| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
CLONE117
planetary retaliation organisation
ACME Holding Conglomerate
643
   |
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:27:00 -
[61] - Quote
i run infantry/mlt suits majority of the time any ways.
in truth the only ones i see crying r the "used to be" elitist players.
have i been running tanks a little more since 1.7.. yes.. yes i have..
do i lose them alot more after calling them out.. in some matches. thats true too..
am i killing higher tiered tanks with my lower fitted tank. yes and it was a great change.. since an actual tank vs tank balance has resulted from the update.
am i a super heavy av user from last build that put all my points into an ez mode proto av swarm or forge. no..no im not.
i rarely used av last build. and rarely use it this build but when i do pull it out. i normally get a kill on a vehicle such as a tank. and its just a mlt fit with adv swarms and std av nades. so i dont get why ppl are saying av is useless when its not...
im also using a mlt sica to take on multiple vehicles on a field because when im solo i dont have the extreme av capabilities of a group. of at least 2. i use the sica for increased mobility and to attack from a distance or close range. i cant be miles away and fire a swarm and get a kill. that was the thing which made av ez mode. plus the massive damage from each swarm allowed players to stand still in front of a tank and manage to out tank a tank with a dropsuit. or attack from a safe location.
they were given ammo. which removed the ability to snipe from the redline hours on end with the same tank for the entire match. which i consider a good thing.
i was weary about alot of the other tank changes when i first heard of them. but when the update hit. i found the passive resists gone alot of other stuff i put on my tank and other vehicles fits gone.
and a nerf in slots. pg/cpu. things to fit in general. and a small buff 2 base hp 2 compensate for it. |
Chesyre Armundsen
Thanes Of Dust
420
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 23:32:00 -
[62] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Such a bad idea
Who skills up what?, who operates what? who pays for it? who calls it in? etc etc etc
The only way i would accept a tank like this is if these conditions were met
1. This isnt enforced on all tanks and vehicles - If this is to exist which really it shouldnt then it needs to be a completely new speciality vehicle which is optional if you want to train it, that means that it will also have skills added to it which will have 1 skill for the driver and a secondary skill for the gunner
2. Vehicle locks - I want to lock my vehicle for my squad only, this means its only for my squad
3. Better PG/CPU/HP and slot layout - If this is taking at least 2 players to operate it then it needs an increase in base stats and slots since its a highly specalised vehicle, im not paying more to have a gimped tank which will be the same as a normal basic tank but requires more ppl to operate it
4. Driver keeps 3rd person camera - This is to ensure the safety of the vehicle, he is the driver for a reason, his sole purpose is to drive, he has no gun he needs no gun for he is the driver
5. No gun for the driver, not even a ****** small turret - Driver doesnt need it and will hinder the driver in operating the vehicle
6. 2players operate, minimum 2players to destroy it - TBH you can barely find 2ppl to work together now to kill a tank so needing 2+ is going to impossible for most players but infantry wants this vehicle more than vehicle pilots
7. The driver operates the majority of the mods - Hardeners/speed mods/boosters
8. Gunner operates DMG mods - He needs the gun so he needs the mods
9. Driver has the ability to kick out all gunners from his vehicle - if the gunner jumps out to hack a point and a bluedot jumps in the driver can boot him out
10. More skills added in the skill tree - Mainly for the driver, increase in turning speed and speed itself etc
...
For the sake of argument lets address some of these:
1. The addition of the MAV which as been talked about in multiple threads could offer a solo operated, single turret vehicle which would replace the current solo HAV.
2. ...that's a different thread
3. The base stats and slot layout should be the same. MAVs could have reduced slots/stats for their versatility as a solo vehicle and the current HAVs will only be more formidable with dedicated gunmen.
4. Yup. Exactly the same as the LAV
5. Correct again. Just like the LAV the driver would be dedicated to driving the beast and keeping it out of harms way.
6. This is already the case for HAVs. Its a task and a bit of luck for a single player to kill a HAV, therefore i'd say that this is already met. Most often its a team of AV to take down armor and I think that's fine.
7. Yup
8. Yup
9. I don't agree. It should be a liability like in any other vehicle.
10. More skills for everybody! :)
I think we need diversity where there are "entry level" vehicles which offer a taste of whats out there and then really reward those who choose to specialize.
The trick is doing so without making any one unit (man or machine) invulnerable.
Mihi gravato Deus - "Let God lay the burden on me!"
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2414
|
Posted - 2014.02.07 12:41:00 -
[63] - Quote
Chesyre Armundsen wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Such a bad idea
Who skills up what?, who operates what? who pays for it? who calls it in? etc etc etc
The only way i would accept a tank like this is if these conditions were met
1. This isnt enforced on all tanks and vehicles - If this is to exist which really it shouldnt then it needs to be a completely new speciality vehicle which is optional if you want to train it, that means that it will also have skills added to it which will have 1 skill for the driver and a secondary skill for the gunner
2. Vehicle locks - I want to lock my vehicle for my squad only, this means its only for my squad
3. Better PG/CPU/HP and slot layout - If this is taking at least 2 players to operate it then it needs an increase in base stats and slots since its a highly specalised vehicle, im not paying more to have a gimped tank which will be the same as a normal basic tank but requires more ppl to operate it
4. Driver keeps 3rd person camera - This is to ensure the safety of the vehicle, he is the driver for a reason, his sole purpose is to drive, he has no gun he needs no gun for he is the driver
5. No gun for the driver, not even a ****** small turret - Driver doesnt need it and will hinder the driver in operating the vehicle
6. 2players operate, minimum 2players to destroy it - TBH you can barely find 2ppl to work together now to kill a tank so needing 2+ is going to impossible for most players but infantry wants this vehicle more than vehicle pilots
7. The driver operates the majority of the mods - Hardeners/speed mods/boosters
8. Gunner operates DMG mods - He needs the gun so he needs the mods
9. Driver has the ability to kick out all gunners from his vehicle - if the gunner jumps out to hack a point and a bluedot jumps in the driver can boot him out
10. More skills added in the skill tree - Mainly for the driver, increase in turning speed and speed itself etc
...
For the sake of argument lets address some of these: 1. The addition of the MAV which as been talked about in multiple threads could offer a solo operated, single turret vehicle which would replace the current solo HAV. 2. ...that's a different thread 3. The base stats and slot layout should be the same. MAVs could have reduced slots/stats for their versatility as a solo vehicle and the current HAVs will only be more formidable with dedicated gunmen. 4. Yup. Exactly the same as the LAV 5. Correct again. Just like the LAV the driver would be dedicated to driving the beast and keeping it out of harms way. 6. This is already the case for HAVs. Its a task and a bit of luck for a single player to kill a HAV, therefore i'd say that this is already met. Most often its a team of AV to take down armor and I think that's fine. 7. Yup 8. Yup 9. I don't agree. It should be a liability like in any other vehicle. 10. More skills for everybody! :) I think we need diversity where there are "entry level" vehicles which offer a taste of whats out there and then really reward those who choose to specialize. The trick is doing so without making any one unit (man or machine) invulnerable.
1. MAV is an APC, medium vehicle with medium mods and medium guns but this 2 to operate policy is also wanted for HAVs
2. Its needed, i should be able to control who is in my gun since its my vehicle
3. It takes more SP/ISK to obtain a specalized vehicle, if it has the same stats whats the point putting it in then, MAV would be different statwise because its a brand new vehicle not a gimped 2 man HAV
4/5/6/7/8/10 fine
9. Its my vehicle, its my SP which has gone into unlocking it and skilling it up, its my SP which has been used for the guns and mods, its my ISK which is used to buy it so il be dammed if its going in the hands of a bluedot who can jump in whenever they want - vehicle locking would stop this but also vehicle kicking would be also useful for the DS pilots too since bluedots never jump out
Intelligence is OP
|
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
170
|
Posted - 2014.02.07 16:27:00 -
[64] - Quote
I love the idear cause it only buffs the tank it Wouldn't be balnced it be unbalanced if i had someone driving it would make shooting while driving so much easier so go right ahead i'll still destroy you either way and it would mean less confused tankers backing up into the wall i don't care if they did this or not but it would be more a buff from hell if you asked me :P |
Tailss Prower
501ST JFW StrikerZ Unit
170
|
Posted - 2014.02.07 17:20:00 -
[65] - Quote
TheEnd762 wrote:Of course, but this is called "balancing", something tankers do not want. They want to keep speeding around in their mobile murder fortresses, shrugging off proto swarms and FGs like they're raindrops, like they're entitled to.
Thats not balancing hell you do understand that makes tanks stronger right also the tank shrugging off proto Av i've yet to see and even if 1 was its not because of the tank but because CCP didn't think when they changed the shield hardners |
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 18:46:00 -
[66] - Quote
Chesyre Armundsen wrote:Why does the HAV allow the driver to operate and fire the main cannon at the same time? Perhaps an addition to satisfy both HAV operators and those who feel HAV operation should be a team effort would be to have a driver seat like the LAV. A single operator would be completely protected as they currently are, but would have to switch seats to a turret to fire a weapon. Multiple operators would mean a dedicated driver and manned turrets, while solo drivers would have to stop moving and switch controls to attack a target. Retreat would then also mean switching back. I believe this may offer a good dynamic. 
this would be great to have:
more fun
effectively cuts the amount of tanks on the field in half (at least)
more potential for tanks (tanks can fire behind them more easily while moving, but require communication to be effective)
THIS is the kind of change we need to tanks, instead of them just being hardcapped at 2 per match and left as the arcade-ish tings they are now.
However, this couldn+¿t be achieved without proper vehicle locks
|
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 18:47:00 -
[67] - Quote
dogmanpig wrote:name one game that does that....name me one, go ahead.
there is a reason why they don't.
red orchestra 1-2
arma 1-3
any tank simulator
Basically, any game that isnt your typical CoD or BF3 casual shitfest |
Alpha 443-6732
General Tso's Alliance
346
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 18:55:00 -
[68] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Such a bad idea
Who skills up what?, who operates what? who pays for it? who calls it in? etc etc etc
The only way i would accept a tank like this is if these conditions were met
1. This isnt enforced on all tanks and vehicles - If this is to exist which really it shouldnt then it needs to be a completely new speciality vehicle which is optional if you want to train it, that means that it will also have skills added to it which will have 1 skill for the driver and a secondary skill for the gunner
2. Vehicle locks - I want to lock my vehicle for my squad only, this means its only for my squad
3. Better PG/CPU/HP and slot layout - If this is taking at least 2 players to operate it then it needs an increase in base stats and slots since its a highly specalised vehicle, im not paying more to have a gimped tank which will be the same as a normal basic tank but requires more ppl to operate it
4. Driver keeps 3rd person camera - This is to ensure the safety of the vehicle, he is the driver for a reason, his sole purpose is to drive, he has no gun he needs no gun for he is the driver
5. No gun for the driver, not even a ****** small turret - Driver doesnt need it and will hinder the driver in operating the vehicle
6. 2players operate, minimum 2players to destroy it - TBH you can barely find 2ppl to work together now to kill a tank so needing 2+ is going to impossible for most players but infantry wants this vehicle more than vehicle pilots
7. The driver operates the majority of the mods - Hardeners/speed mods/boosters
8. Gunner operates DMG mods - He needs the gun so he needs the mods
9. Driver has the ability to kick out all gunners from his vehicle - if the gunner jumps out to hack a point and a bluedot jumps in the driver can boot him out
10. More skills added in the skill tree - Mainly for the driver, increase in turning speed and speed itself etc
I could think of more but frankly its a long shot anyways and infantry would cry alot harder if this actually happened
Infantry already cried for the ammo limits and vehicle changes even tho they dont use em and are now crying after the changes
Becareful what you wish for
I could easily see this happening and I fell it would be a good thing. Not all vehicles should take more than one to operate (speeders, jets, etc) but ones as powerful and tanky as tanks should require 2 men to operate.
|
Alena Ventrallis
The Neutral Zone
757
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 19:38:00 -
[69] - Quote
I would rather see large turrets be shifted completely into the role of anti-vehicle. One man controlling a tank is fine, but a tanks infantry killing ability should come from it's sturrets.
The tank problem would literally go away overnight if large blasters were reworked into an AV role instead of AI.
Best PVE idea I've seen.
|
Sole Fenychs
Sinq Laison Gendarmes
Gallente Federation
222
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 19:45:00 -
[70] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:I would rather see large turrets be shifted completely into the role of anti-vehicle. One man controlling a tank is fine, but a tanks infantry killing ability should come from it's sturrets.
The tank problem would literally go away overnight if large blasters were reworked into an AV role instead of AI.
The problem would also go away by making large blasters pure AI, instead of being honey badger mode.
Not that I care either way, as long as it's consistent (i.e. "All large turrets are AV, while small turrets have niches dependant on turret type" or "All blasters are AI, all missiles are middle ground and all railguns AV" or "All blasters specialize in close combat against all targets, all missiles are medium range combat against everything and all railguns are long-ranged anti-everything" - The last option would allow AV to be consistently balanced, with REs countering railguns and forges countering blasters) I'm in favor of it. Just don't make it stuff like "All railguns are AV, all missiles are the middle ground and the large blaster is anti-everything while the small blaster is AI with a side-dish of useless". |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |