| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tolen Rosas
Kang Lo Directorate
Gallente Federation
415
   |
Posted - 2014.06.02 18:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
Right now the PLC is more a joke than a weapon. RAISE THE DAMAGE. lost the firing arc and the slow travel time and give it the same point-shoot and auto damage that other weapons get. leave the reload time.
give it a secondary firing mode where it can lock on to vehicle targets that have been lit by the active scanner. allow the round to home in on targets like these. this will make it a better weapon but limit it becuz it requires teamwork.
Prox Explosives - switch the damage on remotes and mines. Mines are the anti-vehicle weapons and should be the ones doing the most damage. lose the alarm vehicles get when close to mines. |
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2509
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 18:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
lolno
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
God Hates Lags
The Last of DusT.
General Tso's Alliance
1219
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 19:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tolen Rosas wrote:Right now the PLC is more a joke than a weapon. RAISE THE DAMAGE. lost the firing arc and the slow travel time and give it the same point-shoot and auto damage that other weapons get. leave the reload time.
give it a secondary firing mode where it can lock on to vehicle targets that have been lit by the active scanner. allow the round to home in on targets like these. this will make it a better weapon but limit it becuz it requires teamwork.
Prox Explosives - switch the damage on remotes and mines. Mines are the anti-vehicle weapons and should be the ones doing the most damage. lose the alarm vehicles get when close to mines.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
"Look what I destroyed in two days"
Wolfica stole my signature
|
ZDub 303
Escrow Removal and Acquisition
3006
|
Posted - 2014.06.02 19:26:00 -
[4] - Quote
They just need to nerf the large blaster a bit and then AV is pretty close to where it should be imo.
If you nerf the large blaster against infantry then there is no reason infantry should be doing significant damage against a tank. |
Prius Vecht
Red and Silver Hand
Amarr Empire
390
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 07:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
100% agree. Secondary firing mode would make it better in a balanced way and the silly firing arc overly cripples its effectiveness, the reload time basically guarantees it can never be a true infantry weapon via dumb-fire. |
Korvin Lomont
United Pwnage Service
RISE of LEGION
965
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 08:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tolen Rosas wrote:Right now the PLC is more a joke than a weapon. RAISE THE DAMAGE. lost the firing arc and the slow travel time and give it the same point-shoot and auto damage that other weapons get. leave the reload time.
Here I have to agree the damage is laughable and the firing ARC is just stupid especially on a AV weapon...
Tolen Rosas wrote:
give it a secondary firing mode where it can lock on to vehicle targets that have been lit by the active scanner. allow the round to home in on targets like these. this will make it a better weapon but limit it becuz it requires teamwork.
No pls no lock on that's what swarms are for. I am not against a secondary firing but no lock on.
Tolen Rosas wrote:
Prox Explosives - switch the damage on remotes and mines. Mines are the anti-vehicle weapons and should be the ones doing the most damage. lose the alarm vehicles get when close to mines.
I agree Proxies need some desperate love but with highly tanked heavies you cant really nerf RE's |
Prius Vecht
Red and Silver Hand
Amarr Empire
391
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 16:15:00 -
[7] - Quote
I actually like the lock-on as long as its only for vehicles that have been "painted" with the active scanner.
It automatically makes both assets more useful if used together. |
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2511
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 18:36:00 -
[8] - Quote
ZDub 303 wrote:They just need to adjust the large blaster a bit and then AV is pretty close to where it should be imo.
If you adjust the large blaster against infantry then there is no reason infantry should be doing significant damage against a tank.
fixed.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
shadows of 514
2511
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 18:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
Prius Vecht wrote:I actually like the lock-on as long as its only for vehicles that have been "painted" with the active scanner.
It automatically makes both assets more useful if used together.
1: It's supposed to be a skill shot weapon.
2: It's a ball of ******* super heated plasma.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Hawk-eye Occultus
ARKOMBlNE
222
|
Posted - 2014.06.03 23:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
Keep the arc, but make the projectile go faster, you can literally run away from the projectile in a similar fashion to that scene from Prometheus.
Shofixti beats an Ur-Quan Dreadnought and a Kor-Ah Marauder.
|
|
|
Arkena Wyrnspire
Fatal Absolution
13977
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 11:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
The arc should always be a thing for the PLC.
The slow moving part is a little bit stupid though.
Lock on, though? No.
You have long since made your choice. What you make now is a mistake.
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Legio DXIV
3359
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 11:18:00 -
[12] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:ZDub 303 wrote:They just need to adjust the large blaster a bit and then AV is pretty close to where it should be imo.
If you adjust the large blaster against infantry then there is no reason infantry should be doing significant damage against a tank. fixed.
ZDub's was better.
Nerfing its AI performance seems like the way to go.
OP, proxes are in my experience good for killing LAVs.
It should stay that way.
A HAV is a significant investment. If you want to kill one, do it actively. Fire and forget invisible instagib mines are bullsh*t, and if you pretended to be objective you'd realise that.
It's not like RE's are /hard/ to kill tanks with, anyway. They're just poor as a solo method; actually, anything but a proto forge will find it incredibly difficult to solo a tank, except, ironically, massive stacks of proxes.
BlowoutForCPM
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |