| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Derpty Derp
It's All Gone Derp
113
   |
Posted - 2014.03.09 11:27:00 -
[61] - Quote
They should let tanks deal damage to the MCC... But not as much as the Null Cannons. |
bamboo x
Eternal Beings
Proficiency V.
173
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 11:48:00 -
[62] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here?
They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular.
Pretty sure a blaster tank's purpose is ******* infantry up. You're thinking of a rail tank's purpose.
Sign my petition for mortal tanks
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
5499
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 15:29:00 -
[63] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
I dont have to do ****
CCP will patch and change stuff and break the game more
Infantry wont be happy until its COD 514 space edition
Infantry wont be happy until vehicles are gone or at least OHK with militia AV
I have no power with anything, i cant tell CCP what to do, i cant rely on CPM doing anything they wanted vehicles gone also, if i make a vehicle balance thread like ive done before infantry doesn't like it
I use proto AV and have prof in it but to infantry im not AV because i can use a tank
If i had it my way i would have copy and pasted everything from EVE with cap and infantry would hate that more if i was able to perma run a hardener because i had max cap skills and was able to do so
But no COD Space edition here we come, get ready you might see DUST on mountain dew bottles
Your right, you don't. However if you don't, your complaints shall fall on deaf ears once vehicles are brought into balance.
I've yet to see a general consensus of the Infantry // AV playerbase ask for DUST 514 to be a Call Of Duty clone. In fact, asking this game to be like COD with cause you to be ridiculed and insulted. I've also yet to see a general consensus of the any part playerbase ask for any vehicle to be OHK'd by MLT level AV.
You yourself have no power, but we as a community do. Once a general consensus has been reached, CCP will act. They've proven this time, and time again. Why do you think the TTK is being raised?
I bet you didn't enjoy it when I could solo you with Max. Swarm Launcher skills (Op. V, Prof V, Ammo IV, & Specialist III); so why should you get to enjoy that power?
Even if, cycled hardners completely break balance against AV. You keep telling AV to strike once your hardeners are down, but what if they never are down? V and AV's opportunity is supposed to come in a wave of strength, followed by a wave of weakness. V's counter (AV) cannot extend their wave, so why should you be able to?
The nerfbat's coming either way, and there's nothing you can do to stop it, so you might as well submit to it. Maybe it'll even go easy on you.
lolPLC
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
5499
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 15:30:00 -
[64] - Quote
bamboo x wrote:Atiim wrote:Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here?
They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Pretty sure a blaster tank's purpose is ******* infantry up. You're thinking of a rail tank's purpose.
So, a Slayer Logi with 4 wheels and an 80GJ Turret?
lolPLC
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
5499
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 15:33:00 -
[65] - Quote
Derpty Derp wrote:They should let tanks deal damage to the MCC... But not as much as the Null Cannons.
They used to be allowed to do so with 80GJ Railguns & Forge Guns.
It was so broken. You didn't even need to capture an objective to win the match. Just have 7 HAVs with Compressed Particle Cannons and 9 Players with FGs and you were guaranteed a win.
lolPLC
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Renegade Alliance
648
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 15:38:00 -
[66] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:To breach defences
To **** up infantry if its built like that
To take out enemy vehicles if its built like that
To pin down the enemy
To provide a distraction
To assault objectives
To support ground troops I'm against the idea of our in game HAV being designed to **** up infantry..... as we often see a large blaster does unbalance gameplay hugely...however I wouldn't be against us having High Explosive rounds to eff up infantry providing it requires us to skill shot them.
Sure, tanks can **** infantry up. But are you willing to be solo'ed by AV, the same way you solo AV. That's called balance, something lacking in Taka's dictionary.
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
Benjamin Ciscko
Fatal Absolution
1846
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 15:38:00 -
[67] - Quote
Atiim wrote:bamboo x wrote:Atiim wrote:Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here?
They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular. Pretty sure a blaster tank's purpose is ******* infantry up. You're thinking of a rail tank's purpose. So, a Slayer Logi with 4 wheels and an 80GJ Turret?
No not really a blaster gets obliterated by rails and if it's armor by missiles as well and lets not forget ADS's can wreck tanks with out the tank being able to do anything. Slayer Logi's only real counter excluding another slayer logi is a Sniper who isn't all that effective considering a Slayer Logi can go wherever the other one is the Sniper however can only see a certain area and if the logi avoids that area than the Sniper isn't even in the equation..
Team carry Prof. IV
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
5500
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 15:43:00 -
[68] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:
No not really a blaster gets obliterated by rails and if it's armor by missiles as well and lets not forget ADS's can wreck tanks with out the tank being able to do anything. Slayer Logi's only real counter excluding another slayer logi is a Sniper who isn't all that effective considering a Slayer Logi can go wherever the other one is the Sniper however can only see a certain area and if the logi avoids that area than the Sniper isn't even in the equation..
That's actually a perfect analogy to how V vs. AV is.
lolPLC
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Benjamin Ciscko
Fatal Absolution
1846
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 15:44:00 -
[69] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:
No not really a blaster gets obliterated by rails and if it's armor by missiles as well and lets not forget ADS's can wreck tanks with out the tank being able to do anything. Slayer Logi's only real counter excluding another slayer logi is a Sniper who isn't all that effective considering a Slayer Logi can go wherever the other one is the Sniper however can only see a certain area and if the logi avoids that area than the Sniper isn't even in the equation..
That's actually a perfect analogy to how V vs. AV is.
I really didn't think that through now did I.
Team carry Prof. IV
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
5500
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 15:47:00 -
[70] - Quote
Benjamin Ciscko wrote:Atiim wrote:Benjamin Ciscko wrote:
No not really a blaster gets obliterated by rails and if it's armor by missiles as well and lets not forget ADS's can wreck tanks with out the tank being able to do anything. Slayer Logi's only real counter excluding another slayer logi is a Sniper who isn't all that effective considering a Slayer Logi can go wherever the other one is the Sniper however can only see a certain area and if the logi avoids that area than the Sniper isn't even in the equation..
That's actually a perfect analogy to how V vs. AV is. I really didn't think that through now did I.
No, not really 
lolPLC
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
|
|
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
3008
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 15:47:00 -
[71] - Quote
We need tanks for variety, but that means they need a role of their own too.
Why should they be forced to play the role of mega dropsuit slaying individual infantry units? Why can't they do more tanky things like breaching defenses and blowing up bunkers?
Why is slaying infantry one at a time the only task in this game? It makes balance nearly impossible to achieve when every fitting shares the same goal. When we get cloaking it too will be used as an aid to slaying. It won't be used to sneak into the enemy camp to sabotage their shied generator because we don't have complex game play.
CCP can pile on asset after asset, but it will only result in an unbalanced mess if they don't add more goals. |
Charlotte O'Dell
Fatal Absolution
General Tso's Alliance
2054
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 16:12:00 -
[72] - Quote
shutup about tanks already. they probably wont be fixed for as long as it took last time to change them (uprising 1.0-1.6
Charlotte O'Dell is the highest level unicorn!
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
5503
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 16:14:00 -
[73] - Quote
Charlotte O'Dell wrote:shutup about tanks already. they probably wont be fixed for as long as it took last time to change them (uprising 1.0-1.6
Like you decided to shut up about AV?
Thanks for the advice, but nobody likes a hypocrite.
lolPLC
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Ludvig Enraga
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
938
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 16:18:00 -
[74] - Quote
They should siege/ destroy tough defenses - that's what tanks are used for IRL (as if anyone cares for sound arguments), instead in DUST they just drop on the heads of the other team and wipe the whole team in a jiffy. In a real situation a tank would have been burned if it got to infantry this close in close quarters.
PLC, NK, Scout - before 1.8.
That's right, I stack that OP Sh!t.
|
Skihids
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
3010
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 16:29:00 -
[75] - Quote
I think CCP was thinking of defense breaching when it came up with the hardener idea, but the problem is it didn't come up with any defenses to be breached.
A gaggle of infantry isn't a "defense" that needs a tank to be breached. |
Lanius Pulvis
Bullet Cluster
Legacy Rising
163
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 16:36:00 -
[76] - Quote
Traditionally tanks specialize in one of two roles; anti-infantry, or anti-material. Since currently we do not have a destructible environment, this limits the usefulness of that second role to installations, vehicles and turrets. The first is typically a light tank role, which we don't have, so we get a heavy tank with overwhelming anti-infantry capabilities. I agree that large blaster turrets in their current state should not exist, I'm not saying remove them, just tone down their rate of fire and increase damage. In addition I would like to see tanks take splash damage from their own turrets, this could help alleviate the issue of tanks camping open doors and windows like they do now.
The flip side of this is, the LAV is mostly laughable at anti-infantry right now (I know, some people use them quite successfully). If however we give some protection to the gunner, perhaps just a front shield without head protection, it may be able to fulfill the role of the gun-truck most modern militaries have replaced light tanks with.
And since we're obviously discussing swarms now too... As a dropship pilot I'm of two minds on this issue; no matter what you say they are currently usefull on DS, even hardened ones, if for nothing other than area denial. I do think projectile speed needs buffed though.
My .02 ISK, about what it's worth...
Not new, just new to you.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
1910
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 17:55:00 -
[77] - Quote
Baal Roo wrote:If tanks were half as fast as they currently are, all of a sudden the entire vehicle/infantry dichotomy would all make sense and be fun for everyone.
Oh, heaven forbid a tank should move faster than a heavy dropsuit.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
ads alt
146
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 17:58:00 -
[78] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Baal Roo wrote:If tanks were half as fast as they currently are, all of a sudden the entire vehicle/infantry dichotomy would all make sense and be fun for everyone. Oh, heaven forbid a tank should move faster than a heavy dropsuit.
Im gunna start a movie on the forums
Tanks are suoer overpowered, they need nerfing, blaster turrets need a damm huge nerf, and your a fotm tank scrub
Click here for 1.8 release date quote from devs
|
Roy Ventus
Axis of Chaos
1282
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 18:16:00 -
[79] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Not saying they should be removed, but why are they here?
They have no definitive purpose on the battlefield other than destroying other HAVs, which is circular.
Anti-Infantry, destroying heavily armored support, suppression, deterrence, yadayada.
Just being a force multiplier.
"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
5521
|
Posted - 2014.03.09 18:25:00 -
[80] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Baal Roo wrote:If tanks were half as fast as they currently are, all of a sudden the entire vehicle/infantry dichotomy would all make sense and be fun for everyone. Oh, heaven forbid a tank should move faster than a heavy dropsuit.
They'd still be faster than a Heavy Fame 
lolPLC
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |