|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Thumb Green
Raymond James Corp
1858
   |
Posted - 2014.11.28 06:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote:
I like the idea of nerfing it, but if this occurs, heavies will need to be severely nerfed, so that gun game alone can kill them.
 Gun game alone can kill a Sentinel. Good gun game includes knowing how and when to engage any given enemy; sentinels are easy pickings at long range and still killed at medium range with little risk if you aren't stupid. The problem is that most of the time people engage Sentinels on their terms at short range whether by map design or by their own stupidity.
Kills:21, Deaths:5, KDR: time for a smoke.
Join us in our Pumpkin Crushing
|
Thumb Green
Raymond James Corp
1868
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 20:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote:
1v1. Unless you have a RR, ScR, and sometimes breach AR, and the heavy is stupid enough to try to cross open ground, you won't kill him.
If you run a CQC weapon, the heavy wins 9 times out of 10, simply because they can tank most of your clips worth of shots, if not the whole clip, and have much higher DPS than you as well.
There is a reason that sentinels are so prevalent in PC. *1
Thats also the reason why speedy assaults and scouts with remotes is the new counter-heavy meta.
Which I hate BTW, despite the fact that it benefits me more than most. Its stupid that the only way to kill a tanked heavy sitting on an objective is to use more than one person, or RE chuck all over the place and hope that a heavy is caught in the blast.
Your statement says that good gun game involves knowing when to engage an enemy sentinel. However, it is very VERY easy to make it so that there is no good time to engage an enemy sentinel. *2
1: Yeah that reason is because most objectives on the PC maps are in areas designed for Sentinels (at least they were when I was doing a bit of PC). You won't find very many Sentinels guarding an open objective.
2: The rest of your comment is addressed in this but I wanted to emphasize this part.This falls back on the part where I said most people engage Sentinels on their terms. Map design makes it easy for anyone in a Sentinel that isn't a complete dipshit to force encounters to be in their favor.
People don't realize that their problem is usually with map design and not Sentinels themselves. Then of course there are people that realize that but also realize that new maps or redesigns aren't that likely so it's easier to nerf the Sentinel to where there's no point in using it.
Kills:21, Deaths:5, KDR: time for a smoke.
Join us in our Pumpkin Crushing
|
Thumb Green
Raymond James Corp
1868
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 20:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
The problem with the situations you keep describing, Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p, is that they all involve going toe-to-toe with the Sentinel. You just don't do that and it was designed for people to not do that.
Kills:21, Deaths:5, KDR: time for a smoke.
Join us in our Pumpkin Crushing
|
Thumb Green
Raymond James Corp
1868
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 21:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote:Thumb Green wrote:The problem with the situations you keep describing, Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p, is that they all involve going toe-to-toe with the Sentinel. You just don't do that and it was designed for people to not do that. What is a situation where I can use: a.) non-damage modded shotgun b.) ACR c.) NV AR Against a brick tanked sentinel, and win? Please, id like to hear how to do it. And don't say "Don't go toe to toe",as that is a very vague and non-descriptive statement. Say, "shoot him in the back!" Or, "engage him outside of his range!" Or, "admit defeat, you can't kill a sentinel with a weapon, you need remote explosives!"
Or, use your mobility & cover to your advantage.
Toe-to-toe isn't vague, toe-to-toe is going up against your opponent as if you were equals. That's what everybody wants to do but that's just not how the game is meant to be.
Kills:21, Deaths:5, KDR: time for a smoke.
Join us in our Pumpkin Crushing
|
Thumb Green
Raymond James Corp
1868
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 21:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
If anyone thinks what I'm saying is vague then there is no hope for them and yes, just so you don't think I'm being vague yet again, I'm saying there's no hope for you.
Kills:21, Deaths:5, KDR: time for a smoke.
Join us in our Pumpkin Crushing
|
Thumb Green
Raymond James Corp
1869
|
Posted - 2014.11.28 23:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Gavr1lo Pr1nc1p wrote:Thumb Green wrote:If anyone thinks what I'm saying is vague then there is no hope for them and yes, just so you don't think I'm being vague yet again, I'm saying there's no hope for you. So still no concrete statement? Thats a shame. You gave up without a fight, and resorted to ad hominems.
I gave a concrete statement, you're just being obtuse. Also I'm not attacking you, I'm just giving up on you so it's not an ad hominem
Kills:21, Deaths:5, KDR: time for a smoke.
Join us in our Pumpkin Crushing
|
|
|
| |
|