|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1480
   |
Posted - 2014.04.03 20:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
Dauth Jenkins wrote:I don't believe tanks are op anymore, now, it's just the blaster turrets efficiency against infantry.
I'd argue that it's the blaster turret's AV efficiency that's the problem.
You just can't have a weapon that's both effective at AI and AV. Since missiles already have the CQC AV role, blasters should be solely purposed for AI.
Also don't forget the OP railgun.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1482
|
Posted - 2014.04.03 22:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Harpyja wrote:Dauth Jenkins wrote:I don't believe tanks are op anymore, now, it's just the blaster turrets efficiency against infantry. I'd argue that it's the blaster turret's AV efficiency that's the problem. You just can't have a weapon that's both effective at AI and AV. Since missiles already have the CQC AV role, blasters should be solely purposed for AI. Also don't forget the OP railgun. 1: missiles and rails are OP 2: missiles aren't for CQ; they're for medium-long range. right now they're more like rockets or torpedos (sort range). 3: it's a large turret; it should be able to still fight vehicles well. Otherwise, the point of a Gallente HAV is kinda silly if it's an all Gallente hull. blasters needs more alpha, less DPS (so damage buff, and ROF nerf).
Missiles are not OP. They are by far the most balanced large turret.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1484
|
Posted - 2014.04.04 02:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:
1: missiles and rails are OP
Those are some hot opinions there. Get this, a rail sica with a single hardener will defeat even the most upgraded missile turret, a blaster sica with two hardeners will do the same In fact, a rail sica can kill literally anything in the game with ease, while the missile turret is relegated to killing armour tanks and bad shield tankers. Only when you are decent with missiles can you use it as an anti air/anti infantry turret (memorize how to lead targets). Therefore, missiles are the most deep and skill intensive large turrets while also being the most balanced. Stay mad scummy armour tanker!
It's absolutely rewarding when I'm able to score direct hits on infantry. I've had a fair amount of instances where I'd just shoot one missile at a moving target and score a direct hit on them, killing them instantly. It's SOO rewarding when I get to do that.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1507
|
Posted - 2014.04.05 14:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Leonid Tybalt wrote:Harpyja wrote:Dauth Jenkins wrote:I don't believe tanks are op anymore, now, it's just the blaster turrets efficiency against infantry. I'd argue that it's the blaster turret's AV efficiency that's the problem. You just can't have a weapon that's both effective at AI and AV. Since missiles already have the CQC AV role, blaster should be solely purposed for AI. Also don't forget the OP railgun. 1. The railgun is not OP. 2. Blasters are not "effective" against vehicles and other tanks. Heck even a LAV driver worth his salt will be able to drive away before getting killed by a blaster. And as for other tanks: against armor tanked and hardened madrugars it sucks, and I don't have any problems blowing up pesky blaster tanks with my rail-Gunnlogi. Blasters are only truly effective against infantry. Just because you CAN blow up a tank with a blaster (after spending almost half of your magazine), it doesen't mean it's "effective" at it.
Ugh. Of course you don't have a problem with blaster tanks because you're using the most OP weapon in the game! Railguns are not meant to be effective in CQC.
I think a range profile similar to the laser rifle will be the best for railguns. You'll actually have to think about your engagements instead of bum-rushing everything.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1527
|
Posted - 2014.04.06 22:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Harpyja wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Harpyja wrote:Dauth Jenkins wrote:I don't believe tanks are op anymore, now, it's just the blaster turrets efficiency against infantry. I'd argue that it's the blaster turret's AV efficiency that's the problem. You just can't have a weapon that's both effective at AI and AV. Since missiles already have the CQC AV role, blaster should be solely purposed for AI. Also don't forget the OP railgun. 1. The railgun is not OP. 2. Blasters are not "effective" against vehicles and other tanks. Heck even a LAV driver worth his salt will be able to drive away before getting killed by a blaster. And as for other tanks: against armor tanked and hardened madrugars it sucks, and I don't have any problems blowing up pesky blaster tanks with my rail-Gunnlogi. Blasters are only truly effective against infantry. Just because you CAN blow up a tank with a blaster (after spending almost half of your magazine), it doesen't mean it's "effective" at it. Ugh. Of course you don't have a problem with blaster tanks because you're using the most OP weapon in the game! Railguns are not meant to be effective in CQC. I think a range profile similar to the laser rifle will be the best for railguns. You'll actually have to think about your engagements instead of bum-rushing everything. Just nerf the **** out of its turret rotation so that it's almost unusable in CQC. if a railgun were to move up to you, you would just circle around it until it dies.
Well, that won't work quite how you'd expect it to work. You'd have to be stupid to just sit there and try to turn your railgun while the other tank circles around you. No. All you have to do is drive away in a straight line with your railgun facing the enemy, and they can't do anything while you keep pounding them with your railgun.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Atiim didn't agree with limiting tanks!
|
|
|
| |
|