Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
AP Grasshopper
Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance
181
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 15:34:00 -
[61] - Quote
SMG is pretty good at killing things, maybe not as good as a combat rifle, but almost as good. |
AP Grasshopper
Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance
181
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 15:39:00 -
[62] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:logi is a role assault is a role, heavy is a role, scout is a role, tank driver is a role, dropship pilot is a role, not sure what commando is
av is not a role. its a piece of equipment or a weapon just like hives or scanners. yet when you fit a piece of av you are automatically branded an av player and expected to die fast and do little damage.
its a situational piece of equipment. its not treated as such and thats a problem in itself
Swarm launchers, forge guns and assault rifles are all weapon systems, not equipment. Equipment provides utility, weapons provide stopping power or "work". Of course, there is a grey line here. |
AP Grasshopper
Ancient Exiles. Renegade Alliance
181
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 15:41:00 -
[63] - Quote
Gustav's are still in service within the U.S. Infantry divisions. Pretty scary weapon. Oh if only mr Plasma Cannon.... |
Roy Ventus
Foxhound Corporation General Tso's Alliance
1109
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 15:41:00 -
[64] - Quote
I've been saying for a while we need an AV class. Medium Frame or Light Frame because the light AV need some buffers when being used by their specialists. Tanks would have a reason to cower when they see AV running to them. Proto Swarm Launchers actually being a major threat against Proto Armor Tanks. Plasma Cannon that melt a Proto Tank's shields.
Seriously. Lower the cost of light AV and then give us a more expensive AV specialist class. The cost should be akin to the other specialist class, the Commando. An all around buff like a % increase in ammo, and then give each racial variant their buffs according to their racial AV gear and mantra.
"There once was a time when there wasn't a Roy Ventus and it wasn't much of a time at all."
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
4848
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 15:45:00 -
[65] - Quote
Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:True Adamance wrote:You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc.
AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad Even a mortar and a heavy machine gun are carried in three pieces by three guys. You whiners be happy you can carry an HMG and an FG on your shoulder as a one man AV army. I think you should be even more grateful because your HAV doesn't require 3+ people to operate.
Atiim (Gunnlogi - 80GJ Particle Cannon) Tank Scrub
AFK
No seriously. My lunch break's over now. :(
|
Yokal Bob
G.R.A.V.E INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS
393
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 15:56:00 -
[66] - Quote
Sorry but no, if AV was a secondary role then everyone would use it, put that together with AV nades (oh light AV) then noone would be in a vehcile as it would be pointless.
CPM1 candidate
I want my logi tank back
|
Roy Ventus
Foxhound Corporation General Tso's Alliance
1109
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 15:59:00 -
[67] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:logi is a role assault is a role, heavy is a role, scout is a role, tank driver is a role, dropship pilot is a role, not sure what commando is
av is not a role. its a piece of equipment or a weapon just like hives or scanners. yet when you fit a piece of av you are automatically branded an av player and expected to die fast and do little damage.
its a situational piece of equipment. its not treated as such and thats a problem in itself
._.
How the Hell do you consider the rest of those as roles but leave out the Commando and AV? And for that matter, I don't see the sniper role up there either.
Commandos are the strictly offensive role. Despite being stuck with only offensive viability, it can be used for a many things. Once 1.8 comes out and we get the update, they'll be used more often for situations like:
Spearheading an attack, Mobile Suppression, Alpha Strikes, Clearing house/elimination, Breakthroughs, Etc
AV's role is what it is. Anti-Vehicle. It isn't to be used all the time but that's also what makes it a specialist role, along with the Commando, Sniper/Marksman, and whatever else. The fact that you stated that it isn't, is silly. You have to organize your whole suit around the AV gear(the actual AV weapon, whether to use Flux or AV grenades, which sidearm, whether or not to use REs or Prox-Explosives, etc).
"There once was a time when there wasn't a Roy Ventus and it wasn't much of a time at all."
|
Marlin Kirby
KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION
359
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 16:17:00 -
[68] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl)
Star Wars Battlefront 1&2 does........just say'n.
The not Logic Bomb!
-->We need better comms!<--
|
Alternate Insano
SUICIDE SPITE SQUAD
105
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 16:23:00 -
[69] - Quote
What is this balance you speak of? Oh, you mean you want the game dumbed down because you can't figure out how easy it already is? What a horrible idea.
DUST 514 Super Scrub
Level 262 Forum Troll
Play, or play not. There is no balance.
|
Dauth Jenkins
Ultramarine Corp
63
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 16:24:00 -
[70] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Pvt Numnutz wrote:Av did this to themselves to be honest. Tower camping all the time, blowing up very expensive vehicles for pennies on the dollar from insane range. The tanks really went overboard tho. Anyway if every infantry had av, and from the sound of it you want them to be 1.6 strength then we should just remove vehicles now. There should be dedicated av, just like there are dedicated vehicle pilots (granted right now anyone can be a tanker) yes it needs to be stronger, or have more options, but not as strong as it was in 1.6. There was a justifiable argument from vehicle pilots that av was too strong. Let's not go there again. you are missing the point i'm trying to make. you cannot be effective at av if you cannot defend yourself against anything and be weak against everything. fact is av while it is much needed when tanks are about is not needed when they are not and this leaves a huge imbalance as how can a av player afford to run with av gear just incase vehicles appear. most players are happy to just forget about tanks and hide while killing and with balance as it is that makes the av role pointless. its too expensive, fitting intensive and weak. this means that to roll with it all the time as a role is completely impractical and costly. there needs to be a way for av to move with the battle regardless of if tanks or vehicles are about so that when they do appear players can react accordingly. its completely wrong to expect a player to take av and die stupid amounts of times when no vehicles are about so they can be ready to fulfill their role when there are. the same goes for why should players have to die before spawning in av gear. fact is AV and assault should be working together. av players carries the av and assaults carry the ammo hives and when needed they support each other. this is the allround balance av needs in order to balance it with vehicles.
Spec into scrambler pistols, destroy everything. This is a team game, you shouldn't be able to do everything solo
Sees prototompers...
Sees blueberries start to snipe...
Pulls out commando suit with laser rifle and swarm launcher...
|
|
Spectral Clone
Dust2Dust. Top Men.
1317
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 16:27:00 -
[71] - Quote
AP Grasshopper wrote:Gustav's are still in service within the U.S. Infantry divisions. Pretty scary weapon. Oh if only mr Plasma Cannon....
Designed and manufactured in Sweden, the most peaceful country in the world :|
Drop it like its hat.
|
Marlin Kirby
KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION
359
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 16:30:00 -
[72] - Quote
Spectral Clone wrote: .....Sweden, the most peaceful country in the world :|
Switzerland*
The not Logic Bomb!
-->We need better comms!<--
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1087
|
Posted - 2014.02.25 22:46:00 -
[73] - Quote
bump
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1152
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 19:31:00 -
[74] - Quote
bump
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
Dauth Jenkins
Ultramarine Corp
385
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 19:35:00 -
[75] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl)
dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each
until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance
this has always been the issue.
pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills.
what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks Star wars battlefront had an AV as a primary weapon. Also, in battlefield I believe they use PDWs primarily, which the magsec and smg use.
-Sincerely
--The Dual Swarm Commando
|
Takron Nistrom
Tinfoil Hatz
294
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 20:09:00 -
[76] - Quote
One of the big unbalancers is the ability to swarm av when a tank starts killing you. You get 8 guys coming back with av suits and wipe up the tank and go back to killing. If you could only pick one suit the whole match, it would justify stronger AV and make killing vehicles an investment.
GÇ£Pulvis et umbra sumus. (We are but dust and shadow.)GÇ¥
GÇò Horace, The Odes of Horace
|
Altus Nox
FACTION WARFARE ARMY FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
17
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 12:29:00 -
[77] - Quote
Create a combat engineer class or a machinist class. It would be a new medium frame suit.
Bonuses: Give them a bonus to light AV weaponry. Increased repair rate for vehicles. Two light weapon slots with reduced ammo capacity on one of them. One Equipment slot.
Drawbacks: A price increase comparable with other specialist roles. A reduced slot layout. Limited CPU/PG too make fitting two light weapons require sacrifice to Tank or Equipment.
Either this or the OP's Secondary AV weapon.
-Nox
-Omnes una manet Nox
(The same night awaits us all)
|
Xin Tiger
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
12
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 13:17:00 -
[78] - Quote
I feel like the useful days of a heavy with a forge gun are gone to be honest, I'm 70% of the time murdered horribly before i can switch suits or even get a tank kill so other options like the logi with RE's is a good way to go and sometimes I work with someone who has RE's on the tank to help take it down but i'm still stuck with a very situational primary weapon at the end of it.
Looks cool though |
Justicar Karnellia
Ikomari-Onu Enforcement Caldari State
775
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 13:45:00 -
[79] - Quote
You're touching on a lot of issues that are correct in the debate.
1) Carrying an AV weapon as a main weapon should be entirely effective against vehicles. The two options right now are not (one is broken, the other bugged). As soon as a HAV (these are the biggest issue) requires more than one infantry to engage it and neutralise it, that HAV suddenly gives his side a numerical advantage, because the HAV can also kill infantry, and other HAV's. This basically leads to a zero-sum game, which is what is occurring right now, if you have more HAV's than the other team, you have a "soft" numerical superiority.
2) classing AV as a secondary weapon is interesting, and works in other games. The elephant in the room is clearly titanfall, as everyone has three weapons, a primary, secondary and anti-titan (vehicle) weapon. This means they can engage the titans even without their own, so you don't feel like you are suddenly powerless when on foot - and quite the opposite, many pilots actually prefer it as you are more agile, while the vehicles are not. Of course, I am comparing a game that has gone through 3 years of delicate balancing around this single game mechanic, while Dust 514 is less mature, hasn't concentrated on this game mechanic at all - and this can be seen by the oddities it has created. Slow, stamina-laden infantry with ineffective AV weapons, and extremely fast and agile HAV's that can zip around the map and are sometimes nigh-on indestructible...
This topic has been covered ad-nauseum. CCP and the CPM know there is a problem, the players know there is a problem (barring a few well known bridge dwellers), the question remains on how best to correct it. I think the true sandbox will be when you can engage anyone, with any weapon at any time, and if with a bit of luck and skill and the right game mechanics, you can prevail. At the moment, even with the weapons made SPECIFICALLY do destroy a particular asset, they are ineffective... so it begs the question, why are they even in the game?
|
Jacques Cayton II
Eternal Beings Proficiency V.
745
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 13:49:00 -
[80] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc.
AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. Actually that's for Javelins and for crew operated weapon systems. Most rocket propelled weapons can be carried with full battle rattle like the at 4, smaw, and the such. Infantry units don't have javelin guys in each platoon that's battalion level. In real world events if a tank shows up to an infantry firefight it's screwed. The worst enemy to a tank is infantry the worst thing to infantry is that infantry in the open and artillery. Tanks are good at distance that's it get em close and the infantry will have a field day if they have the proper equipment
We fight for the future of the State not our
personal goals
|
|
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
5023
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 14:03:00 -
[81] - Quote
Problem with this logic:
Other games don't make vehicles into a dedicated role either.
Also, Command and Conquer: Renegade has dedicated anti-vehicle loadouts instead of providing anti-vehicle weapons as secondary weapons on all loadouts. Only the highest-level (and most expensive) weapons can be useful against vehicles while remaining viable against enemy infantry. And like DUST, you have to pay for the anti-vehicle weapons or the vehicles you're choosing to fight in. If the enemy team brings out a stack of tanks, you can counter with your own vehicles, your own anti-vehicle infantry, OR with a combined-arms force. Regardless of which approach you choose, you do so by purchasing the gear you want to fight with. |
SPESHULz
The Southern Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 19:54:00 -
[82] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:True Adamance wrote:You know for the most part most anti vehicle weapons in this modern age, and please do correct me if I am wrong, are far to heavy just to slight across the back, with full combat gear, and a rifle, side arm, grenades, basic survival and medical equipment, etc.
AV does not need to be changed, it is sitting in a strong place. Vehicles have to be changed to be balanced against AV. most av in rl which is effective in the ranges of dusts maps is man portable and carried as standard by multiple members of a squad by that i hope you mean ammo and a launcher like a javelin is carried by 2 people whose role is purely av unless you think a gla is effective against armour. Adamance you are correct.
Blood flows. Death comes. War rages
Maths is OP. Those numbers kill you
RedLineLove
|
Leovarian L Lavitz
NECROM0NGERS Caps and Mercs
1031
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 19:55:00 -
[83] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:a class who carries av as a specialised piece of equipment and not as a main weapon (this includes rl)
dust is the only one i can think of that makes you carry it as a main weapon. that is why we will never have balance on tank/av issues. because what it boils down to is why carry a weapon that struggles to kill a single guy in a vehicle when i can carry a weapon that is excellent at killing his 15 friends not to mention that a mlt weapon is far more efficient killer than for instance a few guys with proto SL with 3 complex damage mods each
until light av is made into a secondary role which everyone can use with their normal fighting ability then there can be no balance
this has always been the issue.
pre 1.7 every team had 1 or 2 SL players because that was all that was needed. there was no need for more as it was highly effective and there was plenty of combat troops available to protect these users. problem with that was if made tanks weak and promoted a huge buff to tanks and a reduction to effectiveness to av. this then had its own problem as now it needs more av to kill a tank but there is not enough of it on the field. the reason for this is fitting av weapons leaves you at a massive disadvantage to all infantry and even the tanks you are trying to kill. to field enough av to kill 1 tank now means far less infantry to protect these players and they are completely destroyed within seconds of firing the first shots. the reason for this is everyone knows now av players are defenceless with their sidearms against every light weapon user so enemy will actually go out of their way to kill av players for easy kills.
what we need is av weapons to be secondary to all normal weapons either by becoming sidearms or equipment because they are completely situational. in doing this i see no reason why ccp couldn't keep tanks and av as they currently are including the hardener stacking etc as there would be potential for everyone to carry av with them at all times meaning more players to counter tanks COMMANDO!!!!!!!!
Omni-Soldier
Few are my equal in one of these specialties, and there are none who can compare in all of them.
|
Bethhy
Ancient Exiles. Dirt Nap Squad.
1707
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 20:04:00 -
[84] - Quote
We had the flaylock as a AV sidearm....
Odly that was the first part of the gun to get nerfed before even talks of changes to it with Infantry.
Still funny when a tank came close and then got shot by 6 flaylockers.... |
SPESHULz
The Southern Legion
105
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 20:07:00 -
[85] - Quote
Insta kills 1948 tanks maybe. not a chance now. i wouldnt even try it on an abrahms same thing would happen as in dust you would get destroyed without doing much. yeah can be fired by 1 person but 2 is need to quickly fire and reload and where is your ammo coming from? I have carried and used it myself.
Blood flows. Death comes. War rages
Maths is OP. Those numbers kill you
RedLineLove
|
Rusty Shallows
1439
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 20:08:00 -
[86] - Quote
Pvt Numnutz wrote:Av did this to themselves to be honest. Tower camping all the time, blowing up very expensive vehicles for pennies on the dollar from insane range.
snip So what you're saying is Chrome HAVs are responsible for the vehicle nerfs in Uprising 1.0. So the current rampages will justify the next nerfs all vehicles get? All because HAVs did this to themselves?
Forums > Game: So here is a cookie and a Like. Please keep posting.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! >>> GòÜ(GÇóGîéGÇó)Gò¥ >>>
|
Sgt Kirk
Fatal Absolution Dirt Nap Squad.
5560
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 20:13:00 -
[87] - Quote
*Looks at Commando suit*
1st Official Role Playing Gallente Asshole -Title Awarded by True Adamance
|
Rusty Shallows
1439
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 20:22:00 -
[88] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Darken-Soul wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: the problem we have in dust is we keep balancing this against that and then repeating or doing the opposite when what we should be doing is marking it all down as broken and then taking the whole thing in a different direction. CCP has trouble making progress in one direction. I dread the day they try to fix more than the things they broke. thats the issue. they knew tanks were not working so they completely reworked them. the only problem is they barely touched av which was also broken. reworking or buffing/nerfing an item against a broken item doesn't fix any problems You call the broad nerfing of Uprising 1.7, "barely touching?" Last December CCP kicked every single infantry AV user in the balls. Uprising 1.7 stands as a monument as to why buffing and nerfing opposite sides of the equation is terrible game design.
Forums > Game: So here is a cookie and a Like. Please keep posting.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! >>> GòÜ(GÇóGîéGÇó)Gò¥ >>>
|
Cat Merc
Ahrendee Mercenaries Dirt Nap Squad.
8176
|
Posted - 2014.04.07 20:38:00 -
[89] - Quote
I'm fine with AV being a dedicated role, if it actually did anything. Vehicles should fear AV just as much, if not more, than tanks.
In a game of rock paper scissors, AV gives up it's infantry killing power (aside from a sidearm which is weak) for the ability to hurt a tank. A tank can hurt both infantry and other vehicles, hence it's both rock and scissors.
My intentions is to have a fun game for everyone.
If I seem to be biased, I have good hard data to back it up.
|
ADAM-OF-EVE
Dead Man's Game
1248
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 10:04:00 -
[90] - Quote
bump
I will logi the s* out of you
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=99075&find
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |