|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hoover Damn
H.A.R.V.E.S.T.
Legacy Rising
55
   |
Posted - 2014.02.28 15:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
INFINITE DIVERSITY IDIC wrote:I have not read your rebuttal yet I will, and I also hate nerfs, but the judges video is solid, and maps shouldnt need changing to make a vehicle less powerful, Im not saying you couldnt fix the problem by changing map contour near the redline as I have advocated for this for other reasons, but rails are broken beyond the redline I think..... Most dropship pilots would agree I think, we dont need a hard nerf though because they do keep dropships in check which I like but they need some help against 1 shot or 2 shots from rails and that exists in and out of the redline....
The most powerful railgun in the world is a 33 MJ device that spits out projectiles at 20 km/s. The 80 GJ railgun is thusly 2400 times more powerful than that, and I still have to lead shots to hit a ******* dropship only 300 metres away.
No, I will not stop reminding people of the fact that it hits like nineteen tonnes of TNT. No, I don't think it should be anything other than a hitscan gun that does tremendous damage. Find another way to balance it. |
Hoover Damn
H.A.R.V.E.S.T.
Legacy Rising
55
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 16:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
ALT2 acc wrote:Its called balance, scrub
Indeed, and the non-idiotic way to achieve that is by making it a hitscan weapon that does tremendous damage and has some other drawback, like a low rate of fire, or a long spool-up.
EDIT: Or stop pretending it's a railgun. |
Hoover Damn
H.A.R.V.E.S.T.
Legacy Rising
56
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 16:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
Zeylon Rho wrote:You think a modern-day rail comparison looks bad? None of the weapons are sensible in a real-life context.
M-16 (made in 1962): effective range > 500m
Gallente AR: 250m (absolute, it will do 0 damage past that)
Uzi (made in 1954): effective range - 200m
SMG: 125m (absolute)
M40 (1966 U.S. sniper rifle): effective range > 1200m
Sniper Rifle: 600m (absolute)
So, all the super sci-fi weapons have max possible ranges frequently that are less than HALF of the "effective" range of equivalents made five decades ago.
All the in-game ranges are totally made up and tweaked for game reasons, there is no realism attached to it.
Oh great, now I have four more things to ***** about. |
Hoover Damn
H.A.R.V.E.S.T.
Legacy Rising
58
|
Posted - 2014.02.28 18:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
I'd rather not decrease the offensive or defensive capability of the heavy armoured vehicles. In fact, I'd add the same damage threshold mechanic to armour that they have for shields, since it's silly that I can kill a Madrugar with small arms fire just because I fluxed it.
That said, I'm all in favour of buffing AV weapons like swarms and grenades effectiveness against HAVs and adding more ways for infantry to hinder them if not destroy them outright.
They should also cost a lot. Something like 1/2/3/4 M ISK for militia/basic/advanced/prototype HAVs, before modules and turrets.
Personally I'd also like to see them become more team-oriented. Yeah, yeah, you need intel from the guys on the ground, but everybody does, so that's irrelevant. More hardpoints for guns and various auxiliary equipment, but separate seats for drivers and gunners to reduce the number of solo operators. Stuff like that. |
|
|
| |
|