|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Crimson ShieId wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF.I wonder how well that turned out for them.
With how fast FGs were firing before, they might as well have been automatic. Heh.
Atiim for worst memory award? |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Atiim wrote:Crimson ShieId wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around.
This guy get's it.
We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank).
Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?). |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:
When it took 8 ishukone shots to kill a well fit tank, and 2 to kill any MLT tank.
I know, I was here, and you are still dumb.
Depends whether or not the tanker prepared for this by having all his mods available before the first shot, which was rarely the case.
No mods active = 3 shots to die (even with passive hardeners) with what, 1.6 second charge times? Combine that with invincible logi LAVs, you have an aver on your ass consistently that is almost invincible,
Also hilarious considering the only time a tanker could engage was when he had his repper available, which lasted like 15 seconds tops (iirc).
Funny how tanks before had more of a wave of opportunity gameplay
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Atiim wrote:Crimson ShieId wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. This guy get's it. We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank). Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?). A forge gun was unlikely to wrack up 30 kills against infantry that had no counter each match.
Neither would a railtank.
You want to pull that argument? Because a railgun is basically the AV counterpart of tanks. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Atiim wrote:Crimson ShieId wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the vehicle users that made up the majority of complaints towards redline rail tanks? Specifically, all the ADS pilots getting shot across the map by someone hiding in the redline? Keep in mind, it was also the vehicle users who said 80GJ Railguns should have more direct damage than FGs despite being full-auto with a moderate ROF. I wonder how well that turned out for them. HAH, yes we did say that. But you take it out of context. What we were calling for was a reduction to forge damage, NOT AN INCREASE TO OUR OWN DAMAGE. Some used the argument that a rail should out dps a forge gun. But the idea all along was reducing forge damage, not the other way around. Which is just as dumb as the former. I bet you've used the catch phrase "because we are tanks" as well. Yes, because we have a huge power plant, opposed to a forge having its own, tiny by comparison, power plant.
It's not even that.
It's the same logic behind heavies; larger, less agile, easier to detect, restrictive but with better armour and weapons. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Duran Lex wrote:
When it took 8 ishukone shots to kill a well fit tank, and 2 to kill any MLT tank.
I know, I was here, and you are still dumb.
Depends whether or not the tanker prepared for this by having all his mods available before the first shot, which was rarely the case. No mods active = 3 shots to die (even with passive hardeners) with what, 1.6 second charge times? Combine that with invincible logi LAVs, you have an aver on your ass consistently that is almost invincible, Also hilarious considering the only time a tanker could engage was when he had his repper available, which lasted like 15 seconds tops (iirc). Funny how tanks before had more of a wave of opportunity gameplay Funny how tankers seem to ignore the fact that math exists in the world. How am I going to 3 shot a 20k ehp tank that has 40% passive resist? Oh wait, it's literally impossible.
You really are throwing up numbers now aren't you.
Notice how I didn't say whether or not it was fully passive, hybrid, shield or armour?
Go back to the playground and cool your head off, kiddie. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:
I don't care if you had an entire nuclear power facility strapped to your back.
This a game where balance matters, not a science non - fiction movie.
And this is why you don't use that argument, because someone like this will always default to the same assumption. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:55:00 -
[8] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Duran Lex wrote:
When it took 8 ishukone shots to kill a well fit tank, and 2 to kill any MLT tank.
I know, I was here, and you are still dumb.
Depends whether or not the tanker prepared for this by having all his mods available before the first shot, which was rarely the case. No mods active = 3 shots to die (even with passive hardeners) with what, 1.6 second charge times? Combine that with invincible logi LAVs, you have an aver on your ass consistently that is almost invincible, Also hilarious considering the only time a tanker could engage was when he had his repper available, which lasted like 15 seconds tops (iirc). Funny how tanks before had more of a wave of opportunity gameplay Funny how tankers seem to ignore the fact that math exists in the world. How am I going to 3 shot a 20k ehp tank that has 40% passive resist? Oh wait, it's literally impossible. You really are throwing up numbers now aren't you. Notice how I didn't say whether or not it was fully passive, hybrid, shield or armour? Go back to the playground and cool your head off, kiddie. This were pre 1.6 gunlogis. Armor tanks had less ehp but still rocked 40% resists after 15 mil invested SP. it's okay if you were unaware.
You are still saying unrelated and random things, but that's okay if you need someone to dish your tank hate out on. I can tank all that you throw at me .
Also, while you're at it, try rereading the post where I said I'd never mentioned any of that (specifically). Then, try posting again. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This guy get's it.
We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank).
Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?).
Except that man portable hand cannon also has a capacitor, and is vulnerable to every weapon in the game, as opposed to the vehicle cannon being vulnerable to only 3. 1/20th the cost? If you were running a vehicle costing 3,726,300 ISK you deserved the ISK loss. Size doesn't mean anything. Do you see heavies QQ when a Shotgun or Nova Knife kills them?
You're in your own little world Atiim.
If size doesn't matter, then why does the military use SPGs when they could just spam man portable mortars instead?
Why don't snipers snipe with scoped pistols instead of rifles?
Your logic is stunning as usual, friend. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote:You are still saying unrelated and random things, but that's okay if you need someone to dish your tank hate out on. I can tank all that you throw at me . Also, while you're at it, try rereading the post where I said I'd never mentioned any of that (specifically). Then, try posting again. Well you've failed to disprove Duran's assertion, so he pretty much won the argument. Though I kinda expected better from you Alpha. Usually you last a good 3-4 pages before failing.
You really are a funny guy.
Self proclaimed credibility, just by forcing yourself at the forums with your loud mouthed pandering.
Your opinion means nothing to me, you pretentious whiner. |
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:11:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mojo XXXIII wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: This guy get's it.
We were having an issue where a man portable hand cannon was doing equal/more damage than our vehicle cannons, with the added benefit of being almost impossible to see (unlike a tank).
Also they were about a 1/20th the cost (iirc?).
Except that man portable hand cannon also has a capacitor, and is vulnerable to every weapon in the game, as opposed to the vehicle cannon being vulnerable to only 3. 1/20th the cost? If you were running a vehicle costing 3,726,300 ISK you deserved the ISK loss. Size doesn't mean anything. Do you see heavies QQ when a Shotgun or Nova Knife kills them? You're in your own little world Atiim. If size doesn't matter, then why does the military use SPGs when they could just spam man portable mortars instead? Why don't snipers snipe with scoped pistols instead of rifles? Your logic is stunning as usual, friend. Real life =/= balanced game mechanics
There's nothing stopping real life mechanics from being transferable to a game.
Unless you poorly implement them.
Don't disregard possibilities because of some stupid fallacy you heard of on the forums.
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:15:00 -
[12] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You're in your own little world Atiim.
If size doesn't matter, then why does the military use SPGs when they could just spam man portable mortars instead?
Why don't snipers snipe with scoped pistols instead of rifles?
Your logic is stunning as usual, friend.
Well the military uses Javelins when they could simply use a tank themselves, and last time I checked the Javelin is much smaller than the tank itself; so I'm pretty sure size doesn't always matter to the military. Snipers use rifles because it's the most practical, not simply because it's bigger. My logic seems to be a lot better than someone who finds it logical to use real-life examples as an argument for video game balance.
Javelins are in a whole different area of their own, with their own pros and cons. If the situation called for a tank, they would use a tank. Can a tank use countermeasures against a shell being fired at them at a speed faster than they can react? I don't think so.
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: There's nothing stopping real life mechanics from being transferable to a game.
Unless you poorly implement them.
Don't disregard possibilities because of some stupid fallacy you heard of on the forums.
So then why can't my Swarm Launcher OHK vehicles like it would in real life?
Because then we would have countermeasures to prevent that from happening.
Please think before you post.
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:17:00 -
[14] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You really are a funny guy.
Self proclaimed credibility, just by forcing yourself at the forums with your loud mouthed pandering.
Your opinion means nothing to me, you pretentious whiner.
Well what I said was true. You haven't said anything that disproves Duran's assertion, so he won the argument. Your a tanker who did nothing but QQ before 1.7. Not only is that statement hypocritical, it's meaning is less than nothing.
Did I QQ, or was I arguing for balance?
I don't consider someone credible when he thinks a weapon that's inherently flawed for being so easy to use, means it takes skill -> i.e. the swarm launcher.
Now **** off.
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:26:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mojo XXXIII wrote:
Except that real-life mechanics completely disregard balance as it applies to a video game and the sense of "fairness" and enjoyment for all players, not just the one's with the best stuff.
These are the things that make a game successful and enjoyable.
I can agree with that. But not everything falls into that category at the same time. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:30:00 -
[16] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Because then we would have countermeasures to prevent that from happening.
Please think before you post.
Fair enough. However, what about the giant cannon with a Micro-Capacitor firing kinetic slugs faster than 7m/s? How well do you think that would fare against a Dropship in real life? Now let's take a look at infantry weapons, mainly the HMG. If we were balancing things around real life, then wouldn't the HMG have an effective range of 1800m? And lets not get started on what an 80GJ Railgun would truly do...
That's a problem with the game's lore. Lore can be changed to suit a logic. It shouldn't be the other way around.
Maybe some sort of Geneva convention stating that weapons cannot be above a certain power lest they flatten an entire planet in one blow.
There also isn't anything inherently wrong with an HMG having a long range. That's an engine performance concern more than anything.
You'd also expect the armour and shielding of a dropship to evolve to the point of being able to withstand such a blow. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:34:00 -
[17] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: You really are a funny guy.
Self proclaimed credibility, just by forcing yourself at the forums with your loud mouthed pandering.
Your opinion means nothing to me, you pretentious whiner.
Well what I said was true. You haven't said anything that disproves Duran's assertion, so he won the argument. Your a tanker who did nothing but QQ before 1.7. Not only is that statement hypocritical, it's meaning is less than nothing. Did I QQ, or was I arguing for balance? I don't consider someone credible when he thinks a weapon that's inherently flawed for being so easy to use, means it takes skill -> i.e. the swarm launcher. Now **** off. So an HAV is what? Or does having the largest ehp in game, the most destructive power, with having the fewest weaknesses = skill now? It was cute for awhile, but now you are simply grasping at straws.
It was pretty hefty in the skill department before, but tanking as it is now is braindead.
I've been a tanker since chrome, tanked through the dark ages of uprising, fully maxed out missiles after 1.7 and for what? To be 2 shotted by morons who can use railguns and damage mods.
At least I can hide in a safe place when I use my forgegun now. I only bring my tanks out to make the game a safer place for infantry, I can't stand tanks as they are now. I spend more time on foot now than ever before.
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
Mojo XXXIII wrote:In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks.
Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers?
I would prefer to have tank crews actually, so no.
Having even 2 people operate a tank would cut the tank spam in half.
If you incorporate realism, you have to cover all angles. Unless you want to miss out on an important factor. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Did I QQ, or was I arguing for balance?
I don't consider someone credible when he thinks a weapon that's inherently flawed for being so easy to use, means it takes skill -> i.e. the swarm launcher.
Now **** off.
Man, it's hard tapping/holding R1 and managing my modules. And that Active Scanner that showed me where every infantry unit was within 50m? So difficult right? - The life of a Tanker Now compare that, to a weapon which has no AP capabilities, an AI about as reliable as my corpmates during drunk night, a stock of 2 clips, and leaves the user vulnerable to everything because he has to maintain his focus onto the target or risk having his shots miss completely.
Tanking is dead as it is now and swarms on their own never will take skill.
If you're having problems managing with a sidearm, use a commando instead. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
475
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:
Yes, I'm sure when the HMG was dominating infantry at 60 meters out, it was complaints about the games performance that got it nerfed to a shorter optimal.
You lost all credibility with such a ridiculous statement.
Very shortsighted of you. Clearly, there couldn't have been any other way to balance the HMG. Just make it a heavy peashooter until 1.8, that's all that could be done.
Some examples to balance the HMG with range
More recoil (since it's handheld after all) Speed penalty while having the weapon equipped (making the suit more clumsy) Speed penalty while firing (~50%) More heat buildup
Just off of the top of my head |
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
475
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:43:00 -
[21] - Quote
Mojo XXXIII wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Mojo XXXIII wrote:In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks.
Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? I would prefer to have tank crews actually, so no. Having even 2 people operate a tank would cut the tank spam in half. If you incorporate realism, you have to cover all angles. Unless you want to miss out on an important factor. This is probably the most intelligent thing you've posted in this entire thread.
Don't patronize me, but thanks anyway. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
475
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:49:00 -
[22] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: That's a problem with the game's lore. Lore can be changed to suit a logic. It shouldn't be the other way around.
Maybe some sort of Geneva convention stating that weapons cannot be above a certain power lest they flatten an entire planet in one blow.
There also isn't anything inherently wrong with an HMG having a long range. That's an engine performance concern more than anything.
You'd also expect the armour and shielding of a dropship to evolve to the point of being able to withstand such a blow.
CCP is not going to change it's lore, especially to break the balance of a game as irrelevant as DUST 514. I'm pretty sure the problem the HMG having a longer range is the fact that it would remove the one drawback stopping it from becoming overpowered; not UE3 Performance. Quote:[...] penetrate even augmented armor systems. As you were saying?
Ambiguous quote and more poor assumptions, great job.
I'll put that in the pile of stuff to look at later. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
475
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:49:00 -
[23] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Very shortsighted of you. Clearly, there couldn't have been any other way to balance the HMG. Just make it a heavy peashooter until 1.8, that's all that could be done.
Some examples to balance the HMG with range
More recoil (since it's handheld after all) Speed penalty while having the weapon equipped (making the suit more clumsy) Speed penalty while firing (~50%) More heat buildup
Just off of the top of my head
And then it looses it's CQC capabilities, which is what the weapon is designed for.
Source? |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
481
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:01:00 -
[24] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Mojo XXXIII wrote:In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks.
Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? It's a video game. Show me one video game that has tanks that REQUIRES 4 people to operate the tank in that video game.
Arma Red Orchestra Any tank sim Any game involving vehicles that isn't arcade like BF or CoD |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
482
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:32:00 -
[25] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Source?
Edit: No really, I have eyes and can see what goes on in the game I play.
I'm looking for a quote for that from CCP though.
Nice quips though, stay mad.
Here you go. CCP Remnant wrote:[..]
The HMG's optimal range is up to 30m and max. effective range caps out at 50m. (This is currently a hard cap - all weapons stop doing any damage beyond their max range - but we're going to be fixing this soon. Like soon soon, not SOON(tm).) What it needs is not a damage buff (it kills just fine) but a gentler damage falloff curve so that it can be used as an effective suppression weapon in the 50-70m range. As an attacker, right now it's too easy to shrug off the hits and close the gap between yourself and the person wielding the HMG so that's something I'd like to address as soon as possible. Now I'm not too familiar with the metric system, but when you compare the range of CQC weapons such as the Ishukone Assault SMG (50.4m effective range) to Long Ranged Weapons such as the Kaalakiota Rail Rifle (102m effective range); 50-70m is indeed CQC.
I'd say that's mid range. That's the style of Minmatar after all.
70 is just below the mean of 152, which is 76. I'd say CQC is more along the lines of 30m (AR optimal)
Though let's remember that this topic isn't about the hmg, sorry for bringing it up. |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
482
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Alpha 443-6732 wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Mojo XXXIII wrote:In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks.
Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? It's a video game. Show me one video game that has tanks that REQUIRES 4 people to operate the tank in that video game. Arma Red Orchestra Any tank sim Any game involving vehicles that isn't arcade like BF or CoD Tank sim? Like World of Tanks? No, just one person. Usually, links are also provided.
World of tanks is not a tank sim.
It's an arcade game with tank sim elements, though I'd take that shitstain over the tank gameplay we have right now. |
|
|
|