| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
820
   |
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:34:00 -
[61] - Quote
Alpha 443-6732 wrote: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.
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. |
Mojo XXXIII
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
50
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:34:00 -
[62] - Quote
In real life, it takes a 4-person crew to operate most tanks.
Or are we only talking about "realism" that BENEFITS tankers? |
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
474
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:34:00 -
[63] - 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.
|
Atiim
Heaven's Lost Property
Dirt Nap Squad.
7284
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:35:00 -
[64] - Quote
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.
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 18:36:00 -
[65] - 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 -
[66] - 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. |
Mojo XXXIII
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
51
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:40:00 -
[67] - 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. |
Zaaeed Massani
RisingSuns
Dark Taboo
351
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:41:00 -
[68] - Quote
This thread has devolved into petty bickering, nothing constructive whatsoever.
All of you, back in your cages!
Minmatar & Gallente A.R.C. Program Instructor
/
Do you even lift?
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
475
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:42:00 -
[69] - 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 -
[70] - 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. |
|
|
Atiim
Heaven's Lost Property
Dirt Nap Squad.
7286
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:46:00 -
[71] - Quote
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?
HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV
[s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Lynn Beck
Wake N' Bake Inc
Top Men.
1270
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:47:00 -
[72] - Quote
Spkr4theDead 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. It's a tank with enough output to power both its mode of transportation, modules and turrets vs a weapon with what's basically a hand-held power pack. The two cannot ever be the same. Also funny how infantry finds it unfair that the best way to deal with a tank is a railgun. It's an AV turret. The better operators can use it for AI. How is it not fair that a rail can so easily turn a tank into a pile of ash?
Because a Militia railgun can kill a Ion Cannon within 30m, faster than te ion cannon can break maddy shields.
Rails are not "the AV turret" they're long-range AV.
A blaster needs to blatantly out-DPS a rail within 30-80 meters.
My ONLY problem withrails is their ridiculous DPS(which is the bane of all DSes AND tanks)
I propose a 100-200 point damage nerf. Couple that with increasing spool time, and making it's refire rate lower by 25-30%. It's a railgun. Not a machine-gun of 1hko's.
General John Ripper
Like ALL the things!!!
|
Atiim
Heaven's Lost Property
Dirt Nap Squad.
7286
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:48:00 -
[73] - Quote
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.
HAV > Infantry > AV < HAV
[s]Text[/s] <------ That's how you make a strike-through
-HAND
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
475
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:49:00 -
[74] - 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 -
[75] - 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? |
Duran Lex
Fraternity of St. Venefice
Amarr Empire
820
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 18:56:00 -
[76] - Quote
Alpha 443-6732 wrote: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?
The game you claim to play.
I suppose I'm done. You are continuing to spout nonsense and disregard logic when it suits you.
Enjoy your menial intelligence. |
Kane Fyea
2634
|
Posted - 2014.04.26 19:08:00 -
[77] - Quote
Alpha 443-6732 wrote: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?
/facepalm. Why is anyone even replying to this dumbass anymore. |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2045
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 15:59:00 -
[78] - 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?
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.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Atiim
Heaven's Lost Property
Dirt Nap Squad.
7335
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:01:00 -
[79] - 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.
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.
Proposed Mobile CRU Changes
-HAND
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2045
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:01:00 -
[80] - Quote
Zaaeed Massani wrote:This thread has devolved into petty bickering, nothing constructive whatsoever.
All of you, back in your cages!
That's what happens when people that get nosebleeds when you talk about tanks, start commenting about tanks and how they know how they should operate.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
481
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:01:00 -
[81] - 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 |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2045
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:02:00 -
[82] - Quote
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.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
EoN.
2045
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:03:00 -
[83] - Quote
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.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
Atiim
Heaven's Lost Property
Dirt Nap Squad.
7335
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:14:00 -
[84] - Quote
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.
Proposed Mobile CRU Changes
-HAND
|
Alpha 443-6732
0uter.Heaven Academy
482
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:32:00 -
[85] - 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 -
[86] - 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. |
Mojo XXXIII
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
73
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 16:57:00 -
[87] - 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. |
Tebu Gan
Dem Durrty Boyz
Dirt Nap Squad.
835
|
Posted - 2014.04.27 17:07:00 -
[88] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Tebu Gan wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:
Yet, even when I have a hardener on,
**** joke anybody? ............................................................ no
........................................................... Yes
Tanks - Balancing Turrets
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |