|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8286
   |
Posted - 2014.03.16 21:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
Taeryn Frost wrote:A tanker told me tanks were fine.
Not a good one mind you.
I am one
They aren't fine....too powerful for no noticeable risk.
but they arent hard to kill, and I am talking Basic Forgegun with no proficiencies here.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8294
|
Posted - 2014.03.16 23:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Joel II X wrote:Egonz4 wrote:Joel II X wrote:Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown.
AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot Swarms need more range. AV nades more damage. Ships can still do their thing, but can be countered by swarms (you know, the weapon that is actually affective against them besides rail tech?). The AV nades won't reach, so they'll be put to better use against tanks and LAVs. 3 Lai Dai Packed for an LAV? C'mon...
I honestly stand by my statement that AV doesnt need any changes made to is.
Any and all changes should be on the vehicles to balance them against the AV values.
Considering lighter frame vehicles aka the MAV, and both light and heavy air units have yet to be introduced I feel like we should avoids buffing directly AV
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8295
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 00:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Egonz4 wrote:I hope so...I mean how hard is it to change the range of the rail gun? Changing the range of the railgun is not going to solve any of the problems. Sure, it might mask the problem of the redline, but the redline is what's the issue (plus map design), not the turret. Plus, there are other problems with the rail gun that have other solutions.
Agreed what needs to be altered is the RoF and the elevation of the turret.
Damage and range do not need changes.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
8297
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 00:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Aeon Amadi wrote:Egonz4 wrote:Joel II X wrote:Actives need to be either less active or more cooldown.
AV needs to be buffed. AV does not need to be buffed! Then Dropships will be even weaker than now It's simple...decreases the range if the rail gun and make militia tanks have only 1 of each slot Or just change the resistances on the Dropship to accomodate a higher damage value... If you don't believe it's possible, aim an HMG at a Dropship and then aim it at an HAV.
No. How can you justify one weapon designed to destroy much more thickly armoured vehicled doing less damage to lightly armored ones?
A 220mm cannon does not explode with any less force against the hull of a helicpoter than it does against the hull of a tank.
Both are equally right ****** destroyed.
AV works well against dropships now, thus what need to happen is balancing on the HAV end or more utility AV weapons to prevent tanks escaping otherwise untenable situations.
" ..- -.- --. I wish I remembered morse code so I wasn't typing random letters"
- Malleus Malificorum
|
|
|
| |
|