|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1631
   |
Posted - 2014.02.15 08:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Crimson Cerberes wrote:Tankers = thales users.
They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others.
Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears.
So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive.
Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ******* ignorant you are doesn't it.
I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community.
The vocal minority if you will.
I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1631
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 08:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
I stand by my assertion.
I would not be surprised at all, if a small minority of tankers have soured the opinions of many (though perhaps not all) "AV Infantry" players who will be gunning specifically for this vocal minority.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1631
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 09:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:True Adamance wrote:Crimson Cerberes wrote:Tankers = thales users.
They want to be safe from most of the game while still killing others.
Unfortunately thales users, and soon to be nerfed tanks, incite a mouth frothing rage that makes people forget about isk efficiency, K/D ratios, and anything else in the quest to kill the carebears.
So, when tanks get nerfed and AV vs tanks is balanced, expect every single tank that gets deployed to be mercilessly destroyed almost instantly because of the hatred that you tankers have caused. Just like what happened after tanks got nerfed the first time, people remember and they do not forgive.
Pffff this poorly thought out assessment shows how ******* ignorant you are doesn't it. I would say that it is a fair assessment of a particularly belligerent and vocal segment of the tanker community. The vocal minority if you will. I agree that it is by no means an accurate assessment as a blanket statement, though of the aforementioned segment, it is spot on. Pff if you call Spkr the vocal majority. For the most part Tankers didn't want another patch of being woefully underpowered or more blanket nerfs against AV. You haven't hurt...unless you are a scout..... unless you experienced the pain of High DPS Autolocking Swarmers ar 400m' while forgers remained invisible at 50m. But agreed. Most veteran tankers, and sane balance oriented ones like myself, are aware of how broken tanks are, they need changes and it seems like we are the only section of the community willing to offer reasonable suggestions. All the rest of you seem to do it ***** and moan and call us scrubs but then in the same game fail to combat tanks better than most "scrub" tankers can. The hypocrisy of that is rich, too rich. As such blanket statements like that are only indicative of how weak minded an individual like this guy is.
Balance should always be at the forefront of AV v V discussions. Personally, I want both sides to require intelligence and teamwork to prosper. I feel this would be best achieved through Crew Service for all vehicles (and not just Dropships/LAVs) as well as requiring that AV Infantry need to work together to destroy them (outside of extreme circumstances such as PRO AV v MLT/STD V). Balance should be based on unmodded AV and V with no hardeners (with slight adjustments for the inclusion of either, they should modify not dictate).
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1644
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 18:35:00 -
[4] - Quote
I love the "4 to operate, 4 to destroy" argument.
TBH, you'd need minimum 1 to operate it, he just wouldn't be able to move and fire at the same time. So I guess you could technically say that you need two minimum to operate effectively, one to drive and one to shoot. Anymore than that would be totally dependent on if you chose to fit the small turrets.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1648
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 20:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:I love the "4 to operate, 4 to destroy" argument.
TBH, you'd need minimum 1 to operate it, he just wouldn't be able to move and fire at the same time. So I guess you could technically say that you need two minimum to operate effectively, one to drive and one to shoot. Anymore than that would be totally dependent on if you chose to fit the small turrets. Nope If i have 4ppl in it to use it its 4 proto AV to kill it Like you said now its only takes 1 to use it so it should be 1 to kill it
So even if you only had a driver and a main gunner it would still take 4 Proto AV to kill your HAV? lol, sad thing is I know you're serious with that despite the fact that it is a ludicrous demand.
Is the HAV Proto too or is it just a run of the mill Gunnlogi/Madrugar?
IMHO, if the HAV is anything less than Proto, against Proto AV it should take no more than 2 AV guys to pop the HAV.
Personally, I think that anywhere from two to four to operate effectively (ie drive and fire at the same time) would be balanced with a requirement of 3 AV of equivalent tier to the hull in order to destroy the hull. Remember, I am basing these comparisons on the assumption that the AV has no damage mods and the HAV has no hardeners.
If damage mods/hardeners are included, they should modify the base requirements though the base requirements should be calculated off of a "No damage mods/hardeners" assumption.
Another thing to take into account.
If you have a full-time driver and a full-time main gunner (not to mention the possibility of two full-time secondary gunners), both (all) of whom are dedicating their attention to their position in the crew and you still can't evade/kill three AVers of equivalent tier to the hull?
Well, if that is the case, you deserve to lose that HAV.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1648
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 20:38:00 -
[6] - Quote
KingBabar wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Durable only. Tanks should be hard to kill. But it should be hard to kill infantry with them. Tanks should be anti-vehicle. The real infantry killers should be LAVs and the unreleased MAVs. A HAVs infantry killer should come from fitting small turrets. This. Having the main weapon as a huge glorified AR is simply moronic on so many levels. If we didn't have them tankers would rely on gunners for close AP support, you now, have a need for teamwork, as AV currently need to be any sort of effective. Tanks = perfectly fine Large blasters on the current tank frames = game breaking for so many players it should be threated seriously, not merely by HTFU and adpt or die. Did you ever hear anyone QQ about dying to a missile tank or rail tank as infantry? I have never heard any, its the blasters that pisses people off. Perhaps its ttime for light weapons doing damage to tanks, l mean if they can shoot me with their AR, wwhy shouldn't my AR do dmage to them?
Maybe we just need to remove large blasters and small rails?
Keep small blasters for an HAV AP weapon and keep large rails for the HAV AV weapon?
It would do some to force a coexistence as well.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
Alaika Arbosa
Matari Combat Research and Manufacture Inc.
Interstellar Murder of Crows
1648
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 20:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Alaika Arbosa wrote:I love the "4 to operate, 4 to destroy" argument.
TBH, you'd need minimum 1 to operate it, he just wouldn't be able to move and fire at the same time. So I guess you could technically say that you need two minimum to operate effectively, one to drive and one to shoot. Anymore than that would be totally dependent on if you chose to fit the small turrets. Nope If i have 4ppl in it to use it its 4 proto AV to kill it Like you said now its only takes 1 to use it so it should be 1 to kill it So even if you only had a driver and a main gunner it would still take 4 Proto AV to kill your HAV? lol, sad thing is I know you're serious with that despite the fact that it is a ludicrous demand. Is the HAV Proto too or is it just a run of the mill Gunnlogi/Madrugar? IMHO, if the HAV is anything less than Proto, against Proto AV it should take no more than 2 AV guys to pop the HAV. Personally, I think that anywhere from two to four to operate effectively (ie drive and fire at the same time) would be balanced with a requirement of 3 AV of equivalent tier to the hull in order to destroy the hull. Remember, I am basing these comparisons on the assumption that the AV has no damage mods and the HAV has no hardeners. If damage mods/hardeners are included, they should modify the base requirements though the base requirements should be calculated off of a "No damage mods/hardeners" assumption. Another thing to take into account. If you have a full-time driver and a full-time main gunner (not to mention the possibility of two full-time secondary gunners), both (all) of whom are dedicating their attention to their position in the crew and you still can't evade/kill three AVers of equivalent tier to the hull? Well, if that is the case, you deserve to lose that HAV. Not my rules, infantry keep saying 1 is in so 1 to kill well if 4 is in it 4 to kill Proto HAV, but a specalized HAV since it requires 4 to use it If i have a driver/3 gunners then i will not die to 3 AVers because remember your rule, its takes the same amount of ppl to kill whats in the tank 4 is the magic number
lol, more childish demands and putting words in my mouth.
Praise St. Arzad and Pass the Nanohives
Karin Midular, gone, never forgotten
Executing Amarr Trash since Closed Beta
|
|
|
| |
|