihad jeeps. Strapping explosives to a tank needs to be a thing but remotes will need a buff to do it.
Want to know the best way to Jihad? Throw the REs on as logi, run to the depot and switch to bpo suit or starter suit. Then take off. Completely free then. Best to do this near your redline as that depot probably won't get destroyed. |
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
280
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 10:05:00 -
[17] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis 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 Tanks should take 2-3 people to kill, yes. The issue is, with the amount of tanks that deploy each side (just saw 6 a few minutes ago) unless the entire team dedicates to AV, they will lose. I proposed making a limit to the amount of HAVs per side. Like only one per side, maybe two tops. Tanks get to keep our ridiculously awesome tanks, and AV doesn't have a tanker swarm to deal with.
heavy vehicles should be soloed by heavy weapons only, and take multiple light weapons to down. but, there shouldn't be 5-6 tanks per ide on the field at a time. limit the amount deployable to one. |
Thorn Badblood
Dust2Dust.
Top Men.
112
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 10:35:00 -
[18] - Quote
It takes 1 guy to kill a tank, want proof? Here you go...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3xsMqHu56g
What do you think the price difference is between the weapon and the tank?
D2D. A Non-Prophet Organization
|
CommanderBolt
Isuuaya Tactical
Caldari State
423
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 10:37:00 -
[19] - Quote
You guys should really try using the installations on the map. As a tanker I can honestly say that Rail gun installations have been a pain in my ass.
Think, use different tactics. |
Jastad
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
328
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
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.
don't try tu argue with scrub tankers. they simply can't understand this concept.
Once the FORGE was with me.
Now i belong to the Dark side...My Forge is called Imperial Scrambler.
|
|
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
282
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:09:00 -
[21] - Quote
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. |
Our Deepest Regret
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
370
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:11:00 -
[22] - Quote
Kasote Denzara wrote:Infantry also:
Are not immune to small arms.
Only have one weapon able to feasibly combat one another.
Not able to speed across the map at LAV speeds.
Do not have enough health to take multiple FG shots.
Do not have modules that decrease damage taken.
Do not have the ability to one-shot across the map (and no, you cannot say FGs do this since one shotting has only ever happened to weak vehicles and infantry).
(Corrected grammar.)
Infantry are immune to swarm launchers.
Tankers are limited to their specific turrets. Infantry can equip two weapons + grenades.
Tanks are nowhere near as fast as LAVs.
Infantry can tap dance across missile and rail gun barrages.
Infantry can render tanks redundant by climbing a set of stairs.
Tanks cannot one-shot across the map. (Rendering)
(My grammar was awesome) |
T8R Raid
BIG BAD W0LVES
69
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:14:00 -
[23] - Quote
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.
wait wait wait, a TANK is OUTCLASSING infantry? OUTRAGEOUS!
I've baited tanks into minefields instead of jihad jeeping, and stuck my doodle out to be squished while some forge gunners laid in wait, you're mad cause you cant brainlessly kill tanks. if they glowing then hold your fire and wait em out. we've had a few days of shock and awe, time for business. if you dont have proto av, then protect your team mates who do. if you cant protect your team mates av, then go attack their teams av, so your teams MLT tanks can zerg the real tanker into his redline. sleep on it and come up with something new.
This is the way the world ends, not with a bang, but a whimper.
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
282
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
Thorn Badblood wrote:It takes 1 guy to kill a tank, want proof? Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3xsMqHu56gWhat do you think the price difference is between the weapon and the tank? The M136 AT4 is the Army's primary light anti-tank weapon Unit Replacement Cost: US $1,480.64 M1A2 Abrams with prototype TUSK equipment US $6.21 million
Note the vehicle they are using is not a tank. it is lightly armored, and even the hit on the moving vehicle didn't destroy it. |
Tch Tch
Red Shirts Away Team
76
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:18:00 -
[25] - Quote
I would like to see an escalation value in the game.
Maximum of x tanks.
You can only field 2 more HAVs then your opponent has fielded at one time in the game.
So one side could field none the entire game and the other side is limited to two.
If one side fields a tank the other could field three, of course at that point the first could now field a maximum of five.
Both sides have the same maximum which is two more then the others side.
This should naturally limit smaller 6 vs 6 games and also give a tactical gameplay where one team may decide to forgo all tanks to limit the other teams impact.
It would mean that their should be a more balanced number on the field. And there are always consequences for escalating the conflict as your opponent gets to open up their stable of tanks too.
Turrent - the sound a tankers pants makes when he finds out the four swarm militia doing squats around him aren't AFK.
|
Jastad
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
328
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:20:00 -
[26] - Quote
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
Once the FORGE was with me.
Now i belong to the Dark side...My Forge is called Imperial Scrambler.
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
283
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:20:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tch Tch wrote:I would like to see an escalation value in the game.
Maximum of x tanks.
You can only field 2 more HAVs then your opponent has fielded at one time in the game.
So one side could field none the entire game and the other side is limited to two.
If one side fields a tank the other could field three, of course at that point the first could now field a maximum of five.
Both sides have the same maximum which is two more then the others side.
This should naturally limit smaller 6 vs 6 games and also give a tactical gameplay where one team may decide to forgo all tanks to limit the other teams impact.
It would mean that their should be a more balanced number on the field. And there are always consequences for escalating the conflict as your opponent gets to open up their stable of tanks too.
I think simply limiting both sides to two tanks (maybe even one) would be easier to implement, but a good idea nonetheless. |
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
283
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:25:00 -
[28] - 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 tools 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
Then according to your model, AV should not have sidearms, tanks shouldn't be allowed to shoot them, and infantry already can't hurt tanks. That's true rock paper scissors.
And that model is asinine.
A heavy vehicle should take a heavy weapon to solo. Light weapons should solo light vehicles, and take multiple light weapons to down heavy vehicles. Limiting the amount of HAVs that can deploy would give light weapons the ability to use said numbers to overpower a tank without worrying about a tanker swarm. In turn, tanks rely on infantry to keep the enemy AV at bay. |
Our Deepest Regret
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
370
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
My last thought on AV in this current build, is that it's still very effective. Been playing from morning to evening. I've been chased around, tricked into mined corridors, remote detonated, jihad jeeped, forge gunned down, and forced to kiss the tip of a more than a few rail gun installations.
I've run tanks for a few months now. I know when I'm being forced to deal with a smart AV-er who knows his business, and when I'm dealing with derpy mc-swaaaaaarm-go-boom. Presently for this build, AV is skill-capped, so that the best and most resourceful are being rewarded for their skill, not unlike how last build, tanking was only profitable for the truly elite.
It won't stay that way. I'm not losing any sleep over it, in the meanwhile. |
Nonoriri ko
Onikanabo Brigade
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:30:00 -
[30] - Quote
I converted to Tank514hism.
Play with free starter fit,
call in millitia soma and run around killing things.
Sometimes I will die but not often.
Great way to earn mass ISK.
p.s. I am a tank scrub. Zero skills into any vehicle skills. |
|
|
Jastad
D.A.R.K L.E.G.I.O.N
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
328
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:38:00 -
[31] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote: Then according to your model, AV should not have sidearms, tanks shouldn't be allowed to shoot them, and infantry already can't hurt tanks. That's true rock paper scissors.
And that model is asinine.
A heavy vehicle should take a heavy weapon to solo. Light weapons should solo light vehicles, and take multiple light weapons to down heavy vehicles. Limiting the amount of HAVs that can deploy would give light weapons the ability to use said numbers to overpower a tank without worrying about a tanker swarm. In turn, tanks rely on infantry to keep the enemy AV at bay.
Again, Iet's see if you understand, don't have MUCH hope in but let's give a try since you are a scrub tanker.
NO ONE is asking for AV to be sure Kill.
But tanks need some CONS. They simply don't have cons right now.
'Cause they only limit, the Cooldown time, is negated by their ABSURD speed.
Once the FORGE was with me.
Now i belong to the Dark side...My Forge is called Imperial Scrambler.
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
283
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 11:48:00 -
[32] - Quote
Jastad wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote: Then according to your model, AV should not have sidearms, tanks shouldn't be allowed to shoot them, and infantry already can't hurt tanks. That's true rock paper scissors.
And that model is asinine.
A heavy vehicle should take a heavy weapon to solo. Light weapons should solo light vehicles, and take multiple light weapons to down heavy vehicles. Limiting the amount of HAVs that can deploy would give light weapons the ability to use said numbers to overpower a tank without worrying about a tanker swarm. In turn, tanks rely on infantry to keep the enemy AV at bay. Again, Iet's see if you understand, don't have MUCH hope in but let's give a try since you are a scrub tanker. NO ONE is asking for AV to be sure Kill. But tanks need some CONS. They simply don't have cons right now. 'Cause they only limit, the Cooldown time, is negated by their ABSURD speed.
CCP Remnant said they hotfixed the militia overdrive bug, and are looking at turning speed on HAVs down some. I suggested limiting HAV to one or two, because then their power is limited by a lack of mobility and tank backup.
Hopefully you get that. Being scrub AV and all. |
Our Deepest Regret
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
371
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 12:21:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tanks are performing to their uprising price tag. I love how cheap they are now, but in the name of balance, they require a price reflective of their performance to discourage mindless spamming. Now that they're truly worth a million isk, why are they being given away for next to nothing?
I pugged against STB. Lost five or six tanks. LoL, so what?
This is not good behavior to encourage... |
Jack McReady
DUST University
Ivy League
933
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 13:04:00 -
[34] - 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.
another biased tunnelvision tank driver detected.
point was, tanks already could survive AV for 20s from a single guy, if you could not you simply had a **** fit and/or not enough SP in tanks. that is why it was not a valid point.
now you can hop into MLT tank with zero SP and low amounts of isk but be more effective than any suit on the field. that is why it is a valid point. |
Our Deepest Regret
The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar
DARKSTAR ARMY
373
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 13:17:00 -
[35] - Quote
Jack McReady 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. another biased tunnelvision tank driver detected. point was, tanks already could survive AV for 20s from a single guy, if you could not you simply had a **** fit and/or not enough SP in tanks. that is why it was not a valid point. now you can hop into MLT tank with zero SP and low amounts of isk but be more effective than any suit on the field. that is why it is a valid point.
I had a good defensive fit on my madrugar back in 1.6. 2 hardeners, one heavy shield, pg expansion, One industrial heavy repper, and a nitro booster. I couldn't take AV shelling for 20 seconds straight, however. The pattern was: take a huge hit, watch my armor drop, panic, hit my hardener, nitro the hell out of there, turn a corner activate reps, run away if they're chasing me.
There's nothing different about the current play style in that regard, except that tanks are faster off the bat, and you don't have to activate reps manually. I can't emphasize this enough, however: There were no invincible godzilla tanks, no secret indestructible fits, no nothing. Madruguars were the only game in town, swarm launchers had dumb fire to go with their bonus damage to armor, and the only ones having fun were the AV guys. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2519
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 13:33:00 -
[36] - 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.
Excellent point, but most people won't care.
I'm primarily an AV guy and I understand the situation for what it is.
Most people are too selfish to give tanks the right of way though.
People dont want a david vs goliath fight. They want to just kick goliath in the nuts and be done with it. |
Stinker Butt
Ostrakon Agency
Gallente Federation
186
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 14:19:00 -
[37] - 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
I like arguing with you because youre clearly a child and you constantly make yourself look dumb. On a side note, I also love killing you in game and watching you rage quit.
he's not talking about just any infantry. Unfortunately most of them are just free kills for a tank without any threat at all. He's talking about specialized infantry spec'd and equipped into anti-vehicle. Those last two hyphenated words at the end of that sentence are pretty important, so get a dictionary and look them up.
To the OP, I am one of those who said isk should not guarantee that you will get kills or prevent you from getting killed. I always said it, and I still do. I even said that tanks should be cheaper. I am not worried about what I spend on my proto suit relative to anyone else. That's my choice.
the tankers have used that as well as the sp cost to justify their cries for equality. Now that those things are gone with 1.7, they just say, "its supposed to be this way! Adapt!" And they really think everyone is going to sit back and let them do whatever they want. I did adapt. First I Jihad the basta*d then run him over in hell.
and as others have pointed out, these cries clearly worked well for tankers, so it would be dumb if infantry didnt do the same. |
Ivy Zalinto
Lo-Tech Solutions Ltd
165
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 14:25:00 -
[38] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Alena Ventrallis 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 Tanks should take 2-3 people to kill, yes. The issue is, with the amount of tanks that deploy each side (just saw 6 a few minutes ago) unless the entire team dedicates to AV, they will lose. I proposed making a limit to the amount of HAVs per side. Like only one per side, maybe two tops. Tanks get to keep our ridiculously awesome tanks, and AV doesn't have a tanker swarm to deal with. heavy vehicles should be soloed by heavy weapons only, and take multiple light weapons to down. but, there shouldn't be 5-6 tanks per ide on the field at a time. limit the amount deployable to one.
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...
This being said I would like to see a small rail turret on a light vehicle be a threat to a tank. This could honestly promote interesting gameplay if people started putting together tank buster cars. Anyone know off hand the stats on small rails per tier?
Dedicated scout.
New player tutor; scout instructor
Scrambler Pistol dedication
|
Stinker Butt
Ostrakon Agency
Gallente Federation
186
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 14:39:00 -
[39] - Quote
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? |
Zero Harpuia
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
1360
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 22:54:00 -
[40] - 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 -
[41] - 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
|
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
904
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 23:34:00 -
[42] - Quote
Yup, isk/AUR balancing is never the way to balance battlefield.
In absence of free market, that's the final thing in line for CCP to fix.
Feeling the scanner is too simple and off balance?
The fix:
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
290
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 23:36:00 -
[43] - Quote
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. |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
2024
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 23:39:00 -
[44] - Quote
Personally, I have no problem with this whole ISK aspect. (to an extent)
It's the fact that HAVs are scrub weapons that are so easy to operate that even a handicap person wouldn't use them because they don't enjoy playing Crutch 514.
It's also because of the fact that a MLT HAV is better at AV than any AV weapon in the entire game.
Also, there needs to be an actual consequence for loosing an HAV. Their current prices do nothing but encourage massive amounts of spamming.
Not that people wouldn't do that already.
DUST 514 just went full COD.
Never go full COD.
|
Slag Emberforge
Immortal Retribution
286
|
Posted - 2013.12.14 23:51:00 -
[45] - 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.
This couldn't be more wrong. The tanker should be able to be taken out by an equally or better skilled and armed AV infantry,
This is not the same as stating its equivalent to a drop suit. Tankers encounter zero resistance and faceroll AI based infantry, and have the capacity to kill AV and V alike.
Meanwhile AV is seriously gimped at AI, giving up all of that power to focus on a support role. That is keeping their team alive by destroying vehicles, and stopping the literal infantry wrecking ball that is a tank.
Dropping extra ISK should never give you the ability skip teamwork. That's the point of this game. If you require teamwork to be destroyed you should require team work to be operated. |
Shokhann Echo
Chatelain Rapid Response
Gallente Federation
128
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 00:08:00 -
[46] - Quote
Slag Emberforge wrote: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. This couldn't be more wrong. The tanker should be able to be taken out by an equally or better skilled and armed AV infantry, This is not the same as stating its equivalent to a drop suit. Tankers encounter zero resistance and faceroll AI based infantry, and have the capacity to kill AV and V alike. Meanwhile AV is seriously gimped at AI, giving up all of that power to focus on a support role. That is keeping their team alive by destroying vehicles, and stopping the literal infantry wrecking ball that is a tank. Dropping extra ISK should never give you the ability skip teamwork. That's the point of this game. If you require teamwork to be destroyed you should require team work to be operated.
so in eve, a single fighter should be able to destroy a titan solo.
Void Echo's Alt
Back-up Profile
Back on main 12-20-2013
|
Benjamin Ciscko
The Generals
General Tso's Alliance
340
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 00:16:00 -
[47] - Quote
Thorn Badblood wrote:It takes 1 guy to kill a tank, want proof? Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3xsMqHu56gWhat do you think the price difference is between the weapon and the tank? The M136 AT4 is the Army's primary light anti-tank weapon Unit Replacement Cost: US $1,480.64 M1A2 Abrams with prototype TUSK equipment US $6.21 million
A. you call that a tank it had less armor than Hummer B. it is disposable so you have one shot C. I doubt you are strafing while holding that.
Tanker/Logi
Tanks almost fixed.
|
Smooth Assassin
Stardust incorporation
455
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 00:19:00 -
[48] - Quote
IRL a tank would wipe out infantry with it's massive cannon with slow fire rate, a bazooka would probably take it out in 1 shot (you can tell i've never been in the army) so i don't see why blasters are in the game, its pointless with a rapid fire, high damaging weapon that can also kill a tank and infantry.
Assassination is my thing.
|
Justin Tymes
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
551
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 00:24:00 -
[49] - Quote
Shokhann Echo wrote:
so in eve, a single fighter should be able to destroy a titan solo.
Why are you bringing up Eve like that's relevant to Dust? Dust is a FPS. Eve doesn't even give a damn about Dust, and Dust's connection to Eve is paper-thin to non-existent. |
Vance Alken
Commando Perkone
Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 00:24:00 -
[50] - Quote
If they made tanks Planetside 1 style (separate driver/gunner) they'd be instantly perfectly balanced. You can't have something designed to take tons of damage be this spammable and this easy to use, it's possible for there to be more tanks than *potential* AV weapons FFS. Tanks are powerful, power should require teamwork. Multi-manned tanks are simultaneously a soft nerf and soft buff for them, not as spammable and, if the driver/gunner pair has poor chemistry, less powerful. But if they have good chemistry you can do so much more and be so much more effective.
Either that or they make them Planetside 2/Battlefield style, a paperthin joke that can be taken out by any single player. |
|
|
KING CHECKMATE
Scions of Athra
3142
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 00:25:00 -
[51] - 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.
tank =/= dropsuit.
By mere logic a tanks should always be more expensive than a dropsuit.
Plus i was in favor of a Tank ISK cost reduction. But not this much.Their performance does not match their cost at all.
SCR User Since release. Charge shot / Aim to the head / Listen to QQ
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1213
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 00:26:00 -
[52] - Quote
Im not making that point I don't care about the pfice!
I care about the power-to-player ratio!
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 00:55:00 -
[53] - Quote
Slag Emberforge wrote: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. This couldn't be more wrong. The tanker should be able to be taken out by an equally or better skilled and armed AV infantry, This is not the same as stating its equivalent to a drop suit. Tankers encounter zero resistance and faceroll AI based infantry, and have the capacity to kill AV and V alike. Meanwhile AV is seriously gimped at AI, giving up all of that power to focus on a support role. That is keeping their team alive by destroying vehicles, and stopping the literal infantry wrecking ball that is a tank. Dropping extra ISK should never give you the ability skip teamwork. That's the point of this game. If you require teamwork to be destroyed you should require team work to be operated.
I would not be against .asking tanks a team vehicle. They need to be as powerful as they are, thats what makes them such a good force multiplier. I think tanks taking g more than one person to operate effectively is a good tradeoff for their power.
I also envision that a light weapon should kill a light vehicle easily, and a heavy weapon should kill a heavy vehicle easily, and it should take multiple light weapons working in tandem to down a heavy vehicle. |
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
293
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 00:57:00 -
[54] - Quote
KING CHECKMATE 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. tank =/= dropsuit. By mere logic a tanks should always be more expensive than a dropsuit. Plus i was in favor of a Tank ISK cost reduction. But not this much.Their performance does not match their cost at all.
Then my comment was not directed at you. There were some AV players, I don't care enough to memorize their names, who said tanks being more expensive than AV was no excuse to buff them, and are using the same logic to get a buff to AV. If you did not vouch this position, then I'm not poking fun at you in particular.  |
Zero Harpuia
Turalyon 514
Turalyon Alliance
1365
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 01:49:00 -
[55] - 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 -
[56] - 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
|
Seymor Krelborn
DUST University
Ivy League
1501
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 02:17:00 -
[57] - 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 wasn't one of these people you speak of.
but quick question.
if it wasn't ok for them, then why is it ok for you?
CCp's newest joke, making setting off your own remote explosives in FW FF... awesome job ccp.
|
Slag Emberforge
Immortal Retribution
291
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 02:19:00 -
[58] - Quote
Shokhann wrote:
so in eve, a single fighter should be able to destroy a titan solo.
1. I don't play EVE
2. This is not EVE
3. See #2
Anti-Vehicle Weaponry is the intuitively named counter to vehicles, a player focuses on vehicles, my focus is devoting as much power and capacity of my character into dealing damage and destroying vehicles. We should be able to kill each other. One choice should not be superior to each other.
The difference is I don't expect to kill a HAV in two seconds, even though it is perfectly acceptable for a HAV to kill me in the same timeframe. |
Alena Ventrallis
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
296
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 03:44:00 -
[59] - Quote
Seymor Krelborn 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. I wasn't one of these people you speak of. but quick question. if it wasn't ok for them, then why is it ok for you?
When did I say it was okay for me? |
dogmanpig
black market bank
80
|
Posted - 2013.12.15 04:01:00 -
[60] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Thorn Badblood wrote:It takes 1 guy to kill a tank, want proof? Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3xsMqHu56gWhat do you think the price difference is between the weapon and the tank? The M136 AT4 is the Army's primary light anti-tank weapon Unit Replacement Cost: US $1,480.64 M1A2 Abrams with prototype TUSK equipment US $6.21 million A. you call that a tank it had less armor than Hummer B. it is disposable so you have one shot C. I doubt you are strafing while holding that.
they really didn't destroy the vehicle either. they kill personal inside. that's why its fire middle of them to hit the softer body rather then the engine or the ammo pack.
btw none of them break over 500mm of armor(basic steel). abrams have over 600mm of armor on their weakest points. you know that would mean... its ineffective. and thats before you count in that its armor is made to deflect and reduce that type of damage.
You hate me, I hate you. Lets keep it that way.
Level 7 1/3 Forum alt.
"Its worth half a penny and a reach around"
|
|
|
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] |