|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
1138
   |
Posted - 2014.09.19 18:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
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?
If they can't, why run anything else?
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
1139
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 18:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'd like to see the cost of vehicles drastically reduced. This would end the ISK argument which has SOME validity.
My view is that vehicles do spend more SP and more ISK than AV, they deserve an advantage, but the magnitude of the advantage should be small. The difference between STD and Proto in ISK is like 50X yet the advantage is like 10%. A 5X ISK expenditure of vehicles over AV shouldn't get them a 200% advantage, just a small one, and I think that is where we are.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
1139
|
Posted - 2014.09.19 20:57:00 -
[3] - Quote
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.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
1140
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 20:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
Himiko Kuronaga wrote: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.
Well, I'm the one guy smarter than you and I say, Nananana booboo.
Because, that's why.
|
Nothing Certain
Bioshock Rejects
1140
|
Posted - 2014.09.20 20:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:Nothing Certain wrote:
Well, I'm the one guy smarter than you and I say, Nananana booboo.
I've seen smarter chihuahuas.
Did I spell Nananana wrong again?
Because, that's why.
|
|
|
| |
|