| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
THUNDERGROOVE
Fatal Absolution
971
   |
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:07:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.
God no. Have you ever been in a dropship while getting shot at by three missile turrets that are 100 meters into their spawn while you're across the map?
The Amarr scout bonus is like the old Amarr sentinel bonus. No one needed 25% reduction to overheat damage on a heavy;_;
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
551
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:12:00 -
[62] - Quote
Temias Mercurial wrote:Rynoceros wrote:I've been saying this for a year.
(This is the first time I haven't seen Spkr's pitiful attempts at logic included.)
With the absolute Range now nerfed on Railgun and Missile Installations, why the hell not?
More drops in OMS (at least 100%). Please.
Installations are 3 shots from my FG and yield 100 WP. A Supply Depot takes my entire ammo cache, yet only yields 50 WP. CRU Destruction should be 100 WP (minimally) because of its high HP and importance on the field.
I think the reason that Supply Depots and CRUs have lower wp rewards is to discourage their destruction... just a thought.
They take so much damn effort to kill that by the time you're done, the game's over! 
Unless you've got a lot of coordinated AV, then it'll go down about as fast as an arthritic...you know...boules player...
Seriously though, CRUs/Depots are so tough that destroying them is a conscious design now, especially since vehicles need ammo, so Tanks no longer just blow them up out of hand. Though that is yet another reason why I want the redline pushed back: so that burnzone Depots/CRUs become more valuable. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
1091
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:21:00 -
[63] - Quote
Jerricho Lionheart wrote:
.
.
OP POST
.
.
Agreed.
Nowadays installations are trivial objects for every tanker.
Pre 1.7 junior tankers had trouble vs installations as they really had to up some skill of those damage/rof/advanced turrets plus tanking skills of their own.
About year ago fresh tanker just didn't have the dps-survivability to kill installations in one go - without skills it took as much as three-four runs. Skilling up any important skills quickly reduced that.
Nowadays damage/survibalility models are quite close to each other across all tanker levels so not even juniors are not a factor in buffing installation EHP.
:-S
|
TIMMY DAVIS
Krusual Covert Operators
Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:43:00 -
[64] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr mentioned that there was a simliar type thread, so here is what I wrote in my original idea.
"Just a simple idea. When a tank or drop ship destroys an installation, that installation gets respawned, unaligned, in the same spot 2-3 minutes later or at certain clones left.
It's akin to the tank/drop ship getting to run off and hide until it's shields and armor get repaired.
Seriously CCP how many vehicles are destroyed by fixed installations? or infantry?
Thanks for reading this."
--
There was one reply which mentioned something which is not nuts.
"Hell no. There's a reason why we kill them. Want more? Ask for CCP to put them in to buy, and do it yourself."
--
I wouldn't be opposed to players being able to buy installations. This would let CCP make new ones, both bigger and smaller. CRU's are really expensive, Large Blaster installations are expensive, Supply Depots less expensive, etc.
This would let them make anti-infantry ones, anti-dropship (swarmers), etc. Different shields and armor levels, maybe add ons. Anti-Cloak Device, that's really expensive (works against both sides, no cloaks friend or foe)?
--
Because right now, the first thing vehicles do is destroy all of the guns. "Right now, the only thing they are good for are Pilots and AVers to farm early warpoints at the beginning of a battle"
Respawn them or let folks buy them. |
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
551
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:46:00 -
[65] - Quote
Temias Mercurial wrote:If installations are buffed, they should have to reload like a normal turret, have the same number of shots per mag/clip every reload as a normal turret, and can retain infinite ammo capacity.
Hmm... I wonder if installations could act as ammo caches, but only when the turret type matches the ones in use of the vehicle.
This would increase their significance substantially... it would make you think twice before destroying them.
Good point. I think this was raised before 1.7, but nothing ever came of it, because CCP Messia- I mean Rattati hadn't come along. The first part I definitely agree with and I mostly do for the second: but what about Projectie and Laser weapons? There are no Installations that use that damage profile - use the nearest? So Laser at Blaster, Projectile at Rail? |
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
551
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:49:00 -
[66] - Quote
TIMMY DAVIS wrote:I wouldn't be opposed to players being able to buy installations. This would let CCP make new ones, both bigger and smaller. CRU's are really expensive, Large Blaster installations are expensive, Supply Depots less expensive, etc.
The only issue with the purchasing idea is that it would require client side updates, I believe. If that's the case then it is not likely to happen soon. Rattati has said that client side updates are not off the table, but things that can be patched up and sent out quickly are their priority - hence the simple, mostly number-crunching Hotfixes (even though they have been done well!)
I'd love to see what you suggest getting implemented though. |
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
2767
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 20:56:00 -
[67] - Quote
Big +1 for dramatic installation EHP buff. Tanks should not get a few hundred free war points at the start of the match. Make 'em work for it.
I'd like to be your CPM1 candidate
|
Vulpes Dolosus
Molon Labe.
General Tso's Alliance
1660
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 21:05:00 -
[68] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.
No. Remove them completely. There should be no free assets, especially ones that can snipe from the redline with perfect accuracy and infinite range. *Cough*Missiles*Cough*
|
Brush Master
HavoK Core
RISE of LEGION
1268
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 21:08:00 -
[69] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:As an ADS pilot I would like to see something like this. My only concern is the redline turrets: quite often I/others in profession are driven to do runs into the redline to kill people on missile turrets (spamming the air with infinite range) or railguns nestled just far enough inside to be a major nuisance.
I'm all for turret relevance, but I just need to point Rattati at the redline, because it can be an issue. Don't think turrets have infinite range, will double check and make sure the turrets aren't over powered as a result. I also see a second benefit of strong redline turrets, to make escaping a vehicle spawn camp at the redline.
Large Missile installations, missile projectile has a range of 2,000m which is longer than the longest map. When just the AI missile turret locks on you, they will stay locked on you the entire game and spam missiles half way across a map and not stop. So not infinite range but no difference.
Dust Veteran. June 2012 - ?
True Logi. Flying DS from the start.
@dustreports
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
913
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 21:11:00 -
[70] - Quote
Regis Blackbird wrote:What about a EHP buff along with the removal of auto-targeting AI?
Not sure if it is a good idea or not, but it would reduce the hack and run mentality, and perhaps get more people spending points in turret operations?
My advice. Now I don't have tp type it.
Because, that's why.
|
|
|
Gavr1Io Pr1nc1p
674
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 21:25:00 -
[71] - Quote
Id love this if the turrets didn't shoot on their own unless attacked with a large amount of damage.
Right now, good players don't even USE turrets, as they are so useless. I think a buff to them would make them a lot cooler, and would help shake up the battlefield.
But, they can't shoot unless someone is using them, and missiles need a range reduction
"Goddamn it! I have to take out my plasma cannon to kill him cause I can't kill him with my flay lock!"
-Buzz Kill
|
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
Proficiency V.
99
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 21:45:00 -
[72] - Quote
Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Temias Mercurial wrote:If installations are buffed, they should have to reload like a normal turret, have the same number of shots per mag/clip every reload as a normal turret, and can retain infinite ammo capacity.
Hmm... I wonder if installations could act as ammo caches, but only when the turret type matches the ones in use of the vehicle.
This would increase their significance substantially... it would make you think twice before destroying them. Good point. I think this was raised before 1.7, but nothing ever came of it, because CCP Messia- I mean Rattati hadn't come along. The first part I definitely agree with and I mostly do for the second: but what about Projectie and Laser weapons? There are no Installations that use that damage profile - use the nearest? So Laser at Blaster, Projectile at Rail?
As we don't have either Laser or Projectile Turrets yet, if ever, I'd assume they would be implemented as both vehicle turrets and installations. The way it would work would be the following:
Missile Installation: provides ammo for missile turrets
Blaster Installation: provides ammo for Blaster turrets
Rail Installation: provides ammo for Rail turrets
Projectile Installation: provides ammo for Projectile turrets
Laser Installation: provides ammo for Laser turrets
If the two turret types do not match, then ammo is simply not provided. This would not replace supply depots, but instead make individual installations quite valuable, especially if a supply depot is far away or destroyed, but these installations would not repair armour as supply depots would.
|
Temias Mercurial
Knights Of Ender
Proficiency V.
99
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 21:50:00 -
[73] - Quote
Brush Master wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:As an ADS pilot I would like to see something like this. My only concern is the redline turrets: quite often I/others in profession are driven to do runs into the redline to kill people on missile turrets (spamming the air with infinite range) or railguns nestled just far enough inside to be a major nuisance.
I'm all for turret relevance, but I just need to point Rattati at the redline, because it can be an issue. Don't think turrets have infinite range, will double check and make sure the turrets aren't over powered as a result. I also see a second benefit of strong redline turrets, to make escaping a vehicle spawn camp at the redline. Large Missile installations, missile projectile has a range of 2,000m which is longer than the longest map. When just the AI missile turret locks on you, they will stay locked on you the entire game and spam missiles half way across a map and not stop. So not infinite range but no difference.
I believe the term everyone is looking for is 'practically infinite' range, meaning it has no bounds within the map, and has the ability to shoot from one side to the other. This term has been used to describe Minecraft worlds, as they are ridiculously large, and are 'practically infinite', as you can travel for hours in a single direction and still not reach the end of the world. |
Everything Dies
EnvyUs.
786
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
LT SHANKS wrote:Wow.. this is an idea I actually like. I hate to admit it, but I'm one of those players who destroys installations early on for WP. They're free points, but they could be much more.
Buff their HP and position them in more strategic places on the map. There are too many installations that seem to function as nothing more than decoration.
One of the big problems is that many turrets seem to be facing the OPPOSITE way of where the action will take place, resulting in them serving absolutely zero purpose other than WP farming.
Mike Patton is the greatest singer in music. Proof:
Listen
|
Slim Winning
Resheph Interstellar Strategy
Gallente Federation
129
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:29:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them.
We shoot them for 2 reasons.
1. Easy WP... 100 WP for a turret that's just sitting there is a taaaaaaad much.
2. THEY ARE DANGEROUS! Mainly the Railgun. even with a spool up time, it doesn't miss. And anything it kills is lost. Take off the AI, or dumb it down considerably, and Im all for buffing the HP of a turret. They should be a strategic part of a battle field at least in PC and maybe FW.
This is a P2P F2P FPS. Worrying about turrets that are controlled by AI does not belong in a P2P shooter, that's a PVE element. |
Mortedeamor
NoGameNoLife
1679
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:37:00 -
[76] - Quote
Temias Mercurial wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:CCP Rattati wrote:I have thought the same, interesting to hear other peoples thoughts. Would make tanks less "run around and two-shot all the installations first" and actually have to worry a little about them. you know i never though there was a functional brain inside ccp until i saw you. yes i think this is a great idea..one i have been for for a long time. although i would also like to note that rail gun installations have more range than rail tanks also they're ai is incredibly strong if your going to buff the ehp to make it take some serious time to kill them you should make they're offensive abilities more similar to the tanks. i think blaster installation ai could be buffed they are pretty weak..i would like to see infantry not running right at the red blaster installation without it even trying to kill em If installations are buffed, they should have to reload like a normal turret, have the same number of shots per mag/clip every reload as a normal turret, and can retain infinite ammo capacity. Hmm... I wonder if installations could act as ammo caches, but only when the turret type matches the ones in use of the vehicle. This would increase their significance substantially... it would make you think twice before destroying them.
i like the ammo cache idea that wold be great |
Thurak1
Psygod9
796
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:47:00 -
[77] - Quote
Sylwester Dziewiecki wrote:Jerricho Lionheart wrote:Hello there, while I may have no credibility as a game designer or expert player*, I was thinking of an interesting change to the battlefield that would make the game more intense and dynamic without the need to change much.
Seeing that there is NEVER going to be deploy-able installations, that a dramatic buff to the hit points of weapon installations would make a lot of sense. Right now, the only thing they are good for are Pilots and AVers to farm early warpoints at the beginning of a battle. They make seemingly no difference in battle and aren't really a threat to anybody with mild common sense. But, if they were buffed to a reasonable level (I'd say to about the EHP of supply depot) that people would take them far more seriously.
Imagine if pilots had to start strategically maneuvering around not only other tanks and forge gunners, but also powerful installations. Their teammates would now need to start carefully infiltrating the area and hack the installation for their team pilots to safely access the region. This would give scouts more EWAR focused missions to have (minmatar), add additional ways to setup fortified strongholds, and give some of the newer players and those without proper AV an actual chance to stand toe to toe with skilled pilots.
I haven't spent extensive time as pilot, so if any of you think this would be unreasonable, please speak up. Some of the current installation placements may make this idea problematic but I think so much could be added to the current meta with this change, and in a positive way. Thanks for your time and I'd like to know what you all have to say on the matter.
Problem of installations always consist in how quickly they can switch side and became extremely dangerous. Yes, they are dangerous that's why everyone is destroying them at the beginning of match. It has nothing to do with they EHP, they are silent-killers - if you will let blueberry to hack them, he will not defend them from enemy hack, when they are red and you retreat next to them with 25-35%HP left you are dead.
I agree with this one. Sure the wp are nice but it takes as much as 10 seconds and as little as what 5? to hack these so they can flip flop a LOT and be a real problem for tanks. There really aren't enough players on a map in most cases to have players guarding the turrets so as a part time tanker i normally destroy every turret i see so that it doesn't get flipped and blow up my tank.
I would be perfectly happy if they were just pulled off the maps in all honesty. Better though would be if they were in more strategic positions such as clustering the CRU Supply depot and say 2 turrets so there would be a good reason to defend the area.
|
Louis Domi
Pradox One
Proficiency V.
405
|
Posted - 2014.06.28 22:51:00 -
[78] - Quote
Jerricho Lionheart wrote:Hello there, while I may have no credibility as a game designer or expert player*, I was thinking of an interesting change to the battlefield that would make the game more intense and dynamic without the need to change much.
Seeing that there is never going to be deploy-able installations, that a dramatic buff to the hit points of weapon installations would make a lot of sense. Right now, the only thing they are good for are Pilots and AVers to farm early warpoints at the beginning of a battle. They make seemingly no difference in battle and aren't really a threat to anybody with mild common sense. But, if they were buffed to a reasonable level (I'd say to about the EHP of supply depot) that people would take them far more seriously.
Imagine if pilots had to start strategically maneuvering around not only other tanks and forge gunners, but also powerful installations. Their teammates would now need to start carefully infiltrating the area and hack the installation for their team pilots to safely access the region. This would give scouts more EWAR focused missions to have (minmatar), add additional ways to setup fortified strongholds, and give some of the newer players and those without proper AV an actual chance to stand toe to toe with skilled pilots.
I haven't spent extensive time as pilot, so if any of you think this would be unreasonable, please speak up. Some of the current installation placements may make this idea problematic but I think so much could be added to the current meta with this change, and in a positive way. Thanks for your time and I'd like to know what you all have to say on the matter.
Excuse me sir, but have you ever been shot right out of an Lav by a Large blaster installation? Other than those instances I can see why a installation buff should happen, but those things can really clutch and get me whenever I'm in a Lav... They never hit me on foot, they don't pay attention to other tanks or stuff, but wow they screw me in a Lav |
Mortedeamor
NoGameNoLife
1683
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 00:04:00 -
[79] - Quote
Louis Domi wrote:Jerricho Lionheart wrote:Hello there, while I may have no credibility as a game designer or expert player*, I was thinking of an interesting change to the battlefield that would make the game more intense and dynamic without the need to change much.
Seeing that there is never going to be deploy-able installations, that a dramatic buff to the hit points of weapon installations would make a lot of sense. Right now, the only thing they are good for are Pilots and AVers to farm early warpoints at the beginning of a battle. They make seemingly no difference in battle and aren't really a threat to anybody with mild common sense. But, if they were buffed to a reasonable level (I'd say to about the EHP of supply depot) that people would take them far more seriously.
Imagine if pilots had to start strategically maneuvering around not only other tanks and forge gunners, but also powerful installations. Their teammates would now need to start carefully infiltrating the area and hack the installation for their team pilots to safely access the region. This would give scouts more EWAR focused missions to have (minmatar), add additional ways to setup fortified strongholds, and give some of the newer players and those without proper AV an actual chance to stand toe to toe with skilled pilots.
I haven't spent extensive time as pilot, so if any of you think this would be unreasonable, please speak up. Some of the current installation placements may make this idea problematic but I think so much could be added to the current meta with this change, and in a positive way. Thanks for your time and I'd like to know what you all have to say on the matter. Excuse me sir, but have you ever been shot right out of an Lav by a Large blaster installation? Other than those instances I can see why a installation buff should happen, but those things can really clutch and get me whenever I'm in a Lav... They never hit me on foot, they don't pay attention to other tanks or stuff, but wow they screw me in a Lav
i have never been shot out of a lav by a large blaster were u parked in front of it? |
Hakyou Brutor
G0DS AM0NG MEN
790
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 00:29:00 -
[80] - Quote
Yeah okay, lets make laser point accurate turrets that shoot at you from 300 meters away and take 20% of your health with every shot, see how you like it.
Edit: btw, make it so it doesnt render either
"I never pull out" ~Ace Boone, 2014.
|
|
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
560
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 00:36:00 -
[81] - Quote
Thurak1 wrote:I agree with this one. Sure the wp are nice but it takes as much as 10 seconds and as little as what 5? to hack these so they can flip flop a LOT and be a real problem for tanks. There really aren't enough players on a map in most cases to have players guarding the turrets so as a part time tanker i normally destroy every turret i see so that it doesn't get flipped and blow up my tank.
I would be perfectly happy if they were just pulled off the maps in all honesty. Better though would be if they were in more strategic positions such as clustering the CRU Supply depot and say 2 turrets so there would be a good reason to defend the area.
Good point,. I think a redistribution of turrets would be a good thing. As you say, if they were in more strategically valuable locations, they would be both more easy and more useful to defend. |
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
2186
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 00:51:00 -
[82] - Quote
I like this. It would help to make some of the LAV heavy so and so's work a little harder to get their cheap kills, and make turrets more strategically significant.
This is how a minja feels
|
Mortedeamor
NoGameNoLife
1692
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 00:56:00 -
[83] - Quote
i also like to note that if your going to buff the hell out of installation ehp your should give wp rewards for dmg just like with vehicles |
Jerricho Lionheart
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
32
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:09:00 -
[84] - Quote
Mortedeamor wrote:i also like to note that if your going to buff the hell out of installation ehp your should give wp rewards for dmg just like with vehicles
I thought about that when first proposing the idea, but even I know that system would be abused to hell and back if that were the case, especially if neutral installations still gave WPs. A straight up increase to WPs for total destruction would be much more preferable (but only if the HP is dramatically increased, to avoid heavier farming).
Maybe if the AI were reduced back to the way they were early Uprising and missile range wasn't infinite (for all intents and purposes) then a perfect balance would be struck. But I truly think that need to be closer to Supply Depot levels of ehp to actually make a difference here. Other wise it will only be a minor inconvenience than a game changer (like supply depots and CRUs can often be) |
DERP33
Glitched Connection
9
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:11:00 -
[85] - Quote
CCP Rattati wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:As an ADS pilot I would like to see something like this. My only concern is the redline turrets: quite often I/others in profession are driven to do runs into the redline to kill people on missile turrets (spamming the air with infinite range) or railguns nestled just far enough inside to be a major nuisance.
I'm all for turret relevance, but I just need to point Rattati at the redline, because it can be an issue. Don't think turrets have infinite range, will double check and make sure the turrets aren't over powered as a result. I also see a second benefit of strong redline turrets, to make escaping a vehicle spawn camp at the redline.
well i am also an ads pilot and i can also say that the missile turrets can just spam the air with infinite range, buffing their ehp would make them near impossible to avoid in a dropship
|
One Eyed King
Land of the BIind
2189
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:13:00 -
[86] - Quote
Jerricho Lionheart wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:i also like to note that if your going to buff the hell out of installation ehp your should give wp rewards for dmg just like with vehicles I thought about that when first proposing the idea, but even I know that system would be abused to hell and back if that were the case, especially if neutral installations still gave WPs. A straight up increase to WPs for total destruction would be much more preferable (but only if the HP is dramatically increased, to avoid heavier farming). Maybe if the AI were reduced back to the way they were early Uprising and missile range wasn't infinite (for all intents and purposes) then a perfect balance would be struck. But I truly think that need to be closer to Supply Depot levels of ehp to actually make a difference here. Other wise it will only be a minor inconvenience than a game changer (like supply depots and CRUs can often be)
And they could add assist points for multiple tanks taking out an installation. I think that would be the best way to prevent farming turrets.
This is how a minja feels
|
TEBOW BAGGINS
Defenders of the Helghast Dream
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
1069
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:36:00 -
[87] - Quote
no ones ever been that hyped on the automated turret installation .. buffing them is not the way to go.. ok so we're supposed to have this "epic" pitched battles vs each installation because 1-4 players have dedicated themselves to removing these current abominations? so the devs stand behind the buff, ok well remove the stupid AI from the unmanned turret and then if you want some epic showdown of 2 squads vs 1 installation then remove the AI, and let us fight an actual player manning the turret. currently all your installations are are a shadow of a vision that was never deliver- they are an abomination on your virtual battlefield. dont let forum warriors say they are something to be exalted- the turret installations suck already.
AKA Zirzo Valcyn
|
Thurak1
Psygod9
798
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:51:00 -
[88] - Quote
Jerricho Lionheart wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:i also like to note that if your going to buff the hell out of installation ehp your should give wp rewards for dmg just like with vehicles I thought about that when first proposing the idea, but even I know that system would be abused to hell and back if that were the case, especially if neutral installations still gave WPs. A straight up increase to WPs for total destruction would be much more preferable (but only if the HP is dramatically increased, to avoid heavier farming). Maybe if the AI were reduced back to the way they were early Uprising and missile range wasn't infinite (for all intents and purposes) then a perfect balance would be struck. But I truly think that need to be closer to Supply Depot levels of ehp to actually make a difference here. Other wise it will only be a minor inconvenience than a game changer (like supply depots and CRUs can often be)
Yep I guarantee i myself would abuse this mechanic greatly if it was the case. I would just sit either out of range or behind cover and blast the installation get some WP have a logi near me to feed me reps and ammo and i would probably get orbitals with very little effort.
I see your point in all honestly but it would be abused to no end. . Perhaps once destroyed a scaled wp bonus based on recent damage would be good. |
Lynn Beck
EnvyUs.
1963
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:52:00 -
[89] - Quote
Can we make the turrets not super-track infantry?
Fighting a Railgun as a Swarmer, it's either kill it in one go or it WILL track me through multiple lives.
As it stands, i need to:
Ensure PERFECT LoS
Ensure full clip of swarms
Ensure nobody will try and stop me midvolley
Ensure the turret isn't already targeting me.
Even popshotting from behind cover- these things have 250000% accuracy, and will sometimes shoot you through the slats in stairs, the underside of the railings, through a friendly LAV, sometimes(rarely) managing to shoot you before you can even leave from cover.
I'm all for buffing them, but make them at least slightly less mastermind level, and make them have a straight % 'hitrate' or not track ahead of the players(so a strafing scout doesn't get railgunned)
Please. These things are brutally effective as-is.
General John Ripper
-BAM! I'm Emeril Lagasse.
This message was approved by the 'Nobody Loved You' Foundation
|
Jerricho Lionheart
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
33
|
Posted - 2014.06.29 01:53:00 -
[90] - Quote
@TEBOW BAGGINS
You see, I'm mixed on the idea of complete AI removal.
On the one hand, with it's removal, that constant threat to vehicles that would be born from it would cease and make things less strategic from a pilots point of view. While the infantry wisely avoids open fields and the sound of moving vehicles, the vehicles would wisely avoid blue installations and high towers. That constant tension for every is what I was thinking.
On the other hand the "set it and forget it" nature that this could leave behind would void the infantry's role completely when it comes to installations. That would only make it an interesting challenge (for the most part) for pilots, and I really don't want that either. So it's hard for me to say what the best course of action would be.
But I think a high EHP buff, almost brain-dead AI, a nerf to missile range, and an increase to WP for destroying as well as assist points for damage would be a solid balance to start with. I really, REALLY hope they don't get removed. The last thing this game needs is to become LESS dynamic. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |