|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
3761
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 20:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
*Grabs Popcorn*
Next On To-Do List:
Particle Cannons
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
3762
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vance Vyth wrote:Please Atiim? tell me that these points are not valid? they hold weight., and most of them are true. Its unbelievable what I'm seeing. This community is divided beyond belief. counter argument me I want to see your side? I'm not saying these details aren't valid. In fact, I agree with you.
I put that there because I expect this thread to become another "ragefest" of sorts.
Next On To-Do List:
Particle Cannons
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
3762
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 21:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hired Pinp wrote:Lol no that's why they lowered the swarm launcher's max range, after a certain distance they would turn invisible, not to mention the occasional unnatural corner turn. The whole militia tanks and their modules need to be reworked, as you previously said they take no sp as opposed to 1.6 where only the well fitted and intelligent tankers managed to survive. Simply nerfing MLT modules will do almost nothing but remove the only consistent counter to experienced vehicle pilots.
As for that last statement, what was the problem with this? Only the well fitted and intelligent tankers should survive. If you are inexperienced and have a poorly fit vehicle, experienced AV should put down like a mad dog when you are piloting.
"The best rivals the best, and only the best."
Next On To-Do List:
Particle Cannons
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
3767
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vance Vyth wrote:I agree with this statement by Atiim. The last statement of Hired Pinp I must have misread. Thinking that he was agreeing with me, I guess not? I believe they should just have released the PRO variants of vehicles. & took another look at AV. Not change things so dramatically and over simplified everything. Don't worry about it. I remember I used to misinterpret things all the time when I first arrived on the forums. You'll get used to it.
At the very least, they could have simply increase the base stats of vehicles, which would have killed two birds with one stone.
Pilots would have been able to survive longer, and HAV vs. HAV fights would have been slightly more drawn out and exciting.
Next On To-Do List:
Particle Cannons
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
3767
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
Aizen Intiki wrote:simple minded bads like you always think shallow....... Says the pilot.
Next On To-Do List:
Particle Cannons
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
3768
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
Charlotte O'Dell wrote:Well, Chrome balance was decent. 3 proto AV could kill the best tanks.
Requiring 3 people to destroy 1 person is imbalanced.
Have you ever played a game of Rock, Paper Scissors where your opponent draws rock and you draw paper; just to lose simply because there wasn't enough 'papers' to counter said 'rock'?
1-1.6 was bad. 1 proto av could solo the best tanks
1.6 was bad, but not because of this reason. Why shouldn't the best of AV solo the best of tanks? They are both 1 individual unit.
1.7 as just as bad with 6 proto AV not being able to kill the best tanks.
Binding an entire squad to destroy 1 tanker is both overkill and imbalanced. Agreed
Hardeners need fitting requirements increased so only a proto tank can stack 3.
I believe that we should have different hardeners for different vehicle times (Similar to Vehicle Repair Modules). Then we can adjust fitting requirements accordingly.
However, no vehicle should be able to stack hardeners. It breaks the "waves of opportunity" philosophy that CCP have instilled into vehicles.
In layman's terms: "AV has to wait their turn. Why shouldn't you?"
AV needs a moderate boost. Swarms need their range lock to 300m and forges need the previous charge times returned. Both could stand a 12% damage buff.
Waves of opportunity work only if tanks can be 1-2hkd when hardeners are off which is not the case.
300m seems a little game breaking. Agreed on the other parts.
And while we are at it, can someone please buff Plasma Cannons?
True tankers still **** militia tank scrubs all day but more to do with tactics than gear. A mlt tank should not be able to fit more than 1 hardener. A std should have to sacrifice a good turret to fit two. ADV tanks should be able to fit 2 and a good turret, and proto should be able to fit basically anything they want, but cost 3 million isk (2x120 plates, light rep, 3 hardeners, nitrous, damage mod. Lol)
Nothing should be able to fit more than one hardener. Though as opposed to a CPU/PG nerf to MLT vehicles, why not require turrets to be filled?
That PRO HAV fit is/would be overpowered. No amount of ISK/SP could justify it.
However, we desperately need gunships that can fit large turrets. That in itself would be the ultimate counter to rail snipers.
It would have to take serious cuts to speed and mobility. Otherwise you would just create a flying tank.
Next On To-Do List:
Particle Cannons
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
3768
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 22:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Hired Pinp wrote:AV was far from "fine" when proto swarms wipe out your 6,000 armor tank in two volleys, something sure as hell isn't right. This is a joke right?
Swarm Launchers are meant to completely annihilate armored vehicles.
That's like a person in a Gallente suit complaining about Mass Drivers, or a Minmatar suit user complaining about Scrambler Rifles.
Next On To-Do List:
Particle Cannons
|
|
|
|