|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2706
   |
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:40:00 -
[1] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Harpyja wrote:Nothing Certain wrote:Minor Treat wrote:Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Ok, obviously it's broken and needs fixed and I'm not trying to defend it, but have you tried:
Similarly tiered forgeguns? What about Proto Min Commando w/ swarms? Rail/Missile Tanks? Teamwork?
Unrelated to the issue at hand, in all honestly, I'm really against a single player, no matter how dedicated to AV, being able to take on a fully proto-ed tank easily. Eventually yes, a dedicated AV should kill it eventually if not engaged or fled from, but not easily. I like this post. I agree a single AV should not be able to kill a Tank but I like to think that a single AV player should be a thorn in his side if he is spec into AVs Edit: i made a typo I strongly disagree. One player should be able to kill another player, whether in a suit or a vehicle. And I strongly disagree with you. Why are all of you so hell-bent on destroying tanks? Is it not enough if you managed to make it activate its modules and retreat? That's how it should be. A dedicated AV vs a dedicated tank won't be able to kill the tank, but it will be a huge hindrance to the tank and limit its abilities. Though two or more dedicated AV and the dedicated tank should be in trouble. Because that same vehicle is hell-bent on killing our team? No, it is not enough. If a vehicle doesn't/cannot die, then where is the risk involved i using one? You've also yet to list a valid reason as to why it should be that way, so I'll just write this off as bantering from a tanker who feels as if he should never die to another person.
Uhmm, if I may interject here with some simple logic.
Let's go with Harpyja first, you cannot force a tank to retreat if you cannot destroy it, with this current 'repdrugar' you effectively get the archimedies turtle, since the reps are both constant and high you get only a little bit closer to the tanks destruction with each hit, it was calculated as taking well over 12 volleys, any tanker with half a brain is aware of this and can become almost invincible.
But let's look at the algebra
1infantry = 1 infantry
now before I start this is a generalisation, Im not accounting for different tier of dropsuits. Now the above statememt is balanced because both sides are equal. So let's break it down a little.
1infantry + 1AR = 1infantry + 1RR
in this case it is still balanced as they both have similar DPS and have attributes that both buff and debuff each other, so an infantry unit using an AR is no less disadvantaged than the RR (this may not be the case in reality, but you should catch my drift, the AR will exceed in some areas where the RR will not and vice versa)
1infantry + 1tank > 1infantry + 1RR
this currently unbalanced, since as a tank you severly outclass infantry, HOWEVER to make a tank only as strong as infantry is unfair, a little pointless and altogther useless.
So we need a way of balancing this equation, we need to create a circle, cue AV.
So for balance we make standard infantry greater than AV, like so
1infantry + 1RR > 1infantry + 1SL
then we do the same for AV vs tan. . . . oh, hold on, since AV should require teamwork that doesn't work out, since unless the tank is destroyed all the AV has effectively done is delay the enivetable, so instead you get
1infantry + 1tank > 1infantry + 1SL and
1infantry + 1tank > 1infantry + RR which compiled into a single statement becomes this.
1infantry + 1SL < 1infantry + tank > 1infantry + RR this can be further simplified to
1AV < 1tank > 1RR and now you have an unbalanced statement.
You see the problem is a tank is only an extension of your unit, you are still only 1 person, it is in theoretical terms nothing more than a weapon for your unit.
and as such it must be counterable by another weapon weilded by a single unit, to require more than 1 person to take you out, yet allow you to take out more than 1 person (to be more effecie t than) is entirely unbalanced.
Think about everything else.
How many people are compulsory to take down 1 brick tanked heavy? Just one with an RE
How many people are compulsory to take dow a Proto Assault? Just one in the right place
How many people are required to down a sniper? Just one who knows where he is
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2706
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 14:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Zaaeed Massani wrote:Harpyja wrote:
Please tell me WHY you HAVE to destroy the tank to consider your job done. Again, let me ask you, is it not enough if you forced the tank to retreat?
When tanks consider their job done by simply forcing infantry to retreat then we can discuss this. Until then, no. Sometimes its enough You force the infantry away so your infantry can push up and take the point Sometimes im fine with this because the match goes on for longer so i can find kills later on Sometimes you just want to kill everything in sight
So you'd be happy with tanks ONLY being capable of supresing infantry?
Really?
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2709
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 16:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Zaaeed Massani wrote:Harpyja wrote:
Please tell me WHY you HAVE to destroy the tank to consider your job done. Again, let me ask you, is it not enough if you forced the tank to retreat?
When tanks consider their job done by simply forcing infantry to retreat then we can discuss this. Until then, no. Sometimes its enough You force the infantry away so your infantry can push up and take the point Sometimes im fine with this because the match goes on for longer so i can find kills later on Sometimes you just want to kill everything in sight So you'd be happy with tanks ONLY being capable of supresing infantry? Really? Sometimes i do it in game Infantry can go where vehicles cant and if i have a scanner on i pick up assists too, depending on map vehicles cant even suppress and are mostly useless But vehicles can do other things too AV can suppress vehicles, but they can also kill them, OP video shows that 1 is not enough, get a 2nd tho and its dead
And tanks can kill lots of infantry, by themselves.
Your missing the point, you are saying 1 AV should only be capable of suppressing tanks.
So we turned it on its head, would you be happy if, it took at least 2 tanks just kill someone, would that be fair?
If you answered yes, I suggest you ask for blasters to be nerfed significantly.
If you answered no, then why do you think it is fair to put this restriction on Anti-Vehicle weaponry?
In wider sense it boils down to, why you as a single person in your tank should require multiple people to take down?
Please bear in mind when answering the question.
1) SP is not accountable since AV must also sacrifice a lot of skill points
Which by you count their AI fit, equipment training core upgrades, dropsuit upgrades is around about the same.
2)ISK is not a factor due to the fact a mlt tank now costs less than a Proto fit, therein mlt tanks should be incapable of killing proto dropsuits, (if ISK were a factor)
3) Real-Life is not a factor, first and foremost this is a game to be enjoyed by everyone, this meams guns don't kill in 1 shot at 300m and tanks don't become so powerful.
However if you do wish to use real-life I would like to point you toward the Artybox-Globalhawk combo, which autonomously dispatches of enemy tanks and APC's without any human input.
4)Teamwork is not a factor, we play in fixed count matches, teamwork is optional, not compulsory.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2709
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 16:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
BIind Shot wrote:Quote:
And I strongly disagree with you. Why are all of you so hell-bent on destroying tanks? Is it not enough if you managed to make it activate its modules and retreat?
That's how it should be. A dedicated AV vs a dedicated tank won't be able to kill the tank, but it will be a huge hindrance to the tank and limit its abilities. Though two or more dedicated AV and the dedicated tank should be in trouble.
Because that same vehicle is hell-bent on killing our team? No, it is not enough. If a vehicle doesn't/cannot die, then where is the risk involved i using one? You've also yet to list a valid reason as to why it should be that way, so I'll just write this off as bantering from a tanker who feels as if he should never die to another person.
Quote:
Uhmm, if I may interject here with some simple logic.
Let's go with Harpyja first, you cannot force a tank to retreat if you cannot destroy it, with this current 'repdrugar' you effectively get the archimedies turtle, since the reps are both constant and high you get only a little bit closer to the tanks destruction with each hit, it was calculated as taking well over 12 volleys, any tanker with half a brain is aware of this and can become almost invincible.
But let's look at the algebra
1infantry = 1 infantry
now before I start this is a generalisation, Im not accounting for different tier of dropsuits. Now the above statememt is balanced because both sides are equal. So let's break it down a little.
1infantry + 1AR = 1infantry + 1RR
in this case it is still balanced as they both have similar DPS and have attributes that both buff and debuff each other, so an infantry unit using an AR is no less disadvantaged than the RR (this may not be the case in reality, but you should catch my drift, the AR will exceed in some areas where the RR will not and vice versa)
1infantry + 1tank > 1infantry + 1RR
this currently unbalanced, since as a tank you severly outclass infantry, HOWEVER to make a tank only as strong as infantry is unfair, a little pointless and altogther useless.
So we need a way of balancing this equation, we need to create a circle, cue AV.
So for balance we make standard infantry greater than AV, like so
1infantry + 1RR > 1infantry + 1SL
then we do the same for AV vs tan. . . . oh, hold on, since AV should require teamwork that doesn't work out, since unless the tank is destroyed all the AV has effectively done is delay the enivetable, so instead you get
1infantry + 1tank > 1infantry + 1SL and
1infantry + 1tank > 1infantry + RR which compiled into a single statement becomes this.
1infantry + 1SL < 1infantry + tank > 1infantry + RR this can be further simplified to
1AV < 1tank > 1RR and now you have an unbalanced statement.
You see the problem is a tank is only an extension of your unit, you are still only 1 person, it is in theoretical terms nothing more than a weapon for your unit.
and as such it must be counterable by another weapon weilded by a single unit, to require more than 1 person to take you out, yet allow you to take out more than 1 person (to be more effecie t than) is entirely unbalanced.
Think about everything else.
How many people are compulsory to take down 1 brick tanked heavy? Just one with an RE
How many people are compulsory to take dow a Proto Assault? Just one in the right place
How many people are required to down a sniper? Just one who knows where he is
I did the math and came up with 12 volleys the other day but someone told me that the shields would of absorbed more than I had thought due to regen even when being damaged. Redoing the math came up with 15 volleys; This is a slightly different circumstance. I only had proficiency 3 and no rapid reload. The tank only had 3 in repair proficiency and as you can see in the video after I unloaded a clip his armor would be fully healed before I could finish reloading. It was completely impervious to my swarms, just sitting there not moving at all. It may be more than 15. I didn't take into account the animation for actually firing the swarms.
Edit: FFS![/quote]
It actually takes somewhere around 18-21 volleys in total, assuming the tank does not move, and assuming a 2 second flight path, the tank simply moving backwards as each volley gets close actually requires upwards of another 6 volleys, still assuming your locking on the whole time, it also doesn't account for the hyper accuracy of turrets giving the tanker much easier time of killing you.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2709
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 16:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
Gelhad Thremyr wrote:1) Lets all agree on one thing, mechanized infantry (tanks) should have high HP and should be able to create opportunities for infantry. With that being said, if the level design of maps doesnt give enough possibilities to get behind cover let say 40-60% of the time (because no one would wage war in open spaces like we did 400 years ago) then tanks would naturally be less of a threat to infantry.
2) We want risk/reward to be balanced (because tanks cost alot, but with the data in hand a single tank can do easily 20 kills, if they are proto, than they netted a kill ISK value of 2 mil ISK alone if each proto infantry suit cost 100k)
3) Tank player alone in his vehicle should not add the equivalent of 2-3 more player in fire power alone. It causes imbalance in firepower on one side. This is clearly been demonstrated in TankBush with Nyain san and Milkman.
4) I would not touch the power of weapons has is, I think number wise the tripple rep madrugar is a kind of a fit, we should keep the customization of builds in this game.
5) If main turrets of tanks would be slower, engaging infrantry would be harder, and would require drivers to have small turrets to handle 20 meters or less infantry, throwing stuff at it. All tanks would suffer the turret slowness and it would make tank engagement better IMO.
6)Conclusion, do not touch the firepower but the hability to quickly kill all around a tank with a single driver, in BF3, tank turret do not allow you to be 100% effective against infantry !
I would agree if it wasn't for the accuracy of the blaster.
No recoil, no dispersion, no muzzle climb, no pre-fire charge time, nothing.
Blasters either need a reduction in fire power, AT LEAST 30%
or it needs to be given dispersion that is about the same as the HMG (scaled up obviously)
This would allow blasters to be better at suppressing infantry yet give AV enough of an oppurtunity that it can at least lock on a swarm launcher without dying.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2713
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 18:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:
And tanks can kill lots of infantry, by themselves.
Your missing the point, you are saying 1 AV should only be capable of suppressing tanks.
So we turned it on its head, would you be happy if, it took at least 2 tanks just kill someone, would that be fair?
If you answered yes, I suggest you ask for blasters to be nerfed significantly.
If you answered no, then why do you think it is fair to put this restriction on Anti-Vehicle weaponry?
In wider sense it boils down to, why you as a single person in your tank should require multiple people to take down?
Please bear in mind when answering the question.
1) SP is not accountable since AV must also sacrifice a lot of skill points
Which by you count their AI fit, equipment training core upgrades, dropsuit upgrades is around about the same.
2)ISK is not a factor due to the fact a mlt tank now costs less than a Proto fit, therein mlt tanks should be incapable of killing proto dropsuits, (if ISK were a factor)
3) Real-Life is not a factor, first and foremost this is a game to be enjoyed by everyone, this meams guns don't kill in 1 shot at 300m and tanks don't become so powerful.
However if you do wish to use real-life I would like to point you toward the Artybox-Globalhawk combo, which autonomously dispatches of enemy tanks and APC's without any human input.
4)Teamwork is not a factor, we play in fixed count matches, teamwork is optional, not compulsory.
1 AV does have the power to kill a tank, it mostly depends on the user if they are skilled enough to do it How many AVers do you know can get AT LEAST 15 straigjt volleys at a tank? 2 tanks to kill a meatbag? are we fighting the power rangers in a giant mechanical suit? sorry that takes 5ppl to operate Yet it should apparently take to people firing enough missiles to sink an aircraft carrier to destroy a tincan, hypocritical what? 1. SP will cost more for vehicle pilots if we ever get pilot/proto vehicles No you won't get proto, and pilot suits aren't a requirement. 2. Not a factor, yet AV is crying about the price of proto AV to kill a tank where as pre 1.7 it used to be so what if my AV costs 20k it should be able to kill your 3mil vehicle No we are annoyed about the ISK imbalance, I pay upwards of 40,000 for an AV fit, I can kill 1 tank, if im lucky, you pay 60,000 and, kill infantry, tanks amd AV. Also we wouldn't really bothered if an AV cost so much, if it did ITS BLOODY JOB 3. If its not a factor then stop going on about javilins and that it takes a 4man crew to operate a tank Tell Spkr to stop showing vulgar videos of tanks blowing up in infantry at 5m range, capiece. 4. If teamwork is optional then again stop asking for tanks to be operated by 2 ppl and not allowing a pilot to go solo when they want since AV can solo
I've always been against that idea, though if it were to happen I would have no problem witn a 2man tank taking at least 2 AVers
So Ill ask again why should you, 1 man, a single solitary player require multiple players to actually counter with any form of effeciency?
As for your statememt of one shotting tanks, video or it didn't happen, also stationary tanks don't count.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2713
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 18:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Gelhad Thremyr wrote:1) Lets all agree on one thing, mechanized infantry (tanks) should have high HP and should be able to create opportunities for infantry. With that being said, if the level design of maps doesnt give enough possibilities to get behind cover let say 40-60% of the time (because no one would wage war in open spaces like we did 400 years ago) then tanks would naturally be less of a threat to infantry.
2) We want risk/reward to be balanced (because tanks cost alot, but with the data in hand a single tank can do easily 20 kills, if they are proto, than they netted a kill ISK value of 2 mil ISK alone if each proto infantry suit cost 100k)
3) Tank player alone in his vehicle should not add the equivalent of 2-3 more player in fire power alone. It causes imbalance in firepower on one side. This is clearly been demonstrated in TankBush with Nyain san and Milkman.
4) I would not touch the power of weapons has is, I think number wise the tripple rep madrugar is a kind of a fit, we should keep the customization of builds in this game.
5) If main turrets of tanks would be slower, engaging infrantry would be harder, and would require drivers to have small turrets to handle 20 meters or less infantry, throwing stuff at it. All tanks would suffer the turret slowness and it would make tank engagement better IMO.
6)Conclusion, do not touch the firepower but the hability to quickly kill all around a tank with a single driver, in BF3, tank turret do not allow you to be 100% effective against infantry ! I would agree if it wasn't for the accuracy of the blaster. No recoil, no dispersion, no muzzle climb, no pre-fire charge time, nothing. Blasters either need a reduction in fire power, AT LEAST 30% or it needs to be given dispersion that is about the same as the HMG (scaled up obviously) This would allow blasters to be better at suppressing infantry yet give AV enough of an oppurtunity that it can at least lock on a swarm launcher without dying. Blasters need a damage reduction of about 33%, but nothing else in terms of nerfs. That will not only reduce their AI effectiveness and make it more skill involved, but it will severely limit their AV effectiveness, something that must be done.
Well ACTUALLY tankers have asked that Blasters maintain or even improve their effeciency against other, they don't think rails should be quite so powerful at short range by comparison. So to fix this you give dispersion such that only 40-50% of shots hit an infantry unit square in their sights, yet will still get 100% accuracy on a tank at 40m-80m but at decent range blasters become less of disection tool for infantry and more for suppression.
Let's everyone get what they want, I would even suggest boosting damagemper shot a little to compensate.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2713
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 18:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
Scheherazade VII wrote:LittleCuteBunny wrote: 1 AV player shouldn't solo a tank.
BRILLIANT TANKER LOGIC No teamwork for me but teamwork for thee I think that's Spk4rs ****** thing he says now I'm turning it on it's head. You can't kill me solo but I can kill you solo, that's how it should be.
Tanker hypocrisy at its best eh?
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2714
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 21:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
So Takihiro, I'm calling you out, give me an answer.
Why should it take multiple AV units to destroy a single player in a tank? What reason do you have that permits a single person to surpass more than multiplemof hos designated counter?
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2719
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 23:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:So Takihiro, I'm calling you out, give me an answer.
Why should it take multiple AV units to destroy a single player in a tank? What reason do you have that permits a single person to surpass more than multiplemof hos designated counter? Because its a lazy counter that requires no foresight, planning, ISK investment, SP sink or geographical advantage. You're also on the wrong part of the map for killing things. Stick to the city. Basically, you dont deserve to kill a tank.
Interesting,
That guy usually plays in a tank I should probably start with my AV fit isn't foresight?
The other team has a tank, I will need to deploy nearby, preferably behind said tank, with my AV fit probably find some cover in case the engagment goes pear shaped for one of numerous reasons. Isn't planning?
40,000 ISK per suit isn't an ISK investment?
25,000,000 SP just for a decked out AV isn't an SP Sink?
Above the turrets angle of attack (high ground) or behind a tank (flanking) isn't a geographical advantage?
So umm what was that?
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
|
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2719
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 23:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:So Takihiro, I'm calling you out, give me an answer.
Why should it take multiple AV units to destroy a single player in a tank? What reason do you have that permits a single person to surpass more than multiplemof hos designated counter? Because its a lazy counter that requires no foresight, planning, ISK investment, SP sink or geographical advantage. You're also on the wrong part of the map for killing things. Stick to the city. Basically, you dont deserve to kill a tank. Interesting, That guy usually plays in a tank I should probably start with my AV fit isn't foresight? The other team has a tank, I will need to deploy nearby, preferably behind said tank, with my AV fit probably find some cover in case the engagment goes pear shaped for one of numerous reasons. Isn't planning? 40,000 ISK per suit isn't an ISK investment? 25,000,000 SP just for a decked out AV isn't an SP Sink? Above the turrets angle of attack (high ground) or behind a tank (flanking) isn't a geographical advantage? So umm what was that? No, 40k is not an investment. I switch to 78k suits when im ready to STOP losing money. Tanks cost half a million isk each if they are worth a damn, and there isn't a single form of AV out there that requires 25 million SP by itself.
Dropsuit
AV weapon
Core Upgrades
Nanocircuitry
Grenadier
Demolitions
approx 25mil SP read em weep.
Don't believe me go to protofits and make the following fit.
Ammar Logi Proto
Proto Swarm Launcher
Proto SMG (to get Proto Assault SMG requires prof 2, which I didn't do)
Proto Packed AV grenade
STD RE
STD PE
Proto Quantum Nanohive
1+ù Proto Plate
2x Proto Repper
1x Adv PG upgrade
2x Proto Dmg Mod
1x Advanced Dmg Mod
Costs a hell of a lot more than 70,000 requires ~25,896,000 invested SP
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2720
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 23:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mordecai Sanguine wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:So Takihiro, I'm calling you out, give me an answer.
Why should it take multiple AV units to destroy a single player in a tank? What reason do you have that permits a single person to surpass more than multiplemof hos designated counter? Dude (Monkey MAC) saw you in a game today, you were against me. (As a Gunship) WE DESTROYED A TRIPLE REP MADRUGAR !!!!!!!! We were like 10 agiant him and an another tnak but we destroyed it !!!!! I was personnally with Plasma Cannon and Proto Swarm (Commando) shooting contiunally on him with extra fast reload and unlimited ammo. (near to ammo installation) There was 2 Forge Gun (Breach). 2 blue dot Swarms. A Gunlogi with rail gun. 2 Scout with Remotes. And an Orbital Strike. And i finally got him with a critical hit from my Plasma Cannon. +150  But well....we sync 10 players and Orbital to destroy a tank....So we lose the objective, got crushed by infantry and your dropship and 1 min later his tank was back while it took us 10 min to destroy it..... Seems TOTALLY legit. 1 Tank Vs 10 ******* player, seems logic. It made us lose the game while we dominated you and your team the whole game.....
Yeah saw that, was pretty darn good, though I would like to point out he did just sit there and take it, it took alot more effort for you to get me (I crashed in the end) and I was in a rather flimsy dropship by comparison.
I rather enjoyed that match I believe we won, by a single clone! 
Still lost 700,000 ISK, but worth it when I now know my team of newberries beat a 10 stacked squad and I went positive.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2720
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 23:58:00 -
[13] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Also let me add something else Monkey, AV can be produced anytime anywhere with no foresight. You get raped by a tank, you switch to AV instantly upon death or if you're at a supply depot.
The same convenience is not true for tanks. If your team is redlined by an opposing group of tanks it is incredibly difficult to call new tanks in without them being shot down. If they ARE called in, they will be so far into the back of the redline they are are completely barricaded into a losing fight.
Saying "oh herp derp there's a tank ima switch to forge" is not foresight. It's not planning. And even if you did plan for it in advance that isn't going to be any less than just changing to it after you recognize the threat.
Have you ever called a tank in atop a tower?
No? Well there goes your its difficult to call in a tank arguement.
Step 1) Fit cheap mlt dropship
Step 2) Afterburn it to flight ceiling
Step 3) Find suitable tower to deploy tank
(The caldari ones on line harvest, roof of the medium sockets on fractured road)
Step 4) Camp on roof and blowup what you can from there
Step 5) Drive off roof, recieve no fall damage, insta flank enemy
Step 6) Profit/Watch hate mail roll in.
Secondary Point, Assault Suit description is all about being able to change at a moments notice.
Tertiary Point, if calling in a tank during a tank stomp is difficult that is reason to have more effective AV, to stop the tanks stomping in the first place.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2720
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 00:04:00 -
[14] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Mordecai Sanguine wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:
Because its a lazy counter that requires no foresight, planning, ISK investment, SP sink or geographical advantage. You're also on the wrong part of the map for killing things. Stick to the city.
Basically, you dont deserve to kill a tank.
Interesting, That guy usually plays in a tank I should probably start with my AV fit isn't foresight? The other team has a tank, I will need to deploy nearby, preferably behind said tank, with my AV fit probably find some cover in case the engagment goes pear shaped for one of numerous reasons. Isn't planning? 40,000 ISK per suit isn't an ISK investment? 25,000,000 SP just for a decked out AV isn't an SP Sink? Above the turrets angle of attack (high ground) or behind a tank (flanking) isn't a geographical advantage? So umm what was that? No, 40k is not an investment. I switch to 78k suits when im ready to STOP losing money. Tanks cost half a million isk each if they are worth a damn, and there isn't a single form of AV out there that requires 25 million SP by itself. 40k suits will NEVER destroy a Tank alon, it needs at least a full proto squad and some OB or an another Tank. A tank will ALWAYS kill at least 20 ennemy before dying, making it destroy way more iSK than it cost. And a tank is CHEAP. Under Proto level AV can't do anything, so it cost the hell to buy some AV. AV is priced and balanced at the luxury cost of being involved in a fight you have no business being a part of. You want to kill tanks, get a ******* tank or stop whining.
Aah and so the truth comes out, it should require a tank to kill a tank?
Where is the balance in that, please explain it to me
After all if you are being redlined by a squad of tanks its game over right, you should just leave the match!
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2720
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 00:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
Mordecai Sanguine wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Mordecai Sanguine wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:So Takihiro, I'm calling you out, give me an answer.
Why should it take multiple AV units to destroy a single player in a tank? What reason do you have that permits a single person to surpass more than multiplemof hos designated counter? Dude (Monkey MAC) saw you in a game today, you were against me. (As a Gunship) WE DESTROYED A TRIPLE REP MADRUGAR !!!!!!!! We were like 10 agiant him and an another tnak but we destroyed it !!!!! I was personnally with Plasma Cannon and Proto Swarm (Commando) shooting contiunally on him with extra fast reload and unlimited ammo. (near to ammo installation) There was 2 Forge Gun (Breach). 2 blue dot Swarms. A Gunlogi with rail gun. 2 Scout with Remotes. And an Orbital Strike. And i finally got him with a critical hit from my Plasma Cannon. +150 But well....we sync 10 players and Orbital to destroy a tank....So we lose the objective, got crushed by infantry and your dropship and 1 min later his tank was back while it took us 10 min to destroy it..... Seems TOTALLY legit. 1 Tank Vs 10 ******* player, seems logic. It made us lose the game while we dominated you and your team the whole game..... Yeah saw that, was pretty darn good, though I would like to point out he did just sit there and take it, it took alot more effort for you to get me (I crashed in the end) and I was in a rather flimsy dropship by comparison. I rather enjoyed that match I believe we won, by a single clone! Still lost 700,000 ISK, but worth it when I now know my team of newberries beat a 10 stacked squad and I went positive. Yep it was damn close !!!! (A single one  ) I've been the last killed, the one who made us loss  BUT i've maded a Triple kill just before so...and got revived In fact he wasn't "sitting here" our scouts simply blocked all the way out by 10 explosive remotes while our tank was blocking the other way We blocked him. Well....Have you ever try to get down a Dropship with a Plasma Cannon ? It's pretty Hard. And before playing with AV i was shooting you with Laser Rifle and Mass driver to make you shoot me instead of my teamates, they pass trought and then take the objectives Lost something about 400.000 ISK, was playing ADV but died 8 time. Hmm in fact we were not in a squad, i was playing solo to train me (didn't play since a months) we were also totally blueberries. Seems like we were just randomely set up to destroy this tank. Certainely Amarr gods who decided this destiny. (The 2 forge gunner was Amarr sentinel and our scouts were Amarr, i was Amarr....Funny fact  )
That was you? Your damn laser rifle was getting on my nerves no end!
As for the tank, well played indeed, from my (rather mobile) perspective all I saw each time I came for another strafing run, was that blue tank in the same damn place.
I died 12 in total, but considering I RE'd 3 heavies and logi hacking the point twice, used a mass driver 25% of the time and confirmed 2 kills (kill then terminate) right at the end, I was damn happy, was a fun match by all accounts, was very proud of team I didn't know.
Will have green up with you sometime, usually on around 8-10pm UTC+00 
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2720
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 00:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:
Aah and so the truth comes out, it should require a tank to kill a tank?
Where is the balance in that, please explain it to me
After all if you are being redlined by a squad of tanks its game over right, you should just leave the match!
Thats not such a bad statement as it sounds. AV should have its place tank busting but seriously...... Tanks are designed to blow up other tanks....... we have weapons 10x the size of those your carry, with understandably greater fire power......otherwise our weapons would be carried on foot......and not turret or vehicle mounted..... IMO a Tank should be an expensive high SP sink unit that is the highest a ground based vehicle user can escalate the fight to....... by this I mean the most durable ground vehicle and the best equipped to deal with other vehicles.......BUT NOT INFANTRY unless you sacrifice fitting capacity on small turrets and have crewmen.
Oh by no means am I saying a tank shouldn't deal with a tank, that's like saying a HMG heavy shouldn't kill a HMG heavy, it just shouldn't be a requirement, you should be able to use othe methods.
Personally I have no quarrell with a large turret killing infantry provided, it's not nearly as effective against infantry as it currently is.
If I may reference titanfall which has done the whole infantry vs vehicle thing rather well.
You can solo a titan as pilot, though a variety of methods, my favourite the lightning gun inflictsnearly a third of an atlases health in 1 shot, but it requires getting enough time to charge the shot, at the same time, titans will carve through grunts like there is no tommorow, but the mobile and fast pilots provide a relative challenge.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2721
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 00:34:00 -
[17] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:True Adamance wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:
Aah and so the truth comes out, it should require a tank to kill a tank?
Where is the balance in that, please explain it to me
After all if you are being redlined by a squad of tanks its game over right, you should just leave the match!
Thats not such a bad statement as it sounds. AV should have its place tank busting but seriously...... Tanks are designed to blow up other tanks....... we have weapons 10x the size of those your carry, with understandably greater fire power......otherwise our weapons would be carried on foot......and not turret or vehicle mounted..... IMO a Tank should be an expensive high SP sink unit that is the highest a ground based vehicle user can escalate the fight to....... by this I mean the most durable ground vehicle and the best equipped to deal with other vehicles.......BUT NOT INFANTRY unless you sacrifice fitting capacity on small turrets and have crewmen. Oh by no means am I saying a tank shouldn't deal with a tank, that's like saying a HMG heavy shouldn't kill a HMG heavy, it just shouldn't be a requirement, you should be able to use othe methods. Personally I have no quarrell with a large turret killing infantry provided, it's not nearly as effective against infantry as it currently is. If I may reference titanfall which has done the whole infantry vs vehicle thing rather well. You can solo a titan as pilot, though a variety of methods, my favourite the lightning gun inflictsnearly a third of an atlases health in 1 shot, but it requires getting enough time to charge the shot, at the same time, titans will carve through grunts like there is no tommorow, but the mobile and fast pilots provide a relative challenge. But consequently a good pilot will never or very rarely die while wrecking the other team......
Very rarely, though you get those people in every game, after all we have ReG, also in titanfall you are not meant to encounter enemy pilots very often, you spend most of your time killing grunts, not a lot of deaths not a lot of pilot kills.
The best I saw was a pilot with 1 death, excluding doomed titans, 3 pilot kills, 5 titan kills and 12 grunt kills.
Hardly the 40/0 you can get round here.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2728
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 10:12:00 -
[18] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Shion Typhon wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:
Aah and so the truth comes out, it should require a tank to kill a tank?
Where is the balance in that, please explain it to me
After all if you are being redlined by a squad of tanks its game over right, you should just leave the match!
Yes, it should NORMALLY require a tank to kill a tank because they are of equal power and brought into the game under equal restrictions. Deployment time, cost, danger of popping due to enemy rails, etc. It is for this very reason that tanks ruling the outside makes sense. They impose a greater threat than infantry and live in the open plains and mountains of Dust 514. Infantry dwell in the urban areas where vehicle movement is restricted. Dropships that dwell in such an area are also prone to an easy death from AV. When you leave the city they become the far greater threat you know currently because that is their domain. If we had it your way, they would be weak on the outside and worthless on the inside. There would be no need to ever field a tank and you would have one game mode -- Infantry 514. Tanks were not meant to be the equal of infantry, they were meant to be greater than infantry. What equalizes them is where they are allowed to operate, and if you wish to dispatch a tank as an infantry on the tank's turf you should very well need to do so with another tank or with greater effort than the tank has to put out to kill you. You would not go swimming in the ocean and expect to slay a great white shark without putting out more effort than the shark does. What we have here is a problem of infantry entitlement. If you've been redlined, the match should take no longer than a minute to end. It is bad game design that it does not. On the outside, we have Tanks 514 and on the inside we have Infantry 514. They are very distinguished and fun games. Your solution would effectively make tanks the equals of infantry, and kill Tanks 514. The tank game does not work if infantry are as great a threat as tanks are. The entire dynamic breaks. Unfortunately "outside " equals 90% of the playable game space and similar spaces between null cannon capture points. There are 3 large sockets which approximate little islands of "city", which incidentally all have large roads right through the middle through which tanks can joyride. Your inside/outside world only exists in a very tenuous state. It exists on an even distribution as far as capturable points are concerned. The exceptions being 5 point maps where one map is clearly themed for outside or inside engagements, and more attention has to be focused on that kind of fight. Simply stating there is more landmass on the outside is a poor argument, because there is no reason to be out there.Just about any FC who is active in PC right now plans for the inside and outside battle as two separate fights that need to be handled differently. If the outside battle fails, dropships start making it into the city which lets the enemy get to highground. When enemies get to high ground, whoever holds the points in the city begin to lose them unless they are absolutely amazing. To prevent this you have tanks on BOTH SIDES at a standoff. If they hold each other off, the defensive tanker can take care of airborn threats on either side and the city fight remains neutral without high ground advantage going to anyone. The problem you guys have now is that pub infantry is too stupid to stick to the city and put themselves in a battle they have no business being a part of. If its a bridge map, you take the city and hold one point on the outside conservatively if possible. If you try to take the entire outside your team becomes very spread out and its difficult to transition. In either case, your infantry is always supported by tanks and if they are not, they are dead. That's how the game is played. Don't wreck it.
So if there is little point going outside the complexs, whh have tanks to dominate outside space it's an entirely redundant mechanic.
As for tanks being useless in complexs, please don't lie through your teeth, we both know that's just not true.
The problem, is YOU and YOUR entitlement.
You are one person, a single player.
No amount of ISK, SP or selfishness permits you to surpass the strength of anyome else, this why std can kill proto, why scouts can kill heavies. Sure there are places where someone is most effecient, but there is always a counter to it, you just need the right gear.
You like everyone else should have a counter, that it isn't the original problem, that is a fundamental of balance.
Your entire example is biased towards tanks, which is simply wrong. Infact your entire attitude is biased towards tanks, pray tell, if infantry isn't designed to go between complexs how do we capture outside points, since tanks can easily kill dropships and lavs. The Answer is you don't, the tanks dominate the outside before pushing in and dominating the inside.
I would suggest you take a very long read of my earlier post on the algebra of the situation, all you are doing is creating is linear escalation, which is fundamentally poor balance for a game.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2729
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 10:21:00 -
[19] - Quote
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:
40,000 ISK per suit isn't an ISK investment?
25,000,000 SP just for a decked out AV isn't an SP Sink?
I'm sorry, what? How the hell can you not blow up a tank with that much SP in AV? I only have about...... 1,000,000 SP in AV, and my suit costs around... 8,000 Isk per deploy.... Triple reps fall like rain to this suit. You are clearly trying to stretch the truth in your favor so far, that it doesn't even look true anymore.
Please share this mega suit then.
The suitmI outlined requires getting behind the enemy sticking some RE to his weak spot, some PE on his retreat path and then lobbing 2 grenades + 2swarms then detonating the RE before he regens, requires your target to be stationery or poor at driving in enclosed spaces.
Provided you can achieve this, the tank will fall 7/10 times.
I would very much like to see your fit since afterall there is a video at the beggining of this thread showing standard AV tactics don't cut it.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2731
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 10:39:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mordecai Sanguine wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:
40,000 ISK per suit isn't an ISK investment?
25,000,000 SP just for a decked out AV isn't an SP Sink?
I'm sorry, what? How the hell can you not blow up a tank with that much SP in AV? I only have about...... 1,000,000 SP in AV, and my suit costs around... 8,000 Isk per deploy.... Triple reps fall like rain to this suit. You are clearly trying to stretch the truth in your favor so far, that it doesn't even look true anymore. Please share this mega suit then. The suitmI outlined requires getting behind the enemy sticking some RE to his weak spot, some PE on his retreat path and then lobbing 2 grenades + 2swarms then detonating the RE before he regens, requires your target to be stationery or poor at driving in enclosed spaces. Provided you can achieve this, the tank will fall 7/10 times. I would very much like to see your fit since afterall there is a video at the beggining of this thread showing standard AV tactics don't cut it. People just don't understand AV are supposed to COUNTER the ennemy Tanks. Actually they can,'t, it's broken, nerf vehicule OR buff AV but when the counter can't even kill it means there is a problem, a huge problem, anyway today is FanFest let's see the changes
Would so have loved to have been there, maybe in 2yrs time. When I'm finish ed studying
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
|
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2736
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 22:04:00 -
[21] - Quote
DarthJT5 wrote:Will Driver wrote:Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Ok, obviously it's broken and needs fixed and I'm not trying to deniend it, but have you tried:
Similarly tiered forgeguns? What about Proto Min Commando w/ swarms? Rail/Missile Tanks? Teamwork?
Unrelated to the issue at hand, in all honestly, I'm really against a single player, no matter how dedicated to AV, being able to take on a fully proto-ed tank easily. Eventually yes, a dedicated AV should kill it eventually if not engaged or fled from, but not easily. And I'm firmly against this position. A proto swarmer with 4/5 proficiency should be able to solo any Tank. Tanks should not be immune from a player that's specifically designed to fight tanks. The "teamwork" argument is so tiresome I can barely stand it. Having a tank soak up the attention of 3-4 or more ineffectual A/Vers completely unbalances the game. If only tanks can battle tanks, then that's TANK 514 and not something I'm interested in at all. Maybe we should have an infantry only game. I bet the vast majority would opt into it, leaving only tanker on tanker matches for you. I wonder how much you'll enjoy that, without any foot soldiers to slaughter? Why should a swamer with 4/5 prof be able to easily slo my tank that requires more SP than everything in the swarm skill tree for JUST my large Proto missiles? Then, we can add in my shield upgrades up to 5, optimization 5, Small Proto missiles, all my vehicle Core skills up to five. This cost waay more sp and isk than anything an Av guy will call out. Hell, the turret alone costs 300k, much more than your suit. No, you should not be able to solo my tank EASILY. Possibly, sure. But not easily. I dont even go for infantry unless there arent any tanks to shoot at, my squad needs support, or enemy AV
Aah now you see your saying an AVer only has to spend SP on his swarms, wrong.
Dropsuit Command 3 | Amarr Medium Suit Command 3 | Amarr Logistics Suit Command 5
Dropsuot Core Upgrades 5 | Dropsuit Shield Upgrades (and associated) 5 | Dropsuit Armoir Upgrades (and associated) 5
Dropsuit Biotic Upgrades (and associated ) 5 | Dropsuit electronics 5 | Dropsuit Engineering 5 | Nanocircuitry 5
Weaponry 5 | Handheld Weapon Upgrades | Explosives (and associated) | Light Weapons 5 | Swarm Launcher (and associated) 5 | Sidearm Weapons 5 | Sidearm of choice (and associated) 5
Grand total of SP required = 25,000,000 for a FULLY decked AV proto fit
By Comparison Grand total of SP required for a proto modded blaster tank = 22,000,000
3mil cheaper SP less for an all Proto fit, maths says what?
If you don't believe me feel free to visit proto fits. And try it out, also bear in mind, I did not include electronic associated upgrades (scanning upgrades) which adds an extra ~2mill I also only maxed 1 equipment.
On the tankers side I maxed 1 weapon plus associated, assuming a solo fit (no light turrets)and everytning else to the max, this includes HAV operation and ALL vehicle upgrades.
As such, the statement
Tankers put more SP into tanks than AV puts into Infantry
Is busted!
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2736
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 22:08:00 -
[22] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Foundation Seldon wrote:but at least when it comes to Armor Repairers they repair SIGNIFICANTLY more as a function of total health of the vehicle compared to their dropsuit counterparts.
As they should when a tank has at the least 10x more armor than a suit, and 4x more when you're talking about the sentinels. Which is sad, how a vehicle with a giant powerplant compared to a suit, has only 4000 armor.
Considering the power of electricity powering a tank would in no way improve solid mass of metal, it makes perfect sense, unless your powerplant is creating a micro gravity well to increase the tanks mass to infintie, at which point yoj become incapable of moving.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
Monkey MAC
Rough Riders..
2743
|
Posted - 2014.05.02 21:00:00 -
[23] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:Atiim wrote:@Monkey MAC
When disproving the SP argument, it should also be noted that even if the AVer spent less SP (which has been proven false), the SP the AVer spent may only be used if the team has called out a vehicle; as opposed to the Pilot's SP that can be used at any time.
(Albeit to a lesser extent due to maps such as Iron Delta). Well even that is debatable. You can call in AV anytime....but it is worthless. You can call in a tank, but meaningful combat is inside socket or building...........tank is worthless. Isn't that what I just said?  Well that argument has no value if it applies to both sides. Just as subjectives like if, should, and could have no real value either.....
To the contrary, even if 'meaningful' battles takes place inside a socket or a generally unreachable location by tank, you can still have an effective strength, since you can I effect set up a perimeter around said combat to reduce logistical support.
In short if your tank can't be involved directly in the main push it can still be used for high value secondary targets.
AV is only effective when the condition 'vehicle on field == true' as such the AV is by all intensive purposes useless without a target.
A tank can change target to maintain effectiveness, AV cannot.
This therin gives vehicle SP a higher net worth than AV specific SP.
Unless your a Computer Scientist don't tell me how Game Mechanics Work.
Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl 2.
|
|
|
| |
|