|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rusty Shallows
906
   |
Posted - 2014.01.26 08:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:snip
Most other fits are solo material for AV players, and so the thread is still overly broad without need.
Devs aren't interested in nuanced discussions. Otherwise we wouldn't have had all the crazy nerfing and buffs of 1.7
Here, have some candy and a Like. :-)
Forums > Game
|
Rusty Shallows
906
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 08:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:I wish my standard suit can take on a sentinel solo  I hate how it takes teamwork or tactics to bring down those fatties  Seriously, this is how stupid you all sound.
Use one of the big Four-Rifles, have the proficiency at 3, stack complex damage mods, and if possible rake the head (it's a large target and we are stupidly slow). Collect profit.
Or with one buddy focus fire and melt the Fatty with center of mass shots. Do it with three or more to insta-gib him. Just an FYI 1.8 isn't going to change that. Just give people more options for a style of play.
Killing Heavies is just as easy as killing unhardened vehicles with any Large Rail. Easier in most cases since.
Here, have some candy and a Like. :-)
Forums > Game
|
Rusty Shallows
906
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 08:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Leonid Tybalt wrote:More tank related QQ. Starting to get old.
As long as the tank costs more than whatever dropsuit the other guy is using then they shouldn't be "equal". The tank should be superior.
We had that QQ toward the end of Chromosome. Then we had new tank QQ towards all AV and people QQing over armor blaster HAVs. Now we just have more QQ under the Tanks514 banner.
It was already old before you installed the game.
Here, have some candy and a Like. :-)
Forums > Game
|
Rusty Shallows
910
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 19:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:Harpyja wrote:I wish my standard suit can take on a sentinel solo I hate how it takes teamwork or tactics to bring down those fatties Seriously, this is how stupid you all sound. Use one of the big Four-Rifles, have the proficiency at 3, stack complex damage mods, and if possible rake the head (it's a large target and we are stupidly slow). Collect profit. Or with one buddy focus fire and melt the Fatty with center of mass shots. Do it with three or more to insta-gib him. Just an FYI 1.8 isn't going to change that. Just give people more options for a style of play. Killing Heavies is just as easy as killing unhardened vehicles with any Large Rail. Easier in most cases since. Now apply this to AV. Stack some complex damage mods, prof 3 on forge guns with an IAFG, and shoot the rear of the tank. Profit. Or you can get a friend, where both of you are using breach instead, and instapop that unhardened tank before it can do anything.
A few points:- Headshots can happen in every direction. Rear HAV shots aren't even on all parts of the model. I'd CCP made all Large Turret hits count as critical damage then yes.
- A solo Forge Gun has never even come close to killing a HAV as a similarly fitted Slayer fit on Infantry Frames. The gap on TTK is huge even with the old assault Forge Guns and maxed skills.
- You are correct about the Breaches. Although again infantry are forced to jump through hoops for that rear shot and easily thwarted by enemy infantry or a HAV pilot who keeps mobile.
- Heavy Frames aren't even 1/10th as great as you make them out to be. HAVs can be God-Mode most of the time, Heavy Frame can at best be Ultra-Deadly-Mode against a Scout on open ground in from of him. At least the Scout has a chance. That isn't the case with Infantry facing HAVs.
Here, have some candy and a Like. :-)
Forums > Game
|
Rusty Shallows
910
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 19:45:00 -
[5] - Quote
Teilka Darkmist wrote:I even said so in a post a couple of days ago (which I can't find anymore as the forums don't have even such a basic function as a list of threads
Under your posting Portrait to the left of your name is a Right Triangle. That's a hidden menu. Click on it and you can view your own posts. It also has a convenient Tea Party function that allows you to selectively ignore other people.
I also provide instruction on how to use the Three Seashells.
Here, have some candy and a Like. :-)
Forums > Game
|
Rusty Shallows
910
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 19:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:OverIord Ulath wrote:Then shouldn't they require the same number of people to run their tanks? I mean... If you are taking 3 people's attention away from focusing on winning the match just to deal with you, shouldn't you require the same number of people to distract them?  In my tank i have 2 drones working below decks for the reloading of turrets and activating modules, other than that its me doing all the work You cant prove otherwise
Takahiro are you really trying to use a Fluff Argument against a Team Player Count Argument? One position is based on competitive game balance and the other personalized game fiction.
At least the guys who went ape-$&@-Ñ over a typo on the Caldari Sentinel had documentation. You're just making stuff up to justify a position. Fluff is never a good reason for bad game design.
Here, have some candy and a Like. :-)
Forums > Game
|
Rusty Shallows
910
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 20:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Teilka Darkmist wrote:As to the three seashells go right ahead and explain. And the female variant please. It's useless for me to know about the male one.
Calling my bluff, well played. Okay you win.
Here, have some candy and a Like. :-)
Forums > Game
|
Rusty Shallows
910
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 20:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Teilka Darkmist wrote:Is that canon or just something she made up? Also, well played yourself, I didn't know that was out there.
Demolition Man (1993). Sorry I keep forgetting each year that passes the movie become more of a cult classic.
Here, have some candy and a Like. :-)
Forums > Game
|
Rusty Shallows
914
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 00:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Teilka Darkmist wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:Teilka Darkmist wrote:Is that canon or just something she made up? Also, well played yourself, I didn't know that was out there. Demolition Man (1993). Sorry I keep forgetting each year that passes the movie become more of a cult classic. I've seen Demolition Man. I was wondering if the explanation was canon.
Sandra Bullock seems to have implied it without the dirty details, all bets off if the interview was a lie. That might be the closest "official" answer we'll get unless someone releases a biography. So much for my youthful hopes the shells had some high-end sci-fi element.
Here, have some candy and a Like. :-)
Forums > Game
|
|
|
| |
|