|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
BrotherofHavok
PIanet Express
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
9
   |
Posted - 2014.03.31 14:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:
My python is unharmed mostly, since it can fly all it needs to do is it 301m and im safe plus it has more freedom to escape since it can fly but tanks have to stick to certain tracks so getting to a point without getting hit is alot harder to do so you can end up using your defences to early before you even get to where you are going
I hate to say it, but recently my squad has been running with 3 commandos using advanced/prototype swarm launchers and sniper rifles. We get to areas that we can see your dropship and remove it before you get a chance to fly away or activate hardeners. The only thing at the moment that seems to live is an incubus with a heavy repairer or 2. And because we use range and AV weapons there are few instances where we get taken out.
Sincerely,
Your Multi-purpose Everything User
|
BrotherofHavok
PIanet Express
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
9
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 14:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
Varjac Theobroma Montenegro wrote:So far, I like the new changes. I really have to plan routes and make sure I communicate to optimize survival. There is nothing better than getting four swarms and a forge fired at you and knowing that your death is a true possibility. I do like the AV ADS alliance. ATM, but the price of an ADS is still a bit high. Can we get 175,000 isk hulls? Something would be nice. Maybe 150,000 perhaps?
Here's what I hate about what you said. After the vehicles are nerfed you want cheaper tanks. Then when they become cheaper everyone is using them and they require another nerf and then you want them cheaper and cheaper... it becomes an endless cycle.
PUT THE TANKS BACK! Remove the hardener nerf, allow tanks to run triple stacked armor reps, allow the tanks to pack a major punch against other tanks and vehicles, but RAISE THE PRICE! CCP is worried about high SP tankers running the field. Well you know what? Let them. If they have the skills to keep their tanks alive then let them do it. But I'm reminded of (what was it?) 1.6 or 1.5 with the enforcer tanks. Hardly anyone pulled them out because they COST too much to lose. Do the same here! Why is a basic tank cheaper and more effective than Assault Dropships? Yeah, the dropships can move faster and try to duck behind cover but I've seen more than 1 overconfident pilot go down.
It's very simple. You want a cheap MLT tank? Fine, remove all but one of the slots. Sica gets a high, and Soma gets a low and leave the price tag where it is. You want a Maddie that can triple stack armor reps? Fine, make the cost of the tank 350K or more, and I know people are going to complain about the cost of the tank, well you know what? It's a F***ING TANK! It should cost more than my dropsuit, than my dropship, than my LAV. Because it's going to be able to take 3-5 times the damage! But make it costly to lose. I want to see tankers get mad at losing their ONE tank that they won't pull one out for the next 5-10 matches! This is what needs to happen!
Sincerely,
Your Multi-purpose Everything User
|
BrotherofHavok
PIanet Express
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
9
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 14:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Basically you sit at the top of towers
If this was meant to be an insult than your words mean nothing to me. If it was suppose to be impossible to sit on a tower or on a building, or on a vehicle then CCP would have designed them where you would just slide off. Why did CCP remove the ability to place equipment on top of the MCC but not on top of buildings? Yes, some spots are BS, but when there is a nice flat building top, why not sit on it. Also, we don't need to sit on top of buildings when there are nice open but hilly terrain all over the place that we can sit in. Is it boring? it can be. Is it BS? Nope, soldiers in REAL life do it all the time, I know some of those guys. You do what you need to survive and bring victory to the war-efforts/team.
Sincerely,
Your Multi-purpose Everything User
|
BrotherofHavok
PIanet Express
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 16:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:BrotherofHavok wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Basically you sit at the top of towers If this was meant to be an insult than your words mean nothing to me. If it was suppose to be impossible to sit on a tower or on a building, or on a vehicle then CCP would have designed them where you would just slide off. Why did CCP remove the ability to place equipment on top of the MCC but not on top of buildings? Yes, some spots are BS, but when there is a nice flat building top, why not sit on it. Also, we don't need to sit on top of buildings when there are nice open but hilly terrain all over the place that we can sit in. Is it boring? it can be. Is it BS? Nope, soldiers in REAL life do it all the time, I know some of those guys. You do what you need to survive and bring victory to the war-efforts/team. So basically i was right
So basically you want to be an A**HOLE and need to go back to COD or the Civil War era's and line up in a line of redcoats or bluecoats and take turns shooting at each other. I agree that it's annoying to be on the receiving end sometimes but a decent player can do any number of options to remove a rooftop sniper/AV.
Sincerely,
Your Multi-purpose Everything User
|
BrotherofHavok
PIanet Express
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 16:41:00 -
[5] - Quote
Skihids wrote:
It won't work. You can't balance on ISK. All you would do is create an elite few that could stomp with impunity.
The PC ISK farmers could still spam as many as they wanted.
As long as vehicles share the same role (infantry slaughter) as infantry, they have to be balanced 1v1 with a dropsuit. CCP is almost there now, and has but to kill stacked reppers to complete the job. Then they can reduce the price to equal the dropsuit and we will have true AV/V tiericide.
(GASP) WHAT?!!!??? WHAT?!
1v1 with infantry? Then what's the point of tanks? Lower the cost to dropsuit cost? Then everyone would go tanks. Let's face it, tanks are large targets that move faster than most infantry. They have room for 3 gunners and fill specific roles. Do I agree that tanks are suppose to be good against infantry? No, not the large turrets anyway. Should the large turrets be only good against vehicles? Probably not, no matter what a large rail shot should take out any standing infantry. Should CCP make it harder for them to hit? Sure, but you cannot say that tanks should be equal to usefulness and cost of infantry. If that were the case then CCP should have just yanked all vehicles when they removed logi LAVS, logi dropships and enforcer HAVs.
true tiericide? are you kidding?
As far as the balance isk issue, yes, there will always be elites that have the isk to spend but you know what, if they keep wasting their tanks that cost a mil isk or more, then every match I will sit there and take it from them. As far as those with tons of PC districts, CCP has gone a long way of knocking them down a peg or two with the removal of district locking. Now, corps like Nyain San have lost more than half of their districts and will probably continue to do so until their fairly small corp gets to a reasonable size that they can defend and hold. They will still of PC districts though until a stronger corp comes along and if you hate that any corp besides your own has a district than get over it, beef up your corp, take a district or just plain go to a different corp that already has a district.
Sincerely,
Your Multi-purpose Everything User
|
BrotherofHavok
PIanet Express
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 16:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:
So what your saying is that they should have nerf'd the repairers ???
You people will never learn and when your vehicles are useless you will want a refund but your leading the charge to kill your own role . You vehicle users need to stop talking so much because there are enough in the community who would love to make what we do useless and you just give them fuel for their fire .
STOP TALKING ABOUT YOUR FITS !!!!!
They should have increased the stacking penalty for stacking damage mods and nothing else . That's all that needed to be changed . The hardener nerf was alright but that doesn't stop stacking damage mods and if anything increases that fact . Nerfing the rail gun was needed , 600 m is just too much coverage for any weapon .
Increase penalty for stacking damage mods and decrease the stacked damage increase .
I agree with the stacking damage mods penalty, honestly I don't understand why they don't go the EVE route and just had extra PG and CPU requirements of weapons with every mod.
The 600m I agree with as well. A Thale, the most powerful sniper rifle in the game, a salvage only officer class weapon can't even push that far, and while i know its a tank turret vs. a handheld sniper rifle its just too much. What I don't agree with though is why a 50% reduction? Couldn't they have just made it so that it's not 100% accurate? Why is it that there isn't a drop-off? Why isn't there a spread to the shots? Why do that rails fire exactly where they're pointed?
Sincerely,
Your Multi-purpose Everything User
|
BrotherofHavok
PIanet Express
Canis Eliminatus Operatives
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 17:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mortedeamor wrote:BrotherofHavok wrote:
The 600m I agree with as well. A Thale, the most powerful sniper rifle in the game, a salvage only officer class weapon can't even push that far, and while i know its a tank turret vs. a handheld sniper rifle its just too much. What I don't agree with though is why a 50% reduction? Couldn't they have just made it so that it's not 100% accurate? Why is it that there isn't a drop-off? Why isn't there a spread to the shots? Why do that rails fire exactly where they're pointed?
they're actually is bullet arc its slight but its there
Maybe, but it's not enough.
Sincerely,
Your Multi-purpose Everything User
|
|
|
| |
|