|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
370
   |
Posted - 2014.06.20 17:26:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Tanks can't be everywhere at the same time, now they have to deploy more tactically and help cap points. They can still redline camp and pad their KDR, but Infantry can safely deploy far from them and effectively ignore them while having a good time.
I would generally say that this trend is positive for the game.
I don't mean to be rude, but this is no way an actual solution to an actual problem. The fact that you guys keep taking tanks out of game modes, as well as stating above that infantry now has the option to "effectively ignore them", clearly demonstrates that you understand their glaring balance issues. But of course simply removing them from certain game modes doesn't solve any of these issues, it just moves them. A band-aid solution in the purest sense, I would say.
So, when you say "I would generally say that this trend is positive for the game.", I'm sorry, but the only way I can read it is,
"I would generally say that not actually solving problems is a positive for the game."
Which is of course false.
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
370
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 02:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Difference is, tanks don't necessarily win the battle for you in skirmish and domination.
I've had several instances where the team with a ton of HAVs lost because they didn't have a strong infantry presence to hack.
That's a fair point. Of course, it's still not really a solution to the problem. And regardless, a match where half of one team is sitting in tanks and doing nothing to actually help win is going to be less engaging for both sides.
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
Summ Dude
Direct Action Resources
370
|
Posted - 2014.06.21 22:42:00 -
[3] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Summ Dude wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Difference is, tanks don't necessarily win the battle for you in skirmish and domination.
I've had several instances where the team with a ton of HAVs lost because they didn't have a strong infantry presence to hack. That's a fair point. Of course, it's still not really a solution to the problem. And regardless, a match where half of one team is sitting in tanks and doing nothing to actually help win is going to be less engaging for both sides. This isn't call of duty, a little bit of rope-a-dope doesn't hurt.
I'm sorry, rope-a-dope?
I don't play CoD, for the record.
Not just a laymen, but the laymen.
Winn Summ and lose Summ.
|
|
|
| |
|