|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
920
   |
Posted - 2014.11.09 14:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:Are what Wiyrkomis should be! whoever came up with the stats for it i thank thee. just a shame its an officer drop.
Because Swarms need to be even more effective 
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
922
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 14:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Apothecary Za'ki wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:Are what Wiyrkomis should be! whoever came up with the stats for it i thank thee. just a shame its an officer drop. Because Swarms need to be even more effective yes they do.. have you tried to take down a proto fit 25m+SP ADS with a competent pilot in a python which gets up to 80% resist to swarms? its a nightmare.. you barely scratch em and they can zip off as fast as all hell if they feel the threat is great enough
If they're running hardeners on their shield vehicle and you're shooting them with an explosive AV weapon then you should be doing next to nothing! The issue is not swarms, it's the lack of anti-shield AV.
Stop being scrubbly idiots who want herp-derp point and click swarms to be the be-all end-all AV weapon. Lobby harder for anti-shield weaponry.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
923
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 15:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
Cody Sietz wrote:Ok...so should we wait another year before its ok to hurt a shield vehicle?
Swarms are plenty capable of hurting shield vehicles. As are all of the AV weapons.
The only problem we have at the moment is that the most common AV weapon (swarms) people use, people want to be as effective against shields as it is against armour, which is to say that it is ridiculously effective against armour (and rightly so.)
As for the quote you posted: they are using hardeners and adhering to the waves of opportunity that CCP ascribed to vehicle modules: the AV wave of opportunity is to attack during the downtime of those modules.
Seriously, AV/Swarmers have no concept of balance if this thread is anything to judge them by. Sure, we don't have decent anti-shield AV weapons: this does not mean that anti-armour AV weapons should be able to swat shield vehicles like flies (and subsequently murder the **** out of armour vehicles.)
I, as an ADS and primarily Python pilot, want to see anti-shield AV weapons: swarms do not need to be buffed further - even when I run a double hardener fit on my Python swarms hurt badly and still knock my ass about such that my 'wave' is severely curtailed in duration because of all of the adjustments I am forced to endure, to the point that even hardened I am forced to retreat because of the sheer ROF on swarms keeping me from doing anything effectual.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
925
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 15:36:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:swarms vs shields are awful. with a built in -20% damage to shields from the off and then a -40% from a hardener a Pyhton/Gunloggi are near impossible to take down before they run off to the redline to hide.
Again, they are utilising their determined (by CCP) waves of opportunity: either they have a hardener to resist your swarms (and again, it's only swarms: PLCs, FGs and vehicle turrets all prevent shield regen) or they get humped. Even with a hardener they are losing shields, unless they double harden.
Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:if you're repeatedly dying from swarms in a shield vehicle then you're not as good a pilot/tanker as you believe yourself to be or you have 4-5 swarms/forge guns shooting at you. if you're in an armour tanking vehicle then i feel sorry for you and you should support the need to bring AV damage profiles more neutral with slight modifications to vehicle HPs to counter balance it because you guys get tore up. my ideas for the AV were
Not sure if you're directing that at me specifically or not.
Profile neutrality is a terrible idea and would serve only as a stopgap measure: racial parity is a far superior goal and serves to not only assist in balancing everything but also gives the players who have missed out their reward for waiting.
And as above, only swarms do not break shield regen when the shield vehicle is double hardening: and again, swarms are the most heavily armour biased AV weapon. Stopped expecting armour busting weapons to do the job against something specifically tooled out to resist you. Do you throw a Cal Assault against an Amarr Commando and wonder why your shields vanish?
Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:at least until we some more racial parity. i don't really class Plasma Cannon as AV, sure i guess thats how it can be used but it has bonus of a plasma weapon like shotties and AR's and not explosive and i see it more as an anti infantry/area denial weapon not AV, same as with MDs
Even as a stopgap measure it is a terrible idea: it just promotes using the easiest weapon to do everything (aka, the Swarm Launcher) because why bother making efforts to learn how to us an FG effectively when you can just derp about with a Swarm? Profiles are part and parcel of the game and racial parity is the only reasonable solution.
And the PLC is most definitely an AV weapon: I suggest you find someone who uses one or watch a Pyrex video - the only downside it has in AV usage is against dropships.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
927
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 15:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:no problems with a skilled ADS pilot, if he's flying an incubus then the guy deserves a medal cos those things crumble to a solo proto swarm pretty easily without a hardener. the issue is damage vs shields not the vehicles or the swarms but the damage profile.
You have that sentiment entirely backwards: the problem is your thinking that the explosive profile (-20/+20) should be effective against shields.
It should not be.
The damage profiles are there to stop one weapon/tanking type being the be-all end-all weapon. Swarms are anti-armour. Stop trying to argue that it should be anti-everything.
Look at the combat rifle before it got the -15/+15 profile: everyone and their dog used it because it was so effective against everything.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
927
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 15:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
JARREL THOMAS wrote:By the way what is the profile of missle tanks?
I believe it was changed to -15/+15 when the turrets got their profiles tweaked. Not quite sure why its at that (if that is the case.) Even so, that is a heavily negative shield profile, so even if swarms were to be modified to the same as those, that's still something that is quite obviously armour biased.
Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:to be honest all i seem to see is shield tankers trying to defend that shields are 'fine' when they're not.
Shield tanks are fine. The issue is the AV weapons we do have are primarily armour biased. Introduce light Am/Min AV and heavy Gal/Am/Min AV and you'll see a much more balanced field on both sides.
Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:a skilled ADS/Tank pilot can evade both swarms and forge rounds becasue i've seen it and had some great too-n-fro's with tankers and DS pilots. the main tactic is that as soon as a pilot takes a few hits from swarms they start to make an escape. no denying it because only an idiot would stay in an open space and fight when you're getting AV'd.
Yes, and even more to the point,swarms almost never miss an ADS because of the lock-on and inability to react in time (to get behind cover) or dodge them.
Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:the damge vs shield and armour is far too unbalanced when there isn't any valid option vs shields.
Indeed. Which is why we need racial parity. Jack-of-all-profiles is a bad solution. I agree that shield vehicles need shield biased AV weapons to be worried about, but you do not need the ridiculously easy to operate swarms becoming even more effective. Against shields that are taking full advantage of the profiles (whilst diminishing their effectiveness in other areas of resilience,which must be pointed out) will of course be resilient, but they are not invulnerable nor are they unaffected.
Your statements seem to be suggesting that shield vehicle are entirely unaffected by swarms and/or FGs, which, quite frankly, is laughable.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
927
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 16:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
Nirwanda, the solution is not to make any one profile good against everything though, otherwise you run into exactly the same issue as old combat rifles did: everyone used them because there was no downside.
The swarm is already the most commonly used AV weapon because it is so easy to use effectively: reducing the profile to a flag -0/+0 would make it ridiculously effective - why would anyone ever use Forge Guns or even vehicle based AV?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
933
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 17:19:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nirwanda Vaughns wrote:because if AV and vehicle defense types are balanced then lets, for a laugh, swap proficiencies and damage profiles of swarms and forge over from armour to shields and vice-versa with PLC. seeing as they're so balanced it shouldn't make any difference should it? because if as you claim, they're so balanced then there shouldn't be any issue with swarms doing +35% damage to a python or gunloggis shields should there?
No, it wouldn't make a difference, it would make the meta switch around. As before, what we need is the full gamut of AV weaponry. Your point about making the profiles neutral is stupid because it means shields/armour are no different, making armour far superior (passive, persistent reps and higher HP pools versus low HP and interruptable regeneration.)
Edit: your complaints are about shields having an advantage, the solution is not to drop the profiles or switch them around; neither of those solves the issues we have. Only adding anti-shield AV makes the meta balanced.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
935
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 18:59:00 -
[9] - Quote
Vesta Opalus wrote:You mean the part of the game where the vehicle is a million miles away waiting for stuff to cooldown?
their opportunity is just them dodging infantry while the vehicle is sitting around waiting for cooldowns.
The vehicles have waves of opportunity, the AV just sits there dodging infantry until they get back.
Considering that even with hardeners there is still significant damage to be dealt, causing the vehicles to either be cautious or outright retreat, depending on how effective you are. Also, it's not impossible to chase ground vehicles when they retreat: LAVs are more than capable of catching an HAV and unless there is a lot of terrain, you'll likely be able to deal plenty of damage. AV is not a purely defensive mechanism.
Vesta Opalus wrote:So once again, AV sucks ass against infantry and vehicles, so why would anyone ever pick it other than to give their poor teamates half a chance to not get stomped by invincible killing machines?
Buff AV so they can kill things, reduce vehicle costs so they can be used even when they are being killed, and you might have something that looks like balance.
Well, considering that AV is plenty powerful against any vehicle that is even vaguely trying to help their team (and not just running away as soon as any AV appears) I don't see how you're useless,especially when a single damage reward is worth more than an infantry kill and is arguably easier (depending on the situation.)
I wouldn't mind an AV buff/vehicle cost reduction, but I honesty don't think it's needed. I say this as a pilot but also as someone who uses swarms/FGs regularly.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
935
|
Posted - 2014.11.09 19:37:00 -
[10] - Quote
Joel II X wrote:Except that the only shield AV are the Plasma Cannon and Flux Grenades...
Indeed. Which is why we need racial parity ASAP. Neutralising the damage profiles of current AV weapons is not the answer.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|