|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
426
   |
Posted - 2014.01.02 22:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
AV nades only work on stupid tankers very well and not so much on shield tanked HAVs. You need to get close and by that you either get shreddered by the HAV (assuming it was a blaster HAV) or the surrounding infantry you cant shoot and throw at the same time.
The HAV in this scenario did his work but to get this balanced the HAV should rather use 5 Infantry mem to support him instead of two, or the HAV should need more than one to operate.
In the current state its either tank or loose, the side with more HAVs normally wins. This seems a bit strange for a first person shooter.
The waves of oppertunity only works on paper smart HAV pilots simply stack hardeners or reppers to a degree where there is only one giant wave of oppertunity for them.
I partly agree a AV HAVs should be the best counter to a AI HAV but I also believe AV infantry should be a counter to at least AV HAVs. That way you have a balance circle. AV Infantry does not need to destroy a HAV but they should be able to take the HAV out of battle for a good amount of time, sadly thats not the case. The pilot can escape and recover too fast or simply recalls his HAV to call in another one.
The balance in this regard is horribly off. |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
429
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 08:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ghosts Chance wrote:Korvin Lomont wrote:AV nades only work on stupid tankers very well and not so much on shield tanked HAVs. You need to get close and by that you either get shreddered by the HAV (assuming it was a blaster HAV) or the surrounding infantry you cant shoot and throw at the same time.
The HAV in this scenario did his work but to get this balanced the HAV should rather use 5 Infantry mem to support him instead of two, or the HAV should need more than one to operate.
In the current state its either tank or loose, the side with more HAVs normally wins. This seems a bit strange for a first person shooter.
The waves of oppertunity only works on paper smart HAV pilots simply stack hardeners or reppers to a degree where there is only one giant wave of oppertunity for them.
I partly agree a AV HAVs should be the best counter to a AI HAV but I also believe AV infantry should be a counter to at least AV HAVs. That way you have a balance circle. AV Infantry does not need to destroy a HAV but they should be able to take the HAV out of battle for a good amount of time, sadly thats not the case. The pilot can escape and recover too fast or simply recalls his HAV to call in another one.
The balance in this regard is horribly off. were not arguing about balance, its clearly unbalanced. were simply detailing an effective and useful stratagy to counter the OPness. AV granades work, you can argue otherwise all you want but all that does is deny you an AV stratagy and doesnt really benifit you at all. its no skin off MY back if you dont use it, but its probably a good idea to try things out before you shoot them down.
Yes but they still only work on stupid tankers. The best way for me to counter HAV's is by using RE's, sneaking up behind them place three RE's, throw one or two AV nades and detonatae you RE's. This is enough for most of the HAV's I have encountered.
But this is a bit tricky in FW as you can kill yourself by thsi strategy (yes the AV nades will detonate your remotes so be carefully). |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
432
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 11:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Korvin Lomont wrote:
In the current state its either tank or loose, the side with more HAVs normally wins. This seems a bit strange for a first person shooter.
First Person Shooter does not mean 100% infantry 100% of the time.
Thats correct but it does not mean tank or loose either  |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
433
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 12:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:
But you're complaining that MLT gear is cheaper than PRO gear. You want a MLT hull to cost 200,000 ISK, and a STD hull to be 350,000 ISK?
I'll take that if your dropsuits go back up to their old costs. PRO suits costing 317,000 ISK.
No he is simply complaining that a militia HAV (expensive asset) is cheaper than a Proto Infantry weapon (cheap asset)
Regarding the dropsuits price yes even a militia HAV should be more expensive than a proto dropsuits unless we get dropsuits that can have more than 5000HP, are immune to most Infantry weapons amd move faster than jeeps without stamina loss oh and that can carry a big gun with some small ones while beeing invincible for a short period of time....
You get quite a lot for the ISK you pay for a HAV... |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
433
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 13:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Korvin Lomont wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
But you're complaining that MLT gear is cheaper than PRO gear. You want a MLT hull to cost 200,000 ISK, and a STD hull to be 350,000 ISK?
I'll take that if your dropsuits go back up to their old costs. PRO suits costing 317,000 ISK.
No he is simply complaining that a militia HAV (expensive asset) is cheaper than a Proto Infantry weapon (cheap asset) Regarding the dropsuits price yes even a militia HAV should be more expensive than a proto dropsuits unless we get dropsuits that can have more than 5000HP, are immune to most Infantry weapons amd move faster than jeeps without stamina loss oh and that can carry a big gun with some small ones while beeing invincible for a short period of time.... You get quite a lot for the ISK you pay for a HAV... I disagree korvin, they should maintain their cheapness but loose their survivability. 1.7 has been good in the effect of more tanks, but if tanks (gunships, dropships, APCs) are too be a common sight (as they should be) they need to have less survivability, such that infantry and other vehicles can effectively combat each other. The frequency of tanks is only so high because, the tanks are overpowered. If they are balanced, less people will Spam them.
Oh don't get me wrong here I am all for cheaper tanks the price prior to 1.7 was ridiculous. But still I believe a HAV should be (slightly) more expensive than a simple dropsuit (so a little tweak would be nice).
A HAV is a powerful toy and that should somehow be reflected by the price, but only to a degree where HAV pilots can still make profit. This is a tricky task for CCP.
|
|
|
| |
|