|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alena Ventrallis
PAND3M0N1UM
Top Men.
1184
   |
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
Okay then OP. If one AV should always win against one tank, then AV weapons should remove your ability to fit a sidearm. Then one infantry can always win against your one AV. Sorry buddy, if you want your rock to always win against scissors, then you should always lose to paper.
Of course, this is asinine. It would be dumb to remove your ability to fit a sidearm, right? After all, light weapons are far superior to a sidearm, aren't they? You can fight back, sure, but not nearly as well as with a light weapon. Can you not see that THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE FOR TANKS TOO? The issue is that large turrets should have always been about destroying vehicles and never about killing infantry. As light weapons are to killing infantry, so too should large turrets (including blaster) should be about killing vehicles.
Now in order to combat infantry, tanks should have to make room to fit small turrets, which are it's "sidearms" so to speak. This requires people to make sacrifices in order to effectively combat infantry. Which leads to dynamic battles with tanks taking 3 AV to kill, while simultaneously needing 3 people to effectively engage all hostiles and not just vehicles.
That's what you get!! - DA Rick
|
Alena Ventrallis
PAND3M0N1UM
Top Men.
1185
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 22:22:00 -
[2] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:Okay then OP. If one AV should always win against one tank, then AV weapons should remove your ability to fit a sidearm. Then one infantry can always win against your one AV. Sorry buddy, if you want your rock to always win against scissors, then you should always lose to paper.
Of course, this is asinine. It would be dumb to remove your ability to fit a sidearm, right? After all, light weapons are far superior to a sidearm, aren't they? You can fight back, sure, but not nearly as well as with a light weapon. Can you not see that THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE FOR TANKS TOO? The issue is that large turrets should have always been about destroying vehicles and never about killing infantry. As light weapons are to killing infantry, so too should large turrets (including blaster) should be about killing vehicles.
Now in order to combat infantry, tanks should have to make room to fit small turrets, which are it's "sidearms" so to speak. This requires people to make sacrifices in order to effectively combat infantry. Which leads to dynamic battles with tanks taking 3 AV to kill, while simultaneously needing 3 people to effectively engage all hostiles and not just vehicles.
The only way to balance AV not being able to carry sidearms would be to make AVers completely immune to vehicle turrets. Let's not go there.
I don't want it to go there. But this is why the assertion that one AV soloing any vehicle is wrong. Because if that same logic applied to AV vs infantry makes things unbalanced, then that logic would make V vs AV unbalanced.
That's what you get!! - DA Rick
|
Alena Ventrallis
PAND3M0N1UM
Top Men.
1190
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 01:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alena Ventrallis wrote:
I don't want it to go there. But this is why the assertion that one AV soloing any vehicle is wrong. Because if that same logic applied to AV vs infantry makes things unbalanced, then that logic would make V vs AV unbalanced.
The assertion that AVers should solo is based on the fact that we sacrifice our primary (which is the majority of your AP capabilities) in exchange for the ability to reasonably destroy vehicles. That sacrifice is relative to the AP sacrifices that a Large Missile and/or 80GJ Railgun Turret user make to be effective against vehicles. So by your logic, Large Missiles and 80GJ Railguns are just as AP as they are AV, and as such need a complete overhaul and should never be able to destroy Infantry units. Sacrificing something in this game is never an absolute sacrifice. While it is extremely difficult because of a sacrifice, it is never impossible to do something. And before you talk about how giving up your primary isn't a sufficient sacrifice in terms of AV, I'll paste this from another thread here: Atiim wrote:Assuming equal skill here:
- Kaalakiota Rail Rifle vs. Kaalakiota Magsec SMG... Who wins?
- Ishukone Assault Rail Rifle vs. Ishukone Assault SMG... Who wins?
- Core Breach Mass Driver vs. Core Flaylock Pistol.. Who wins?
- Carthum Assault Scrambler Rifle vs. Carthum Assault Scrambler Pistol... Who Wins?
I know where my money's at.
The issue here is that AV wants to completely dominate vehicles while still having the ability to defend themselves from infantry. As Ive stated before, it absolutely should take 2-3 dedicated AV to kill my tank. But I should have great difficulty engaging those AV without fitting small turrets. Small turrets are my tanks analogous sidearms, which should allow my tank to engage AV just as AV has a sidearm to engage infantry.
As an Eve example, it should take multiple frigates to kill my battleship. But my battleship should have issues engaging those frigates without fitting small drones.
That's what you get!! - DA Rick
|
|
|
| |
|