DUST Search - Alright, I'll bite. Tank post here

All Channels

General Discussions

Alright, I'll bite. Tank post here

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
DarthJT5 12th Shadow Legion 26	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:40:00 - [31] - Quote a hardener always out performs a dmg mod in a 1v1, so my dual hardener 1 extender rail fit with a 120mm plate and a repper will never die to a dual or even triple dmg mod tank as long as i see them coming. Dedicated Shield Tanking vet since Open Beta. Up and coming Python pilot. The awnser is always XT missiles....
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 813	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:40:00 - [32] - Quote 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.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:41:00 - [33] - 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 - [34] - 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.
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 2045	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:46:00 - [35] - Quote 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. I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 813	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:48:00 - [36] - Quote 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.
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:48:00 - [37] - 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 - [38] - 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.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 814	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:50:00 - [39] - 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. 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.
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 43	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:51:00 - [40] - 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".

Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:52:00 - [41] - 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.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 814	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:52:00 - [42] - Quote 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.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7276	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:53:00 - [43] - Quote 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? HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 17:55:00 - [44] - 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 - [45] - 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.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7278	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:03:00 - [46] - Quote 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. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 43	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:08:00 - [47] - 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
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:08:00 - [48] - 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.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7281	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:11:00 - [49] - Quote 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. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:11:00 - [50] - 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.

Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7281	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:14:00 - [51] - Quote 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? HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:15:00 - [52] - 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.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7281	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:15:00 - [53] - Quote 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. HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:16:00 - [54] - 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 - [55] - 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.
Mojo XXXIII Abandoned Privilege Top Men. 48	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:20:00 - [56] - 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.
Duran Lex Fraternity of St. Venefice Amarr Empire 819	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:24:00 - [57] - Quote 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.
Atiim Heaven's Lost Property Dirt Nap Squad. 7282	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:25:00 - [58] - Quote 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... HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV [s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through -HAND
Alpha 443-6732 0uter.Heaven Academy 474	Posted - 2014.04.26 18:26:00 - [59] - 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 - [60] - 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.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page