|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Commander Tzu
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
124
   |
Posted - 2014.04.23 00:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Well here's one. I'd make two more, but it's not worth my time. It was you guys were crying tears of joy for the changes, so now it's you guys who get to live with a monotonous playstyle. Careful what you wish for.
Well, the low slots aren't much of an issue since it wouldn't survive without the injector. The blaster is though since it wouldn't be able to fight any tank other than another, lower tiered, blaster.
|
Commander Tzu
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 00:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote: 500HP/s is ridiculous you cannot deny, the fact that people are stacking so many reps just shows the general tanker attitude.
I shouldn't die, because I'm in a tank
One of the more moronic things I have read on the forums, and that is saying quite a lot. Agreed the triple reps are crazy, but how does that point to a tanker's attitude of "I shouldn't die because I'm in a tank"? Infantry fit armor and shields to their suits, so I guess it means they think they shouldn't die because they are in dropsuits? Tankers and infantry fit their suits so they can survive, sure there are suicide tanks and suicide suits but the basic idea is the same: survive as long as possible. CCP made triple repping the best way to do that, so why not do it?
Your logic is akin to the French knights who refused to use the Italian mercenaries who used crossbows because they deemed them to be un-chivalrous. As I remember, their charge into the English lines with no archer support did not end well....
|
Commander Tzu
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Commander Tzu wrote:Monkey MAC wrote: 500HP/s is ridiculous you cannot deny, the fact that people are stacking so many reps just shows the general tanker attitude.
I shouldn't die, because I'm in a tank One of the more moronic things I have read on the forums, and that is saying quite a lot. Agreed the triple reps are crazy, but how does that point to a tanker's attitude of "I shouldn't die because I'm in a tank"? Infantry fit armor and shields to their suits, so I guess it means they think they shouldn't die because they are in dropsuits? Tankers and infantry fit their suits so they can survive, sure there are suicide tanks and suicide suits but the basic idea is the same: survive as long as possible. CCP made triple repping the best way to do that, so why not do it? Your logic is akin to the French knights who refused to use the Italian mercenaries who used crossbows because they deemed them to be un-chivalrous. As I remember, their charge into the English lines with no archer support did not end well.... You must be pretty new to the forums. A great deal of HAV users used the reasoning "they should be hard to kill cause of their cost". Which was an actual argument. Then after the the cost reduction and all around AV nerf, many HAV users have said "we should be hard to kill because we are a tank". Which of course is horse ****. That's just a single comment of many similar ones made by tankers defending their reasoning of why a single asset should be able to excel at everything in the game, and rather easily, with the exception of hacking objectives, and why it should take multiple sources of damage to be taken out. (Some even claimed it should require 3-4 AV for instance). Dig through the forums, especially posts made by the users Takahiro something and Speaker something or other. They are the cream of the idiot crop. It will then start to make sense.
I've been here for a while, but I don't ascribe the psychotic musings of Atiim and his tribe to all the AV population. As far as cost, before 1.7 cost was a valid argument, 1.4m for a tank that got killed in five seconds by swarms of swarms, which seventy percent of the time didn't even render. One of the things I tried to propose on the forums was keep pre-1.7 AV the same, fix the render bugs, and make tanks and suits cost the same. That way they would both be equally disposable.
|
Commander Tzu
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Denn Maell wrote:Harpyja wrote:
If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill.
Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets.
There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here.
Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. Size should not determine role. It's functionality that should. A blaster turret will always have high AI potential, so it should also have little AV potential as a trade-off. Blasters were also AV prior to 1.7, which what made them and Maddies so OP. They'd be slaughtering infantry, and then when another tank came around the corner, they'd just fire away and pop that tank, then go back to slaughtering infantry. You call this balanced? If size determined role, then why isn't it that HMGs can only kill heavies, rifles can only kill medium suits, and sidearms can only kill light suits?
Rail gun maddies and missile gunnis could kill them in Chromosome, in Uprising the glitched heavy armor repper meant you had to use a maddy yourself. |
Commander Tzu
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
124
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Harpyja wrote:Denn Maell wrote:Harpyja wrote:
If balanced properly tanks should be hard to kill.
Right now the problem child is the blaster turret, which is capable of dealing too much damage against other vehicles. Nerf it's damage by about 33%, and once again it's horrible for AV while still retaining the best AI of the large turrets.
There should be a trade off between AI and AV. Currently the blaster sacrifices close to no AV abilities but gains much AI potential. That's the root of the problem here.
Quick question, when was the Large Blaster designated "Anti-Infantry"? The Idea that a large cannon being designed as an anti-infantry weapon strikes me as something inherently unbalanceable. I'm not saying they shouldn't pack a punch against infantry just that I wouldn't expect a large gun to be as nimble at tracking the movements of small ground troops as accurately as they do. I always thought they were the anti-shield av cannons (a niche that is under filled right now), and the small turrets were the obvious assumption for anti-infantry capabilities. Size should not determine role. It's functionality that should. A blaster turret will always have high AI potential, so it should also have little AV potential as a trade-off. Blasters were also AV prior to 1.7, which what made them and Maddies so OP. They'd be slaughtering infantry, and then when another tank came around the corner, they'd just fire away and pop that tank, then go back to slaughtering infantry. You call this balanced? If size determined role, then why isn't it that HMGs can only kill heavies, rifles can only kill medium suits, and sidearms can only kill light suits? The problem with this is prior to 1.7, infantry AV were able to take out said Maddie. Now it has the same Killing power, with insane fuckin reps AND Weaker infantry AV to "contend" with. There's a good reason we've been complaining.
Blasters were effectively nerfed in 1.7. I just want to put this in here because everyone seems to forget/not know.
|
Commander Tzu
L.O.T.I.S.
D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
126
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 17:25:00 -
[6] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Mechanics should then benefit players who fit for squad based activities not rewards those who selfishly fit tanks for their solo benefits.
Here's a start. I'm starting to think that tanks need to be required to fit small turrets again. There's too much personal gain from not fitting small turrets, and the fitting resources cannot be balanced for both solo and crewed HAVs. It's a breeze to fit all proto without any small turrets, but I need near max skills and fittting enhancements to fit all proto and two advanced small turrets, and in the end I actually have 1 free PG left, not joking. Not requiring small turrets was the lazy way around implementing vehicle locks, and it has created this side-effect of boosting personal gain. The fitting resources are balanced for having small turrets, but not putting them on throws away that balance. It's the reason I'm able to fit a triple rep militia fit Madrugar without any armor fitting optimization skill. I can't fit even one small turret if I wanted to. Requiring small turrets might be the or one of the "nerfs" needed without actually nerfing tanks. Those of us that already fit small turrets won't get penalized for those that take advantage of that extra fitting ability.
They absolutely have to implement vehicle locks. I don't want small turrets being required until they do. When 1.7 first came out I tried running squad support tanks. Then you and your gunners clear an objective, gunner hops out to hack and a blueberry gets in and does nothing but shoot at the enemy mcc with a small missle. Or worse, in faction warfare I had people get into my tank and shoot my own god damn tank trying to kill it, I lost two tanks because my gunner was shooting my tank and damaging it so I only had 50% HP when I found another tank or AV. After those incidents I just quit fitting small turrets. |
|
|
| |
|