|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1393
   |
Posted - 2014.01.02 16:47:00 -
[1] - Quote
So Im on the new craters map, we have just capped C, the above ground small complex right of the facility. Now the Enemy instantly launches a counter attack. Now we have no access to vehicular support.
So I now don't have time to set up this strategy you laid out, I can't call to my team to help because they are fending of the infantry
So what now?
I didn't have 5 mins before that tank came into prepare, so what do I do?
I can't afford to wait till his hardners drop because he is shoving his way into the facility. You truly believe that's fair, that a crack team of infantry are gonna loose the point they just capped because ONE guy brought a tank?
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1394
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 16:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Reav Hannari wrote:One guy in a tank might kill you but he won't be able to capture an objective unless he gets out of the tank and makes himself vulnerable. Use cover, avoid the tank and try and shoot any infantry that come to hack.
So hide?
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1394
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 16:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
Valmorgan Aubaris wrote:lol you got pwnd 
Indeed we did, but considering we had an AV player on the squad, a commando with Proto Swarms, should we have done?
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1396
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 17:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Reav Hannari wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Reav Hannari wrote:One guy in a tank might kill you but he won't be able to capture an objective unless he gets out of the tank and makes himself vulnerable. Use cover, avoid the tank and try and shoot any infantry that come to hack. So hide? If you are infantry and equipped to fight infantry do you have a better idea? You can go places that the tank can't go and can't shoot at. Force the tanker to dismount to accomplish anything. I highly doubt they will and you have just neutralized his capability to capture the objective. Mission accomplished. Rookies try to engage what they have no hope of killing. Veterans know when to fall back and hold a position.
We had an AVer, you assume no enemy infantry, if had meant that id would have said that. So basically you expect us to sit it 2m squared area the tank can't access and hide.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1398
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 17:32:00 -
[5] - Quote
Reav Hannari wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:We had an Aver, you assume no enemy infantry, if had meant that id would have said that. So basically you expect us to sit it 2m squared area the tank can't access and hide. Your OP didn't mention that you had AV support on the objective. It also sounded like the tank had rolled in on his own. If infantry rolls in with armor support you better hope your AV is enough to drive off the tank and your infantry can defeat their infantry. Otherwise, the opposing team was smart and moved in with superior capabilities and you deserve to lose the point. I guess I'm now confused at what your point is.
My point is, is it fair that I guy with a tank, under AV suppression, slaughtered an entire squad?
Despite the fact we had AV?
Is it fair that AV is THAT useless?
Is it fair that because they had a tank and ee didn't that they won?
Is it fair to give such overwhelming power to a single player?
Does this show to you no matter how good the infantry is, even when we had the foresight to bring an AVer that tanks make it all meaningless?
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1402
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 17:56:00 -
[6] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:A team of crack infantry - lolwanting AR to kill tanks are we?
Crack infantry which cannot adapt = crap infantry tbh
Crack infantry = You kill the enemy infantry and ignore the tank because he cant hack a point lol
No vehicle back up? whos fault is that?
If they bring 1 tank and 2 infantry, against a 6man squad with at least 1 proto swarm = Point held down because you kill infantry and tank cant hack a point
It sounds like your crack team is crap and ***** itself when a tank arrives
Oh my greatest apologies I hadn't considered we were to blame I mean its not like the tank killed us all or anything.
We must clearly want to kill tanks with ARs because I mentioned that we were all running that did I?
Its amazing, you seem to think we have the brain capacity of yourself.
Said 6 man squad against tank = unequivocally dea, despite AV.
You know its rather hard to defend a point when you are all dead.
I mean its amazing I jist gave you a scenario where the current iteration of tanks gives you an 'I win' card and the best you can come up with is
'You trying to shoot it with AR's?'
Its utterly astounding, I'll have to submit a paper on it, can I autopsy you? Im intregiued as to how thick that skull of yours must be.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1404
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 18:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:A team of crack infantry - lolwanting AR to kill tanks are we?
Crack infantry which cannot adapt = crap infantry tbh
Crack infantry = You kill the enemy infantry and ignore the tank because he cant hack a point lol
No vehicle back up? whos fault is that?
If they bring 1 tank and 2 infantry, against a 6man squad with at least 1 proto swarm = Point held down because you kill infantry and tank cant hack a point
It sounds like your crack team is crap and ***** itself when a tank arrives Oh my greatest apologies I hadn't considered we were to blame I mean its not like the tank killed us all or anything. We must clearly want to kill tanks with ARs because I mentioned that we were all running that did I? Its amazing, you seem to think we have the brain capacity of yourself. Said 6 man squad against tank = unequivocally dea, despite AV. You know its rather hard to defend a point when you are all dead. I mean its amazing I jist gave you a scenario where the current iteration of tanks gives you an 'I win' card and the best you can come up with is 'You trying to shoot it with AR's?' Its utterly astounding, I'll have to submit a paper on it, can I autopsy you? Im intregiued as to how thick that skull of yours must be. Your all dead Cant you use cover? Sounds like bad team is bad tbh
Hmm, I even went to the effort of telling you about the complex, It has a whole side open,
What find odd though ia you seem to think hiding is an acceptable tactic. I think that just shows the tanker mindset.
If I can see you and your not in a tank it should be instadeath.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1404
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 18:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
Reave, thank you for being so reasonable.
I agree with some of the points you made, some I didn't.
I agree a Swarm Launcher shouldn't outright destroy a vehicle by its self, that would be rather ridiculous. But at the same time I think it should be able to actively suppress tanks.
At the moment this just doesn't happen, the tank seemed almost encouraged by our use of AV. He charged in with such speed, we were certain he probably boosted in. A swarm launcher should be at least capable of making a tanker soil his undies.
I agree with your point on 'waves of opportunity' , but not completly. While it is meant to be a wave of time where the tanker is useful it should not be guaranteed. They should be strong enough to have the upper hand but weak enough to feel like they are probably gonna have to bug out early if they aren't careful.
I disagree with the Teacher paragraph. First of all I hardly call 1 tank and a couple of infamtry well rounded, no offence.
But secondly and most importantly is while we did have a tanker with us (q-synced), you are not always able respond. I personally feel it would be fairer if we could at least stave of the tank, even if we had to EVENTUALLY receive vehicular back-up it wouldn't necessarily be a problem.
But at this point in time it doesn't work like that.
I also thourly believe with points for AV damage, this will get a lot of people focusing more on suppresion and less on the kill.
I propose the amount of damage you did is totalled up until a 30sec gap, all the warpoints are then rewarded u der a lump sum, + -- Vehicle Suppression.
I'll finish by saying I don't want a return of 1.6, this iteration is much fairer on tankers, but at the same time it's not perfect.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1405
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 19:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
Quil Evrything wrote:I think multiple guys hit on the key point here, but didnt get completely explicit; so I will;
Your squad would have been able to win, if you had that same AV guy.. AND a couple of *other* squad members were carrying AV grenades.
Ideally, the AV guy should have been carrying swarms AND remotes (AND AV grenades).. but its always nice to have a little extra coverage these days.
Then one guy carries a hive.. and your squad is then a rain of AV death that a single tank will run away from.
While still being primarily equipped for anti-infantry.
We switched over half the squad to AV grenades, we have been fortunate enough not to encounter a situation similar to that which I described here as I doubt it would have faired much better. But I would like to ask, should 1 man (the tanker) be so powerful as to be capable of overwhelming a superior force?
Based on how one sided the Scenario was I could easily peg his equivalent force strength to at least 10. Is it fair to reduce the game to simple mathematics?
As for the guy who said infantry are opposed to vehicles winning, first of all I want vehicles on my side to win. Secondly I onlynhave a problem with vehicles winning jf its a win due to overpoweredness. I enjoy the goodfight, not the massacre.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1416
|
Posted - 2014.01.02 23:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Reav Hannari wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:We had an Aver, you assume no enemy infantry, if had meant that id would have said that. So basically you expect us to sit it 2m squared area the tank can't access and hide. Your OP didn't mention that you had AV support on the objective. It also sounded like the tank had rolled in on his own. If infantry rolls in with armor support you better hope your AV is enough to drive off the tank and your infantry can defeat their infantry. Otherwise, the opposing team was smart and moved in with superior capabilities and you deserve to lose the point. I guess I'm now confused at what your point is. My point is, is it fair that I guy with a tank, under AV suppression, slaughtered an entire squad? Despite the fact we had AV? Is it fair that AV is THAT useless? Is it fair that because they had a tank and ee didn't that they won? Is it fair to give such overwhelming power to a single player? Does this show to you no matter how good the infantry is, even when we had the foresight to bring an AVer that tanks make it all meaningless? Did you have any Flux grenades? Any remote explosives? Any Proximity explosives? Amy PRIMARY AV damage systems? (hint that means FORGE guns. Swarms and grenades are SUPPLEMENTARY) No? Then why are you complaining? That's like only having a pistol when trying to storm a point and complaining that your scrambler pistol couldn't out DPS a Battle Rifle. I have a suit all loaded up for just such a situation... what do you have? Nothing? Figures.
1Flux + 1MD + 2RE - DemoMan/ Flanker
1Locus + 1SG + 1Flaylock + TriageHive PointMan / Breacher
1ASR + 1SL + 1PRE - AV speacilist
1Sniper - Sniper (obviously)
1 Locus + 1CR + RepTool + Injector + HybridHive - FieldMedic
1HMG + 1SMG - Enforcer/Suppresion
So yes we had flux's, Yes we had RE, Yes we had proximity explosives, you should never assume. Although I must ask where in the swarm launcher it mentions it being Supplementary?
In Game Description wrote:A mid-range anti-material weapon, the shoulder-mounted rocket launcher provides infantry squads with the means to effectively engage armoured vehicles and installation gun emplacements.
I don't see it in there, the bit I see is , EFFECTIVELY engage armoured vehicles, a tank is an armoured vehicle, therefore I would expect thenSwarm Launcher to be capable of engaging it . . . . .Effectively.
You are correct Ghost the Question is largely rhetorical, while the squad has adapted I think our Scenario shows that Tanks are just a little to effective. Don't get me wrong I am no advocate for the tanks of 1.6, I just think (like the TTK) they have just gone a LITTLE too far and if I can convince people this is the case we can try and avoid the continous cycle of buffs and nerfs.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
|
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1432
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 10:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ghost Kaisar wrote:Reav Hannari wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Reav Hannari wrote:One guy in a tank might kill you but he won't be able to capture an objective unless he gets out of the tank and makes himself vulnerable. Use cover, avoid the tank and try and shoot any infantry that come to hack. So hide? If you are infantry and equipped to fight infantry do you have a better idea? You can go places that the tank can't go and can't shoot at. Force the tanker to dismount to accomplish anything. I highly doubt they will and you have just neutralized his capability to capture the objective. Mission accomplished. Rookies try to engage what they have no hope of killing. Veterans know when to fall back and hold a position. The problem comes when a tank blocks a route you must take, or a strategic position. This is when you need an infantry solution to tanks, as calling in a tank in that scenario is almost impossible. The game is rapidly becoming a game of tank superiority. Vehicle dominance is unbalancing the game. A group of three tanks (A rail and two blasters) can easily prevent you from calling in your own tanks and to shut down infantry on the ground. Since calling in support on the front lines will be dang near impossible, you have to rely on calling them in from redline, which takes time you don't have. Infantry need a solution to force tanks to back off if they need too, and they are sorely lacking that. A tank should be the logical counter to another tank, but infantry need their own ways of fending off tanks. Not killing them, but forcing them to leave OR be killed. Current AV isn't up to the task, which is why Dust has rapidly become a game of which side can maintain Vehicle Dominance. Just my 0.02 ISK on the matter. Feel free to troll, lol, hate or debate as you see fit.
Pretty much, like I said we couldn't call in our own vehicle and our q-synced pilot was busy elsewhere. We weren't even after the vehicle kill we just needed it out of our hair. But nope it just keot going.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1432
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 10:46:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ninjanomyx wrote:Tech Ohm Eaven wrote:Reav Hannari wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Reav Hannari wrote:One guy in a tank might kill you but he won't be able to capture an objective unless he gets out of the tank and makes himself vulnerable. Use cover, avoid the tank and try and shoot any infantry that come to hack. So hide? If you are infantry and equipped to fight infantry do you have a better idea? You can go places that the tank can't go and can't shoot at. Force the tanker to dismount to accomplish anything. I highly doubt they will and you have just neutralized his capability to capture the objective. Mission accomplished. Rookies try to engage what they have no hope of killing. Veterans know when to fall back and hold a position. These sound like infantry only weapons?: ndeed we did, but considering we had an AV player on the squad, a commando with Proto Swarms, should we have done? Yep. Nerfed AV so just go and hide until more enemy tanks arrive and the enemy wins by not by captures but by killing all the available clones. Tank514...lol. If said Commando got gud & hopped in a LAV for positioning changes you would have had less to worry about. Add 2x Swarms to circumvent Reload & viola.....dead Tank. How 'bout dem Free-2-Play low SP investment (Fresh Academy ALT can do it) Zero ISK BPO Jihad Joe LAVs??? Stop the F2F Noobout Peek-a-Boo Bunnyhop BS & L2P Gud Community FFS....... 
What LAV? Where are we gonna call this in exactly? There was a tank right near by.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1434
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 10:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:
I don't see it in there, the bit I see is , EFFECTIVELY engage armoured vehicles, a tank is an armoured vehicle, therefore I would expect thenSwarm Launcher to be capable of engaging it . . . . .Effectively.
You are correct Ghost the Question is largely rhetorical, while the squad has adapted I think our Scenario shows that Tanks are just a little to effective. Don't get me wrong I am no advocate for the tanks of 1.6, I just think (like the TTK) they have just gone a LITTLE too far and if I can convince people this is the case we can try and avoid the continous cycle of buffs and nerfs.
Engage, not destroy. It generally means harassment. Think Scrambler Pistol VS Heavy If the heavy just stands there the pistol will eventually work, but if the heavy fires back the pistol usually has problems. Same thing with swarms. Also, most handheld guns have lower TTK than tanks do. I wouldn't complain if both tanks and general infantry weapons had their TTK increased. Tactics are always more fun than just getting splattered as soon as one is in range.
Engage: enter into conflict or combat with
Once again doesn't mean what your saying it means.
Heavies fall to sidearm all the time. Harrasment is pointless, Harrasment is to doggedly annoy, annoying a tanker isn't gonna stop him killing me.
Suppresion will, but suppresion requires enough damage to make the tanker not want to attack, or severly shorten is available attack time. But by necessity if the swarm does enough damage to suprress it will have enough damage to kill, if the tanker doesn't bug out.
Its rather hard to convince a tanker he needs to leave whrn you are only doing 'supplementary' damage.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1442
|
Posted - 2014.01.04 20:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
Charlotte O'Dell wrote:tanks are broken. unless somone put like 15 mil into a tank and they cost 2.25 mil ISK, they should be nowhere near as powerful as they are.
Now you see I don't agree with that statement, I shouldn't have to skill into tanks to be able to use a tank effectively, more to the point you shouldn't force people to pay through the nose for it.
Tanks, Gunships should all be a constant threat on the battlefield, they should be being deployed on a regular basis. But at the same time they should be dying on a regular basis as well, it should be sustainable for people to use at least 2 or so tanks a match. But should be expecting to loose these tanks 2 or 3 times a match.
Tanks shouldn't be unstoppable juggernauts of death, no matter how high you price them. Instead the tanks survivability needs to be reduced. That means stacking penalties to hardners and the like, they should be Strong enough to assault a position effectively, to do their vehicle based roles, but weak enough that they can be suppressed with a moderate amount of effort and killed with enough going for the AVer.
Tanks are not the be all and end all of warfare.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1465
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 12:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Rei Shepard wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Reav Hannari wrote:
Your OP didn't mention that you had AV support on the objective. It also sounded like the tank had rolled in on his own.
If infantry rolls in with armor support you better hope your AV is enough to drive off the tank and your infantry can defeat their infantry. Otherwise, the opposing team was smart and moved in with superior capabilities and you deserve to lose the point.
I guess I'm now confused at what your point is.
My point is, is it fair that I guy with a tank, under AV suppression, slaughtered an entire squad? Despite the fact we had AV? Is it fair that AV is THAT useless? Is it fair that because they had a tank and ee didn't that they won? Is it fair to give such overwhelming power to a single player? Does this show to you no matter how good the infantry is, even when we had the foresight to bring an AVer that tanks make it all meaningless? Now that tanks costs 70k and 90k with some equipment on it, witch is half the cost of my suit, they should be soloble by anyone that has AV equipment with him, be it grenades or otherwise. Even their Militia Blaster turrets cream me a new one if they slightly graze me 3 times and at their rate of fire 3 rounds not too long. But i havent really gotten the idea where 1 Tank is cheaper then a Proto Weapon...i really do not want to see Proto tanks running around pretending to be nascar racing vehicles that can repair in under 20s with a pitstop, without the pitstop, while we are having these issues with Militia Versions. Eveytime i put a tank down below 50% armor, i hear Jean Luc Picard say: Warp 9, Engage ....and off it goes... So you're complaining that MLT gear is cheaper than PRO gear?
Hello, Spkr
Spkr4rhedead wrote:Infantry are just too dumb to realise tanks should be the best counter to tanks.
Your argument is invalid, thanks for the bump, don't let the door hit you on the way, mind the lav bombs all parked around your tank.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1465
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 12:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
Snagman 313 wrote:Hmm seems a somewhat common occurrence these days MAC but I would suggest a slight modification to your tactics.
It might sound daft but the best way to counter a tank is overwhelming force IMHO.
So get whoever in your squad who has drop uplinks to try and get one in an elevated or covered position that has at least 2 exits and then get whoever has FG fittings to suicide and spawn in with them but be sure to keep you best assault players in their gear to keep infantry off the Heavy AV. Just hammer the tank, Assault forges and double complex damage mods is the fit I use as Swarms even proto are really only effective against LAVs and Dropships they just don't have the damage or fire rate anymore. You will likely lose a lot of ISK but if you're stuck in an objective it's the best way to deal with them just get stuck in, the Suicide LAV tactic only works if you have time to call in and prep it and the same goes for Proxy mines as they need to be dropped as entering an objective.
Your Commando fighter does have his head screwed on by taking Proto swarms but remember it's only for suppression and he'll need Nano hives to keep up his ammo so that stops him from taking RE/Proxy mines. Since he is already used to being flexible and skilled in the heavy suit he may a good candidate for being a Forge gunner but remember to keep Uplinks nearby as FG users are very exposed to small arms fire due to low speed, big hitbox, big scan profile and no primary infantry weapon.
Also don't listen to Takahiro, he's one of the biggest tanker Trolls I know of and I have it on good authority that he used to play as EnglishSnake the Butthurt vet who quit after the New Eden Missile tank crisis (Oh noes I can't go 50-0 anymore wahh wahh CCP broke my toy!)and only came back now that Tanks are flexing a bit too much muscle again.
Chin up MAC the Tank nerf is coming in 1.8!!!
We had orginally only taken the swarms for suppression, we had a rail tanker elsewhere on the map that was seeing of a 4-tank assault by the enemy.
Even if we could have just got the tanker assaulting our position to bug out eary, before his hardners turned off, we could have successfully have held our position. But as soon as those hardners turn not even proto AV is gonna work with out dedicating more than a reasonable amount of force strength towards it.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1465
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 12:11:00 -
[17] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:[
Your argument is invalid, thanks for the bump, don't let the door hit you on the way, mind the lav bombs all parked around your tank. My argument is invalid? You made a thread complaining that a tank caught you unaware. If ever there was a nonstarter, that's it.
Sorry that was rather hard to hear thdough the door, but are you now telling me having AV and various equipment to help deal with tanks isn't prepared? That because I didn't have 5 mins to prepare all these traps you lot keep suggesting, it's my fault?
So your saying it's my problem that I didn't get 5 mins before that tanked showed up? That I am deserved of my death because the tank turned before the 'prep' time. Or are you trying to say we didn't have any AV when I said multiple times we did.
*Place Sign outside front door. Not Accepting Calls from Johavas Witnesses or Spkr4thedead*
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1465
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 12:39:00 -
[18] - Quote
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.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1466
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 13:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote: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. So give me a 5mil tank then According to you cheap = useless and throwaway and can be easil;y replaced So expenisve = usefull and durable and will kick everyones teeth in because its expensive
Which is exactly why expensive tanks are unbalanced, if you make them expensive and powerful it becomes a game of who has the best.
As it stands the Isk level allows for someone to die in a tank approximately twice a pub match for a miltia fit.
Now if three people a side get through 2 tanks and 1 survives that will meam tanks become a constant threat. This is more fun than 2min scrap at the beginning followed by either ultimate pwnege from a single tank player, or no more tanks for the rest of the match.
Ultra Strong tanks like you want are only fun for the driver.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1466
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 13:53:00 -
[20] - Quote
Korvin Lomont wrote: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. The same is true for survivability a HAV should be able to take quite some damage, but at the same time Infantry needs a way to deal with them. I have basicly no problem with infantry that can only force HAVs to retreat if the effect is lasting for a reasonable time and if the AV player gets rewarded for his effort.
My God man, you actually understand.
They should indeed take some damage, but an Infantry AV unit should be able to deal enough damage that he can be forced to leave before his hardners run out. Its only if he sticks around after that will he die.
While I see what you're saying with pricd, having a tank cost less than proto may seem odd, but they are miltia tanks. They need to be sustainable in pubs. I would expect a proto modded tank to be unprofitable, much like the suits.
I think the prices as theynare fine, but the strength is the determining factor, is the one tht is out of kilter. The survivability and strength of the tanks, is too much for it to be fair for a single person to have access to.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
|
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1466
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 13:56:00 -
[21] - Quote
Psychotic Shooter wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Valmorgan Aubaris wrote:lol you got pwnd Indeed we did, but considering we had an AV player on the squad, a commando with Proto Swarms, should we have done? You need more than one proto swarm to deal with a tank you noob if you had six guy 3 deal with the tank while the other 3 fight the infantry or think outside the ******* box call a tank of your own since MLT tanks can stand up to the best
1. Did you actually read the post, where are we gonna call this tank in?
2. So you're saying it should take 3 people a tank?
3. You are also saying putting 50% of your squad to deal with ONE person seems reasonable?
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
Monkey MAC
Lost Millennium
1466
|
Posted - 2014.01.06 14:01:00 -
[22] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Monkey Mac wrote:Kevin Lorment wrote:
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. So give me a 5mil tank then According to you cheap = useless and throwaway and can be easil;y replaced So expenisve = usefull and durable and will kick everyones teeth in because its expensive Which is exactly why expensive tanks are unbalanced, if you make them expensive and powerful it becomes a game of who has the best. As it stands the Isk level allows for someone to die in a tank approximately twice a pub match for a miltia fit. Now if three people a side get through 2 tanks and 1 survives that will meam tanks become a constant threat. This is more fun than 2min scrap at the beginning followed by either ultimate pwnege from a single tank player, or no more tanks for the rest of the match. Ultra Strong tanks like you want are only fun for the driver. A game of who has the best With tanks its OP and unbalanced With infantry its fine Yea no You cant have it both ways At first its my AV fit is cheap and should be able to kill your super expenisve tank and now its my AV fits costs more than your tank and thats unfair
1) Never Said tanks should be expensive
2) Infantry Proto can fall to Mlt quite easily
3) Never said infantry was a balanced aspect.
4) If you read my posts on the subject, I have always based tank balance as 1 tank == 1 Infantry Player.
If you want cheaper tanks that is fine by me, hell make them free if you really want, but so long as a tank is worth more than an infantry player it won't be balanced.
Tanks 514
I told you, I bloody well told you.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
|
|
|
| |
|