|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mojo XXXIII
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
43
   |
Posted - 2014.04.26 17:51:00 -
[1] - 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.
Neither actually has a power plant at all.
Pixels in a video game, that's what you both have and, in a game, balance > simulated "realism". |
Mojo XXXIII
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
43
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
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 |
Mojo XXXIII
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
48
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:20:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alpha 443-6732 wrote: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.
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. |
Mojo XXXIII
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
50
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks.
Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? |
Mojo XXXIII
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
51
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
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. |
Mojo XXXIII
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
73
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Atiim 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. Right after you show me a 16v16 FPS that requires more than 1 person to destroy a tank, while also having AV as a primary. It doesn't work both ways. Show me a game that requires more than one person to operate a tank.
But it DOES work both ways. It has to, in order to be balanced and fair. You are looking for a double standard, where "realism" only applies when it benefits the tanker. You can't play the "realism" card, but only have it apply to one side, and not the other.
You want "realism" in that it should take multiple players, working together, to take out a tank, then that same "realism" HAS TO apply to operating a tank, as well.
Otherwise you're just looking for "easy mode", where you can hide safely inside your tin can, take no damage from most of the weapons in the game, and mow through infantry like tissue paper. You want all of the benefits of a "realistic" tank, but none of the drawbacks.
That is not balance by any stretch of the imagination, that is God Mode. |
|
|
| |
|