Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pvt Numnutz
Watchdoge Explosives
1537
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 21:15:00 -
[31] - Quote
Slim Winning wrote: The high ISK and SP investment an ADS takes should not be the "iWIN" button for this patch. Especially now that 20GJ railguns got buffed (which they didn't need)
*hint* it works both ways *hint* |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11055
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 21:36:00 -
[32] - Quote
I think what you have to realise Atiim is yes vehicle pilots called for buffs....... this iteration of HAV is not what we were expecting and, in hindsight, not what we wanted.
We just wanted tanks to be more durable...... perhaps that could have be achieved by keeping takes as they were and reintroducing marauders.
It is correct to identify those who called for the buffs, yet not fair to blame them for what they could not percieve....I mean no one could have predicted Wolfman's changes, nor the huge imbalances in their wake.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
Thumb Green
The Valyrian Guard
1099
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 22:21:00 -
[33] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I think what you have to realise Atiim is yes vehicle pilots called for buffs....... this iteration of HAV is not what we were expecting and, in hindsight, not what we wanted.
We just wanted tanks to be more durable...... perhaps that could have be achieved by keeping takes as they were and reintroducing marauders.
It is correct to identify those who called for the buffs, yet not fair to blame them for what they could not percieve....I mean no one could have predicted Wolfman's changes, nor the huge imbalances in their wake. There were a lot of people calling for buffs to vehicles while at the same time calling for nerfs to AV; then there were a handful of people that got a lot of likes saying AV shouldn't even be able to kill a tank that it should only be at most a nuisance or that swarm launchers should only be able to kill LAV's & DS's and do no damage at all to HAV's because the SL is a "light" weapon. How them couldn't predict that would cause massive imbalance is beyond me.
Can't say I'm all that surprised.
I've been drinking and may be drunk.... probably like most dust players.
|
Everything Dies
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
778
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 22:50:00 -
[34] - Quote
Thumb Green wrote:There were a lot of people calling for buffs to vehicles while at the same time calling for nerfs to AV;
And that's where CCP made the big mistake. Instead of addressing one situation at a time (either buff vehicles or nerf AV) they did both, which resulted in the major imbalance.
Mike Patton is the greatest singer in music. Proof:
Listen
|
Beld Errmon
1702
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:10:00 -
[35] - Quote
Slim Winning wrote:Beld Errmon wrote:Slim Winning wrote:When everyone talks vehicle balance, its always about tanks.
People forget that their are 3 types of vehicles in this game. ADS are the most dangerous and lethal vehicle in this game, because of their lack of counters. You think getting blaster spammed was bad? Wait until XT-1s rain down on you 24/7 because RGs can't keep them in check.
And even tanks fear ADSes, because of the fact they have 99% of the airspace unchallenged.
Now we are back to where we started before 1.7. The Large Blaster is the do-all tank. You should try flying one before insisting they are unchallenged, railtanks can still down ADS, its just not pisseasy/scrub friendly anymore. Pretty sure an Incubi can sponge the most powerful shots in the game, and a Python has 4 shots to get away. I fly ADSes and I shhot them. Both are not as easy as the other side makes them look. Try walking in both shoes, you one-sideed f*ck. People like you are why BALANCE can't happen. Everyone just wants their turn being FoTM.
I've probably been flying an ADS longer than you've been playing the game, and after playing this game for more than 2 years I've worn just about every set of shoes this game has.
Pilot - Tanker - FOTM (insert here)
|
Gemini Cuspid
109
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:18:00 -
[36] - Quote
Void Echo wrote:Thumb Green wrote:True Adamance wrote:Thumb Green wrote:Takahashi Kashuken wrote:You realize infantry pushed and pushed and pushed for all these changes to vehicles It always amazes me how asinine the things you say can be Taka; seriously what deranged world are you living in? it really was a combination of HAV operators wanting to not be as squishy against pre 1.6 AV (and undeniably they sure as **** were) and AV adamant arguments that their Armour clad counter parts needed drastic alterations of increased durability was given. The result mixed with CCP's changes, made with good intentions, saw the power gap wider in favour of HAV....and the horrific age of Armour we have just experienced. No it really wasn't. There were a few AV'er saying vehicles needed to be tougher but it was overwhelmingly vehicle users that were demanding changes. Infantry sure as hell didn't ask for vehicles to be buffed into demigod mode while at the same time nerfing AV to near uselessness. Infantry didn't ask for the only effective AV against basic vehicles to be proto AV or for the rail turret to be nerfed at all either. Vehicles are how they are now because of vehicle users. That is actually a mostly false statement. The Forum War between Tankers and Infantry that lasted for a year was because Tanks were almost impractical to use in battle other than to **** around with. In Corp battles they weren't even used as a main battle force, they were pulled out to destroy whatever vehicles the enemy brought in. This escalated when Uprising build hit and Tanking was nearly made extinct because of the lack of survivability and usefulness that CCP forced upon us because infantry wanted a Dust 514 to be a futuristic version of Call of Duty. When Uprising hit Tanks lost their survivability and ended up being destroyed so easily that they made scouts look like heavies. You could set up a nanohive behind a wall and wait for the tank to get next to it and just spam 3 AV grenades and that would be it. The Assault forge gun could fire FASTER and with MORE DAMAGE than the most advanced prototype Large Rail Gun Turret, leaving tanks to hid behind the redline. Our survivability had been severely cut down to lower than that of a scout suit going up against a squad of heavies. Redline Railing (one of the most infamous playstyles of Dust 514) was born as a result of Tankers scrambling to find a way to survive and still hit hard with their tanks. Not to mention the severe crippling weight of ISK a single tank would cost, almost 1.5 Million ISK used to be the cost of a standard fitted tank and that wouldn't even stand a chance against a single AVer. When 1.7 hit, I retired as a Tanker because my job was done with that class, I managed along with some support to bring Tanks back from the brink of extinction. So you cant say that I am a tanker scrub because I haven't been a Tanker since 1.7 hit. Tankers were here on the forums trying to get back their survivability, we NEVER, NEVER said or hinted that we wanted Tanking to be a Godlike class (at least not those of us that the community actually listened to seriously). The ONLY thing we ever wanted, our survivability returned to us, we got back a little more than what we had in mind. You can even ask other Real Tankers, we never wanted Tanking to be the easy mode it became when 1.7 hit, nor did we want it to go extinct like it almost was since Uprising came. We wanted to be a viable and reliable class that is survivable from AV that shouldn't be able to kill us with a single shot that people wanted on their team. You see now? Tankers aren't the main cause of what happened when 1.7 hit and the backlash were seeing now, the original problem that caused this all was the old ******** Infantry players that wanted Dust 514 to be a copy of Call of Duty (Some vocal players still want that and they should be ashamed of themselves for doing so).
No it was really the tankers and employing the demigod mode that resulted in where we are now. Take that into the fray of how no other viable means existed without having 1/3 a squad have a combo of railguns, mines and swarms with all hitting at the right time and you're logic is:
"it's all of the infantry players fault for not wanting to play against a nearly invulnerable tank"
and it's precisely that line of logic that created the hotfixes that made them less resistant to the realities of the game. Yes I've gone up against tanks after it's hit my mines along with decloaking to toss my packed grenades and get 2 proto swarms hit only to see it's armor sink to 60% and that's with the tank not running for cover and just casually strolling by and then see it back to full armor while I reload swarms.
This also has less to do with the whole "CoD" players here because it's not really CoD players that dominated Dust514, it was the MAG players firstly and if you didn't even know that fact then you really are clueless about how much of a problem the vehicles were in the game at all and making assumptions about the tanks. On any decent day I can take out a decent or lazy tanker. But it's the ones who had their skills capped that made it nearly impossible and heaven forbid if you got several tanks. I've been in a battle with 5 tanks and that's not anything that most teams can come up against several times and it's very one~sided.
And for the record, it wasn't that tankers were utterly useless even before 1.7, it was the whole concept of not deploying the tank into ridiculously crowded and uncovered situations where they were simply easy targets. The fact that you had to actually think when it was best to even deploy a tank in a corp battle made it the exact opposite of CoD. And initially the infantry got the first nerf when it came to anti~vehicle combat when grenade counts for packed and locus grenades went down. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11057
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:26:00 -
[37] - Quote
You know I'm more inclinded to suggest a lot of this bulls **** is because neither side has been willing to sit down on skype and discuss it in a less biased manner.
And before the AVers start yelling "I'm unbiased and the preacher of balance".....lets be honest....nope...you aren't and neither am I.
I'm more inclined now to take tanks back to those UP days than keep them as they are.....tanks are boring now, way too easy, and not challenging or satisfying enough to skill into.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
Atiim
NoGameNoLife
9774
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:30:00 -
[38] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:You know I'm more inclinded to suggest a lot of this bulls **** is because neither side has been willing to sit down on skype and discuss it in a less biased manner.
And before the AVers start yelling "I'm unbiased and the preacher of balance".....lets be honest....nope...you aren't and neither am I.
I'm more inclined now to take tanks back to those UP days than keep them as they are.....tanks are boring now, way too easy, and not challenging or satisfying enough to skill into. Charlotte O'Dell proposed an idea that we all go on Skype, and a lot of people agreed with the idea. Unfortunately, it never happened. Not sure why though.
I want SLAVs, not SLAVEs.
"Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..."
-HAND
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11058
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:47:00 -
[39] - Quote
Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote:You know I'm more inclinded to suggest a lot of this bulls **** is because neither side has been willing to sit down on skype and discuss it in a less biased manner.
And before the AVers start yelling "I'm unbiased and the preacher of balance".....lets be honest....nope...you aren't and neither am I.
I'm more inclined now to take tanks back to those UP days than keep them as they are.....tanks are boring now, way too easy, and not challenging or satisfying enough to skill into. Charlotte O'Dell proposed an idea that we all go on Skype, and a lot of people agreed with the idea. Unfortunately, it never happened. Not sure why though.
I know I was so looking forwards to that.
For everyone's information I'm not against AV being effective against HAV. I'm all for it, but its a fine line between effective and..... loltankdead.......
I also want tanks to have a specific role on the map, my ideal one being the highest tier AV vehicle available to players, and require skill, ISK, and SP investment to operate efficiently.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
Takahashi Kashuken
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:55:00 -
[40] - Quote
Thumb Green wrote:Takahashi Kashuken wrote:You realize infantry pushed and pushed and pushed for all these changes to vehicles It always amazes me how asinine the things you say can be Taka; seriously what deranged world are you living in?
1.0 - 1.7 - AV was amazingly powerful, 3 lai dai killed any tank easily, godmode swarms, tanks were expenisve but weak but had a few options in mods/hulls and turrets and couldnt see more than 50m in front of them while everyone else was invisible
AV at that time we saying 'its fine get good etc' all we wanted was to be able to see more than 50m so we could see enemy AV, also adv/proto tanks so we could upgrade to be able to survive against proto AV, a reduction to skillless godmode swarms
Post 1.7 CCP changed it all - We lost hulls/modules/slots/turrets/useful skills
All we had was gone, again we had to change and make do with what we had like we have done so many times before
It was good, AV complained so i did the same thing you did to me 'its fine get good' and frankly a tank was powerful machine and it felt like a tank able to shrug off milita AV and stand upto proto when needed but that wasnt okay
We asked for adv/proto hulls but you say 'tiercide' but if its 'tiercide' then it has to stand upto proto anyways even tho proto is not a 3/2 slot layout and is more like a 5/3 so you cant complain if a 'tiercided' hull with proto mods stands upto a proto AV
Eventually it all changed, plates and extenders were made useless from the start, we lost alot of useful mods like passive resistance mods/heat sinks/nanofibre hull mods etc while the skills we nerfed so they didnt give bonuses just unlock to modules which is terrible when infantry get 5% per level for cpu/pg but vehicles dont again infantry think it is fine
Not even pilot suits, infantry again would cry that they shouldnt appear
So hardeners got nerfed into uselessness, so we adapted again, rails got range cut in half so we adapted again, reppers got nerfed, so now the speed got nerfed and the dmg of rails and the refire and the turning speed of the turrets while you no longer can kill with a blaster without missing on your 2nd shot and the same is for small blasters so now vehicles can no longer protect themselves from AV and we are back at square one
Last i checked so far since 1.7 this is what infantry have complained about -Speed -Damage - All turrets/mods -Hardeners -Rail range -Number of vehicles -Vehicles in modes - All modes -Rep rate -Accuracy -Number of pilots it should take to use a vehicle -Price
Prob alot more that i have forgot but out that list of 10 complaints 7 have been nerfed to please infantry
Infantry pushed for these changes and they got them
|
|
Atiim
NoGameNoLife
9775
|
Posted - 2014.06.23 23:56:00 -
[41] - Quote
True Adamance wrote: I know I was so looking forwards to that.
For everyone's information I'm not against AV being effective against HAV. I'm all for it, but its a fine line between effective and..... loltankdead.......
I also want tanks to have a specific role on the map, my ideal one being the highest tier AV vehicle available to players, and require skill, ISK, and SP investment to operate efficiently.
I was looking towards it too. It may have finally put the V/AV argument to rest too.
Well besides the Skill-Staking ADSs, HAVs already are the highest tier AV vehicle available. Now all they need is the whole skill, ISK, and SP investment. But how does one go about making that a reality while keeping things balanced at both the low and high-end tiers.
I want SLAVs, not SLAVEs.
"Many things in life are subjective, morality is one of them..."
-HAND
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
11061
|
Posted - 2014.06.24 00:04:00 -
[42] - Quote
Atiim wrote:True Adamance wrote: I know I was so looking forwards to that.
For everyone's information I'm not against AV being effective against HAV. I'm all for it, but its a fine line between effective and..... loltankdead.......
I also want tanks to have a specific role on the map, my ideal one being the highest tier AV vehicle available to players, and require skill, ISK, and SP investment to operate efficiently.
I was looking towards it too. It may have finally put the V/AV argument to rest too. Well besides the Skill-Staking ADSs, HAVs already are the highest tier AV vehicle available. Now all they need is the whole skill, ISK, and SP investment. But how does one go about making that a reality while keeping things balanced at both the low and high-end tiers.
Or to have their current efficiecy broken down and allocated amongst the current skills rather than have emphasis on the hulls.
I certainly hope STD tanks are not all I have to look forwards to in Legion.
" Those men died loving duty more than they feared death..... they died well."
-Templar Ouryon after Iesa III
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |