|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
476
   |
Posted - 2014.02.13 02:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Where are all the lists of people who call in 4 or 5 tanks and ruin matches?
There hasn't been a time I've played in two or three weeks when I didn't just end up turning Dust off because of tanks. It really bothers me because there are more factors than just the tanks here.
1) I may not be fortunate enough to have tanks on my side
2) I may not have any FGers on my side
When the tanks get called in and one side dominates the field with vehicles the blueberries on their side get this boost of confidence and the are running around cleaning up the few people trying to layout mines (which seems to be the best light infantry tactic) or land swarm volleys.
The last few weeks is the lowest my KDR has been in over a year. I'm not that worried about that, but it means it's gotten expensive.
I just don't see why these win buttons are allowed in pub matches. They are ruining them. They are 1000x worse than the Calogi, the TAC rifle, the laser rifle of Chrome, all combined.
The ONLY reason I don't back out of matches when tanks are called in is because I don't want to leave my corp mates hanging. LOL Okay Squad with a tanker.
I see what you did there.
Alright, so in response to tanks being "weak" before 1.7
"Squad with a Forge gunner or Swarm user."
Oh wait, the numerous postings of your complaints the past 7 months tells me you didn't enjoy that idea.
Ahh, hypocrisy can be amusing at times. |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
476
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 02:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Chibi Andy wrote:if CCP could just implement a system that doesnt allow tanks/vehicles and just allow only infantry, that would be great LOL That's called Call of Duty. Please go to it now.
As far as I'm aware, there are no vehicles you can actively use in Call of Duty. That means there isn't a system to allow/disallow tanks.
Pointing out Call of Duty made absolutely no sense in your response.
But i suppose you simply weren't thinking again were you? |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
479
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 03:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:Where are all the lists of people who call in 4 or 5 tanks and ruin matches?
There hasn't been a time I've played in two or three weeks when I didn't just end up turning Dust off because of tanks. It really bothers me because there are more factors than just the tanks here.
1) I may not be fortunate enough to have tanks on my side
2) I may not have any FGers on my side
When the tanks get called in and one side dominates the field with vehicles the blueberries on their side get this boost of confidence and the are running around cleaning up the few people trying to layout mines (which seems to be the best light infantry tactic) or land swarm volleys.
The last few weeks is the lowest my KDR has been in over a year. I'm not that worried about that, but it means it's gotten expensive.
I just don't see why these win buttons are allowed in pub matches. They are ruining them. They are 1000x worse than the Calogi, the TAC rifle, the laser rifle of Chrome, all combined.
The ONLY reason I don't back out of matches when tanks are called in is because I don't want to leave my corp mates hanging. Does calling in a Tank to counter those 4-5 HAV count as ruining the match? Frankly speaking I'm cool with 3 HAV per side in a match....would be better if there were objectives and or control points HAV and vehicle users could work on outside of the infantry combat zone. Totally agree with all that, the way it is now is not cool. Maps designed for tanks and no man's land for infantry (have to use a vehicle to get from point A to point B) would be cool, but we don't have that. In the meantime, AV needs to kill tanks. Infantry needs to stop insisting on soloing tanks, then subsequently having CCP nerf tanks so they can continue to solo them.
There is no reason why they shouldn't be solo'd. You aren't a "tank" you are an HAV.
Your logic on tanks, and the term "tank" perhaps is confusing you.
A "tank" in all intents and purposes is able to withstand a large of amount of damage." It was coined in MMORPGs because using swords and likewise weapons to attack an armored target is "like beating on a tank".
"Tanks" have a huge reduction to the majority of damage types in the games where there are "tanks", but they have one fatal weakness in all games : damage in some form of Armor Penetration. Using this damage type, specific for the destruction of said "tanks", they can annihilate them.
But since you are so adamant about being a "tank" ill indulge you.
You are immune to 90% of the guns in the game. You are able to "tank" them with utmost ease. Is that not being a "tank"? Being able to take little to no damage from almost every gun in the game? You also wanting to be able to "tank" the other 10% of the weapons in the game designed solely (in most cases) to destroy you solely as a "tank", is just sheer idiocy.
You are the definition of biased.
Edit - TL;DR - You are immune to almost everything in the game, have little to no restrictions on what you can kill or destroy in the game, AND you want to be able to withstand your playstyles only weakness? You are on hardcore drugs bro. |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
479
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 03:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:Thor Odinson42 wrote:I'm aware of jihad jeeps and I don't disagree with their use. I guess I just can't believe there isn't absolute outrage that AV weapons with millions of SP have been nerfed to the ground while vehicles have become win buttons.
And the answer is a BPO LAV and REs. Really? Our voices got hoarse. I myself said screw it and dumped lots of sp into heavies and forges so I can be allowed to enjoy the game again. Right now i'll clue you in, most the people shooting you down in this thread are tankers or they run with tankers. I'm one of the few people that do not have their heads shoved so far up their ass that they can't acknowledge a broken mechanic that is killing a game that we all seem to like by driving away any new players. Kind of hard to kill tanks when you don't have the prerequisite sp. And although newberries can just embrace the spam not everyone wants to play a combined arms game where the only real option given to them is to tank. WoT is a better tank RPG, new players have no reason to stick out 1.7 and we honestly can't promise them things will get better as we all know CCP doesn't test their **** first. I am a Tanker yeah. But for weeks now I have been pointing out how broken Tanks are, and its not because of its current module lay outs. It comes down to cost, base stats, and lack of a specific role. 2 AVers should me more than sufficient enough to drop any tank on the map. Still the current HAV needs work. My suggestion is removed Anti Infantry Large turrets and make HAV Anti Vehicle units, with their current resilience, and racial variants of the Railgun. BUff AV slight, very slightly, Increase cost significantly, and reduce the Large Turrets vertical barrel movement.
Well, I agree with everything besides the modules. HAV's should only be allowed a single Hardener, or at the very least somehow add in a stacking penalty (would probably be troublesome to code however).
Until MAV's come into the picture, HAV's simply HAVE to be equivalent to the current weapons and playstyles available. Changing their turret to be Anti-Vehicle only would do absolute wonders in the current environment, as well as make an easy transition when MAV's are finally released.
MAV's should be the infantry killer, and be as easily soloable from the infantry perspective. But until then, HAV's imo need to be able to be solo'd by a pro(skillfull) AVer for cohesive game balance. I'm not saying a MLT Forge Gun should tear through an HAV with ease, but having a Proto Forge gun with prof 5 and 2 complex damage mods need to dominate as much as a STD HAV hull with proto Mods fitted onto it. This is a rock/paper/scissors, not rock/rock/rock.
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
479
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 04:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
I liked the old model for Hardeners. Where you could mix and match, have high res for X seconds or a more even % across a minute.
Indeed but then you need to consider that MAV and MTAC need a place on the battlefield proportionate to what they are.
CCP as usual forced themselves into a rock and a hard place with their view of "the big picture". I'm sure when all the many AV weapons and variations of HAV's and MAV's come into the picture things might make sense in the world of balance. Sadly that is a part of their "10 year plan" and we are unable to perceive the possible future it might hold.
I feel MAV's should belong to two roles : Infantry dominance and transport dominance. An MAV who's sole purpose is to roll around making infantry hate life. And an MAV that is able to transport a full squad around the battlefield effectively. Support vehicles such as the ability to repair other vehicles i think should stay in the realm of LAVs.
I feel entirely ignorant ; MTAC's? |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
479
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 04:35:00 -
[6] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Duran Lex wrote:True Adamance wrote:
I liked the old model for Hardeners. Where you could mix and match, have high res for X seconds or a more even % across a minute.
Indeed but then you need to consider that MAV and MTAC need a place on the battlefield proportionate to what they are.
CCP as usual forced themselves into a rock and a hard place with their view of "the big picture". I'm sure when all the many AV weapons and variations of HAV's and MAV's come into the picture things might make sense in the world of balance. Sadly that is a part of their "10 year plan" and we are unable to perceive the possible future it might hold. I feel MAV's should belong to two roles : Infantry dominance and transport dominance. An MAV who's sole purpose is to roll around making infantry hate life. And an MAV that is able to transport a full squad around the battlefield effectively. Support vehicles such as the ability to repair other vehicles i think should stay in the realm of LAVs. I feel entirely ignorant ; MTAC's? MAV to me represent the bridgeing between vehicles and infantry. They would e APC, designed to support any infantry squad either in terms of utility with repers and MCRU, or with medium turrets. MTACS are large industrial mech units capable of fitting military grade weapons.
Well, basically on par with my thoughts on MAV minus the reppers and MCRU, clouded by my silly perception of "LAV vs MAV" in terms of vehicle statistics. Such wonders should come at a cost of being extremely fragile, but an MAV can just as easily be fragile regardless of its vehicle classification, so that would work fine.
Ah, i thought the "gundam" idea from CCP was a joke. i guess not! MTAC's have got to be a couple years off at the least. |
|
|
| |
|