|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
2643
   |
Posted - 2013.12.27 15:11:00 -
[1] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:+1, OP.
Nerf to HAV speed, and possibly acceleration, and to the nitrous' effectiveness.
Remove active hardener stacking. Remove active damage mod stacking (to compensate for the removal of hardener stacking).
Watch infantry QQ subside. Does that mean infantry also remove the 3 dmg mods they also run on suits?
Sure you can. Right after you:
Buff every niche weapon in the game by giving them 20-30% extra damage, make my dropsuit invulnerable to all but 6 weapons in the entire game, give my dropsuit the ability to use nitrous to GTFO faster than even a scout could ever possible hope to achieve, buff my base HP to 4000HP, and give me a weapon that can shred vehicles without having to compromise anything.
Until then, it's not happening.
We finally deployed in the MinFW Match!
\o/
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
2644
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 15:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Rizlax Yazzax wrote:
Thought it would only be a matter of time before you showed up Atiim. If you could provide a decent argument instead of using extreme hyperbole for once that'd be great. Comparing tanks to dropsuits in the way you do, especially over one module in this case, does nothing but paint you as self entitled and ignorant.
I'm doing exactly what they were doing. Comparing dropsuits modules to vehicle modules. I would say I'm surprised that you didn't call them out for doing so, but I already know that tunnelvision is mighty in tankers.
If you want to balance an infantry module because of changes to vehicle modules, then you have to do so accordingly to all of the aspects of said module that would become broken because of the "eye for an eye" logic tankers like Tankahiro like to use on a regular basis. That's what I said and I fail to see the problem with such.
As for using extreme hyperbole over decent arguments, not one single argument I (and many others) have ever made in regards to V/AV have ever been dis-proven with actual logic. If you want to be attempt to be the first than go on ahead.
I'm waiting.
We finally deployed in the MinFW Match!
\o/
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
2644
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 15:48:00 -
[3] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
My tank pre 1.7 cost 1.7+mil but AV always said it doesnt matter how much it costs
So now it doesnt matter how much tanks/AV cost because the argument is already invalid
If its not invalid like AV players are trying to say then my 500k tank should be as good as the entire enemy team, frankly pre 1.7 my 1.7mil tank should have been stronger than both teams put together but it wasnt
I still believe that it doesn't, and I stick to what I said pre 1.7.
However, there is a problem with things costing to less in terms of balance, as that would cause things to be spammed in rapid succession, similar to vehicles now.
Lets take this for example. ISK may not be a factor, but what if Particle Cannons only cost 5k ISK? Would you agree that 5k would be way too cheap for a PRO Railgun Turret?
ISK is not a balancing factor to an extent. Which is exactly what I've been saying pre 1.7 and I still say it now.
We finally deployed in the MinFW Match!
\o/
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
2646
|
Posted - 2013.12.27 20:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Eurydice Itzhak wrote:
Would do it all. If you let my tanks cap points.
Stop with your apples to oranges crap Atiim.
Apparently I've played with you in FW but you didn't place top 5 so I never noticed.
Git gud.
Atiim wrote:
I'm doing exactly what they were doing. Comparing dropsuits modules to vehicle modules. I would say I'm surprised that you didn't call them out for doing so, but I already know that tunnelvision is mighty in tankers.
If you want to balance an infantry module because of changes to vehicle modules, then you have to do so accordingly to all of the aspects of said module that would become broken because of the "eye for an eye" logic tankers like Tankahiro like to use on a regular basis. That's what I said and I fail to see the problem with such.
*Claps slowly.*
Funny, because a well majority of my matches are victories, and I placed 3rd and won even when I was going up against CUBS' squad in FW. The fact that somebody judges someone else's skill based on a total of 1-2 matches is funny, if not downright pathetic. I had a guy tell me something similar to that a few weeks ago. Rinsed him down the drain.
I'll summarize it this way:
Atiim wrote:Oh noes, he told me to get gud. Whatever shall I do?
We finally deployed in the MinFW Match!
\o/
|
|
|
| |
|