|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
753
   |
Posted - 2014.04.22 18:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Unfortunately it was the AV community who wanted these changes.
Really? I'm looking back through some old threads, and I'm having trouble locating a dedicated AVer who was cheering 1.7's changes on. Would you care to link some for me?
Pre 1.7 :
Tankers - AV is too strong, we get 2 shot far too easily!
Smart AVers - No, only standard MLT tanks get 2 shot. A Player with over 15mil SP that properly fits his tank can easily take around 8 assault FG shots to take down. This is a huge gap that will force tankers to play for months before becoming viable. This is terrible design flaw and needs to be addressed.
Tankers - We cost WAY too much money. When i die, it takes over 4 games to recover from the loss.
Smart AVers - You also dominate the field when properly fit, hence the extreme cost of your HAV. 30/0 or 30/1 consistently each game is nothing to overlook.
Post 1.7 :
Tankers - AV isn't strong enough? Well, duh...you aren't using teamwork. USE TEAMWORK scrub!
S AVers - But you never had to use teamwork to excel before, and you still don't need to now. What? Why only us?
Tankers - Dying is unacceptable. we cost 500k, That's more then a proto dropsuit, and the reason we are supposed to be hard to kill and can easily destroy everything that moves in the game.
S Avers - But....Your cost was reduced for the sole purpose of not breaking your wallet when you die. You wanted to keep your effectiveness from pre 1.7, AV to get nerfed AND get a cost reduction? How does that even make sense?
S Avers - How do you want balance in a game if you ; A - Want it to be extremely hard to be killed, B - Be affordable C - have the same presence and force multiplier that you already had?
Tankers - Because we are TANKS.
Nutshell complete. |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
777
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 23:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:
May I reference you to Spkr4thedead, yes, that takes care of that argument.
That was a pretty funny joke. |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
780
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 01:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
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. |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
780
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Harpyja wrote:Atiim wrote:Harpyja wrote:
It just goes to show that the only viable and most effective fit(s) that is/are left use repper stacking. The only two fits I'd see myself using at this point (if I was specced into armor tanks instead of shield tanks) would either be rep-rep-plate or rep-rep-rep.
And would you like to explain how Armor Repairer stacking is the only viable fit? Or is anything that can be reasonably killed by it's weakness (Swarm Launchers, all other AV by extension) not considered viable? Wow, your sub-par understanding is gut-wrenching. Would you care to explain how a fit with only one armor rep is not as effective as stacking armor reps? I shouldn't even be asking a scrub like you to answer that, but please try to use your little brain as best as you can only to find that there is no Maddy fit that's better than one that stacks reps (either 2 or 3 reps). Harpyja wrote:
It just goes to show that the only viable [...] fits(s) that is/are left use repper stacking.
Oh noes. A tanker called me a scrub. Whatever shall I do? 
Call in a tank of course! |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
780
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Atiim wrote:Duran Lex wrote:
Call in a tank of course!
But then he'd cry about how someone who didn't spend as much SP as he did killed him. Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills stand a much greater chance against a militia dropsuit with no skills? Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills have much more EHP than a militia dropsuit with no skills? You infantry scrubs think it's fine that a proto dropsuit can turn around and kill a militia dropsuit before they even get into armor, but you cry with outrage if vehicles were to also behave like that. I miss 1.6 now only because militia tanks were free kills and WPs. Give my basic Caldari medium as much EHP as a proto suit, then we'll talk. Oh wait, you don't want cheap, unskilled dropsuits to pose a threat to your proto suits
I don't know what you are smoking man. Proto die all the time to militia. That's a reasoning used by AV to bring attention to HAV bias about you feeling proto weapons should scratch you unless grouped in numbers.
How about you dig up posts where infantry have said a proto dropsuit shouldn't die to a militia. I'm curious if you can actually find one, for everyone I know that has played the game knows this to be a simple unavoidable fact. |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
780
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 02:55:00 -
[6] - 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?
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.
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
780
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 03:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Harpyja wrote:Atiim wrote:Duran Lex wrote:
Call in a tank of course!
But then he'd cry about how someone who didn't spend as much SP as he did killed him. Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills stand a much greater chance against a militia dropsuit with no skills? Does not a proto dropsuit with max skills have much more EHP than a militia dropsuit with no skills? You infantry scrubs think it's fine that a proto dropsuit can turn around and kill a militia dropsuit before they even get into armor, but you cry with outrage if vehicles were to also behave like that. I miss 1.6 now only because militia tanks were free kills and WPs. Give my basic Caldari medium as much EHP as a proto suit, then we'll talk. Oh wait, you don't want cheap, unskilled dropsuits to pose a threat to your proto suits I don't know what you are smoking man. Proto die all the time to militia. That's a reasoning used by AV to bring attention to HAV bias about you feeling proto weapons should scratch you unless grouped in numbers. How about you dig up posts where infantry have said a proto dropsuit shouldn't die to a militia. I'm curious if you can actually find one, for everyone I know that has played the game knows this to be a simple unavoidable fact. Bah. Only unskilled players in proto die to militia. Any skilled player in proto gear is near unkillable. Even if you begin hitting them from behind, they will turn around and melt you in half a second. So why shouldn't tanks be the same? Skilled tankers with proto-fit tanks being near unkillable, even when ambushed from behind. But that's not the case. No matter how skilled you are, there's barely much of a gap between unskilled and skilled tankers. So come back to me when my unskilled dropsuit is almost equal to a fully skilled proto suit.
Wtf are you talking about man. The difference between proto dropsuits and militia are a hundred or two ehp, and a few select skills increasing in few percentages.
Do you REALLY want me to explain to you the difference between a proto AV dropsuit and a ******* mlt HAV?
|
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
780
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 03:11:00 -
[8] - Quote
Harpyja wrote: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. Damnit. Seriously. Stop talking like you know so much about balancing. Because you don't. All you care about is the AV/infantry vs tank part of the whole balance equation. You don't care about the tank vs tank part of balance. AV in 1.6 was a bit OP, but it was close to being balanced with some slight tweaks. But 1.6 tank vs tank was far from balanced. A blaster Maddy was the be-all end-all of tanking. Then, 1.7. Tank vs tank was almost balanced, but infantry vs tanks wasn't as close. You cried to nerf tanks and CCP hastily nerfed hardeners. OK, infantry vs tanks is almost balanced again. But now tank vs tank got f***ed up the a**. You just don't realize that there are two sides to this coin of balance. Any nerfs to tanks to balance out infantry vs tanks has always resulted in upsetting the tank vs tank balance. So please, stop talking so much as if you know everything that there is to balancing. Because your crying doesn't help to achieve overall balance, which is why we're in this constant nerf-buff cycle.
OF course I care about the infantry AV side if it because it's fuckin unbalanced. Where have I said I don't care about tank vs tank you fuckin idiot?
I want tanks to stop being able to dominate infantry while they are roaming for tank kills. I want HAVS to have their main role be vehicles first, infantry second. If you want to solo the whole damn board, then so should your infantry counter part. If you want teamwork to take down your HAV, then fit your tank with AI turrets to give logical reasoning for it to take multiple AV.
The problem is people like you want to kill other HAVS and completely ignore the infantry existence until you run out of HAVS then start mowing the lawn over everything that can't counter you.
That's my fuckin problem with HAV and people like you. Now you know and can stop spouting horse ****.
Edit - and another thing. No infantry i ******* know said nerf the percentage of hardeners. We said remove the ability to stack them and be granted total invulnerability almost indefinitely, because that was NOT "windows of opportunity". Get your facts straight. |
|
|
| |
|