| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2566
   |
Posted - 2014.02.16 15:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
After all the posts and threads this is generally what infantry wants for vehicles
Does infantry want to limit the number of vehicles in game? Yes - Great whoever spawns in 1st can bring in vehicles, problem is the 1 guy who has 20mil SP into it and uses vehicles in every game because its what they do but can no longer play and is FORCED to use mlt infantry crap even tho he doesnt want to while they wait for one of the vehicles to die but by the time that happens the pub game is a redline - Would you like it if we limit the number of suits so they can only be 2 assaults/2 logi/2 heavys and 5 scouts/commandos in each 16man team? tough **** if you main as an assault you may be FORCED to play as scout
Does infantry want to limit the number of mods we can use on our vehicles? Yes - Great idea now LAV and DS suffer greatly from it, if its just on 1 particular vehicle like a HAV then why so biased? do you see vehicle pilots say 'that you cant have more than 1 dmg mod on your suit'? no you dont, back in the day i knew players who used 5 complex damage mods with there swarms, sure it pissed me off but i didnt say limit the mods. On my proto basic heavy i use 2 complex dmg mods with my FG - Even with hardeners its the pilots choice, we dont tell infantry that you cant run 4 plates on your suit or 3 extenders or 4 hacking modules etc, im sure infantry wouldnt be too fussed if we ran 3 extenders or plates on our vehicles but anything useful is a no-no
Does infantry want to limit the modes that vehicles can be used in? Yes - So vehicles are no longer in x mode, would that stop infantry from trying to get them removed or limited in other modes? No - So then we end up where only 3 ppl can use what they skilled into so it begins fastest player to spawn in wins while the sand is being thrown out of the box and it becomes infantry514 again - Would you like it if we limit the modes you can use a dropsuit in?
Does infantry want Adv/Proto vehicles added to the game? No - They say that would make it unfair and ruin the game, yet they have proto suits and proto mods and proto AV weapons to blow up our mlt/basic hulls, sure we have proto turrets and mods but only a choice of 2 hulls. If infantry say 'tiercide' then why do infantry have basic/adv/proto then? They say 'balance' but yet infantry are complaining about using proto AV to kill basic vehicles - If you add basic/adv/proto hulls with the PG/CPU and slot changes it means that basic AV can take out a basic vehicle, adv AV can take out a adv vehicle and proto AV can take out a proto vehicle and also it means that proto AV would have a easier time of taking out a basic vehicle - I see this as common sense but infantry sees this as unfair, they like 1.0-1.6 where proto AV wasted every vehicle on the field and they want a return to that time
Does infantry want vehicle crews? Yes - Few problems tho, they dont want this to be a new vehicle they want it for all vehicles, they want to remove control from 1 person and spread it out - Thats like saying for your dropsuit you need 2 players to move the legs and 1 to aim the gun problem is if the 2 legs dont work together you will fall over and if he cant aim you wont kill - Who pays for it? Do i actually get a vehicle lock and a kick button for blue dots? Do i get more skills? Do i get my shield/armor hp/PG/CPU 5% per level skills back, if it takes 4 to operate will you be happy getting 4 proto AV to destroy it? Basically it requires another vehicle overhaul but you can bet that infantry wont like having to get 4 AV to deal with one since they cant get 2 to deal with 1 now
Does infantry want a 1:1 ratio? Yes - By this i mean 'If its 1 to use the vehicle then its 1 AV to destroy it' - Problem is if i have 3 in my tank will it take 3 AV to destroy it? Currently i can put 3 in my tank now but i dont get an increase in HP/CPU/PG/Resistance only increase is damage that is if the target is in the range of the small turrets and right now 2 AV can kill my vehicle with 3 ppl in it - That isnt 1:1 ratio
Does infantry want vehicles to be slower? Yes - 'HAVs are too fast, they faster than my LAV' they say lying through there teeth - HAV is not faster than a LAV - Also AV likes to stay still and not move around, if more AV moved around chased a vehicle around they would kill it - Whats to say we wont get some kind of webifier tool added to the game?
Does infantry want blasters nerfed? Yes - Problem how does the pilot protect themself from AV players? 'Use small turrets' infantry says - Problem is that small turrets do not have the range to shoot 300m away let alone 150m and if they did have the range then infantry would still cry even tho that tank had small turrets
Does infantry want pilots to use small turrets? Yes - 'Teamwork' they say while most bluedots refuse to get out to do anything while spamming ammo at the MCC and not getting out to hack a objective - Most dont use small turrets because we cannot lock the doors and kick out bluedots who enter and frankly after having to deal with terrible terrible bluedots most will not use them again until we get locks because you are useless and a liability
Does infantry want vehicles to be more expensive? Yes - 'Vehicles are too cheap' They say - 1.0-1.6 they were fine with killing 2mil+ vehicles with 20k worth of AV nades but now the shoe is on the other foot they dont like it - My proto AV fit costs me 150k or there abouts, a mlt tank 70k, my basic cheapo tank 200k and my proto 500-700k with std hull but a dead tank is priceless - Add in adv/proto hull and the price will rise anyway
Did infantry ask for ammo counts? Yea - They still not happy tho
Does infantry want vehicles to be removed? Id mostly say yea they do, maybe keep in a BPO LAV for everyone
Turns out the majority havnt stepped in a tank until it starting killing there infantry suit and actually being effective
Intelligence is OP
|
Leadfoot10
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
457
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Your post doesn't make HAVs any less OP, unfortunately. |
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
381
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
HAVs need to not accelerate so insanely fast.
HAVs need momentum.
Vehicle recall needs work to prevent/rein in abuse.
That would do a lot for the balance game.
Edit:
Oh, your bit about ammo reminded me. They added ammo so that they could balance the turrets better: making them more powerful but limited. Unfortunately, there is no limit. There really should be much smaller magazine sizes for Blasters and Railguns and reduce the total ammo for all turrets (including small Missiles, though I'm not familiar enough with small Blaster/Railguns) by about 20%.
Ammo was supposed to have an impact on vehicle gameplay. Instead vehicle turrets are more powerful with a negligible drawback. |
Bendtner92
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1676
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
Do Spkr and Taka want unkillable tanks? Clearly yes.
Winner of the EU Squad Cup & the closed beta Tester's Tournament.
Go Go Power Rangers!
R.I.P MAG.
|
Heathen Bastard
The Bastard Brigade
952
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Infantry wants vehicles gone so they can play CoD514.
If you hear the words "WORTH IT!" look about, something hilarious just happened.
|
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
2002
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
How disappointing. For about 0.4 sec I thought tankahiro was actually going to say: ok, then what DO you jerks want? Give me some minor tweaks that might work.
Then I remembered.
"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics" -Sun Tzu
Forum Warrior lv.1
Amarr victor!
|
Fizzer94
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
2224
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tanks are OP. Nerf'em.
Fizzer94 // Forum Warrior Operation II // MAG Vet
Gallente Neutron Rifle
|
Heathen Bastard
The Bastard Brigade
952
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
John Demonsbane wrote:How disappointing. For about 0.4 sec I thought tankahiro was actually going to say: ok, then what DO you jerks want? Give me some minor tweaks that might work.
Then I remembered.
that these are exactly what you want so that you never see another tank again for more than 3 seconds as it gets hit by invisible swarms from across the map for 2/3 of it's HP?
If you hear the words "WORTH IT!" look about, something hilarious just happened.
|
Zene Ren
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
46
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
i only want the HAV to have a crew of 3 or 4 people inside to be able to operate at current efficiency/power/speed/maneuverability
3 or 4 AVes needed also to be able to destroy that HAV
nothing more nothing less
HAV piloted only by one person should be destroyable by one AV not one shot though but non the less one AV
single piloted HAV should not be able to use all the modules or weapon power as they are now
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2566
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
John Demonsbane wrote:How disappointing. For about 0.4 sec I thought tankahiro was actually going to say: ok, then what DO you jerks want? Give me some minor tweaks that might work.
Then I remembered.
That list is what you want
In the vast majority of threads and QQ posts that is the current list
Frankly COD514 edition is what infantry wants
Here is the TLDR editon
No vehicles in some gamemodes
Vehicle limits in the remaining gamemodes
Useful mods to be limited on all vehicles, no limit on useless mods
No adv/proto hulls
Addition of vehicle crews - 3/4players to operate 1 vehicle - Be very hard to find 3/4 AV to kill it
Slow vehicles
Nerfed blasters
Small turrets to be mandatory
Expenisve vehicles
Lower ammo counts
No vehicles if possible at all if it can kill my infatry suit with an AR
Intelligence is OP
|
|
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Learning Coalition College
4054
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Does infantry want to limit the number of mods we can use on our vehicles? Yes - Great idea now LAV and DS suffer greatly from it
I pilot dropships, and have done some stuff with LAVs.
Wtf are you talking about?
I am your scan error.
|
Henchmen21
Planet Express LLC
592
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:23:00 -
[12] - Quote
Reduce blaster range, reduce speed OR remove the warning from prox mines.
CCP your matchmaking sucks
Henchmen21: Infantry
Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
|
Henchmen21
Planet Express LLC
592
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:25:00 -
[13] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:i only want the HAV to have a crew of 3 or 4 people inside to be able to operate at current efficiency/power/speed/maneuverability
3 or 4 AVes needed also to be able to destroy that HAV
nothing more nothing less
HAV piloted only by one person should be destroyable by one AV not one shot though but non the less one AV specced person
single man piloted HAV should not be able to use all the modules or weapon power as they are now
equality between standard/adcance/proto AVer/HAV should be usual thing too
as it is now one HAV is not equal power wise to one dropsuit and piloted only by one person they feel like one better drop suit
HAV should be team based killing machine not one man easy mode
That's just ridiculous. You play right into the hands of Spker on that one.
CCP your matchmaking sucks
Henchmen21: Infantry
Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2566
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Does infantry want to limit the number of mods we can use on our vehicles? Yes - Great idea now LAV and DS suffer greatly from it
I pilot dropships, and have done some stuff with LAVs. Wtf are you talking about?
I use DS with multiple mods
If x mods get a limit ie 1 per vehicle my fits are then useless and mostly ******
Intelligence is OP
|
Altina McAlterson
Pure Innocence.
EoN.
868
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:26:00 -
[15] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Does infantry want to limit the modes that vehicles can be used in? Yes - So vehicles are no longer in x mode, would that stop infantry from trying to get them removed or limited in other modes? No - So then we end up where only 3 ppl can use what they skilled into so it begins fastest player to spawn in wins while the sand is being thrown out of the box and it becomes infantry514 again - Would you like it if we limit the modes you can use a dropsuit in?
I fully support removal of vehicles from ambush but not for the reasons pretty much everyone else does. Ambush is fast paced on a small map with continually changing spawns and zero "safe zones", the complete opposite of skirm/dom. Even though my ultimate goal is for everyone to enjoy the game they want to play let's get real for a second. Vehicles are pretty much an auto-win button right now in ambush. The same can not be said when it comes to skirm/dom. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that in order for vehicles to be manageable in ambush they have to be much weaker than they are now or AV has to be much stronger. Also limiting their ability to shred infantry by nerfing blasters. Or reducing the efficacy of modules or possible introducing new fitting restrictions.
But then guess what? Now they're shite in skirm/dom again. And guess what mode the battles that actually matter are? They're not Ambush. Playing Ambush doesn't really prepare you for PC at all. So of the two modes one is actually important and the other isn't. There is no way that I can see to balance vehicles for both modes. I just don't see it. So I've come to the conclusion they should be removed from one of the game modes.
It doesn't have to be permanent because it isn't really about vehicles in ambush at all. It is about poor game design and the need to stop trying to balance things for both modes because CCP has shown time and time again that they can't do it. Any vehicle that can hold a point in skirm/dom while killing enemies and be able to survive a reasonable amount of AV is going to be an absolute monster in ambush and any vehicle that can be readily handled in ambush is going to be worthless in skirm/dom.
There's no time to really coordinate anything in Ambush as it just spawns you back in front of the tank. And even if you come up with a plan whichever team can get spawned first to call in their vehicles can shut the other team down from calling their own. Well, on some maps at least. Rails can shoot across most of the map usually but you can't nerf the range because then they'd be useless in skirm/dom where the maps are bigger and the range is needed.
Good Advice
Grey 17 should have stayed missing.
|
Sinboto Simmons
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
4593
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
Honestly the only problem I have with tanks right now is their speed and the blaster's insane range, other than that.....I'd like to see extenders and armor plates be more useful.
Sinboto - The True Blood Minja
Forum Warrior level 4
STB-Infantry (Demolition)
|
Cody Sietz
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
2288
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:28:00 -
[17] - Quote
To not dump round after Proto round in and always never kill any vehicle.
It would be a nice if it was a 50/50 split that is ultimately decided by skill, equipment and a little bit of luck.
Instead of it just being decided by how stupid the tanker is.
"I do agree with you there though. shudders"
-Arkena Wyrnspire
|
Zene Ren
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
47
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:28:00 -
[18] - Quote
Henchmen21 wrote:Zene Ren wrote:i only want the HAV to have a crew of 3 or 4 people inside to be able to operate at current efficiency/power/speed/maneuverability
3 or 4 AVes needed also to be able to destroy that HAV
nothing more nothing less
HAV piloted only by one person should be destroyable by one AV not one shot though but non the less one AV specced person
single man piloted HAV should not be able to use all the modules or weapon power as they are now
equality between standard/adcance/proto AVer/HAV should be usual thing too
as it is now one HAV is not equal power wise to one dropsuit and piloted only by one person they feel like one better drop suit
HAV should be team based killing machine not one man easy mode That's just ridiculous. You play right into the hands of Spker on that one.
that is your opinion i might say your stance is ridiculous too ohh wait you didn't presented any...
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Henchmen21
Planet Express LLC
594
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:31:00 -
[19] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Does infantry want to limit the number of mods we can use on our vehicles? Yes - Great idea now LAV and DS suffer greatly from it
I pilot dropships, and have done some stuff with LAVs. Wtf are you talking about? I use DS with multiple mods If x mods get a limit ie 1 per vehicle my fits are then useless and mostly ******
Well perma hardened vehicles is exactly the opposite of what CCP said they would be.
CCP your matchmaking sucks
Henchmen21: Infantry
Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
|
Henchmen21
Planet Express LLC
594
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:31:00 -
[20] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:Henchmen21 wrote:Zene Ren wrote:i only want the HAV to have a crew of 3 or 4 people inside to be able to operate at current efficiency/power/speed/maneuverability
3 or 4 AVes needed also to be able to destroy that HAV
nothing more nothing less
HAV piloted only by one person should be destroyable by one AV not one shot though but non the less one AV specced person
single man piloted HAV should not be able to use all the modules or weapon power as they are now
equality between standard/adcance/proto AVer/HAV should be usual thing too
as it is now one HAV is not equal power wise to one dropsuit and piloted only by one person they feel like one better drop suit
HAV should be team based killing machine not one man easy mode That's just ridiculous. You play right into the hands of Spker on that one. that is your opinion i might say your stance is ridiculous too ohh wait you didn't presented any...
Literately one post above the one you quoted. Or is reading comprehension not your thing?
CCP your matchmaking sucks
Henchmen21: Infantry
Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
|
|
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2566
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:32:00 -
[21] - Quote
Altina McAlterson wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Does infantry want to limit the modes that vehicles can be used in? Yes - So vehicles are no longer in x mode, would that stop infantry from trying to get them removed or limited in other modes? No - So then we end up where only 3 ppl can use what they skilled into so it begins fastest player to spawn in wins while the sand is being thrown out of the box and it becomes infantry514 again - Would you like it if we limit the modes you can use a dropsuit in?
I fully support removal of vehicles from ambush but not for the reasons pretty much everyone else does. Ambush is fast paced on a small map with continually changing spawns and zero "safe zones", the complete opposite of skirm/dom. Even though my ultimate goal is for everyone to enjoy the game they want to play let's get real for a second. Vehicles are pretty much an auto-win button right now in ambush. The same can not be said when it comes to skirm/dom. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that in order for vehicles to be manageable in ambush they have to be much weaker than they are now or AV has to be much stronger. Also limiting their ability to shred infantry by nerfing blasters. Or reducing the efficacy of modules or possible introducing new fitting restrictions. But then guess what? Now they're shite in skirm/dom again. And guess what mode the battles that actually matter are? They're not Ambush. Playing Ambush doesn't really prepare you for PC at all. So of the two modes one is actually important and the other isn't. There is no way that I can see to balance vehicles for both modes. I just don't see it. So I've come to the conclusion they should be removed from one of the game modes. It doesn't have to be permanent because it isn't really about vehicles in ambush at all. It is about poor game design and the need to stop trying to balance things for both modes because CCP has shown time and time again that they can't do it. Any vehicle that can hold a point in skirm/dom while killing enemies and be able to survive a reasonable amount of AV is going to be an absolute monster in ambush and any vehicle that can be readily handled in ambush is going to be worthless in skirm/dom. There's no time to really coordinate anything in Ambush as it just spawns you back in front of the tank. And even if you come up with a plan whichever team can get spawned first to call in their vehicles can shut the other team down from calling their own. Well, on some maps at least. Rails can shoot across most of the map usually but you can't nerf the range because then they'd be useless in skirm/dom where the maps are bigger and the range is needed.
Top explanation
Problem is infantry want them out of ambush and also limit the number in other modes all because of lolpubs even tho tanks are fantastic and balanced to use in PC
But it wont happen anyways, nerf hammer will come swinging in
Intelligence is OP
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2566
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:34:00 -
[22] - Quote
Henchmen21 wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Does infantry want to limit the number of mods we can use on our vehicles? Yes - Great idea now LAV and DS suffer greatly from it
I pilot dropships, and have done some stuff with LAVs. Wtf are you talking about? I use DS with multiple mods If x mods get a limit ie 1 per vehicle my fits are then useless and mostly ****** Well perma hardened vehicles is exactly the opposite of what CCP said they would be.
But with a perma hardened vehicle you do sacrafice other mods
Intelligence is OP
|
Zene Ren
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
47
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:35:00 -
[23] - Quote
Henchmen21 wrote:Zene Ren wrote:Henchmen21 wrote:Zene Ren wrote:i only want the HAV to have a crew of 3 or 4 people inside to be able to operate at current efficiency/power/speed/maneuverability
3 or 4 AVes needed also to be able to destroy that HAV
nothing more nothing less
HAV piloted only by one person should be destroyable by one AV not one shot though but non the less one AV specced person
single man piloted HAV should not be able to use all the modules or weapon power as they are now
equality between standard/adcance/proto AVer/HAV should be usual thing too
as it is now one HAV is not equal power wise to one dropsuit and piloted only by one person they feel like one better drop suit
HAV should be team based killing machine not one man easy mode That's just ridiculous. You play right into the hands of Spker on that one. that is your opinion i might say your stance is ridiculous too ohh wait you didn't presented any... Literately one post above the one you quoted. Or is reading comprehension not your thing?
Henchmen21 wrote:Reduce blaster range, reduce speed OR remove the warning from prox mines.
this will do nothing but make them obsolete again move along, there was a time they tried similar approach
but memory comprehension seems to be failing you....
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
2003
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:35:00 -
[24] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:John Demonsbane wrote:How disappointing. For about 0.4 sec I thought tankahiro was actually going to say: ok, then what DO you jerks want? Give me some minor tweaks that might work.
Then I remembered. that these are exactly what you want so that you never see another tank again for more than 3 seconds as it gets hit by invisible swarms from across the map for 2/3 of it's HP?
No, I remembered that tankahiro and his ilk are idiots who aren't interested in listening to anyone's ideas or actually trying to find mutually beneficial solutions or anything even resembling common ground. Let's not forget spkr's brilliant comment that infantry should have no say in vehicle design. I stopped trying to make constructive suggestions or have legitimate discussions weeks ago.
Their threads get nothing but troll responses because that's all they deserve.
"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics" -Sun Tzu
Forum Warrior lv.1
Amarr victor!
|
Henchmen21
Planet Express LLC
594
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:35:00 -
[25] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Henchmen21 wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Does infantry want to limit the number of mods we can use on our vehicles? Yes - Great idea now LAV and DS suffer greatly from it
I pilot dropships, and have done some stuff with LAVs. Wtf are you talking about? I use DS with multiple mods If x mods get a limit ie 1 per vehicle my fits are then useless and mostly ****** Well perma hardened vehicles is exactly the opposite of what CCP said they would be. But with a perma hardened vehicle you do sacrafice other mods
But also remove the window of vulnerability that CCP promised.
CCP your matchmaking sucks
Henchmen21: Infantry
Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Learning Coalition College
4054
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:37:00 -
[26] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Does infantry want to limit the number of mods we can use on our vehicles? Yes - Great idea now LAV and DS suffer greatly from it
I pilot dropships, and have done some stuff with LAVs. Wtf are you talking about? I use DS with multiple mods If x mods get a limit ie 1 per vehicle my fits are then useless and mostly ******
Afterburners are already limited, which makes sense.
From what I've heard, people just want hardeners limited. Myself included.
I am your scan error.
|
Altina McAlterson
Pure Innocence.
EoN.
869
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:44:00 -
[27] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Top explanation
Problem is infantry want them out of ambush and also limit the number in other modes all because of lolpubs even tho tanks are fantastic and balanced to use in PC
But it wont happen anyways, nerf hammer will come swinging in
Part of the reason that I support removing vehicles from ambush would also be just to alter the community's (at large) perspective on it. RIght now the only experience most players (and pretty much every new player) have with vehicles is getter raped in ambush constantly.
I don't think removing them from ambush will make the whiners and QQ'ers change their minds because they will always be stupid. But perhaps they'd move on to something new to ***** about and forget about vehicles.
But unfortunately vehicles will probably get nerfed way too hard and we'll go through this whole thing again in a few months. Just like we've done every few months for the last year and half I've been here. I'm just getting sick a damn tired of it to be honest. That's why I say remove them from ambush and just move the **** on. CCP has plenty of problems to fix without constantly going back and forth with vehicles.
Good Advice
Grey 17 should have stayed missing.
|
Thumb Green
Mannar Focused Warfare
Gallente Federation
784
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:47:00 -
[28] - Quote
When will we learn to just ignore Spkr & Taka. They don't care about balance nor do they care to actually discuss anything. All they care about is jacking each other off while they laugh at you for arguing with a brick wall.
Support Orbital Spawns
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
1984
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:53:00 -
[29] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:After all the posts and threads this is generally what infantry wants for vehicles
Does infantry want to limit the number of vehicles in game? Yes - Great whoever spawns in 1st can bring in vehicles, problem is the 1 guy who has 20mil SP into it and uses vehicles in every game because its what they do but can no longer play and is FORCED to use mlt infantry crap even tho he doesnt want to while they wait for one of the vehicles to die but by the time that happens the pub game is a redline - Would you like it if we limit the number of suits so they can only be 2 assaults/2 logi/2 heavys and 5 scouts/commandos in each 16man team? tough **** if you main as an assault you may be FORCED to play as scout
SOME people want the vehicle limit unfairly reduced, they are fools, the vehicle limit should prehaps moved down to 5 which 31% of the team. This would be reasonable.
What people WANT is there not be 6 tanks per side every match, other people want to use other vehicles as well, not just tankers. The thing is a "tanker" always runs the possibility of having to run infantry, because there will always be a vehicle cap of some sort.
Instead people need to be encouraged to use OTHER vehicles, soft limits if you will. If vehicles are balanced and equally useful we would expect to see maybe 15% of HAV/HAAVs 10% of MAV/MAAVs and 5% of LAV/LAAVs.
Spkr4thedead: Me > AV
This is why tanks are unbalanced
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.
|
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
10905
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:55:00 -
[30] - Quote
Scrambler Pistols should counter tanks, and forge guns should have a 90% damage reduction vs Dropships
Videos / Fiction
Closed Beta Vet; Incubus Pilot
|
|
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
1984
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:After all the posts and threads this is generally what infantry wants for vehicles
Does infantry want to limit the number of mods we can use on our vehicles? Yes - Great idea now LAV and DS suffer greatly from it, if its just on 1 particular vehicle like a HAV then why so biased? do you see vehicle pilots say 'that you cant have more than 1 dmg mod on your suit'? no you dont, back in the day i knew players who used 5 complex damage mods with there swarms, sure it pissed me off but i didnt say limit the mods. On my proto basic heavy i use 2 complex dmg mods with my FG - Even with hardeners its the pilots choice, we dont tell infantry that you cant run 4 plates on your suit or 3 extenders or 4 hacking modules etc, im sure infantry wouldnt be too fussed if we ran 3 extenders or plates on our vehicles but anything useful is a no-no
Yes we do want to limit the use of stacking modules, just like infantry modules have stacking penalties.
Damage Mod have stacking penalties, their is no point using 5, so I think that is a bare faced lie.
If Infantry had a mod as powerful as hardeners we would most defiantly have some severe stacking penalties. What about cloaks? They are being limited to 1 per suit, so why not vehicle hardeners?
It only really effects HAV's because dropships don't fit multiple hardners, and LAV's don't have the EHP to get much use out of them.
Spkr4thedead: Me > AV
This is why tanks are unbalanced
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.
|
Zene Ren
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
47
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 16:58:00 -
[32] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:After all the posts and threads this is generally what infantry wants for vehicles
Does infantry want to limit the number of vehicles in game? Yes - Great whoever spawns in 1st can bring in vehicles, problem is the 1 guy who has 20mil SP into it and uses vehicles in every game because its what they do but can no longer play and is FORCED to use mlt infantry crap even tho he doesnt want to while they wait for one of the vehicles to die but by the time that happens the pub game is a redline - Would you like it if we limit the number of suits so they can only be 2 assaults/2 logi/2 heavys and 5 scouts/commandos in each 16man team? tough **** if you main as an assault you may be FORCED to play as scout SOME people want the vehicle limit unfairly reduced, they are fools, the vehicle limit should prehaps moved down to 5 which 31% of the team. This would be reasonable.
What people WANT is there not be 6 tanks per side every match, other people want to use other vehicles as well, not just tankers. The thing is a "tanker" always runs the possibility of having to run infantry, because there will always be a vehicle cap of some sort.
Instead people need to be encouraged to use OTHER vehicles, soft limits if you will. If vehicles are balanced and equally useful we would expect to see maybe 15% of HAV/HAAVs 10% of MAV/MAAVs and 5% of LAV/LAAVs.
artificial limits will do nothing in this game
the thing is people with SSDs will always be logged first into the map thus preventing others to play any vehicle at all...
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Henchmen21
Planet Express LLC
596
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:04:00 -
[33] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:Henchmen21 wrote:Reduce blaster range, reduce speed OR remove the warning from prox mines. this will do nothing but make them obsolete again move along, there was a time they tried similar approach but comprehension of the past seems to be failing you.... i will say it again one man HAV will never be balanced towards infantry and will always be just a better drop suit what would be the point playing infantry game then? just get the best drop suit in game aka HAV and nothing else as it is now...
How would not being able to snipe infantry at 200+ meters out with a blaster make them obsolete? How would making a tanker not be able to just run away at the last second make them obsolete? How would making it dangerous to just haul ass away at the last second make them obsolete? Forcing a tanker to hand over the controls of either their gun or movement would make them obsolete because nobody would be willing to do that.
CCP your matchmaking sucks
Henchmen21: Infantry
Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
|
Asha Starwind
VEXALATION CORPORATION
Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
366
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:06:00 -
[34] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:After all the posts and threads this is generally what infantry wants for vehicles
Does infantry want to limit the number of vehicles in game? Yes - Great whoever spawns in 1st can bring in vehicles, problem is the 1 guy who has 20mil SP into it and uses vehicles in every game because its what they do but can no longer play and is FORCED to use mlt infantry crap even tho he doesnt want to while they wait for one of the vehicles to die but by the time that happens the pub game is a redline - Would you like it if we limit the number of suits so they can only be 2 assaults/2 logi/2 heavys and 5 scouts/commandos in each 16man team? tough **** if you main as an assault you may be FORCED to play as scout
All I have to stay to that is cool story bro, not much of an argument it's a personal problem if anything. 20M SP and they couldn't set a ~1-1.5M of that for a half decent std/adv fit, going to be killing everything that they come across but they will be able to contribute greatly in other areas.
Quote:
Does infantry want vehicles to be slower? Yes - 'HAVs are too fast, they faster than my LAV' they say lying through there teeth - HAV is not faster than a LAV - Also AV likes to stay still and not move around, if more AV moved around chased a vehicle around they would kill it - Whats to say we wont get some kind of webifier tool added to the game?
Haven't seen any posts claiming tanks are fast as LAVs, but they are too fast, is that unless another vehicle is involved, when the they get down to a 1/3rd armor the Tank/Dropship pilot just shouts 'ITS TURBO TIME' and circles the map, visit a supply depot, or just moves out of range/sight and is back few second later at full health
Quote:Does infantry want blasters nerfed? Yes - Problem how does the pilot protect themself from AV players? 'Use small turrets' infantry says - Problem is that small turrets do not have the range to shoot 300m away let alone 150m and if they did have the range then infantry would still cry even tho that tank had small turrets
What's wrong with driving up to them and shooting them? You have no problem whatsoever doing that ATM
Quote:
Does infantry want vehicles to be more expensive? Yes - 'Vehicles are too cheap' They say - 1.0-1.6 they were fine with killing 2mil+ vehicles with 20k worth of AV nades but now the shoe is on the other foot they dont like it - My proto AV fit costs me 150k or there abouts, a mlt tank 70k, my basic cheapo tank 200k and my proto 500-700k with std hull but a dead tank is priceless - Add in adv/proto hull and the price will rise anyway
It's not rocket science. cheap or very effective -- pick one.
32db Mad Bomber.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
1984
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:10:00 -
[35] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:After all the posts and threads this is generally what infantry wants for vehicles
Does infantry want to limit the modes that vehicles can be used in? Yes - So vehicles are no longer in x mode, would that stop infantry from trying to get them removed or limited in other modes? No - So then we end up where only 3 ppl can use what they skilled into so it begins fastest player to spawn in wins while the sand is being thrown out of the box and it becomes infantry514 again - Would you like it if we limit the modes you can use a dropsuit in?
Some do they are fools, Ambush is pointless game mode anyway, it would be better to remove ambush altogether.
Does infantry want a 1:1 ratio? Yes - By this i mean 'If its 1 to use the vehicle then its 1 AV to destroy it' - Problem is if i have 3 in my tank will it take 3 AV to destroy it? Currently i can put 3 in my tank now but i dont get an increase in HP/CPU/PG/Resistance only increase is damage that is if the target is in the range of the small turrets and right now 2 AV can kill my vehicle with 3 ppl in it - That isnt 1:1 ratio
If you have 3 people in a tank you have 3 times the firepower, which makes it easier to kill upto 3 times faster. 1 person can kill 3people in a row can't they?
Therein balance is restored, also if you wanted having 3 people in pilot suits would provide additonal beniftis to your tank?
Does infantry want vehicles to be slower? Yes - 'HAVs are too fast, they faster than my LAV' they say lying through there teeth - HAV is not faster than a LAV - Also AV likes to stay still and not move around, if more AV moved around chased a vehicle around they would kill it - Whats to say we wont get some kind of webifier tool added to the game?
It's a Tank, it's going to be relatively slow, when we say they are too fast, we are talking acceleration and turning, tanks are too mobile.
Does infantry want blasters nerfed? Yes - Problem how does the pilot protect themself from AV players? 'Use small turrets' infantry says - Problem is that small turrets do not have the range to shoot 300m away let alone 150m and if they did have the range then infantry would still cry even tho that tank had small turrets
We don't want them nerfed to oblivion but if swarms can only reach a 150m then shouldn't it make sense you should have to be within our rangeto attack us, also TTK is incredibly low for blasters.
Does infantry want pilots to use small turrets? Yes - 'Teamwork' they say while most bluedots refuse to get out to do anything while spamming ammo at the MCC and not getting out to hack a objective - Most dont use small turrets because we cannot lock the doors and kick out bluedots who enter and frankly after having to deal with terrible terrible bluedots most will not use them again until we get locks because you are useless and a liability
SOME, they are fools
Does infantry want vehicles to be more expensive? Yes - 'Vehicles are too cheap' They say - 1.0-1.6 they were fine with killing 2mil+ vehicles with 20k worth of AV nades but now the shoe is on the other foot they dont like it - My proto AV fit costs me 150k or there abouts, a mlt tank 70k, my basic cheapo tank 200k and my proto 500-700k with std hull but a dead tank is priceless - Add in adv/proto hull and the price will rise anyway
No SOME, they are fools
Did infantry ask for ammo counts? Yea - They still not happy tho
I wonder why we aren't happy when, blasters get nearly 250 per mag and reload in seconds. We wanted maybe 70-90 on a blaster and 5 on rail. Also it's not like you have to use supply depot's
Does infantry want vehicles to be removed? Id mostly say yea they do, maybe keep in a BPO LAV for everyone
SOME, they are fools
Turns out the majority havnt stepped in a tank until it starting killing there infantry suit and actually being effective
AND? prehaps the fact so many people are using it, as a FOTM is testemant to it being overpowerd.
Spkr4thedead: Me > AV
This is why tanks are unbalanced
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
1984
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:11:00 -
[36] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:After all the posts and threads this is generally what infantry wants for vehicles
Does infantry want to limit the number of vehicles in game? Yes - Great whoever spawns in 1st can bring in vehicles, problem is the 1 guy who has 20mil SP into it and uses vehicles in every game because its what they do but can no longer play and is FORCED to use mlt infantry crap even tho he doesnt want to while they wait for one of the vehicles to die but by the time that happens the pub game is a redline - Would you like it if we limit the number of suits so they can only be 2 assaults/2 logi/2 heavys and 5 scouts/commandos in each 16man team? tough **** if you main as an assault you may be FORCED to play as scout SOME people want the vehicle limit unfairly reduced, they are fools, the vehicle limit should prehaps moved down to 5 which 31% of the team. This would be reasonable.
What people WANT is there not be 6 tanks per side every match, other people want to use other vehicles as well, not just tankers. The thing is a "tanker" always runs the possibility of having to run infantry, because there will always be a vehicle cap of some sort.
Instead people need to be encouraged to use OTHER vehicles, soft limits if you will. If vehicles are balanced and equally useful we would expect to see maybe 15% of HAV/HAAVs 10% of MAV/MAAVs and 5% of LAV/LAAVs. artificial limits will do nothing in this game the thing is people with SSDs will always be logged first into the map thus preventing others to play any vehicle at all...
So what do we do?
Let everyone have a tank?
Spkr4thedead: Me > AV
This is why tanks are unbalanced
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.
|
Zene Ren
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
48
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Henchmen21 wrote:Zene Ren wrote:Henchmen21 wrote:Reduce blaster range, reduce speed OR remove the warning from prox mines. this will do nothing but make them obsolete again move along, there was a time they tried similar approach but comprehension of the past seems to be failing you.... i will say it again one man HAV will never be balanced towards infantry and will always be just a better drop suit what would be the point playing infantry game then? just get the best drop suit in game aka HAV and nothing else as it is now... How would not being able to snipe infantry at 200+ meters out with a blaster make them obsolete? How would making a tanker not be able to just run away at the last second make them obsolete? How would making it dangerous to just haul ass away at the last second make them obsolete? Forcing a tanker to hand over the controls of either their gun or movement would make them obsolete because nobody would be willing to do that.
i disagree man
this speed boost is the only thing that saves tanks from FGs w/o it would be death
w/o range from blasters those tanks would be just food for DS or FGs or even swarms in more organized environement
remove redline and blaster range is a non factor the red line is the culprit here
im not telling that one person should not be able to shoot and drive at the same time, i'm telling divide dmg/armor/modules efficiency per person with pilot suit for instance in tank and you got balance IMO
one pilot in tank equals 1/3 or 1/4 of current module or weapon efficiency armor number,speed, reloading times and things like that or 1/3 or 1/4 of CPU/PG available for him thus only multiplying pilots tank can reach it's own full potential
there is a lot possibilities to approach the crews for HAV not only limiting one pilot to only driver etc
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Bethhy
Ancient Exiles.
Renegade Alliance
1230
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:12:00 -
[38] - Quote
i don't want a limit on vehicles i think it could be achieved more in a sandbox way...
Tanks are to much of a force multiplier it will always be the case if a singular mercenary can get into a mechanized unit that can regenerate to full strength infinitely.
We need a MAV to fullfill the role of singular Mercenary tanks.. They need to be limited and somewhat balanced to infantry AV where 1-2 good mercs can compete with the Singular Manned MAV tank....
Then turn the HAV's into Multi-manned Platforms... Meaning the Driver gets the Driving seat and the Small Turret in the front.. And you need an actual "Gunner" to operate the main turret.... This tank has all the glory and power of tanks we know today... but it needs two mercenaries to even utilize that potential.
This will create an amazing gameplay dynamic and true "tanking" teams...The team work and ability that could develop.. and fix a huge part of the force multiplier issue that is gonna exist with tanks until a singular mercenary can't call in a mecahanized unit that will regenerates infinitely and make them 300x stronger...
And peoples only answer to fixing that is only allow a couple people to use vehicles.. per match which is silly and very anti-CCP and anti-sandbox... But calling in that amount of vehicle force should yield some negative consequences on battlefield manpower running map objectives beyond a couple map options that have cover options for vehicles... |
BAD FURRY
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
516
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:14:00 -
[39] - Quote
Well said my man !
this is why CCP will not help the scrub noobs that only play pub games and cry about tanks .
its all so shows how dum and ******** there posts are about tanks ! so some it up the scrubs that want to mess the game up and kill CCP,s dust 514 don't care a bout eve/dust 514 working together only thing them scrubs want is a game thats a look alike to COD untill the next COD comes out .
they also know that the more Alt accounts they make and cry on the forums the more likely CCP will bow to them and mess the game up.
and they only do this and hate tank because Tanks Mess with there KDR in pub games
It makes them have to THINK !
it makes them have to PLAY SMART !
it makes them have to Uses TEAM WORK !
it makes them have to Do something other then run around firing a AR or SMG !
it makes them have to HTFU !
it makes them have to Skill in to AV !
and all they want to do is BUFF there KDR and claim that there a 15 yr old E God !
SO as we can see there going to keep posting using ALT accounts and Crying to CCP that they have no skills in this game and CCP should Feed them Cake!
this is why CCP should Start Locking and Banning players for Crying in GEN for tanks or anything !
IF you want stuff fixed or looked at go to FEED BACK/ REQUESTS and post it there scrubs !
and yes that's more proof that the noobs are mad for this game they cant even post in the rite spot !
Yes i am a Undead Hell Wolf ... nice to meat you!
|
Zene Ren
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
48
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:17:00 -
[40] - Quote
Bethhy wrote:i don't want a limit on vehicles i think it could be achieved more in a sandbox way...
Tanks are to much of a force multiplier it will always be the case if a singular mercenary can get into a mechanized unit that can regenerate to full strength infinitely.
We need a MAV to fullfill the role of singular Mercenary tanks.. They need to be limited and somewhat balanced to infantry AV where 1-2 good mercs can compete with the Singular Manned MAV tank....
Then turn the HAV's into Multi-manned Platforms... Meaning the Driver gets the Driving seat and the Small Turret in the front.. And you need an actual "Gunner" to operate the main turret.... This tank has all the glory and power of tanks we know today... but it needs two mercenaries to even utilize that potential.
This will create an amazing gameplay dynamic and true "tanking" teams...The team work and ability that could develop.. and fix a huge part of the force multiplier issue that is gonna exist with tanks until a singular mercenary can't call in a mecahanized unit that will regenerates infinitely and make them 300x stronger...
And peoples only answer to fixing that is only allow a couple people to use vehicles.. per match which is silly and very anti-CCP and anti-sandbox... But calling in that amount of vehicle force should yield some negative consequences on battlefield manpower running map objectives beyond a couple map options that have cover options for vehicles...
this is pretty good idea!
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
|
|
Zahle Undt
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
715
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Henchmen21 wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
Does infantry want to limit the number of mods we can use on our vehicles? Yes - Great idea now LAV and DS suffer greatly from it
I pilot dropships, and have done some stuff with LAVs. Wtf are you talking about? I use DS with multiple mods If x mods get a limit ie 1 per vehicle my fits are then useless and mostly ****** Well perma hardened vehicles is exactly the opposite of what CCP said they would be. But with a perma hardened vehicle you do sacrafice other mods
Other mods don't matter if you literally cannot be destroyed unless multiple FG or rails hit you at exactly the same time. Sounds like your dropships are fitted out to be LOL hover over objectives and fire away gunships while being immune to damn near everything and that is what vehicle users like yourself really want. You think you deserve to be immune to people not in vehicles and that is frankly BS.
So what does this infantryman want, f*cking AV that can be fitted to any frame suit that actually works.
Most tankers are like sand people. They frighten easily, but will quickly return...and in greater numbers.
|
Henchmen21
Planet Express LLC
597
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:25:00 -
[42] - Quote
Zene Ren wrote:Henchmen21 wrote:Zene Ren wrote:Henchmen21 wrote:Reduce blaster range, reduce speed OR remove the warning from prox mines. this will do nothing but make them obsolete again move along, there was a time they tried similar approach but comprehension of the past seems to be failing you.... i will say it again one man HAV will never be balanced towards infantry and will always be just a better drop suit what would be the point playing infantry game then? just get the best drop suit in game aka HAV and nothing else as it is now... How would not being able to snipe infantry at 200+ meters out with a blaster make them obsolete? How would making a tanker not be able to just run away at the last second make them obsolete? How would making it dangerous to just haul ass away at the last second make them obsolete? Forcing a tanker to hand over the controls of either their gun or movement would make them obsolete because nobody would be willing to do that. i disagree man this speed boost is the only thing that saves tanks from FGs w/o it would be death w/o range from blasters those tanks would be just food for DS or FGs or even swarms in more organized environement remove redline and blaster range is a non factor the red line is the culprit here im not telling that one person should not be able to shoot and drive at the same time, i'm telling divide dmg/armor/modules efficiency per person with pilot suit for instance in tank and you got balance IMO one pilot in tank equals 1/3 or 1/4 of current module or weapon efficiency armor number,speed, reloading times and things like that there is a lot possibilities to approach the crews for HAV not only limiting one pilot to only driver etc
The range on blasters is the reason one tank can steam roll a team, which is the primary reason so many people dislike tanks. They should have to worry about infantry AV if they plan to slaughter infantry, as it stands now you have the FG (which as a PLC user I feel is too easy to use) the PLC and RE's to counter tanks on foot. The FG is the only one that doesn't require you to get well within blaster range to be effective. As far as escape-ability that's why I said reduce speed OR remove the warning on prox mines. Either force them to retreat while their hardeners are still up or force them to do so carefully along secured routes, not just panic and haul ass out via the easiest path.
CCP your matchmaking sucks
Henchmen21: Infantry
Gotyougood Ufkr: Vehicles
|
Judge Rhadamanthus
Amarr Templar One
1498
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:27:00 -
[43] - Quote
Just leaving this here. If you do this don't send this or this.
Everything Dropship youtube channel
my Community Spotlight
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2567
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:28:00 -
[44] - Quote
Henchmen21 wrote:
But also remove the window of vulnerability that CCP promised.
When i use 3 a FG will always go through 1 hardener, so i put a second one on that leaves me with 1 left if the danger isnt dealth with so i retreat and put a 3rd one on after that has gone i have nothing on - window is open
But window is not open if nothing challenges the tank, you break the regen on shield they either move or put another one on then you cannot cycle 3
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:
Afterburners are already limited, which makes sense.
From what I've heard, people just want hardeners limited. Myself included.
The only use it is on is the gunlogi, even then its all shield so the use of 3 works well with it but a FG or another tank can and does make me think otherwise and if i pop on a 2nd or 3rd mod to survive my cycle is broken
Monkey MAC wrote:
SOME people want the vehicle limit unfairly reduced, they are fools, the vehicle limit should prehaps moved down to 5 which 31% of the team. This would be reasonable.
What people WANT is there not be 6 tanks per side every match, other people want to use other vehicles as well, not just tankers. The thing is a "tanker" always runs the possibility of having to run infantry, because there will always be a vehicle cap of some sort.
Instead people need to be encouraged to use OTHER vehicles, soft limits if you will. If vehicles are balanced and equally useful we would expect to see maybe 15% of HAV/HAAVs 10% of MAV/MAAVs and 5% of LAV/LAAVs.
We dont have MAVs, we dont even have the rest of the racial vehicles plus is that a limit on all vehicles? right now we can have 5 tanks and 2 DS and 3 LAVs about but generally in game that gets knocked down as each vehicle is destroyed or recalled
The problem is stepping on other players toes, 5 tanks all called in no more room for vehicles that ADS/DS pilot is left out espc if they dont have a SSD
Infantry dont have that problem, pilots could have that problem which i feel is unfair
Monkey MAC wrote:
Yes we do want to limit the use of stacking modules, just like infantry modules have stacking penalties.
Damage Mod have stacking penalties, their is no point using 5, so I think that is a bare faced lie.
If Infantry had a mod as powerful as hardeners we would most defiantly have some severe stacking penalties. What about cloaks? They are being limited to 1 per suit, so why not vehicle hardeners?
It only really effects HAV's because dropships don't fit multiple hardners, and LAV's don't have the EHP to get much use out of them.
No they did use 5, i was even told by that person they used 5 in a PC match just because why not
We do have stacking penalties when they are on at once like every other mod but also the difference between basic to proto is nothing but cooldown and fitting requirements and SP, maybe if basic was 40%, adv50% and complex as it is maybe it wouldnt be so bad
I use em on my DS, frankly if a DS doesnt use em he will be swatted out of the sky by everything, i use em to survive so i can fly about and do what needs to be done
Intelligence is OP
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2568
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:31:00 -
[45] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Just leaving this here. If you do this don't send this or this.
lol
But i survived in a DS, it took your team swarms and 3 FG to even try and bring me down
Why can i do it but you cant?
Whenever ive seen you in games you dont fly, you refuse to fly
Practise makes perfect
Intelligence is OP
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
1985
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:31:00 -
[46] - Quote
so like I said early you want the vehicle cap removed?
Spkr4thedead: Me > AV
This is why tanks are unbalanced
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
1985
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:32:00 -
[47] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Just leaving this here. If you do this don't send this or this. lol But i survived in a DS, it took your team swarms and 3 FG to even try and bring me down Why can i do it but you cant? Whenever ive seen you in games you dont fly, you refuse to fly Practise makes perfect
54 WP wow, way to pull one for the team, Im guessing the only reason they took shots was for target paractice.
Spkr4thedead: Me > AV
This is why tanks are unbalanced
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2568
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:34:00 -
[48] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:After all the posts and threads this is generally what infantry wants for vehicles
Does infantry want to limit the modes that vehicles can be used in? Yes - So vehicles are no longer in x mode, would that stop infantry from trying to get them removed or limited in other modes? No - So then we end up where only 3 ppl can use what they skilled into so it begins fastest player to spawn in wins while the sand is being thrown out of the box and it becomes infantry514 again - Would you like it if we limit the modes you can use a dropsuit in?
Some do they are fools, Ambush is pointless game mode anyway, it would be better to remove ambush altogether.
Does infantry want a 1:1 ratio? Yes - By this i mean 'If its 1 to use the vehicle then its 1 AV to destroy it' - Problem is if i have 3 in my tank will it take 3 AV to destroy it? Currently i can put 3 in my tank now but i dont get an increase in HP/CPU/PG/Resistance only increase is damage that is if the target is in the range of the small turrets and right now 2 AV can kill my vehicle with 3 ppl in it - That isnt 1:1 ratio
If you have 3 people in a tank you have 3 times the firepower, which makes it easier to kill upto 3 times faster. 1 person can kill 3people in a row can't they?
Therein balance is restored, also if you wanted having 3 people in pilot suits would provide additonal beniftis to your tank?
Does infantry want vehicles to be slower? Yes - 'HAVs are too fast, they faster than my LAV' they say lying through there teeth - HAV is not faster than a LAV - Also AV likes to stay still and not move around, if more AV moved around chased a vehicle around they would kill it - Whats to say we wont get some kind of webifier tool added to the game?
It's a Tank, it's going to be relatively slow, when we say they are too fast, we are talking acceleration and turning, tanks are too mobile.
Does infantry want blasters nerfed? Yes - Problem how does the pilot protect themself from AV players? 'Use small turrets' infantry says - Problem is that small turrets do not have the range to shoot 300m away let alone 150m and if they did have the range then infantry would still cry even tho that tank had small turrets
We don't want them nerfed to oblivion but if swarms can only reach a 150m then shouldn't it make sense you should have to be within our rangeto attack us, also TTK is incredibly low for blasters.
Does infantry want pilots to use small turrets? Yes - 'Teamwork' they say while most bluedots refuse to get out to do anything while spamming ammo at the MCC and not getting out to hack a objective - Most dont use small turrets because we cannot lock the doors and kick out bluedots who enter and frankly after having to deal with terrible terrible bluedots most will not use them again until we get locks because you are useless and a liability
SOME, they are fools
Does infantry want vehicles to be more expensive? Yes - 'Vehicles are too cheap' They say - 1.0-1.6 they were fine with killing 2mil+ vehicles with 20k worth of AV nades but now the shoe is on the other foot they dont like it - My proto AV fit costs me 150k or there abouts, a mlt tank 70k, my basic cheapo tank 200k and my proto 500-700k with std hull but a dead tank is priceless - Add in adv/proto hull and the price will rise anyway
No SOME, they are fools
Did infantry ask for ammo counts? Yea - They still not happy tho
I wonder why we aren't happy when, blasters get nearly 250 per mag and reload in seconds. We wanted maybe 70-90 on a blaster and 5 on rail. Also it's not like you have to use supply depot's
Does infantry want vehicles to be removed? Id mostly say yea they do, maybe keep in a BPO LAV for everyone
SOME, they are fools
Turns out the majority havnt stepped in a tank until it starting killing there infantry suit and actually being effective
AND? prehaps the fact so many people are using it, as a FOTM is testemant to it being overpowerd.
Small turrets are mostly pointless, yes firepower is increase but only upto a certain distance for them, after that its the main turret, they cant shoot a FG 250m away
Pilot suits i would like to stack, gives me a reason to run turrets on it also but right now i can use 3 in a tank and be dead to 2 so 1:1 its not
Intelligence is OP
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2568
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:35:00 -
[49] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Just leaving this here. If you do this don't send this or this. lol But i survived in a DS, it took your team swarms and 3 FG to even try and bring me down Why can i do it but you cant? Whenever ive seen you in games you dont fly, you refuse to fly Practise makes perfect 54 WP wow, way to pull one for the team, Im guessing the only reason they took shots was for target paractice.
Yea the team was pretty bad i was in a no turreted DS flying about not doing **** all since its not a friendly DS map and they had FG on the high points all game
It was a redline and i was an annoying fly which survived all game
Intelligence is OP
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2568
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:36:00 -
[50] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:so like I said early you want the vehicle cap removed?
Vehicle cap is like 9 right now
Half the time i may see 3 tanks per side, some games its alot more but makes the game fun for me, some games there is 0
Intelligence is OP
|
|
|
Zene Ren
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
49
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:37:00 -
[51] - Quote
Henchmen21 wrote:The range on blasters is the reason one tank can steam roll a team, which is the primary reason so many people dislike tanks. They should have to worry about infantry AV if they plan to slaughter infantry, as it stands now you have the FG (which as a PLC user I feel is too easy to use) the PLC and RE's to counter tanks on foot. The FG is the only one that doesn't require you to get well within blaster range to be effective. As far as escape-ability that's why I said reduce speed OR remove the warning on prox mines. Either force them to retreat while their hardeners are still up or force them to do so carefully along secured routes, not just panic and haul ass out via the easiest path.
this is only bandaging the problem and not resolving the issue in more organized squad play that will make tanks too easy to kill in future PCs
what you're saying will make tanks pretty good for PUGs play and totally obsolete for PCs
IMO only crews of pilot suited players should enable tanks to use full CPU/PG from it thus making one pilot being only enabled to use 1/3 or 1/4 of base CPU/PG or ideas similar to this
Balance is the key to achieve knowledge and understanding
|
Vrain Matari
Mikramurka Shock Troop
Minmatar Republic
1582
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:38:00 -
[52] - Quote
What a waste of time.
Here's what i want for vehicles: Web grenades.
I support SP rollover.
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2568
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:40:00 -
[53] - Quote
Vrain Matari wrote:What a waste of time.
Here's what i want for vehicles: Web grenades.
Too easy plus it prob would have the homing crutch so it never misses
Web mines or even a web tool like the repair tool to hold in place
Intelligence is OP
|
Judge Rhadamanthus
Amarr Templar One
1500
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:46:00 -
[54] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea the team was pretty bad i was in a no turreted DS flying about not doing **** all since its not a friendly DS map and they had FG on the high points all game
It was a redline and i was an annoying fly which survived all game
That is a lie. A total lie, which seems to be your style. As you see it was an even match. Not a redline at all. Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from three angles? Don't try you usual tactic of just telling lies to make a point or get what you want against three well know you tubers. It will burn you.
Ask Cat Merc or Arkena about the match. They'll tell you the truth. Any one can go 1-1 and survive. Just hover up high the whole game.
Everything Dropship youtube channel
my Community Spotlight
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2568
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:48:00 -
[55] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea the team was pretty bad i was in a no turreted DS flying about not doing **** all since its not a friendly DS map and they had FG on the high points all game
It was a redline and i was an annoying fly which survived all game That is a lie. A total lie, which seems to be your style. As you see it was an even match. Not a redline at all. Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from three angles? Don't try you usual tactic of just telling lies to make a point or get what you want against three well know you tubers. It will burn you. Ask Cat Merc or Arkena about the match. They'll tell you the truth. Any one can go 1-1 and survive. Just hover up high the whole game.
But you said no one can hover up high because rails can shoot you
So if i hovered all game why were you not able to shoot me down with just a rail since its so easy?
Intelligence is OP
|
Berserker007
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
421
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:49:00 -
[56] - Quote
I'd say your entire premise of your post is unwanted. You simply assume such of all Av'ers which is far from true; yet you are as radical in your beliefs as Speaker, meaning you are just as ignorant, even if you aren't a 3rd teir tanker like he is.
Lets take your point one by one :
1). Should there be a max vehicles allowed at one time in a pub; possibly. As is it reasonable to call in 6 tanks at once, especially at their current ability? NO it isn't. When things are balanced maybe could see it working.
2-3). Limit module in vehicles: Ive never heard of that one before. Being one of the least biased AV'ers, don't think ever once mentioned that as something would want. Granted a hardener "Cap" could be something to look into, or a penalty for more then one (like stacking damage mods)
4). High tier tanks: HELL YES. I've said for over a year tanks need their adc/proto levels as it will help with that balance feature
5-6). Vehicle screw: Id say if you want to solo sure; but then you cant complain about being solo'd by AV either. You aren't using teamwork in your tank so it shouldn't require it to take you out then. As gunner give you more vision (call outs), and a threat potential. This also goes to balance. As it a proto AV should be able to solo the current takes available, b/c they are militia/standard tier). When you get your adv tanker; as say they still can be solo'd, but be much harder, you'll probably need/want a 2nd AV'er there. Your proto level tanks, can still be solo'd if the tanker is just dumb as FU*K; but most li kely will require 2-3 proto level AV'ers to destroy
7). Vehicles need some movement reduction. Yes you are a tank and such, but their engagement and disengagement is to great at the moment with how AV works. This is something that would need to be relooking into when AV is up to par
8-9). Couldn't say on large blasters. Possibly ; but I think it will make a big difference if/when swarms get a longer range again as it will help that distance issue of having to be to close
10). Cost will depend on the prices of the adc/proto hulls. Id say standard hulls should go back to the old 200k possible. THen have 500/1m for the adc/proto.
Again, don't assume to much; as like Speaker, you are probably one of the worst tankers in understanding balance and being unbiased. Wish Noc/Caeli/PFB guy (don't remember his name) were still around. The insight and understanding they had were amazing. Wish current tankers could go back and learn from what they posted
Closed Beta Vet
Mordu's Trials Winner
Original IMP
|
Judge Rhadamanthus
Amarr Templar One
1504
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:50:00 -
[57] - Quote
you didn't hover all game... remember the recorded by three people part?...... Stop the lies mate. Just stop. Really. Now, please. Stop. Just
Stop.
Everything Dropship youtube channel
my Community Spotlight
|
Magnus Amadeuss
Tal-Romon Legion
Amarr Empire
451
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:50:00 -
[58] - Quote
I want either of these two situations coming from an infantry perspective:
1) HAVs have limited effectiveness against infantry and can stay as hard to kill as they are now.
2) HAVs are as effective as they are now with blasters against infantry, but they die almost as easy as they did in 1.6.
Coming from a DS pilots perspective:
I want railguns nerfed into the ground.
Coming from an AV perspective:
I just want to be able to outdamage the tanking ability of a tank, and for swarms to be worth fitting again. I want militia AV to be as effective against vehciles as militia weapons are against normal dropsuits.
While there is no better place to be wealthy than the Gallente Federation, there is no hell worse for the poor either.
|
PO0KY
Virtual Syndicate
217
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:50:00 -
[59] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:Infantry wants vehicles gone so they can play CoD514.
Yeah because the only thing separating dust from COD is vehicles
|
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
10909
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:50:00 -
[60] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea the team was pretty bad i was in a no turreted DS flying about not doing **** all since its not a friendly DS map and they had FG on the high points all game
It was a redline and i was an annoying fly which survived all game That is a lie. A total lie, which seems to be your style. As you see it was an even match. Not a redline at all. Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from three angles? Don't try you usual tactic of just telling lies to make a point or get what you want against three well know you tubers. It will burn you. Ask Cat Merc or Arkena about the match. They'll tell you the truth. Any one can go 1-1 and survive. Just hover up high the whole game.
Only Taka would think hovering at the flight ceiling all game makes him a good dropship pilot.
Absolutely classic, please upload the video
Videos / Fiction
Closed Beta Vet; Incubus Pilot
|
|
|
Bendtner92
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1685
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:52:00 -
[61] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Henchmen21 wrote:
But also remove the window of vulnerability that CCP promised.
When i use 3 a FG will always go through 1 hardener, so i put a second one on that leaves me with 1 left if the danger isnt dealth with so i retreat and put a 3rd one on after that has gone i have nothing on - window is open But window is not open if nothing challenges the tank, you break the regen on shield they either move or put another one on then you cannot cycle 3
Wow, such bs.
Proto Assault Forge is 1500 base damage * 1.15 Proficiency five * 1.264 three damage mods including stacking penalty * 0.9 damage to shields * 0.4 hardener reduction = 785 damage per shot = 3140 damage per clip.
That's the absolute maximum a Forge can dish out and it can barely break through your shields with one hardener active (plus you also have some armor to save you. That's also assuming you simply just stand there and take the heat as you have 10 seconds to get out of there.
Even if you do activate a second hardener we can go through that math as well:
First hardener activated. After 10 seconds you activate the second hardener as you come under heavy fire. After 40 seconds both hardeners have run out and you activate the third. After 70 seconds the third hardener runs out and the first hardener has now been on cooldown for 40 seconds, which means you're vulnerable for a whole 5 seconds. 5!
Do you seriously tell me it's fine that you've had either one or two hardeners activated for 70 seconds and then AV only has 5 seconds to kill you before you can repeat those 70 seconds?
Plus that's only if you activate the second hardener that early, you can easily rotate them perfectly and have one active at all times. Can you tell me at which point AV has a chance to kill you then?
Winner of the EU Squad Cup & the closed beta Tester's Tournament.
Go Go Power Rangers!
R.I.P MAG.
|
John Demonsbane
Unorganized Ninja Infantry Tactics
League of Infamy
2008
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:53:00 -
[62] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea the team was pretty bad i was in a no turreted DS flying about not doing **** all since its not a friendly DS map and they had FG on the high points all game
It was a redline and i was an annoying fly which survived all game That is a lie. A total lie, which seems to be your style. As you see it was an even match. Not a redline at all. Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from three angles? Don't try you usual tactic of just telling lies to make a point or get what you want against three well know you tubers. It will burn you. Ask Cat Merc or Arkena about the match. They'll tell you the truth. Any one can go 1-1 and survive. Just hover up high the whole game.
Ahhhh...
Thank you judge, your portion of this thread has been like a warm blanket on a cold day.
"The line between disorder and order lies in logistics" -Sun Tzu
Forum Warrior lv.1
Amarr victor!
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2568
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:54:00 -
[63] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:you didn't hover all game... remember the recorded by three people part?...... Stop the lies mate. Just stop. Really. Now, please. Stop. Just
Stop.
Please upload the video
I cant remember the match that well apart from lots of FG and swarms but that could be any game
Intelligence is OP
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
586
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:55:00 -
[64] - Quote
Now, if I could direct everyone over to MY posts, we might actually begin to solve the real problems with tanks. Not the selfish assumptions Taka is known to make.
He clearly has no sense of what is fair and balanced. Kinda like Fox News
Nuff Said
|
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
General Tso's Alliance
1370
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:56:00 -
[65] - Quote
The teamwork argument is prwtty null considering that about half of the other vehicles need another player to defend it
"Always fight dirty, the victor writes history"
Eve toon: Drake Doe, professional hero tackler, full time pretzel boy
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2568
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 17:56:00 -
[66] - Quote
Bendtner92 wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Henchmen21 wrote:
But also remove the window of vulnerability that CCP promised.
When i use 3 a FG will always go through 1 hardener, so i put a second one on that leaves me with 1 left if the danger isnt dealth with so i retreat and put a 3rd one on after that has gone i have nothing on - window is open But window is not open if nothing challenges the tank, you break the regen on shield they either move or put another one on then you cannot cycle 3 Wow, such bs. Proto Assault Forge is 1500 base damage * 1.15 Proficiency five * 1.264 three damage mods including stacking penalty * 0.9 damage to shields * 0.4 hardener reduction = 785 damage per shot = 3140 damage per clip. That's the absolute maximum a Forge can dish out and it can barely break through your shields with one hardener active (plus you also have some armor to save you. That's also assuming you simply just stand there and take the heat as you have 10 seconds to get out of there. Even if you do activate a second hardener we can go through that math as well: First hardener activated. After 10 seconds you activate the second hardener as you come under heavy fire. After 40 seconds both hardeners have run out and you activate the third. After 70 seconds the third hardener runs out and the first hardener has now been on cooldown for 40 seconds, which means you're vulnerable for a whole 5 seconds. 5! Do you seriously tell me it's fine that you've had either one or two hardeners activated for 70 seconds and then AV only has 5 seconds to kill you before you can repeat those 70 seconds? Plus that's only if you activate the second hardener that early, you can easily rotate them perfectly and have one active at all times. Can you tell me at which point AV has a chance to kill you then?
Armor doesnt save anything on a gunlogi
70seconds in total, 1 FG goes through 1 hardener and stops regen so you throw the 2nd on and a 3rd to escape if it aint enoughm have 2 with FG and it hurts alot more and you defo retreat or die
What is it with ppl just using AV solo
Intelligence is OP
|
Judge Rhadamanthus
Amarr Templar One
1504
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 18:01:00 -
[67] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:I cant remember the match that well apart from lots of FG and swarms but that could be any game
Hand me a coffin, I have the final nail.
So you admit you lied about what happened in the match, as you now say you don't even remember it, to defend yourself and make the facts suit your point rather than using true facts to make a point.
My work here is done.
You have been Judged.
Everything Dropship youtube channel
my Community Spotlight
|
Thumb Green
Mannar Focused Warfare
Gallente Federation
786
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 18:02:00 -
[68] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from three angles?
Release the kra... I mean video. Nothing like a good public shaming to get the day going. Plus it'll be funny to see what excuses Taka comes up with.
Support Orbital Spawns
|
Judge Rhadamanthus
Amarr Templar One
1504
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 18:06:00 -
[69] - Quote
Thumb Green wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from three angles? Release the kra... I mean video. Nothing like a good public shaming to get the day going. Plus it'll be funny to see what excuses Taka comes up with.
I forgot, Gazabaran was in the squad too (6 on the board). FOUR angles mate. FOUR. When you see a you tube squad please learn from Taka's huge fail here. Don't BS about a match recorded by 4 you tubers at the same time who between them have over 9000 subscribers.
Everything Dropship youtube channel
my Community Spotlight
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2568
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 18:07:00 -
[70] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:I cant remember the match that well apart from lots of FG and swarms but that could be any game Hand me a coffin, I have the final nail. So you admit you lied about what happened in the match, as you now say you don't even remember it, to defend yourself and make the facts suit your point rather than using true facts to make a point. My work here is done. You have been Judged.
Prefer the video tbh since i really dont care
Intelligence is OP
|
|
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
4709
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 18:16:00 -
[71] - Quote
What I want for vehicles?
Lower Ammo Count
What's the point of having ammo if you have no need for re-supplying? Along with this, there should be an actual incentive to run an Ammunition module, and to skill into the Turret Ammunition skill.
As it stands, I rarely ever have to resupply; and on the rare occasion that I do; I simply recall my tank and call it back in for 100% ammo
However, Supply Depots need to be more prevalent on maps, and they need to be easily accessible by vehicles. And while we are at it, why not create a way to tell how much ammo your small turrets have?
Lowered Blaster Turret Range
When I'm in my Blaster tank, I can easily and reliably kill infantry from about 120m (I'm not too familiar with the metric system, so please forgive me if this is off). If AVers aren't allowed to fire at vehicles with near impunity, then neither should vehicle pilots.
No Hardener Stacking
I don't see how this was allowed in the first place. CCP's current Philosophy is "Waves of Opportunity." You shouldn't be allowed to have a never ending wave of opportunity, simply because your counter [AV] cannot extend their wave, nor make their wave indefinite.
Relevant AV Weapons
Swarm Launchers
Increase direct damage to 270HP per Swarm.
Increase lock range to 215m. However, since this is beyond rendering range I believe it would be fair if the vehicle pilot had an alarm system that alerts them if they are being locked onto beyond 175m. Countermeasures and Flares seems like a good idea as well.
Plasma Cannons
Increase Max Ammo count to 12.
Increase direct damage to: 1320/1650/1980. (STD/ADV/PRO)
It seems like a bit much, but it is a weapon that has a slow moving projectile, an arc, and only 1 round in the clip. It won't become overpowered against infantry like CCP fears simply because the only dropsuit that can survive a direct hit with an Allotek Plasma Cannon is a completely tanked out PRO heavy.
Proximity Explosives
Remove the alarm system. you can already look down to see the explosives, and the trap is completely static. Unlike Jihad Jeeps that can follow you, a Proximity Explosive trap requires someone to predict where you are. If you aren't piloting in a predictable pattern, then Proximity Explosives won't affect you.
Remote Explosives
Increase Max. Carried amount. The total amount you can have active should be the total amount you can carry, just like other pieces of equipment. Otherwise, the only dropsuit that can create a reliable RE trap is the logistics. (This also applies to Proximity Explosives)
Nerf Bolas
This AV weapon is ridiculously overpowered against Dropships as it can OHK them regardless of their fitting.. I say reduce it's direct damage to 200HP.
-HAND
Want to know how to make a strike-through?
[s[Example[/s]
Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
4709
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 18:17:00 -
[72] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Thumb Green wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from three angles? Release the kra... I mean video. Nothing like a good public shaming to get the day going. Plus it'll be funny to see what excuses Taka comes up with. I forgot, Gazabaran was in the squad too (6 on the board). FOUR angles mate. FOUR. When you see a you tube squad please learn from Taka's huge fail here. Don't BS about a match recorded by 4 you tubers at the same time who between them have over 9000 subscribers.
You have been Judged
[/thread]
Want to know how to make a strike-through?
[s[Example[/s]
Now go my Forum Warriors. Use this new weapon for glory!
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1841
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 18:24:00 -
[73] - Quote
Leadfoot10 wrote:Your post doesn't make HAVs any less OP, unfortunately.
There's no OP tank, only a tank that hasn't been countered.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
DUST Fiend
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
10914
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 18:32:00 -
[74] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Thumb Green wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from three angles? Release the kra... I mean video. Nothing like a good public shaming to get the day going. Plus it'll be funny to see what excuses Taka comes up with. I forgot, Gazabaran was in the squad too (6 on the board). FOUR angles mate. FOUR. When you see a you tube squad please learn from Taka's huge fail here. Don't BS about a match recorded by 4 you tubers at the same time who between them have over 9000 subscribers.
I want that video now
Videos / Fiction
Closed Beta Vet; Incubus Pilot
|
Evolution-7
The Rainbow Effect
Negative-Feedback
371
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 15:20:00 -
[75] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Thumb Green wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from three angles? Release the kra... I mean video. Nothing like a good public shaming to get the day going. Plus it'll be funny to see what excuses Taka comes up with. I forgot, Gazabaran was in the squad too (6 on the board). FOUR angles mate. FOUR. When you see a you tube squad please learn from Taka's huge fail here. Don't BS about a match recorded by 4 you tubers at the same time who between them have over 9000 subscribers.
And in what way does that make words which spew from your mouths more relevant than others.
Veteran Pilot
"Fight on and fly on to the last drop of blood and the last drop of fuel, to the last beat of the heart."
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
4766
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 15:23:00 -
[76] - Quote
Evolution-7 wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Thumb Green wrote:Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from three angles? Release the kra... I mean video. Nothing like a good public shaming to get the day going. Plus it'll be funny to see what excuses Taka comes up with. I forgot, Gazabaran was in the squad too (6 on the board). FOUR angles mate. FOUR. When you see a you tube squad please learn from Taka's huge fail here. Don't BS about a match recorded by 4 you tubers at the same time who between them have over 9000 subscribers. And in what way does that make words which spew from your mouths more relevant than others.
The fact that what he is saying is straightforward and backed with evidence.
My .02 ISK on V/AV
|
Flix Keptick
Red Star.
EoN.
3406
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 15:31:00 -
[77] - Quote
*grabs popcorn* I'm not jumping into a debate that has been discussed TO DEATH ABOUT ONE MILLION TIMES!!!!!!!!!!
The community is the worst thing that ever happened to this game.
Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star.
EoN.
2593
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 15:45:00 -
[78] - Quote
Flix Keptick wrote:*grabs popcorn* I'm not jumping into a debate that has been discussed TO DEATH ABOUT ONE MILLION TIMES!!!!!!!!!!
Why not its fun
I still want to see that video, i like to see what im lying about
I cant be as bad as judge lying about wanting railguns nerfed and in an ideal world removed so he can fly in a straight line
Intelligence is OP
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
9806
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 23:54:00 -
[79] - Quote
Judge Rhadamanthus wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Yea the team was pretty bad i was in a no turreted DS flying about not doing **** all since its not a friendly DS map and they had FG on the high points all game
It was a redline and i was an annoying fly which survived all game That is a lie. A total lie, which seems to be your style. As you see it was an even match. Not a redline at all. Don't make Pyrex, Bamm Havoc, edit: Gazabaran and Me pull out the recordings. Wan't to see you failing at dropships from four angles? Don't try you usual tactic of just telling lies to make a point or get what you want against EDIT : Four well know you tubers. It will burn you. Ask Cat Merc or Arkena about the match. They'll tell you the truth. Any one can go 1-1 and survive. Just hover up high the whole game.
I appear to have found this thread late, but it was rather amusing reading about this.
To TK: *slow clap*
I would also like to see the video so I can point out how much of a bad you are and how right Judge is. I wish I'd recorded it myself.
ZATARA CARRIES US ALL
Lenin of the glorious armoured revolution
MAG Raven
|
bhold'the brngr ofLIKE
Edimmu Warfighters
Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.04 04:25:00 -
[80] - Quote
Quote:
I appear to have found this thread late, but it was rather amusing reading about this.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |