|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
586
   |
Posted - 2013.12.23 19:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
With the rise of Tank514, it has become even more glaringly obvious, how weak weapon installations are.
They serve as little more as WP eggs for tankers at the moment.
I think that gun/missile installations, should be just as difficult to blow up , as CRUs .
Giving then more defense than a freakin LAV, would seem to make sense to me.
They're a stationary installation. They should be *heavily* fortified!!
They should have at least twice as much HP as the most buff tank, IMO.
Gobs of armor.
And the railguns should be able to rapidly home in on any tank firing on them, and proceed to zap them into itty-bitty-tank-bits.
It's rather stupid how you can be "out of range" of a rail installation auto-return-firing at you, while not out of range of a tank railgun.
If anything, stationary installations should have longer range than tanks, not shorter.
This would encourage much more teamplay between tankers, and infantry.
"Sure, i'd LOVE to support you with my tank. but hey, I need you to go hack that installation by you first, or I'll get blown up myself" |
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
586
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
you wouldnt be so confused, if you spent less time running around in a tank, expecting other people to do the gruntwork.
|
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
587
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 20:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
FYI, I believe effective range for large blaster on a tank, is 250m.
That's not 500m, but its still not too shabby either. So the whole "trap " thing, only works on clueless tankers who are using a tank like an infantry suit.
|
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
589
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 22:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:Also, give remotes a damage boost to installations, or jus t buff raw remote damage (I'm in favor of the first one.) They need to be easily destroyed by SOMETHING(...)
Why?
I completely disagree with your premise.
If you want to neutralize their threat "quickly", then you should need to hack them.
If you can get close enough to use remotes on them, it shouldnt be too much more difficult to hack them.
(edit: contrariwise, if they're going to be easily-destroyed WP eggs, then may as well not bother allowing them to be hackable/counter-hackable in the first place.
Particularly as they give more WP for destruction, than for hacking. Now there's something idiotic) |
Quil Evrything
Triple Terrors
594
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 23:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Delta90212 wrote:Unless you want to make it a hell for dropships i say no.
regular dropships, or assault dropships?
either way, the point is moot.
regular dropships can Be Dropships. Worst case, they can simply fly at high altitude, and have passengers "drop" out, for deployment.
assault dropships, can have their pilots actually get good, and fly behind cover, until they position themselves out of range of the turret's field of view, and then proceed to bomb them, if desired.
So, really, rather than "hell", it's more like "welcome back to what the rest of us have to live with".
Having to move using cover, and moving tacticaly, rather than "nyah nyah I'm invincible because I've removed all your turrets and AV sucks now"
|
|
|
| |
|