Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Operative 1125 Lokaas
True Companion Planetary Requisitions
322
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 00:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hate rail tanks in the redline? Well, now you will get more of them. Why start with any other counter to the new, powerful turret installations?
When on my blaster tank character I'm already taking a giant leap toward NOT playing something I don't want to by pulling out a rail tank. Why would I want to skill into anything else to flail away at a turret installation?
Time for you tryhards that argue for infantry to keep those cannons capped to prove your worth. Tanks can't operate so long as those things are sitting there waiting to be flipped.
Will infantry TANKOPHOBES man keep them manned. NO!
I predicted proto blowbuddy teams pulling out three and four rail tanks to go around popping the turrets and then just staying in them to keep other tanks off the field.
Oh well, back to one sided stalemates.
THIS IS THE VOICE OF RÁN
|
Zindorak
1.U.P
597
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 01:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
It will take longer for greedy tankers to destroy installations so i can hack them instead of them being destroyed
Pokemon master
|
Harpyja
Legio DXIV
2170
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 01:02:00 -
[3] - Quote
I, as a tanker, like the installation HP buffs. The installation buff in a way will filter out skill-less and the scrubby tankers that give tanking a bad name.
You want take out the Charlie installations? Put some SP investment into large missile launchers. I see them as being the best against turret installations. Fast time to unload the whole clip means you can put damage quickly and minimize the amount of time the installation has LoS on you.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
TechMechMeds
Level 5 Forum Warrior
5059
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 01:04:00 -
[4] - Quote
No, they would keep them neckbearded.
Be vigilant!, for there are those that remove the teabag BEFORE adding milk!.
This is unacceptable!.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
12817
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 01:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Zindorak wrote:It will take longer for greedy tankers to destroy installations so i can hack them instead of them being destroyed
When you put up the ******* effort to use of defend them then maybe I wouldn't have to destroy them. But alas infantry players tend to be so inanely brain dead they let them get captured and wonder why I went back to destroy it later.
I'll put it to you this way.
Which is more valuable and tactically sound to me as a pilot.
1.) Allowing you to keep and installation active you will not defend or use, and costs you nothing. 2.) Destroying a Potential threat which could result in me loosing 600K ISK of HAV.
I'm glad they are tougher.... perhaps infantry will put as effort into manning them and defending them as they wondering why their assault rifles won't blow us up.
"We were commanded us to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocent caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
|
Atiim
Onslaught Inc RISE of LEGION
11360
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 01:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
They're adjusting the range of the Installation AI as well.
Though the only time Installations have ever been a problem for me are those Missile Installations. But even then, anyone with the slightest hint of competence knows where they are, and how to avoid/evade them.
This is a non-issue, though it will be interesting to see how they're used in FW and PC.
DUST 514's 1st Matari Commando
-HAND
|
Vulpes Dolosus
Molon Labe. General Tso's Alliance
1830
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 01:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Whether they needed a buff or not, I think it was way over done. They're going to be stronger than Supply Depots currently and can actually fight back. I think LAVs and DSs are going to bear the worst of it though.
That said, I'm grateful for the nerfs to AI and engagement range. I guess we'll see how it works out. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
12817
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 01:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Atiim wrote:They're adjusting the range of the Installation AI as well.
Though the only time Installations have ever been a problem for me are those Missile Installations. But even then, anyone with the slightest hint of competence knows where they are, and how to avoid/evade them.
This is a non-issue, though it will be interesting to see how they're used in FW and PC.
I get situation on Line Harvest where the Rail Turret from the Redline can shoot unmanned under the Cargo Hubs and it happens every time.
"We were commanded us to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocent caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
|
Zindorak
1.U.P
599
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 01:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Zindorak wrote:It will take longer for greedy tankers to destroy installations so i can hack them instead of them being destroyed When you put up the ******* effort to use of defend them then maybe I wouldn't have to destroy them. But alas infantry players tend to be so inanely brain dead they let them get captured and wonder why I went back to destroy it later. I'll put it to you this way. Which is more valuable and tactically sound to me as a pilot. 1.) Allowing you to keep and installation active you will not defend or use, and costs you nothing. 2.) Destroying a Potential threat which could result in me loosing 600K ISK of HAV. I'm glad they are tougher.... perhaps infantry will put as effort into manning them and defending them as they wondering why their assault rifles won't blow us up. ooooo now i understand. Tanks for the explanation. Did u see wat i did there
Pokemon master
|
Cody Sietz
Evzones
3830
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 01:54:00 -
[10] - Quote
Yeah, I learned not to try and use turrets since they melt away(especially friendly installations closer to our point that can give us a slight advantage, those down quickest)
Maybe now I can man a turret without fear of being blown up EVERY SINGLE TIME.
"I do agree with you there though. shudders"
-Arkena Wyrnspire
|
|
Operative 1125 Lokaas
True Companion Planetary Requisitions
322
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 02:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
Atiim wrote:They're adjusting the range of the Installation AI as well.
Though the only time Installations have ever been a problem for me are those Missile Installations. But even then, anyone with the slightest hint of competence knows where they are, and how to avoid/evade them.
This is a non-issue, though it will be interesting to see how they're used in FW and PC.
Good replies from all.
Like I said in another post GÇô I'd rather they be even stronger, but with less installations on the field. Maybe with bigger maps in Legion there could be the number there are now as they would be spread out.
Being less in number but stronger in defense would allow a built in counter to tanks and would give infantry TANKOPHOBES no reason to complain. No need to skill AV or pull out a tank to counter. Just keep that turret manned and no probs (shouldn't that really be what it is all about? Keeping them manned if you want them to stay on the field and be useful?)
Less turrets would allow for tanks to manuever somewhere and remain in blind spots while being denied certain paths of advancement.
One per outpost entrance and one per redline in the forward positions. Heck, take away the redline if you can pepper it with invincible (yet still destructible) cannons.
THIS IS THE VOICE OF RÁN
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
12821
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 02:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Operative 1125 Lokaas wrote:Atiim wrote:They're adjusting the range of the Installation AI as well.
Though the only time Installations have ever been a problem for me are those Missile Installations. But even then, anyone with the slightest hint of competence knows where they are, and how to avoid/evade them.
This is a non-issue, though it will be interesting to see how they're used in FW and PC. Good replies from all. Like I said in another post GÇô I'd rather they be even stronger, but with less installations on the field. Maybe with bigger maps in Legion there could be the number there are now as they would be spread out. Being less in number but stronger in defense would allow a built in counter to tanks and would give infantry TANKOPHOBES no reason to complain. No need to skill AV or pull out a tank to counter. Just keep that turret manned and no probs (shouldn't that really be what it is all about? Keeping them manned if you want them to stay on the field and be useful?) Less turrets would allow for tanks to manuever somewhere and remain in blind spots while being denied certain paths of advancement. One per outpost entrance and one per redline in the forward positions. Heck, take away the redline if you can pepper it with invincible (yet still destructible) cannons.
I'd certainly love to see them as real strong points.... perhaps the firing mercenary is enclosed in a small protective shell while they use the turret or something.... have them be real installations that players man and reinforce.
"We were commanded us to burn the system...We did. I mourn the loss of the innocent caught in our fires" -Kador Ouryon
|
danthrax martin
Butcher's Nails
109
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 02:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
They're gonna be fun. Already built 2 av suits to man them. A few guys in our squad are pretty good on them.
Pro Galmando - Gal Sentinel
Suicidal A/V Moron
|
manboar thunder fist
Dead Man's Game
75
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 02:47:00 -
[14] - Quote
Personally I think there should be no neutral installations past the redlines, instead for 2500 wp the squad should be able to deploy them and make them fall out of the sky at a tactical position of their choosing. Opens up a king of the hill squad defense mechanism
NERF SCOUTS, NERF TANKS, NERF AV, NERF ASSAULTS, NERF LOGIS, NERF HEAVIES
nerf life
|
Alabastor 'TheBlaster' Alcar
Silver Bullet Solutions DARKSTAR ARMY
739
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 05:53:00 -
[15] - Quote
too bad we cant buy and deploy installations, wtf ever happened to that? |
Shooter Somewhere
Brutor Vanguard Minmatar Republic
24
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 06:03:00 -
[16] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:I, as a tanker, like the installation HP buffs. The installation buff in a way will filter out skill-less and the scrubby tankers that give tanking a bad name.
You want take out the Charlie installations? Put some SP investment into large missile launchers. I see them as being the best against turret installations. Fast time to unload the whole clip means you can put damage quickly and minimize the amount of time the installation has LoS on you.
This is how I tell real tankers and fakes apart. Every tanker I know dosent care about them having 10k HP I have a missile tank that can 2 supply depots counting that 5000 shields. We are worried about noobs sitting in turrets all day not caring about the game or objectives at all. This is not going to do anything but hurt the lesser players.
HEADSHOT! HEADSHOT!! HEADSHOT!!! HEADSHOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=earCbU6vgAo
|
Mikey Ducati
Resheph Interstellar Strategy Gallente Federation
401
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 06:07:00 -
[17] - Quote
The wisdom of GD knows no bounds. I suspect the installation buffs will be a problem more so than realized. |
Julius Vindice
Namtar Elite Gallente Federation
348
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 06:18:00 -
[18] - Quote
Sounds like my Jihad jeep tank victims are gonna be harder to find... enemy redline here I come!
Julius Vindice... "Chase knowledge, not passion".
I may suck at things but at least I can make people mad.
|
Pvt Numnutz
Prophets of the Velocirapture
1775
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 07:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
I will find it interesting adapting to these turrets in my python, I have a few mental notes for tomorrow.
I'm going to have to work turret locations into my flight paths so I can check up on them more frequently. Wouldn't want a missile or rail turret to flip close to my redline, especially because blues don't defend them but love to hack them and I won't have the time to stop that now so I will have to babysit them
Attacking a turret is going to be difficult. Even with my two gunner's and my xt-1s it will take all three of us hitting every missile in our clip to destroy one on a pass. With exploding gunner's and the time and speed needed for a strafe like that is close to impossible so high orbits are going to have to be the strategy. That of course has its own problems, gunners could still explode and it is extremely hard to hit anything with missiles in an orbit which means more wasted shots and a longer engagement time. Both I am weary about.
Blaster turrets pose the biggest problem of the three, they can elevate much higher than their rail and missile counterparts. Making high orbits much harder to do with the same drawbacks only more difficult. For these I'm thinking I'll have a speed hacker or gunner jump out and hack them rather than waste time ammo and potentially crew fighting it. Though of course then I'll have yet another turret to babysit. Since it is a general rule of thumb to not trust blueberries with anything I don't want to spend my games babysitting turrets and nothing else so my crew and I will have to destroy some, probably rails then missiles.
The biggest challenge I can see are going to be redline turrets. I really don't want to pull out a tank when I want to dropship just to take put redline turrets. As it stands now I make it put with only a few seconds 6-7 if my gunners and I can all hit, nobody explodes and I guessed correctly where the turret is because it doesn't render until half way through a strafe run. If we are lucky we might be able to take one out in one run, realistically we are looking at two to three runs to destroy one turret, depending on other factors it could take much more or even be unassailable to my dropship.
I would really hate if there was a turret that I couldn't drop troops on, say a contested area, blue berries are pinned by it and I cannot come in for an attack either (be it av or tank or dropship) and would be even more annoying if as soon as we clear a turret and hack it the enemy just hack it right back and start hitting us again.
As for my dropship itself, I will definitely need to up my minimum crew from 2 to 3 preferably a speed hacker but anyone with decent hack skills, a big pair of balls and some jumping skill will do. I can't have my gunner's change to lighter suits or they would explode more frequently, and heavies will be too easy a target on the ground for this kind of mission so it has to be another player. Still the ideal crew remains at 4 and that will never change. Only problem I see with this one is time management, people don't want to sit in a dropship, they want to go on missions, and if I have a lot of turrets to babysit, av, suicide dropships, incubi and tanks, to watch out for then it will be harder to also provide the much needed fire support for shocktroopers on missions. In essence I am their life line out and if a turret flips or a tank gets the drop on me they may well become stranded, usually behind enemy lines.
There are still more things I need to think over, a lot of this will be learned from experimenting in the field and seeing how things work. Honestly my life would be a lot easier if the damn missile turret manufacturer made it so the operator couldn't explode a missile in his face but what ever, I've faced worse.
Hmmm looking over this, I wonder how infantry are prepping for this.
Master Skyshark rider
Kaalaka dakka tamer
|
Operative 1125 Lokaas
True Companion Planetary Requisitions
324
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 08:03:00 -
[20] - Quote
Pvt Numnutz wrote:I will find it interesting adapting to these turrets in my python, I have a few mental notes for tomorrow. I'm going to have to work turret locations into my flight paths so I can check up on them more frequently. Wouldn't want a missile or rail turret to flip close to my redline, especially because blues don't defend them but love to hack them and I won't have the time to stop that now so I will have to babysit them Attacking a turret is going to be difficult. Even with my two gunner's and my xt-1s it will take all three of us hitting every missile in our clip to destroy one on a pass. With exploding gunner's and the time and speed needed for a strafe like that is close to impossible so high orbits are going to have to be the strategy. That of course has its own problems, gunners could still explode and it is extremely hard to hit anything with missiles in an orbit which means more wasted shots and a longer engagement time. Both I am weary about. Blaster turrets pose the biggest problem of the three, they can elevate much higher than their rail and missile counterparts. Making high orbits much harder to do with the same drawbacks only more difficult. For these I'm thinking I'll have a speed hacker or gunner jump out and hack them rather than waste time ammo and potentially crew fighting it. Though of course then I'll have yet another turret to babysit. Since it is a general rule of thumb to not trust blueberries with anything I don't want to spend my games babysitting turrets and nothing else so my crew and I will have to destroy some, probably rails then missiles. The biggest challenge I can see are going to be redline turrets. I really don't want to pull out a tank when I want to dropship just to take put redline turrets. As it stands now I make it put with only a few seconds 6-7 if my gunners and I can all hit, nobody explodes and I guessed correctly where the turret is because it doesn't render until half way through a strafe run. If we are lucky we might be able to take one out in one run, realistically we are looking at two to three runs to destroy one turret, depending on other factors it could take much more or even be unassailable to my dropship. I would really hate if there was a turret that I couldn't drop troops on, say a contested area, blue berries are pinned by it and I cannot come in for an attack either (be it av or tank or dropship) and would be even more annoying if as soon as we clear a turret and hack it the enemy just hack it right back and start hitting us again. As for my dropship itself, I will definitely need to up my minimum crew from 2 to 3 preferably a speed hacker but anyone with decent hack skills, a big pair of balls and some jumping skill will do. I can't have my gunner's change to lighter suits or they would explode more frequently, and heavies will be too easy a target on the ground for this kind of mission so it has to be another player. Still the ideal crew remains at 4 and that will never change. Only problem I see with this one is time management, people don't want to sit in a dropship, they want to go on missions, and if I have a lot of turrets to babysit, av, suicide dropships, incubi and tanks, to watch out for then it will be harder to also provide the much needed fire support for shocktroopers on missions. In essence I am their life line out and if a turret flips or a tank gets the drop on me they may well become stranded, usually behind enemy lines. There are still more things I need to think over, a lot of this will be learned from experimenting in the field and seeing how things work. Honestly my life would be a lot easier if the damn missile turret manufacturer made it so the operator couldn't explode a missile in his face but what ever, I've faced worse. Hmmm looking over this, I wonder how infantry are prepping for this.
I wonder how well REs will work on turrets? One guy gets out and slaps on the REs then the ADS dives and shoots. Blowing the REs would focus the turret's attention on the infantry demo guy for a bit.
THIS IS THE VOICE OF RÁN
|
|
calvin b
Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation
2113
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 08:06:00 -
[21] - Quote
I see it as a positive thing. For once we as infantry can hold an installation and prevent the enemy any ground in a certain area. All it takes is a gunner, a heavy, and a logi. The heavy covers the gunner and the logi reps all three plus the installation. Its win win.
Can the other voices in other peoples minds hear my voices in my head????
|
boba's fetta
Dead Man's Game
789
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 11:19:00 -
[22] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Zindorak wrote:It will take longer for greedy tankers to destroy installations so i can hack them instead of them being destroyed When you put up the ******* effort to use of defend them then maybe I wouldn't have to destroy them. But alas infantry players tend to be so inanely brain dead they let them get captured and wonder why I went back to destroy it later. I'll put it to you this way. Which is more valuable and tactically sound to me as a pilot. 1.) Allowing you to keep and installation active you will not defend or use, and costs you nothing. 2.) Destroying a Potential threat which could result in me loosing 600K ISK of HAV. I'm glad they are tougher.... perhaps infantry will put as effort into manning them and defending them as they wondering why their assault rifles won't blow us up.
this is why i as mainly infantry kill installations. its going to suck to try and drop them with swarms now.
|
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
3735
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 12:12:00 -
[23] - Quote
Its always been one sided matches
Infantry wanted this change as usual, now it means gonna have to use more tanks to kill them and mostly redline rail turrets will be worse to get rid of but infantry wont guard them since they will become WP machines and just be used for boosting since if you get hacking up its like3secs on something
It was a bad change, if they wanted turrets to be useful they could have kept them how they were but made more drop in for every one destroyed to keep ppl on there toes
|
H0riz0n Unlimit
Inner.Hell
115
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 12:19:00 -
[24] - Quote
Harpyja wrote:I, as a tanker, like the installation HP buffs. The installation buff in a way will filter out skill-less and the scrubby tankers that give tanking a bad name.
You want take out the Charlie installations? Put some SP investment into large missile launchers. I see them as being the best against turret installations. Fast time to unload the whole clip means you can put damage quickly and minimize the amount of time the installation has LoS on you. 6 shot of particle cannon with 2 complex dam mode is the right sp investment?
Tanker since I was born -- Want back my blaster -- Madrugar 1125/6753 -- Reduce weakspot dimension
|
Zindorak
1.U.P
608
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 12:21:00 -
[25] - Quote
H0riz0n Unlimit wrote:Harpyja wrote:I, as a tanker, like the installation HP buffs. The installation buff in a way will filter out skill-less and the scrubby tankers that give tanking a bad name.
You want take out the Charlie installations? Put some SP investment into large missile launchers. I see them as being the best against turret installations. Fast time to unload the whole clip means you can put damage quickly and minimize the amount of time the installation has LoS on you. 6 shot of particle cannon with 2 complex dam mode is the right sp investment? You didn't say it like you did in your thread! it doesn't sound funny anymoar
Pokemon master
|
GeneralButtNaked
Fatal Absolution
1313
|
Posted - 2014.08.13 12:26:00 -
[26] - Quote
calvin b wrote:I see it as a positive thing. For once we as infantry can hold an installation and prevent the enemy any ground in a certain area. All it takes is a gunner, a heavy, and a logi. The heavy covers the gunner and the logi reps all three plus the installation. Its win win.
If you put three people on a turret instead of on a flag, it is a win for the other team.
Real AV doesn't stop until all the tanks are dead.
Mr Hybrid Vayu, tanker supreme.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 :: [one page] |