Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TYCHUS MAXWELL
Sebiestor Field Sappers Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2014.03.23 19:52:00 -
[91] - Quote
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:Well like I said, I don't advocate soloing tanks I advocate 1 to 1. If tanks require teamwork to kill they should require teamwork to operate effectively. So your advocating soloing because you can't have it both ways . Do you ever read the posts you quote? This is the third time you quoted something from me where I distinctly said the opposite of what you claim. You can't have it both ways . HAV's are vehicles and if they need multiple users to operate then all vehicles should as well . You can't have it both ways . You said Drop ships are fine when we all know that they are not and could use some refortification . You come across as a HAV hater .
Define both ways?
What do you mean by having it both ways?
Dropships are the most mobile thing in this game that can drop troops anywhere on the map. If they get more fortified they will be OP. Vehicles are about roles not being the best. Tanks are meant to be front pushers, right now they are solo killdozers. Dropships are harrasment/troop transport and that's exactly what they are. LAVs are harrasment ground transports and that's exactly what they are.
If by both ways you meant you can't have it take as many infantry to kill a tank as it takes for a tank to be operated efficiently..... WHY?! Why do you believe tanks should be one man armies?
Tanks were destroyed by children carrying panzerschrecks in WW2. Tanks now a days are obsolete in first world warfare and are only deployed by 3rd world countries or when 1st world countries are picking on 3rd world countries. Tanks today are not and have never been operated by one person.
Where is you justification for having a force multiplier in a lobby shooter, it's bad game design and it's not realistic so what is your defense other then "muh feelings"? |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
4594
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 08:25:00 -
[92] - Quote
TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:Like I said and will say again, it has to be 1 to 1. If someone has an anti tank weapon it shouldn't require teamwork unless the tank requires teamwork. Making the Turrets Anti-vehicle was my suggestion to doing this but there are many others including making the large turret a weapon used by another occupant kind of like how the main guns in borderlands are not operated by the driver. IT HAS TO BE 1 TO 1.
I agree.
1 vs. 1, Tank vs. AV. Looking at Blasters.
If they make Blasters an anti-infantry weapon, then 1 vs. 1 with a Blaster Tank against an AV Tank, the Blaster will lose. Against AV infantry, if they balance things RIGHT, the winner should be either the more skilled player or the one with the larger ISK investment. This means a fell-fitted Blaster Tank SHOULD have a slight edge over AV infantry, but not enough to negate skill.
If they make Blasters a range-limited weapon and slow Tanks down (faster than LAVs was a stupid idea), then AV, whether vehicle or infantry, will be able to win by simply keeping out of range.
Again, this is assuming other things are fixed, not just the balance on turrets specifically.
I just don't see how a rapid fire weapon could be nerfed against infantry without it being a completely arbitrary and lore-breaking change to Blasters. I also don't see why it should be when nerfing it against vehicles makes so much more sense and would quickly reduce their prevalence on the battlefield. I agree they need a change, I just don't agree that reducing their anti-infantry capability is the right way to change them. |
Jake Diesel
BIG BAD W0LVES Canis Eliminatus Operatives
119
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 09:16:00 -
[93] - Quote
Quote:
The problem is not HAV users it's the wave of players using militia tanks to gank WP's , isk's and the fact that they know that players " DO NOT SWITCH FITS TO COUNTER TANKS " most of the time ... so they go unchecked and the QQ's rain down in the forums . That coupled with the fact that you have players who just hate to see others " out perform " them , even more so the fact that they believe that CCP has a " bullseye " on nerfing their role and you get the hate spam that is " en mass " in the forums .
Something can be done but blurting out ignorant , role and skill point killing proposals just waste time . The best way to solve a problem is to act seriously about it and " come to the table " with some substantial fixes in mind and not just some , " You killed me now I'm going to kill your role " attitude because that's what the forum has been flooded with so far .
If serious discussions are undertaken then I'm sure that will bring about serious results .
True Adamance, as far as I remember, is a tanker and always suggest some kind of rebalance with vehicles.
Tanks are Overpowered, not because they instakill infantry from miles away, but because they hardly get destroyed by proto AV infantry. I had a quick chat with someone in Local stating he "always" destroy a lot of tanks with a PRO assault Forge Gun. From my personal experience with both a full dedicated AV (9 mln SP, Takami Masubi) alt and a full dedicated tank alt (12 mln SP, Sextus Iulius Cocles), I can say with no doubt that any kind of forge gun is easily oneshottable with a railgun (even easier considering only heavies can carry a Forge Gun).
I must say, CCP did a great job in vehicle vs vehicle engagements , but looks like they forgot about infantry, which is the spine of every FPS. It's not by chance if any other fps has a much lower vehicle/infantry rate: think about MAG or Battlefield. MAG had a "domination" APC hard cap of 2 per platoon (32 players) or, if you like, 8 APC on a total of 128 players.
Dust has a vehicle/infatry rate of 6/16.
So simple math: tanks have a great resistance over infantry (a) and they are spammable (b). a + b = broken game.
But it's not over yet: the tank resistance and engage time is proportional to its tier. The more complex modules you put on it, the more resistance you'll gain.
It happened to me only once, but that was enough: people use to complain about MLT tanks spam, but when the enemies spam well-fitted STD tanks, the problem is not only big, it is gigantic. Considering it takes at least 3 Good AVs to destroy a decent tank, imagine what would happen if you had to face 5 well fitted tanks: - You could say, call in a rail tank. Nope, there's another rail tank sniping your tank from their redline. - Switch the entire team to AV. Not always possible, furthermore, you'll still lose the match. - Jihad Jeeps, still does not guarantee you hit your target considering there are 5 tanks on the opposing team.[/quote]
What you've stated is pretty much the hard facts. I can drop the militia tanks with three shots from my proto assault forge but I've got to use at least an advanced dropsuit with two complex damage mods to do it. But even this cannot drop a standard well fitted tank.
I'm not complaining about not being able to solo standard well fitted HAV's. I'm complaining that these HAV's capabilities are letting them solo entire squads without fear and without any support from friendly infantry.
I've always believed that it should take two proto Forgers to take out one good HAV. But why the hell does it take a full proto forge to drop a militia tank is beyond me.
Tanks need to be slower and their hardeners decreased. This would help eliminate that solo mentality that many HAV's are soo used to and forces them to carefully approach a hotzone and rely on infantry support. |
Altus Nox
FACTION WARFARE ARMY FACTION WARFARE ALLIANCE
17
|
Posted - 2014.03.24 15:35:00 -
[94] - Quote
TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:Does it take teamwork to kill a heavy in most cases ??? Will it take teamwork to kill heavies and sentinels in 1.8 ??? Unless your a heavy I would think so for the most part , even more so the fact that damage mods will be changing .
But I guess come Monday we will see . You need to infantry more bro, it doesn't take heavies or groups to kill heavies, if you blindside them they are dead before they can turn around, which is likely as they are slow moving and slow turning. Tanks though? I can blind side one of those with my proto forge gun and there's still a good chance that they can mow me down or one shot me before I kill them in the 20 seconds it takes with their hardeners up. You have to try to fail (IE sit there and not retreat or shoot them) in a tank to die to a solo av. But you see that's why people hate tanks, because you guys are so disillusioned that you actually think a scout/assualt suit fighting a heavy is in the same ballpark as a swarm/plc/forge fighting a tank. Many weapons can insta gib a heavy and you can outrun them. You can't outrun tanks and the one weapon that can insta gib, the remote mine field, is immobile or requires the tank to sit there and let you stick explosives to them. In your analogy terms, that would be like a heavy suit letting an assault suit rifle butt them to death. You can jihad jeep but they are removing stickies in 1.8 because CCP won't stop listening to bad advice, because all it took was seeing the target and shooting it to blow them up. If jihad jeeps were OP then so are scouts with shotguns.
Shinobi- You have mentioned a well reasoned discussion about tanks versus AV many time throughout this thread. Tychus hit the nail on the head though, all be it a little bluntly. What I have taken from everyone one of your posts is that you seem to think that there is nothing wrong with the current situation. Be willing to sacrifice something for the betterment of the Dust community then we can talk. They are nerfing y logi and I haven't complained because equipment spam is a problem for everyone.
There is no other direct comparison to AV and Tanks that even come close to AV and tanks. The closest I can think of currently is a butt naked min scout with a militia ScP against a fully brick tanked pro sentinel.
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:As a newer player you are always going to play catch up , just face it . There's no need in even stating that . I'm in the same boat but I love it because it's a challenge and I know with hard work I will overcome that .
Vehicle user have many more skill points invested and before 1.7 , it took ... so it seems , a lot more only to have some one with a militia swarm and some basic A.V. grenades to come and kill that investment and role . Be happy that your not fighting to have your role nerfed . Players just started using PM's and RE's on a regular , except for those dedicated to A.V. which like now .. are very few . Hell before 1.7.. I can't recall seeing some die in the kill feed by a RE or PM .
I understand that I will always be playing catch up. I came in in the middle of 1.7. I have no clue what the game was like prior to it. The current issues that need to be discussed are the actually playable state of the game. It is always going to be moving forward. What it was like in the past is in the past. No matter how much you wish it was like it was before it is no longer. Move on.
Things can not get better without some kind of change to the risk/reward system of AV and tanks: Swarms are broken, hardeners are OP, repair modules have to high of a rate, AV nades are to weak and being reduced, RE's are a counter but nearly impossible too use unless our spec'd into scout plus they take to long to place, Forges can be used it you are a dedicated AV heavy or have tens of millions of SP (where I am playing catch up plus I don't want to spec into them. Logi). This list problems is far to long for a vehicle that can 1 to 2 shot (rails) or 4 to 5 shot (blaster) any suit in the game.
This leaves JLAVs and mil HAVs. I won't JLAV because I am against dying whenever possible. This past weekend I surrendered to the mil Sica because tanks have gotten so bad. I kill the spammers and recall.
When Tankers stop going 30/0 and actually face reasonable risks again then Dust will be balanced.
-Omnes una manet Nox
(The same night awaits us all)
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |