| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
abarkrishna
WarRavens
295
   |
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:04:00 -
[31] - Quote
Atiim wrote:The Attorney General wrote:So you went from one OP thing to another? Wow you are a shameless scrub.
I was tanking before the changes, and I will be tanking after they get nerfed. Because I am a tanker.
You on the other hand are just chasing whatever can make up for your lack of skill.
BTW, there is still workable AV, you just refuse to spec into it. I guess you really are not an AV player like you want to pretend you are.
I've got both Missiles and Blasters too. But wasn't it tankers who said that the best AV should be another HAV? I was also tanking before the changes, and I will still tank after the changes. I'm not an AV player? Swarm Launchers & Plasma Cannons are specifically classified as AV weapons, so yes I am an AV player. Along with that, Gunnlogies are HAVs, and Particle Cannons and Neuron Blasters are also turrets, so yes I am also a tanker as well. It's rather hilarious. A tanker tells me to adapt, and I do. Then they come tell me about how they don't like the way I adapted. Could you please make up your mind already?
Why are you even listening to tankers?
No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2.
When will they learn!
|
Soldier Sorajord
Subsonic Synthesis
RISE of LEGION
64
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:06:00 -
[32] - Quote
abarkrishna wrote:There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground.
I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them.
To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are.
Blaster is meant for anti infantry. Get over it.
It wouldn't have 200 rounds and a heat up if it wasn't for anti infantry. Rails and missiles are your AV.
Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :)
Chromosome Veteran
Subsonic.
|
Soldier Sorajord
Subsonic Synthesis
RISE of LEGION
64
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:08:00 -
[33] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Atiim wrote:The Attorney General wrote:This is just a thread of bads having a pity party. Kinda reminds me of your pre 1.7 posts. Nice try, but you can go back to the start of uprising, where I am saying that tanks are fine, and that the only major change needs to be rendering fixes. Unlike you, I actually adapted, learned to thrive and then made posts. Also, I didn't have the experience of using a crutch like all the pre-uprising tankers did, so I was not spoiled by being OP. You were, and you can't help but long for the days when your OP weapon that did the work for you made you feel strong. Poor baby.
Lol dude I used tanks pre 1.7. You pretty much had to be a little hiding tank or a guerilla tank. There was no ability to stay and fight.
Every good tanker pre 1.7 was a proto tanker. Anything else, and you were easily annihilated.
Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :)
Chromosome Veteran
Subsonic.
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
4627
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:09:00 -
[34] - Quote
Soldier Sorajord wrote:abarkrishna wrote:There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground.
I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them.
To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. Blaster is meant for anti infantry. Get over it. It wouldn't have 200 rounds and a heat up if it wasn't for anti infantry. Rails and missiles are your AV.
AV was meant for Anti-Vehicle, but you didn't get over it?
So why should we?
Want to know how to make a strike-through?
[s[Example[/s]
Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
|
abarkrishna
WarRavens
296
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:10:00 -
[35] - Quote
Soldier Sorajord wrote:abarkrishna wrote:There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground.
I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them.
To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. Blaster is meant for anti infantry. Get over it. It wouldn't have 200 rounds and a heat up if it wasn't for anti infantry. Rails and missiles are your AV.
Wrong currently the large blaster is just as effective at killing tanks as any other large turret.
If it is meant to be anti-infantry then it's damage should not be as high as it currently is. Large blasters are not balanced. Railguns can not kill people easily. Missiles can not kill infantry easily. Blasters can kill tanks and infantry with very litte effort.
Sure blasters have a slight disadvantage when fighting vehicles but not enough to actually make a difference.
No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2.
When will they learn!
|
Altina McAlterson
Pure Innocence.
EoN.
852
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:20:00 -
[36] - Quote
There's only 2 problems with tanks:
1. They are way too cheap, especially the militia tanks.
2. Rail tanks in the redline.
That's it. Everything else might not be fine, but it is at least tolerable.
Good Advice
Grey 17 should have stayed missing.
|
Soldier Sorajord
Subsonic Synthesis
RISE of LEGION
64
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:23:00 -
[37] - Quote
abarkrishna wrote:Soldier Sorajord wrote:abarkrishna wrote:There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground.
I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them.
To be clear I am only speaking about large blasters. Small blasters can stay the way they are. Blaster is meant for anti infantry. Get over it. It wouldn't have 200 rounds and a heat up if it wasn't for anti infantry. Rails and missiles are your AV. Wrong currently the large blaster is just as effective at killing tanks as any other large turret. If it is meant to be anti-infantry then it's damage should not be as high as it currently is. Large blasters are not balanced. Railguns can not kill people easily. Missiles can not kill infantry easily. Blasters can kill tanks and infantry with very litte effort. Sure blasters have a slight disadvantage when fighting vehicles but not enough to actually make a difference.
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.
Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :)
Chromosome Veteran
Subsonic.
|
Soldier Sorajord
Subsonic Synthesis
RISE of LEGION
64
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:24:00 -
[38] - Quote
Altina McAlterson wrote:There's only 2 problems with tanks:
1. They are way too cheap, especially the militia tanks.
2. Rail tanks in the redline.
That's it. Everything else might not be fine, but it is at least tolerable.
EXACTLY. I don't understand all the QQ about tank specifics. They were garbage pre 1.7. You had to be full proto to really have any effect pre 1.7. People who tanked before 1.7 know what I mean.
Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :)
Chromosome Veteran
Subsonic.
|
The Attorney General
1941
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:30:00 -
[39] - Quote
Atiim wrote:I've got both Missiles and Blasters too. But wasn't it tankers who said that the best AV should be another HAV?
I was also tanking before the changes, and I will still tank after the changes.
I'm not an AV player? Swarm Launchers & Plasma Cannons are specifically classified as AV weapons, so yes I am an AV player. Along with that, Gunnlogies are HAVs, and Particle Cannons and Neuron Blasters are also turrets, so yes I am also a tanker as well.
It's rather hilarious. A tanker tells me to adapt, and I do. Then they come tell me about how they don't like the way I adapted.
Could you please make up your mind already?
I am known as a tanker. Why is that? Because you will always find The Attorney General in a tank. There are limited exceptions, like speccing Sniper Rifles to counter forges and swarms from before 1.6, but beyond that, it is 100% tanking.
Lots of AV? I tank.
Endless enemy tanks? I keep tanking.
PC? I tank.
If you see me on the other team, you know I am going to tank. It is not even a question.
You say you tanked before, but no one ever witnessed it. Regardless, it wasn't your main activity, the focus of your SP. By your own admission, you had 10m into swarms and support skills. So unless you were running Omega boosters since they first went on sale, it is likely that a majority of your SP went into infantry skills. This mitigates any claim of calling yourself a tanker.
I am not a logi because I drive my tank in a logistics suit.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
Soldier Sorajord
Subsonic Synthesis
RISE of LEGION
64
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:32:00 -
[40] - Quote
Do you all believe that one guy should be able to two shot a Tank? LOL.
Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :)
Chromosome Veteran
Subsonic.
|
|
|
Stinker Butt
Opus Arcana
Covert Intervention
358
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:34:00 -
[41] - Quote
Altina McAlterson wrote:There's only 2 problems with tanks:
1. They are way too cheap, especially the militia tanks.
2. Rail tanks in the redline.
That's it. Everything else might not be fine, but it is at least tolerable.
I agree with that. There are also way too many. Limit of 2 per side per match - 4 total. There shouldn't be more tanks than objectives.
Slow them down. It's a tank, it's not supposed to run away.
Nerf red line rail tanks hard.
Please give tanks some balance
|
Soldier Sorajord
Subsonic Synthesis
RISE of LEGION
64
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:35:00 -
[42] - Quote
I always wanted to tank, but it was extremely time consuming pre 1.7, because you had to build a really nice tank. Now though, I have a character dedicated to tanking in addition to this one. Why? I love tanking. I just hated getting blown up when I ran STD gear. I played smart, but still got blown up. But now, The passive armor repairer actually gives me a chance to do something.
Solution to tank issue:
Make them expensive. People won't be calling in tanks every match if they're over 200k per tank.
Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :)
Chromosome Veteran
Subsonic.
|
abarkrishna
WarRavens
296
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:35:00 -
[43] - Quote
Soldier Sorajord wrote:Do you all believe that one guy should be able to two shot a Tank? LOL.
Do you think tanks should be cheaper than proto suits with 5 times the effectiveness in every sense?
Do you think one weapon should be both AV and AI?
Why should I run my logi when I can just run tanks and actually profit?
No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2.
When will they learn!
|
Soldier Sorajord
Subsonic Synthesis
RISE of LEGION
64
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:38:00 -
[44] - Quote
abarkrishna wrote:Soldier Sorajord wrote:Do you all believe that one guy should be able to two shot a Tank? LOL. Do you think tanks should be cheaper than proto suits with 5 times the effectiveness in every sense? Do you think one weapon should be both AV and AI?
No.
Yes. If it's still an issue. I'm sure CCP could really just change the Effectiveness against Infantry Vs Effectiveness vs Vehicles. Just like how a rifle does only about 11% dmg to installations/Vehicles.
Sora's the name. Gallente is my game. Yup! Gallente Specialist Here :)
Chromosome Veteran
Subsonic.
|
The Attorney General
1941
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 15:54:00 -
[45] - Quote
abarkrishna wrote:Soldier Sorajord wrote:Do you all believe that one guy should be able to two shot a Tank? LOL. Do you think tanks should be cheaper than proto suits with 5 times the effectiveness in every sense? Do you think one weapon should be both AV and AI? Why should I run my logi when I can just run tanks and actually profit?
1. An all around basic tank, which is the limit for keeping the cost down under a proto suit is not 5 times more effective. If it is a blaster tank, it is more effective at killing infantry than a dropsuit, but it will be very vulnerable to either a cheap MLT rail, or pretty much any combo of AV once the hardeners are off. So if a cheap tank can be wiped out by an equally cheap railgun, how effective is it? Further, while in the tank, you cannot perform any of those wonderful squad actions like ammo, uplinks, hacking etc.
With that said, tanks could use a price increase. Just not for the reason you think. If someone wants to use a tank for a short joyride to kill some dumb reds who didn't think about AV out of the gate, they should be able to. When they get destroyed it should cost them though.
2. PLC is dual use. So is the FG. The FG was so good at AI that it had to be nerfed. Blasters give up efficiency versus vehicles in order to be anti infantry focused. Missiles make trades in both departments, and Railguns are vehicle focused.
3. If you are motivated solely by profit, just grab a starter fit and STFU.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
pdiddy anfama
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
115
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:02:00 -
[46] - Quote
How about get good. The tank QQ is hilarious they can be killed in one instant with a jihad taxi
CCP fix PC your core game mode
Blah blah blah about locking districts as long as there is frame rate drops
|
MarasdF Loron
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
157
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:04:00 -
[47] - Quote
I'll gladly give up my large blasters. IF I get this in return, or at least this.
On a more serious note, blasters should not be nerfed against infantry, but instead slightly against HAVs, and I mean HAVs alone, not LAVs or Dropships.
R.I.P. Pre-1.7 tanks, you will be missed.
|
TechMechMeds
Swamp Tempo
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
2696
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:06:00 -
[48] - Quote
Tech Ohm Eaven wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:That would not be a great start.
Nerfing them, for sure.
But "Hey guys I have a great idea lets remove some of the already limited content in the game because I can't think of a better way of working it!" is stupid.
Nerf them so they're either capable only of AI, and change them to AV when we get a medium vehicle class (so HAVs are heavy breaching and AV weapons) or just make them CQC AV par excellence. This is the way to do it. Im not a tank advocate, that much is probably well know. But even I disagree with removing blaster turrets, we want a full battlfiled, not 2 seperate ones. Nerf the Blaster by giving it dispersion, REAL dispersion. Then reduce tne DPS to approx 400 DPS and reduce optimal ramge to 80m and effective to 200m. It is now a CLOSE RANGE anti infantry turret. By reducing the DPS sentinels can now go toe to toe as expected. Buff Swarms, FG, Plc by 25% direct damage. Then increase charge time on hardners by 50% Sorted. AGREED. And one more thing: SLOW the tanks down!!! This is not Fast and Furious Tank 514
But I haz nos and eye stol the tank boss.
Level 2 forum warrior.
Swamp iz on dat welevant flex fam
I sold my family to the Amarr for isk, its a valid tactic
|
abarkrishna
WarRavens
296
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:10:00 -
[49] - Quote
It's not about profit. I have plenty of isk. My issue is when 7 enemy tanks come out and my entire squad goes av gets one tank almost dead and he runs away like a rocket o nly to have another tank roll up with full Hp and hardeners.
I find it stupid that I spent 18 million Sp to be a logi that I can no longer use due to tank spam.
The point is tanks are not balanced and there needs to be something put in place. I did not claim to have the answers I was merely posting some suggestions made by the community.
Just because I feel blasters are Op does not mean ****. You have your opinion I have mine. Regardless of that something needs to happen. Obviously CCP is aware of the problems and I am asking what their plans are. This debate has been going on since 1.7 came out and I really do not care to continue it again.
All I want to know is what CCP intends to do to resolve this issue.
No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2.
When will they learn!
|
002155
Ametat Security
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:15:00 -
[50] - Quote
Create a balance between AV and tanks. Right now it is in favor of vehicles. Or lower the skill costs of AV. It really is a fundamental basic of combat. It should not take as long to skill into a forge gun and heavy frame. Grenades skill multiplier should also come down. |
|
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
4456
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:16:00 -
[51] - 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. |
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui
The Containment Unit
380
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:18:00 -
[52] - Quote
Soldier Sorajord wrote:I always wanted to tank, but it was extremely time consuming pre 1.7, because you had to build a really nice tank. Now though, I have a character dedicated to tanking in addition to this one. Why? I love tanking. I just hated getting blown up when I ran STD gear. I played smart, but still got blown up. But now, The passive armor repairer actually gives me a chance to do something.
Solution to tank issue:
Make them expensive. People won't be calling in tanks every match if they're over 200k per tank.
I can tell by how you speak that you have experience but on the price side just beware of what you ask for and who's corner your in because enforcers are next and do you really want to pay 1.7 prices for them ..??.. and pro tanks .. just think about the prices .. I would just wait and see what CCP will do with both of those classes first before I back a price increase .. it might just balance its self out in the end without asking for added taxes.
Future Caldari Heavy so watch out for this Sumo Shinobi with a Caldari HMG .
|
Altina McAlterson
Pure Innocence.
EoN.
853
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:20:00 -
[53] - Quote
Also worth pointing out that the problem goes way beyond tanks or AV.
I run Ambush exclusively and always solo. Around 50% of the matches where the enemy team drops five tanks my team would drop zero. Eventually someone would try to call one in halfway through the match bit it was toast before it hit the ground. A Sica with a solid fit of all militia gear costs ~75K and requires O SP. Why is it that out of sixteen players on my team none of them call in a tank at the start of the match?
And 100% of the time when I pull out a forge gun I get no support from the rest of my team. No one stays by me to rep me or defend the position so I can shoot. I can' t tell you how many times I've died while charging the shot that would take out that tank because my team vanished like a fart in the wind.
There's nothing CCP can do about that so I wish they would fix the redline rail tanks and cost of the vehicles first and see what happens. Unfortunately they probably won't do that and will instead do something completely off the wall that will **** everyone off or make flat out make the situation worse.
Good Advice
Grey 17 should have stayed missing.
|
Ryme Intrinseca
Fatal Absolution
664
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:21:00 -
[54] - Quote
abarkrishna wrote:There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground.
I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them.
I don't think blasters themselves are a problem. They only seem like a problem now because you can ALWAYS get them in range, as there is no effective AV threat.
Easy solution: buff AV. Maybe +30% damage for forges and +50% damage plus a range increase for swarms. That way blasters will remain devastating but the challenge will be to get them in range. |
abarkrishna
WarRavens
296
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:23:00 -
[55] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:abarkrishna wrote:There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground.
I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them.
I don't think blasters themselves are a problem. They only seem like a problem now because you can ALWAYS get them in range, as there is no effective AV threat. Easy solution: buff AV. Maybe +30% damage for forges and +50% damage plus a range increase for swarms. That way blasters will remain devastating but the challenge will be to get them in range.
This is the first valid counter point I have heard yet.
No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2.
When will they learn!
|
Spectral Clone
Dust2Dust.
Top Men.
1226
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:27:00 -
[56] - Quote
Implement specific AV slot, or make the grenade slot a bomb launcher/launcher hardpoint, so that anyone with a grenade slot can carry AV.
This is weapon layout for pilots in titanfall:
Rifle, sidearm, Av weapon, grenade.
Why do we have so few weapon slots?
If tanks are beastly and easily available, why shouldnt AV be available for everyone?
Or just buff AV grenades back to previous damage levels.
Drop it like its hat.
|
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui
The Containment Unit
380
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:30:00 -
[57] - Quote
All I have to say is no one but me .. and yes I admit it .. complained when before it was 4 or 5 dropships flying around doing just that and nothing else .. not transport .. not tactical support .. just flying around and I would sit and wonder , what the hell is going on? Actually played a game like that yesterday or when there were 5 or 6 LAV's just driving around trying to get road kills. When I play and it's more than 4 tanks on the field for one team .. they do not win and if so it is because the opposition allows such by their complacency to counter.
Future Caldari Heavy so watch out for this Sumo Shinobi with a Caldari HMG .
|
The Attorney General
1941
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:31:00 -
[58] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:
I don't think blasters themselves are a problem. They only seem like a problem now because you can ALWAYS get them in range, as there is no effective AV threat.
Easy solution: buff AV. Maybe +30% damage for forges and +50% damage plus a range increase for swarms. That way blasters will remain devastating but the challenge will be to get them in range.
That is just overkill. The FG needs no more damage. If you want to increase its DPS you do it by ROF. Otherwise there is no point having LAVs and dropships. Swarms do not need a buff to stronger than 1.6 levels. Are you drunk?
Swarms should get EITHER a damage buff to make them a keep away weapon, or range to make them a harassing killer. You don't give them both and reward scrubs for letting a weapon do the work for them.
Or, instead of all that, and really making things awkard for every other class, how about you just chop 30% off the range of the blaster tank?
No one can really explain why the blaster got such a range buff in 1.7, it did not need it.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
abarkrishna
WarRavens
297
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:34:00 -
[59] - Quote
FG does not need a damage buff. Swarms however do. They should never have touched the damage on swarms.
The range nerf I understand.
No you kill this blueberry hacking the CRU we are camping. I already killed the last 2.
When will they learn!
|
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui
The Containment Unit
380
|
Posted - 2014.02.13 16:37:00 -
[60] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:abarkrishna wrote:There is no way to balance large blasters. If you nerf them they will be useless against tanks. If you do not nerf it they will be way to OP against infantry like we have currently. There is no middle ground.
I am open to the idea but I have yet to hear an intelligent idea regarding a good way to nerf them.
I don't think blasters themselves are a problem. They only seem like a problem now because you can ALWAYS get them in range, as there is no effective AV threat. Easy solution: buff AV. Maybe +30% damage for forges and +50% damage plus a range increase for swarms. That way blasters will remain devastating but the challenge will be to get them in range.
1.7 all over again but the range increase I can back but this just shows that the REAL problem is that you are mad community or rather those who feel so , that you just can't instasolo a tank anymore without having to work for it .. I just played a game where I almost solo'd a tank basic FG.
Future Caldari Heavy so watch out for this Sumo Shinobi with a Caldari HMG .
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |