|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1243
   |
Posted - 2014.06.30 00:22:00 -
[1] - Quote
I drive vehicles, a lot.
The vehicular anti-infantry should be relegated to Small Guns mounted on the tank, not the main turret.
There are still plenty of reasons to bat phone in rails. an infantry team being 'suppressed' by a Blaster Tank can't effectively move from one objective to another, so needs the tank removed. It would be the same if the blaster tank could hit and kill them, they'd find another way, or call in a Rail / Missile Tank to deal with the pesky Blaster Tank.
You want Tanks to multi-function? Run multiple people. Then, with 2 people in the HAV, you WILL wreck the opposing team... with 3, you'll do it even more if you set up and run the HAV right. If you want a single driver / commander to fulfil multiple roles, then expect those multiple roles to be reduced in effectiveness so that you don't get OP again.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1243
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:I drive vehicles, a lot.
The vehicular anti-infantry should be relegated to Small Guns mounted on the tank, not the main turret.
There are still plenty of reasons to bat phone in rails. an infantry team being 'suppressed' by a Blaster Tank can't effectively move from one objective to another, so needs the tank removed. It would be the same if the blaster tank could hit and kill them, they'd find another way, or call in a Rail / Missile Tank to deal with the pesky Blaster Tank.
You want Tanks to multi-function? Run multiple people. Then, with 2 people in the HAV, you WILL wreck the opposing team... with 3, you'll do it even more if you set up and run the HAV right. If you want a single driver / commander to fulfil multiple roles, then expect those multiple roles to be reduced in effectiveness so that you don't get OP again. Ahem, well im not talking about in pubs farming noobs in militia at 30m. Im talking about PC and competitive scenarios. I have yet to see you on a competitive level so please refrain your irrelevant comments. 1 ADS can effectively destroy a tank. 1 cloaked scout using proto packed AV nades and proto swarms can challenge a tank. The massive SP and ISK gap is obvious. Your telling me i need more people in a tank to deal with 1 150k ISK scout who has AV? While i spend 32 million SP and 520k per war machine. Oh not to mention how much teamwork and coordination it takes to get a blaster tank out. Have to push enemy rails back, secure high ground from forge gunners, set up anti aircraft net and then voila! You have 1 blaster tank that gets sh!t on by 1 Scout. Dude suppression is stupid. I need the ability to kill. Get your nose out of dom for a change.
I played PC from Uprising 1.0 until now. Because YOU haven't seen me, doesn't mean I'm not in PC.
That being aside... in PC, you're using a Tank to mow down infantry solo, you SHOULD be able to be killed solo by the very targets you are mowing down. If you are required to have 2 people in your tank to simultaneously deal with both Vehicles and Infantry, then the power of the HAV can be increased exponentially so that 1 AV cannot be as effective against you.
Oh, and that guy in your turret, he's also fitted for battle, so you know, he can jump out, kill some guys, hack a turret, and get back in. You're talking as if he is completely confined within that zone, when he's not. Only the Commander is constrained to that extent to prevent enemies taking the HAV, or a team mate jumping into the wrong seat.
In effect you are using your HAV to multiply his effectiveness too. He can move faster, do more damage without wasting his own weapon's clip, and be protected inside your hull. All for giving up some manoeuvrability. With the option to get out, shoot people in the face as required.
Concerned about that pesky Dropship also? Hey, a Small Rail Turret on top actually deals with them very well. So a three-man HAV can have the ability to Take out other Tanks, Suppress Infantry, Kill infantry, and take out Aerial Targets in one package. And possibly require the use of multiple AV to eliminate the threat due to it's requirement of having 3 people inside.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1244
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 01:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets...
the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away.
What I'm advocating, in fact, is that a HAV can be made stronger if it was required to have more people to fulfil multiple roles, rather than being a 'better slayer' than an infantry guy with little to no drawbacks.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1244
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 02:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets... the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away. Current small turrets are too ineffective VS competent infantry. Buff the small turrets to make them more effective on a tank hull vs infantry, but that could create a imbalance when they are fitted to the ADS. Right now its impossible to justify the extra seat, ISK cost, SP cost, fitting cost and man power cost for a almost useless small turret.
Small Railguns currently do enough damage to hurt vehicles.
STD Railgun is 334 Damage per shot. Firing a shot every .7 s, for a DPS of 477.14 (rounded). For 9-10 shot until overheat.
9 shots is 3006 Damage in 13 (rounded) seconds.
10 Shots is 3340 Damage in 14 (rounded) seconds.
Compared to the STD Forge gun (No Damage Mods).
1200 Damage per shot, with a charge Time of 4 seconds, for 300 DPS. With a max shot count of 4 in the clip.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1246
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 03:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:
are you pushing for a serious buff to small turrets? because that would make ADS OP.
Not sure where I mentioned serious buff to Small Turrets... the current Small Railgun can take out an ADS, or at least make it go away. Current small turrets are too ineffective VS competent infantry. Buff the small turrets to make them more effective on a tank hull vs infantry, but that could create a imbalance when they are fitted to the ADS. Right now its impossible to justify the extra seat, ISK cost, SP cost, fitting cost and man power cost for a almost useless small turret. Small Railguns currently do enough damage to hurt vehicles. STD Railgun is 334 Damage per shot. Firing a shot every .7 s, for a DPS of 477.14 (rounded). For 9-10 shot until overheat. 9 shots is 3006 Damage in 13 (rounded) seconds. 10 Shots is 3340 Damage in 14 (rounded) seconds. Compared to the STD Forge gun (No Damage Mods). 1200 Damage per shot, with a charge Time of 4 seconds, for 300 DPS. With a max shot count of 4 in the clip. Wheres the anti infantry capability? lol and brah no FC spares two men to man the miny rails. If that TSOLE tactic then it explains ur low district count. Dont care how much DPS the small turrets have, imagine those 2 being tanks themselves.....ya ur "DPS" out the window.
The idea is that they man the rail or small turrets en route to the objective.. they then.. get this...
hop out... shock horror they can do that...
then run hack the point, drop uplinks etc, then get... get this
back into the HAV...
They trade some mobility in working around the area... for much greater speed, and extra buffer, and extra damage output capability that doesn't detract from their own reserves. It's shocking that you think 'urban combat' is restricted ONLY to people who stay on foot the entire game, where you can use HAVs as cover, damage dealers, and more IN ADDITION to their urban combat duties.
So you look at it like this.. It adds an 'extra role' on top of the person Infantry as well as the HAV.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1247
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 03:21:00 -
[6] - Quote
Shadow of War88 wrote:Lol so you would reduce the HAV to a glorified taxi. Scrub move. I can see the headlines already! WANNABCPM Jackal deprives the community of a healthy vehicle dynamic!
No, I want HAVs to have a role as well.
HAVs are currently 'more focused' on Anti-Vehicle Duties due to their Large Turrets. The Smaller Turrets are a bit more varied with AI and AV turrets that can 'enhance' the roles of the guys inside.
To outline an example, I run a Caldari assault with RR, Locus Grenades etc, but no AV capability.. but pair me with a HAV driver who fits a Large Blaster and a Small Rail, suddenly I have the capacity in addition to my Anti-Infantry Capabilities as an Infanrty, the ability to Effectively anti-vehicle as well, and have somewhere I can 'bunker' to repair / heal.
Also, the ability to move faster from objective a to b to c.
This isn't a glorified taxi, it's considered a 'Force Multiplier', same as a Logistics suit with a Repair Tool could be a 'Glorified Mechanic', but are actually force multipliers when paired with a Heavy Armor-Tanked Suit.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
The Black Jackal
The Southern Legion
Final Resolution.
1247
|
Posted - 2014.06.30 11:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Quasar Storm wrote:The Black Jackal wrote:Shadow of War88 wrote:Lol so you would reduce the HAV to a glorified taxi. Scrub move. I can see the headlines already! WANNABCPM Jackal deprives the community of a healthy vehicle dynamic! No, I want HAVs to have a role as well. HAVs are currently 'more focused' on Anti-Vehicle Duties due to their Large Turrets. The Smaller Turrets are a bit more varied with AI and AV turrets that can 'enhance' the roles of the guys inside. To outline an example, I run a Caldari assault with RR, Locus Grenades etc, but no AV capability.. but pair me with a HAV driver who fits a Large Blaster and a Small Rail, suddenly I have the capacity in addition to my Anti-Infantry Capabilities as an Infanrty, the ability to Effectively anti-vehicle as well, and have somewhere I can 'bunker' to repair / heal. Also, the ability to move faster from objective a to b to c. This isn't a glorified taxi, it's considered a 'Force Multiplier', same as a Logistics suit with a Repair Tool could be a 'Glorified Mechanic', but are actually force multipliers when paired with a Heavy Armor-Tanked Suit. Having a gunner the entire time in PC will not happen in PC. You can do raids with a gunner seat, But as far as 2 guys in one tank watching a point with the way tanks are these days, Its not happening. All the enemy has to do is 2v1 you with Sicas and its over and that is being nice about it. If you're going to have a gunner in anything, It would be best inside of a dropship. Sure tank gunners are nice, But they belong in pubs. The full-time use just isn't solid enough for PC. I've been tanking in PCs for awhile now, And I can point out that you don't need them to have vehicle dominance or to become any more tactically inclined. On another note though, Blasters do need a tweak. The dispersion is way too intense & for PCs they have become a no-go. Why? You can't kill seasoned PC players with them. The lack of blaster tanks means no real need for rail support. The only reason rails get called out today is to act as a AA for enemy ADS. THERE IS REALLY NO OTHER REASON. If there's no ADS then now, At this point, We just call rails to fight other rails. Its stupid and a waste of boots. So, I feel like if you feel you've made your rail tank have some better purpose, Thats awesome. For the changes made for rail tanks, CCP needs to unnerf something. Give us range back or give us RoF back. Having everything nerfed makes rail tanks almost absolutely pointless. If CCP did cut down the dispersion on blasters, I believe Rail tanks would be deemed null effectiveness for taking them out & only seasoned rail pilots will stand a chance.
I have actually pointed out that 'having gunners' all match is not the aim... but using the HAV as a force multiplier is. Faster transport, protection, and added arsenal on top of the normal role are added benefits. And they also benefit the HAV driver by giving them 'something else.'
Now onto the 2v1 Sicas... this is an issue, but it's not with the idea of gunners in PC matches, it's with the ability to drive a Sica and fit a sica, and utilise a sica at the drop of a hat. And 2 tanks will almost always 'annihilate' a single tank.. except through good skill, that would happen whether you had a gunner or not, Force Multiplier doesn't mean 2x for the same role, it's about role diversity as much as anything else.
The idea is that a Tank, with 2 gunners, can handle multiple roles, while a tank with just the driver, should not be able to.
Those gunners also 'get out' of the HAV to complete Infantry Objectives, such as hacking, placing uplinks etc. before getting back in.
The Black Jackal for CPM1
|
|
|
| |
|