|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1697
   |
Posted - 2014.04.30 21:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe.
Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious)
Then what will be the purpose of having vehicles in the first place?
There has to be something to start the ball rolling, such as an AI (blaster) tank.
Then you get the AV (railgun/missile) tanks that will be the hard counters to AI tanks.
AV infantry is the hard counter to AV tanks.
Infantry is the hard counter to AV infantry.
Then we're back to AI tanks countering infantry.
AI tank > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank > AI tank
The counter to the tank counter is infantry, while the counter to the infantry counter is a tank. Mirrored balance.
One team uses blaster tanks and AV infantry, the other team uses AV tanks and regular infantry. Then you get the AV tanks chasing the AI tanks that are chasing infantry that are chasing the AV infantry that are chasing the AV tanks...
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1697
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 21:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe.
Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Doesn't make sense..... how does and 80GJ round with the energy output of France and the UK put together not kill a man in flimsy combat around? Nope, why not just simply remove AI turrets from tanks and replace them with AV turrets. Infantry can escape and attack tanks, tanks can shoot back but are primarily designed to be AV units, and can mount turrets to have Infantry protect them from other infantry.
That means we should remove blaster turrets and give up any hopes for pulse lasers and autocannons?
No. If done properly, we can have both AI and AV turrets.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1697
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 22:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make large turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe.
Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious)
Edit: Am scrub, proposal isn't aimed at all turrets, just large. Heh heh heh, Well first just doesn't make sense lore wise. And the second would be absolutely bloody hilarious. No what you need to do is to decrease accuracy, such that hitting infamtry with a large blaster is DIFFICULT! REALLY DIFFICULT!!
That won't ever happen. And if any changes are in fact brought into effect, I doubt that they will be even close to what people expected.
For example, adding dispersion. Man, let me tell you how much infantry have managed to escape to safety because my aim was just slightly off target while tracking them. If I had dispersion, I would've had a lot more rounds connect, resulting in more kills. Dispersion would make hitting infantry easier as I wouldn't need pinpoint precision.
I think that instead of trying to make blasters weaker against infantry (because that's just too hard to do), just emphasize them as an AI turret and bring their AV capabilities as low as possible. This proper trade-off will make them focused on AI but at the same time highly susceptible to other vehicles.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1698
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 22:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Harpyja wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:You know how weapons have really low efficiency against vehicles, why not make turrets have this efficiency against Infantry? That way we still get to keep strong turrets for engaging other Vehicles, but then Infantry units are able to take a little more damage, especially heavies which iirc were meant to go toe to toe.
Or.. we could totally scrap the low efficiency Infantry weapons have and let Infantry rip apart a vehicle in a squad (Be fair, 6 Rifles all shooting at a tank and winning would be hilarious) Then what will be the purpose of having vehicles in the first place? There has to be something to start the ball rolling, such as an AI (blaster) tank. Then you get the AV (railgun/missile) tanks that will be the hard counters to AI tanks. AV infantry is the hard counter to AV tanks. Infantry is the hard counter to AV infantry. Then we're back to AI tanks countering infantry. AI tank > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank > AI tank The counter to the tank counter is infantry, while the counter to the infantry counter is a tank. Mirrored balance. One team uses blaster tanks and AV infantry, the other team uses AV tanks and regular infantry. Then you get the AV tanks chasing the AI tanks that are chasing infantry that are chasing the AV infantry that are chasing the AV tanks... Not quite AV infantry should be able to counter AI infantry, it will have a harder job, since it can fight back but you get my drift. Infantry < (AI Tank < AV Tank) < (AV Infantry < AI Infantry) < . . . . and so on.
Well I mean, you surely wouldn't use AV infantry as a hard counter to AI infantry. AV infantry should be a hard counter to AV vehicles with slightly less effectiveness against AI tanks. Then any effectiveness against AI infantry will come down to personal skill with their secondary weapon and/or forge gun.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
Harpyja
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1698
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 22:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Shinobi MumyoSakanagare ZaShigurui wrote:Harpyja wrote:
I think that instead of trying to make blasters weaker against infantry (because that's just too hard to do), just emphasize them as an AI turret and bring their AV capabilities as low as possible. This proper trade-off will make them focused on AI but at the same time highly susceptible to other vehicles.
When you begin to do things like this then you have to do the same for all large turrets because the same can be said about Missiles and Rail Guns . There equally effective with the missiles being lesser but given their splash radius , they are still effective and then you begin to throw everything off again . Your falling into the same trap over and over .
Well the point is and should be that if you want infantry killing power, you should go with the blaster turret but you should understand that you should expect to lose if an AV tank rolls around the corner.
If you don't want to lose to another vehicle, then you should go with missiles/railguns, but also understanding that you are forced to retreat under (infantry) AV fire, or risk losing your vehicle as you attempt to shoot back at the AV.
"By His light, and His will"
- The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
|
|
|
| |
|