|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6730
   |
Posted - 2014.04.14 20:51:00 -
[1] - Quote
........................,,-~*~,,
......................./:.:.:.:.:.|
......................|;.;.;.;.;./
......................|.;.;.;.;.|
............._,,,,,_.).;.;.;.;.|
.........,,-":.:.:.:."~-,;.;.;.|
........(_,,,,---,,_:.:.);.;.;..",,
......,-":.:.:.:.:.""-,,/;.;.;.;.;.",
.....(:.__,,,,,,,,,___);.;.;.;.;.;|
...../"":.:.:.:.:.:.:-»""\;.;.;.;.;.,"
....\",__,,,,,,,,,,,__/;;;;;;;;;/\
.....\.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.);;;;;;;;;/:\
.......\,,,,,---~~~~;;;;;;;;,"::::\
.........."""~~--,,,,,,,,,,-"::::::::::\
...................\::::::::::::::::::::::\
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6730
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 20:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Oh snap! Do swarms! Do swarms with math! Hurry!
This should help get you started.
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6730
|
Posted - 2014.04.14 21:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Virtual Riot wrote:Ripley Riley wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Oh snap! Do swarms! Do swarms with math!
Hurry! There really isn't a point to work out the math on swarm damage, IICR, they aren't correctly applying damage. I keep waiting for a hotfix for it... but the hotfix never comes  Yeahhh, this I mean I could make a post on it, but swarms don't even work correctly, so it wouldn't really be a true representation. :(
To my knowledge, Swarm Launchers were only applying damage incorrectly to Dropships, which has been fixed for everything but the Gorgon, Grimsnes, and Incubus.
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6748
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 15:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Charlotte O'Dell wrote:really don't even care.
id rather see new content than balancing for you whiny bitches.
we all know the only time av thought it was good was 1.6 when tanks were getting ohk'd by AV nades.
inb4 facts.
AVers (myself included) were calling for vehicle buffs as well.
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6751
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 16:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
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.
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6767
|
Posted - 2014.04.15 23:51:00 -
[6] - Quote
Eko Sol wrote:
How about I put it this way. I run a Anti Armor fit where I switch out my light weapon with a MLT AR, my grenade for a ADV packed AV nade, and my equipment with a basic RE. It costs like 5k Would you believe that since I started doing this I have taken out some of the best tankers in the game. Run behind them, throw as many re's on the weak spot that you can and throw your nades and detonate the RE's. Yes, sometimes I lose 5 fits doing this before I get cheaper. The most I ever lost trying to get a tank was 9 without getting a tank.
I get pure joy in seeing tankers look at the kill screen and it reads "Front Line" and "Remote Explosive".
AV is balanced. People just need to get over the fact that you can't be good at everything and sometimes you get nullified by a tank.
Well despite the fact that this entire statement is anecdotal and because of such is not credible, I'm going to bite down anyways.
First, who are the "best tankers in the game" that are being killed by you? I seriously want names, because if your killing "some of the best tankers in the game" that would technically make me the best tanker in the game... which would be hilariously ironic to say the least.
My sarcasm aside, do you honestly expect me to believe that anyone in a vehicle worth half their salt would die to a Remote Explosive trap? A good tanker doesn't need to use 1st Person view, so they can always see the person arming the REs. Arming a RE takes about 1-2 seconds, so multiply that by 3 (the amount required to kill an HAV without it's base shields) and that's about 3-5 seconds.
The average Human reaction time is .215ms, meaning you have to be about 15x dumber than the average human being to be killed by Remote Explosives. That's pretty much mental retardation right there. (then again, this is the pilot community were talking about).
There are crappy AVers in the game, just as there are crappy players who are Pilots, Heavies, Scouts, Logis, etc. This is a fact. However, the line between being underpowered and being terrible is easy to see. In fact, here's some math and actual evidence proving that the whole V/AV concept is still broken.
Though for the sake of my own sanity and profit, I have a proposition to make. Your Starter Fit with REs against my HAV. The winner, gets 50m ISK and has to admit that they were wrong in a public thread. How about it?
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6767
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 00:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
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.
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6768
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:19:00 -
[8] - Quote
@Eko Sol
Don't see how being able to place 1 RE before cloaking means anything, as there is still an audible sound that plays as you arm the REs. Considering how Flux Grenades have a 7.2m radius, you have to be within 7m to hit the HAV, which is a pilot error. As we all know, an enemy's lack of competence is not a point of balance.
Furthermore, if you need multiple players for your tactic to succeed, it is too situational to viable tactic, and should be disregarded.
Let's see here. According to DUSTBoard, L OST is not a real character, so there must be a serious typo there, and from my assessment Cloak Wolf Rider is a pubstar (a player who is in-capable of performing well in a competitive environment), though I probably just caught him on a bad day (most likely the case).
However, the best tankers in this game are Sleepy Zan, Mr. Zitro, KenKaniff69, The Attorney General, thelegend 345, and maybe BoBThe843Cakeman. There are some more who should be on this list, but these tankers are the ones who have beaten the literal $#!t out of pretty much anyone, and have/can consistently gone above and beyond what is expected in a competitive environment. The fact that this has yet to work on anyone on this already discredits your "I've killed some of the best tankers in the game" statement.
I understand you haven't played with every tanker in the game (neither have I), but if you are going to make a statement please attempt to put at least a slight amount of truth behind it. What you should be saying, is "I've killed a few $#!t tankers with this tactic, It does work guys!" (actually, that pretty much sums up what you've said to be honest).
5k? Try 50-235k (40k if you don't mind loosing some efficiency). Me asking for names wasn't an attempt to feed my ego, it was an attempt to prove whether or not you were exaggerating to the point of credibility loss (which you were).
Yes, you do have to destroy a vehicle in-order for AV to be balanced. If a tanker (or any role for that matter) is not dying, they are not risking anything, which would go against CCP's balance philosophy (risk = reward). A role that makes it to where you never die would become a FoTM, as nobody likes dying in a FPS (or any game).
Depending on the tanker's fitting, it's not hard. It's impossible. This has been proven with actual math. Considering how you've yet to present anything that's not anecdotal (and false), disputing this with you any further is pointless.
Heck, you've already admitted to your assertion being realistic (that or admitting to me being a better player than you), so why even bother disputing you?
Just disprove the actual math with something credible please. I'm not about to debate anything that's already been proven to be true.
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6768
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 02:21:00 -
[9] - Quote
Alena Ventrallis wrote:
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.
Well Missile & Railgun users can dominate AP vehicles while still having the ability to fend themselves from infantry, so no there is no issue here. Both sacrifices are equal, and equality means balance.
The only way that would even work is if Missiles and 80GJ Railguns couldn't harm infantry in the first place, which wouldn't be a good idea by any means.
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6784
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Jack McReady wrote:
and just as I thought, you have no clue about 1.6 tanking. it was shown with vides and math was posted right in the forums when tank overhaul was announced, not my fault that you missed it.
For a guy who only cries, that is a lot of calling other people scrubs. Then again, sitting on top of a tower with 400m autolocking rockets of death was the pinnacle of skill right?
It seems to be on the same level as 150m Hit-Scan weapons with enough DPS to kill someone in 1-2 seconds, while also touting 4-8k eHP and over 80% resistances.
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
|
|
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
6786
|
Posted - 2014.04.16 18:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:
Dogs who skateboard; Squirrels who ski.
But a Tanker discussing skill?
That's something we must see.
Oh look, another crying infantry. If only someone could teach you how to kill tanks. I'll get on my heavy alt and teach you for only 100 million ISK.
You seem to be mistaking crying for call you out on how hypocritical your statement was.
It's the latter.
#LivingLikeLarry
[s]Text[/s] <-------- That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
|
|
| |
|