|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
4451
   |
Posted - 2014.02.13 12:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
abarkrishna wrote:If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks.
...and the problem with having an anti-infantry that's useless against tanks is... what, exactly? |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
4456
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Soldier Sorajord wrote:Do you even run blasters? They aren't unbalanced. If you wanna keep QQ then go somewhere else, LOL.
They're a CLOSE RANGE WEAPON. They can kill both Infantry and Vehicles. AT CLOSE RANGE.
Totally.
Because "close range" is defined as being further than a standard Assault Rifle can fire...
If they were ACTUALLY limited in range, AND if tanks didn't move FASTER THAN LAVS, maybe you'd have a valid argument there. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
4459
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 18:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:The Attorney General wrote:Ryme Intrinseca wrote:
And before anyone says '1.7 tanking IS HARD!!!!111', explain to me Duna's thousands of monthly kills at 88 KDR.
Ambush stomping. Plus, he runs away when the tank gets popped. If they just removed vehicles from Ambush Duna would quit the game and many noobs would still be playing. That's true, but even so, the best ambush stomping infantry can't get above about 8 or 9 KDR. What's more likely: 1. Duna is ten times better than the best pubstomping infantryman. or 2. Tanks are OP. I know where my money is.
You forgot option 3.
Tanks aren't OP in a fair and balanced setting, but random pub players suck at countering them, so they look far more OP than any infantry options because those can be more effectively countered 1 vs. 1.
Forge Guns are viable AV weapons. Plasma Cannons are bordering on almost viable. Swarm Launchers can barely scratch armour tanks when they're meant to be a viable threat to them, and can do literally nothing of value against shield tanks which should at least suffer some negative repercussions from being fired on by an ANTI-VEHICLE WEAPON.
Tanks aren't OP, but most AV needs a buff. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
4465
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 06:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Garrett Blacknova wrote:You forgot option 3.
Tanks aren't OP in a fair and balanced setting, but random pub players suck at countering them, so they look far more OP than any infantry options because those can be more effectively countered 1 vs. 1.
Forge Guns are viable AV weapons. Plasma Cannons are bordering on almost viable. Swarm Launchers can barely scratch armour tanks when they're meant to be a viable threat to them, and can do literally nothing of value against shield tanks which should at least suffer some negative repercussions from being fired on by an ANTI-VEHICLE WEAPON.
Tanks aren't OP, but most AV needs a buff. Whats fair amd balanced setting? Where one MLT tank requires 2-3proto forges in a high up position, with infantry protection?
You don't need infantry protection against a tank. You need infantry protection against infantry. If you're talking about infantry protection, you're not trying to counter the tank, but a COORDINATED EFFORT THAT INCLUDES A TANK. These are two very different scenarios.
Also, the job of AV shouldn't be ALWAYS about "kill tank, move to next" - simply DENYING the tank value is a more practical approach, and can be achieved with only 1 or 2 Forge Gunners (depending on the skills/equipment of both sides). The problem here is that the game doesn't reward players for vehicle damage like it did in beta (removed because WP farming and orbitals, I believe). When vehicle damage WP comes back, a proper AV area denial role will be effective AND rewarding enough to be worth considering.
Atiim wrote:You do realize that this is circular right?
X isn't OP, the thing that allows X to be balanced is simply UP, which makes X OP in the first place.
So it's either "The user suck" or "The user's gear sucks." Saying both is a double negative.
People using Forge Guns and failing are usually using them wrong. People using Light AV weapons are using underpowered weapons that need a buff to be viable in their intended role. AV being underpowered IS NOT the same as vehicles being overpowered. Fixing one requires something to be nerfed, fixing the other requires something to be buffed. They're exact OPPOSITE problems with exact opposite solutions.
If something has no viable counter, it's OP. If something has a viable counter that doesn't work properly, the counter is UP, and the appearance of OP-ness is an illusion based on a completely different flaw. If someone gave you a cheap counterfeit fire-resistant suit, and you walked through a fire and got burned, it was because the suit was cheap junk, not because the fire was too hot. The fire worked as intended, the counter to it didn't.
Tanks work (for the most part) as intended. AV doesn't. The problem is with AV, not with tanks, and AV is what needs fixing, not tanks.
I'm not going to say tanks are perfect, having them move faster than LAVs is completely insane and I have no idea who thought that was anything other than utterly ridiculous. They need slowing down, and ONE turret type needs to be looked at seriously for ways to balance it properly.
Railguns need to be balanced by competent map design, not more nerfs. Blasters are the only weapon with a legitimate argument for their OP-ness with tanks. There's argument that they're the anti-infantry turret, but by that argument, they're WAAAAY too effective against other vehicles to qualify as anti-infantry, and should suffer a "small arms" penalty like other anti-infantry weapons do against vehicles. The other argument is that they're "short ranged" and are only useful in close. Considering the range at which they're useful against both vehicles and other infantry is easily well into infantry's long range, they need a range nerf (along with the aforementioned HAV speed nerf to a vaguely sensible level) before they're filling a short range niche instead of ALWAYS being "close" to EVERYTHING and killing because "you should have stayed further away". |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
4474
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 06:44:00 -
[5] - Quote
Soldier Sorajord wrote:Run some blasters and try hitting a heavy from 150m, then come back to talk about how "easy" it was.
I can honestly say that it's MUCH easier hitting them with a Blaster Turret than a Missile Turret, which ISN'T meant to be a short-range weapon, and is meant to be useful against infantry. Or an Assault Rifle, Plasma Cannon, Shotgun, or anything else that's typically described as a short range weapon.
Next? |
|
|
| |
|