|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4869
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 15:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
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? |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4869
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 18:17:00 -
[2] - 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.
Vehicles are not invulnerable, they are simply stronger. And yes, ISK should mean stronger. If it doesn't then ISK should be removed because it has no value associated with it. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4870
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 20:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
There are layers of lopsidedness here.
I think 2 AV should be enough to kill any vehicle who got in too deep. Currently they can.
1 AV should be enough to annoy the hell out of someone and eventually kill them if they refuse to leave. Just enough to out-dps their regenerative ability. Currently they can.
The alternative is... what. One AV is enough to instantly flash fry any vehicle it locks onto? Pure insanity, who the hell would ever use a vehicle then? You can't account or predict the placement of one random commando who just happens to be carrying a swarm. That would be a major investment lost instantly because you decided to take your vehicle left instead of right. THAT is stupid game design.
AV is, for the most part, where it needs to be. The only real problem ADS being able to disengage too quickly. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4870
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 21:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nothing Certain wrote:Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Atiim wrote:Vulpes Dolosus wrote:Your question is a black and white fallacy: either one AV player can or cannot take on a vehicle. It could only be a false dilemma if I omitted a possible alternative, which I indeed did not. Either Anti-Vehicle weapons were designed to be able to effectively destroy vehicles themselves, or they were designed to be used in groups. Vulpes Dolosus wrote: If a single AV player could easily kill a vehicle, then vehicles would be worthless once 2-3 players used AV.
As they should be. Any unit facing off against 2-3 hard counters should be rendered useless. It seems to me that you were posing two realities: either a single AV could *easily kill vehicles or it was worthless. I propose that you are looking at it wrong, that there could be some "middle ground" to the relationship of AV and vehicles besides one killing or not killing the other, namely driving off a vehicle and denying their presence for extended times. Yes, and that's currently the case now: multiple competent AV can deny vehicles the field (in more or less most situations). But what you're asking is for a single player to play the part of 2-3 people, and if that's the case then vehicles are pretty much useless no matter what AV is on the field. I think you have that backwards, you are saying that vehicles should play the part of 2-3 people and it should take 2-3 AVers to combat them effectively.
It only takes 1 to "combat" them. I takes 2 to kill them. Killing them isn't necessary but people feel like it's an entitlement. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4871
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 01:07:00 -
[5] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:1 player counters 1 player. Being in a vehicle does not magically make you two players. Balancing so that one player requires two to kill is the definition of imbalance.
You're right, it isn't magic. It's isk, and a vehicle slot.
Combat vehicles were created to be greater than man. If they were not, they wouldn't exist. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4872
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 02:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Skippy Longstocking wrote:Just like ANTI-VEHICLE weapons were created to be greater than vehicles. If they were not, they wouldn't exist.
Funny how that works both ways, isn't it?
Anti means effective against. It does not mean instant kill. There are levels of effectiveness, and how much of something needs to be applied before it is lethal.
And swarms are effective against vehicles. If they were not, they wouldn't run away from them. Insurgents can shoot their garbage RPG's at Abrams all day long, it isn't doing jack **** unless he parks there for an hour. And even then, its debatable.
Good try, but the logic doesn't fit there at all. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4875
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 12:51:00 -
[7] - Quote
Skippy Longstocking wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Skippy Longstocking wrote:Just like ANTI-VEHICLE weapons were created to be greater than vehicles. If they were not, they wouldn't exist.
Funny how that works both ways, isn't it?
Anti means effective against. It does not mean instant kill. That would be angsty 13 year old entitlement complex. There are levels of effectiveness, and how much of something needs to be applied before it is lethal. You can apply your entire teams focused firepower of assault rifles on a Madrugar, but his shields will not go down. It doesn't matter how much ammo you throw at it. Simply because those are not anti-vehicle weapons, and they are not effective against it. And swarms are effective against vehicles. If they were not, they wouldn't run away from them. Good try, but the logic doesn't fit there at all. The stupidity of this community, as always, disappoints me. Actually, in this case, "anti" refers to the fact that it is specifically designed to counter and combat vehicles. Why anyone would design a direct counter with less than maximum effectiveness against the very thing that it is specifically designed to counter? THAT, my friend, would be stupid.
Ever heard of poison? Poison was designed to kill things.
A small amount of poison might not kill something, but a larger amount would.
Behold, a world where 1 does not have an opposite reaction of 1000.
Dumbass. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4877
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 14:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
My position is fully supported and infallible. I have no further need to support it, nor do I have any need to display class to an idiot.
No matter what I say you are too much of an entitled moron to understand how things have to be. All I can do now is offer you the charity of recognizing how stupid you are. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4878
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 15:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Not really.
AV stops vehicles from doing their job. That is their purpose and that is what they do.
You are not entitled to anything else, nor will you receive anything else. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4878
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 16:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
Skippy Longstocking wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:My position is fully supported and infallible. I have no further need to support it, nor do I have any need to display class to an idiot. Lol, if you say so. I think I'm done here anyway. Let me know when you're ready to have a mature discussion about this, without the petty name-calling, and maybe I'll be back..
If we're lucky, you never will. |
|
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4878
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 16:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote: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. This is like saying that an assault shouldn't be able to solo a heavy, but be a thorn in his side, unless 2-3 people are attacking the heavy.
That's exactly what it means. Now you understand the concept of a bigger opponent being innately superior to a smaller opponent. Good job. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4878
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 16:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Not really.
AV stops vehicles from doing their job. That is their purpose and that is what they do.
You are not entitled to anything else, nor will you receive anything else. Vehicles are not entitled to escape destruction. No one is entitled to squat. What makes you think you are a special snowflake that gets to have his way? Besides deliberately trolling the thread?
Probably because I'm smarter than pretty much everyone on the forum and actually have a paying career in competitive gaming, whereas most of the folks who come on here are idiotic neckbeards who strive for a relevance they will never attain. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4878
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 16:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote: Probably because I'm smarter than pretty much everyone on the forum
This statement has been proven wrong numerous times. After all, you play DUST. Quote:actually have a paying career in competitive gaming, whereas most of the folks who come on here are idiotic neckbeards who strive for a relevance they will never attain. The mere thought that playing video games makes one relevant somehow has to be the most hilariously stupid thing anyone has ever said on these forums. Congratulations. You win the "No one cares what you think still" award. In my experience geniuses don't have to claim it. It is evident. You fail utterly.
It makes one relevant as far as conversation about video game mechanics go. Simply put, I understand them -- you do not.
That can change, though. I am still taking students for this Winter. $45 an hour and I guarantee after each session you will be far less garbage than you were prior. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4878
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 17:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ah, such arrogance.
I'm sorry to see you have chosen to remain worthless. No matter though. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4878
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 17:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
I actually get results. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4878
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 17:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
Sooner if you'd rather play USFIV. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution General Tso's Alliance
4878
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 18:03:00 -
[17] - Quote
No, I got the joke. It was just an incredibly stupid joke with no real lead-in, therefore I decided my reply would be better spent furthering my own agenda. |
|
|
|