|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Antoin Vargaro
Commando Perkone
Caldari State
5
   |
Posted - 2014.09.19 13:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Your question is a black and white fallacy: either one AV player can or cannot take on a vehicle.
The truth is a single AV player should be enough to threaten and/or disrupt vehicles, but actually killing them should be difficult, but not impossible, depending on the situation, each player's skill, and a multitude of other variables.
If a single AV player could easily kill a vehicle, then vehicles would be worthless once 2-3 players used AV.
It's a balancing game, and vehicles should have a slight edge, but that's not to mean that they should be an "I win" button. Any AVer should be a thorn in the side of a pilot unless dealt with immediately, either by fleeing or engaging.
I agree completely.
The key words here are "threaten and/or disrupt", "difficult, but not impossible", and "easily kill"
I don't believe that any real AV player is asking for it to be "easy" to kill a vehicle solo.
I think that most AV players would be satisfied with "difficult, but not impossible".
In order for a single AV player to be able to "threaten and/or disrupt" an enemy vehicle, that AV player MUST first be viewed as a CREDIBLE THREAT to that vehicle. For this to happen, the vehicle operator must (at least) BELIEVE that the AV player IS capable of destroying him (whether he is or not).
If the vehicle operator believes that the AV player isn't at least CAPABLE of destroying his vehicle, he will NOT view the AV player as a CREDIBLE THREAT, and the AV player will no longer be capable of threatening or disrupting him. |
Antoin Vargaro
Commando Perkone
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 14:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:I hate to play the Isk card, but I'd be concerned with the sustainability of the pilot's role if 1/2M vehicles were too easily destroyed.
There's that word ("easily") again! If vehicle users would stop slipping that word into the equation, maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about this!
Can someone please point me to a single post from any AV user that ever said it should be "easy"? |
Antoin Vargaro
Commando Perkone
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 14:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Antoin Vargaro wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:I hate to play the Isk card, but I'd be concerned with the sustainability of the pilot's role if 1/2M vehicles were too easily destroyed.
There's that word ("easily") again! If vehicle users would stop slipping that word into the equation, maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about this! Can someone please point me to a single post from any AV user that ever said it should be "easy"? PS: Prof(5) Swarmer. Not a pilot.
Sorry, my bad.
It just seems that, whenever this discussion comes up, the argument inevitably gets twisted from
"should AV be able to solo a vehicle AT ALL"
to
"should AV be able to EASILY solo a vehicle".
and, to the best of my recollection, I don't think I've ever seen an AV player ask for it to be EASY, just POSSIBLE. |
Antoin Vargaro
Commando Perkone
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 16:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Ripley Riley wrote:Atiim wrote:Are Anti-Vehicle weapons (read: SLs, FGs, PLCs, & R/PEs) meant to "solo" vehicles? I'd love CCP's comment as well. Truthfully, I feel that a single devoted AV'er, when properly fitted, should be able to solo a vehicle. He has assumed the role of AV'er. If he can't destroy vehicles on his own then why bother having the role? A vehicle user has dedicated a ton of skill points and ISK to killing everything around him. If someone can thwart his efforts with a single cost-efficient pea shooter, why should anyone run vehicles? The AVer is similarly vulnerable to hostile infantry with peashooters that are helpless against your vehicle. Infantry < tank < av < Infantry < tank < av < Infantry < tank < av Notice a pattern? Vehicles are rock. Av is paper. Infantry is scissors. And I have dedicated a lot of ISK and SP to killing your vehicles. Why should that be relegated to a sideshow? Vehicle users seem to have this belief that more money should be rewarded with invulnerability. This is not good design space.
Apparently some vehicle users believe that, while Rock/Paper/Scissors is fine for everyone else, the ONLY counter for THEIR Rock should be another Rock. 
|
|
|
| |
|