|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
3026
   |
Posted - 2014.08.11 03:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
I love vehicles that jihad. I am totally in support of more vehicles ramming other vehicles. But then, any time vehicles are blowing up, I'm happy. ;)
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Atiim wrote:Judge says that there will be no price drop in Charlie. Not fighting for the community since 2014.07.22
It's not off the table. It's just not going to be in Charlie.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
3031
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 13:38:00 -
[2] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:the thing is the only reason dropship ramming is seen as poor practice is because people have the vehement hatred of ADSes that suppressing them isn't seen as enough, people absolutely have to destroy them and it's simply not necessary.
Actually, no. The reason people absolutely have to destroy them, is because you're playing an FPS, and you should die. If you aren't dying in a match, you need a nerf, so that you die more. Everyone should die.
I don't go around not fully killing infantry because "well, I scared them off so that's good enough". No, I kill them. Because that's what you do. The idea that vehicle users shouldn't die and that AV should just be "suppressing" them is crazy.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
3031
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 14:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:The decision for the cpm to even not push for it to be included is somewhat telling
What possibly leads you to believe it is not being pushed for?
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
3031
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 14:55:00 -
[4] - Quote
A statement that it is not in the hotfix does not mean we aren't advocating for the change.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
3033
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 15:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Fact is from your link CCP are pulling both changes for ADS from charlie and it looks like the cpm aint doing anything about it and agreeing with ccp
Notice the all three replies to Logibro's post so far are thank yous. Seems to me that CCP is listening to community feedback on the matter. Personally, I'd like to see both changes in some form, but I'm also a big fan of doing multiple iterative changes rather than changing too much at one time, and unbalancing the game further.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
3033
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 16:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:1) You cannot expect vehicles to be destroyed as often as Infantry is, otherwise your average vehicle should cost as much as an equivalent tiered suit with appropriate mods and weapons.
I would totally be cool with vehicles being as cheap as an equivalent dropsuit if they weren't OP as sin. Players should expect to die in an FPS.
Monkey MAC wrote:2) You cannot expect vehicles to require more than 1 person in order to destroy, this creates a force strength imbalance and is something that we have been fighting to be rid of for a long long time.
3) Therefore you cannot expect vehicles to be dying at the same regularity as infantry WITHOUT teamwork. Yet at the same time teamwork should not be a necessity.
I think a dedicated anti-vehicle player should be able to take down and kill a vehicle player, yes. One player should roughly equal one player. If we don't have that, then vehicles are unbalanced, because they allow players to be inherently "better" than others.
I'm actually entirely confused where this train of thought went. Are you sure you didn't phrase something incorrectly?
Monkey MAC wrote:Futhermore you mean to tell me, you have never left an infantry unit behind cover while you shoot the next guy attempting to assault your point? You mean to tell me you've chased people and left your point to be capped by one of their teammates. You mean to tell me you have NEVER successfully retreated from an engagement you knew you were going to loose. You have never popped back into cover for repairs while the enemy continues to fire upon your posistion?
I am not saying it should be impossible for a vehicle to escape. But it should not be a guarantee. Right now, the current hardener system and V/AV balance guarantees vehicles the ability to successfully retreat at least once.
Monkey MAC wrote:How exactly do you play? Do you run around like a headless chicken just killing everything you see? Are you one of these people that wolfpacks with whatever is the strongest weapon at the time? Do you have any regard for choke points, cover and higher ground?
I play a lot of different roles, in a lot of different positions. Both solo and with squads. Lately I'm somewhat fond of my forge gun.
Monkey MAC wrote:Vehicles need to be capable of being destroyed byna single infantry person, but they should (as infantry does) have the opportunity to retreat when they realise the engagement is not going their way. That is balance.
Sure, I can agree with that. But bear in mind, a significant amount of engagements, there is no way for infantry to retreat from a tank or dropship. But on the other hand, vehicles can almost always retreat from infantry AV. Particularly given the short range of swarms.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
3033
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 16:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
dzizur wrote:Infantry can run into a building, or deploy remotes/proxies @ choke points (although proxy damage sucks badly)
That's very situational though.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
3040
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 21:29:00 -
[8] - Quote
Liftrasir wrote:I really think they should re-implement the logistics dropships to have higher base hp and a fitting reduction to vehicle cloak field. Oh and yeah cloak fields for vehicles, because that would be completely awesome.
Actually, as much as I love nerfing vehicles, I would LOVE to see a cloaky dropship someday.
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
Soraya Xel
Abandoned Privilege
Top Men.
3040
|
Posted - 2014.08.11 22:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Soraya Xel wrote:Liftrasir wrote:I really think they should re-implement the logistics dropships to have higher base hp and a fitting reduction to vehicle cloak field. Oh and yeah cloak fields for vehicles, because that would be completely awesome. Actually, as much as I love nerfing vehicles, I would LOVE to see a cloaky dropship someday. Only if I can oneshot it when I spot it cloaked and hit it with the forge.
It dies to SMG fire.
No, seriously, I'd foresee a dropship particularly used for deployment only, maybe without any weaponry at all. I think transport dropships should be fairly tanky.
Similar to cloaks on infantry, when it moves, it'd shimmer. But of course, that'd have to be scaled to work right given that dropships normally move a heck of a lot faster than scouts. ;)
CPM1 Elect. Thanks for all your support. [email protected] for ideas, thoughts, and feedback.
|
|
|
| |
|