Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:27:00 -
[31] - Quote
Xocoyol Zaraoul wrote:LUGMOS wrote:OK, now we're talking.
So would you agree with the below statement: An HAV's primary role should be to destroy other vehicles and provide infantry suppression, only outright killing if the infantry stay in fire too long, but nothing ridiculously long. They would hamper enemy movement by destroying LAVs and possibly dropships, and by scaring the infantry to stay in cover.
Or would you disagree with parts of it? Which parts? An HAV's primary role should be to take out hard targets. Infantry are soft targets, installations and other vehicles are hard for clarification. HAVs should be slay-oriented as they can't hack or fit indoors or be stealthy or fast. The primary turret of an HAV should ideally be to take out hard targets and be longer-ranged then most infantry weaponry. I agree that HAVs should have a hard time taking out infantry, ignoring the morons who stay still (Like literally...) or run in perfectly straight lines towards the HAV at long range or decide to "Hug it out" with an HAV for extended periods of time with no legitimate counter-weapon. Suppression should be possible as they should have OHK weapons (More or less) to make infantry want to be wary, though again the OHK weapons should take skill to hit infantry with (Like our railguns right now, I love the spool-up time, gorgeous perfect Large Turrets). So in summary I would agree with your statement with my clarifying points above. I also want to go on the record and say I think Large Blaster Turrets need to be reworked, and that an HAV with operational small turrets should make infantry be very, very afraid.
Small turrets are amazing at killing infantry though... and Blasters are the easiest to kill infantry with... I really don't want you guys to bring back the days of 1.7. I mean seriously, I see a lot of you blueberries blow at hitting **** in small turrets but they are exceptionally good if you aim and shoot at things.
Pro-Tip: don't fire until the HAV/dropship stops/slows down, you aren't going to hit anything unless your lucky when moving/flying fast.
Also sometimes the Rail turret doesn't exist, I figure this is a glitch but don't consider it a balance issue. For example, earlier I fired up close into a tank with another tank with a rail turret. The game didn't even show an explosion graphic and no damage was taken although I lost ammo. **** happens... |
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:31:00 -
[32] - Quote
Crimson ShieId wrote:The 1.7 hatred of tanks has died down for me, though while I don't hate tanks, what I do loathe are the good pilots. I'm not talking about the ones who can farm noobs with their squad of tanks all day long and never die because they've become masters of fleeing in their Cal scouts when their tank is threatened, I'm talking about the ones who are just so good you can't kill them on your own. At this point in the game, I usually see tanks as free warpoints, boundless RE's, packed Lai Dais, and a plasma cannon make short work of any tank... but those pilots who know what they're doing? Good luck even getting near them. So far, I've only encountered one of these in the entire game. Calypso (Few numbers in there, can't recall em though) This ****** is my bane so far and despite running into him in game about four times, I've never been able to kill him. Always runs small rails on his Sica and Gunlogi and he/she certainly knows how to use them to repel infantry where the large turret fails. I've yet to see him die in general, but I'm still hopeful.
Things I dislike about tanking... True mentioned most of it. The role just doesn't feel all that rewarding anymore. Like scouts, it used to require a lot more skill. Activating modules at just the right times meant the difference between life and death, and while tankers were rare before 1.7, those who existed were exceptionally good. Tanks were generally more fun because of this, and due to their price tags, for most of the more casual players like myself, they were also more of a treat to run, a reward of sorts, like what proto was meant to be. The price tag drop though, as well as the low SP investment required to "tank" means that anyone can get in one and do alright if they don't suck completely. Militia tanks are perfectly viable if fit right and the pilot can back up the lack of modules and SP investment with skill, thus we see a lot more tanks on the battlefield and they become an annoyance rather than the great threat they were back in Chrome or even early Uprising.
Is that Calypso guy the guy that always seems to have a small rail gunner? If so, yeah that guy ******* wrecks or at least that two man team. The large rail not such an issue but the guy on the small rail never seems to miss when I'm trying to forge him. It's a nightmare dealing with those two. |
Vicious Minotaur
1432
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:41:00 -
[33] - Quote
Vehicles are awful. They need to be completely reworked from the ground up.
No racial parity Lackluster customization/fitting options Unnecessarily expensive Worst vehicle interplay I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing Too threatening to infantry in some cases (large blaster turret needs to be completely redone)
LAVs are horribly made and are completely unfit for any combat scenarios do to its moronic design. Physics are bad, handling is bad. Small turrets are death traps. Too expensive for what they give you.
I have no idea about Dropships, so I will just say they are badly implemented and thought out. Look to real-world roles that aerial vehicles fill, and emulate those.
HAVs are supposed to focus on large targets, not stupid soft infantry. Alas, there is a supreme lack of inter-vehicular combat due to LAVs being bad deathtraps, no MAVs, no MTACs, so really, there is little else for HAVs to target other than infantry and other HAVs. BORING.
VEHICLES ARE LAME.
I am a minotaur.
|
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:45:00 -
[34] - Quote
Vicious Minotaur wrote:Vehicles are awful. They need to be completely reworked from the ground up.
No racial parity Lackluster customization/fitting options Unnecessarily expensive Worst vehicle interplay I have ever had the displeasure of experiencing Too threatening to infantry in some cases (large blaster turret needs to be completely redone)
LAVs are horribly made and are completely unfit for any combat scenarios do to its moronic design. Physics are bad, handling is bad. Small turrets are death traps. Too expensive for what they give you.
I have no idea about Dropships, so I will just say they are badly implemented and thought out. Look to real-world roles that aerial vehicles fill, and emulate those.
HAVs are supposed to focus on large targets, not stupid soft infantry. Alas, there is a supreme lack of inter-vehicular combat due to LAVs being bad deathtraps, no MAVs, no MTACs, so really, there is little else for HAVs to target other than infantry and other HAVs. BORING.
VEHICLES ARE LAME.
LAVs are really good solo as the turrets are useless in motion but otherwise I agree. I'd love to see better engine physics with the LAVs so that turrets actually hit things (Halo 1, 2, 3, 7 etc. comes to mind on making our Warthogs combat effective.) |
LUGMOS
YELLOW JESUS EXP FORCE
1005
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:50:00 -
[35] - Quote
So, the general idea is that it is too unfulfilling and boring, with lack of actual skill in input from the operator. It is more about slaying, as its focus has been shifted from having to do multiple things at once, tank battles are generally nonexistent and bland.
So, more food for thought: What would be the best way to bring in more fun to tanking? Is the power of AV scaring some tankers away from fielding tanks? Is it the lack of profit to be made? Is it the general lackluster in tank battle mechanics/modules? Would bringing in more diversity in modules and vehicles solve some puzzles? Should tank survivability versus AV be increased? Maybe just the Madrugar/Soma?
Quafe
Anti-FoTM Prof. V
Forum Scavenger Prof. V
|
Crimson ShieId
Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation
1518
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:53:00 -
[36] - Quote
Quote:Is that Calypso guy the guy that always seems to have a small rail gunner? If so, yeah that guy ******* wrecks or at least that two man team. The large rail not such an issue but the guy on the small rail never seems to miss when I'm trying to forge him. It's a nightmare dealing with those two.
Most of the time I've seen him, he's actually solo, he just swaps in between piloting and gunning, but yea, it is indeed a nightmare to try and take him out. One of the few I've come across that actually requires a two-three man team to down.
I want to punch.
|
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:55:00 -
[37] - Quote
LUGMOS wrote:So, the general idea is that it is too unfulfilling and boring, with lack of actual skill in input from the operator. It is more about slaying, as its focus has been shifted from having to do multiple things at once, tank battles are generally nonexistent and bland.
So, more food for thought: What would be the best way to bring in more fun to tanking? Is the power of AV scaring some tankers away from fielding tanks? Is it the lack of profit to be made? Is it the general lackluster in tank battle mechanics/modules? Would bringing in more diversity in modules and vehicles solve some puzzles? Should tank survivability versus AV be increased? Maybe just the Madrugar/Soma?
I disagree with your general consensus. In all fairness, all roles outside of Logi's is a slayer role, by general consensus, and the general consensus of Logi's seems to be that Logi's should be able to slay too lol. People aren't generally creative, that doesn't mean you can't do many creative things with HAV's. Most people just think big tank me kill now, though. |
Crimson ShieId
Sinq Laison Gendarmes Gallente Federation
1518
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:55:00 -
[38] - Quote
LUGMOS wrote:So, the general idea is that it is too unfulfilling and boring, with lack of actual skill in input from the operator. It is more about slaying, as its focus has been shifted from having to do multiple things at once, tank battles are generally nonexistent and bland.
So, more food for thought: What would be the best way to bring in more fun to tanking? Is the power of AV scaring some tankers away from fielding tanks? Is it the lack of profit to be made? Is it the general lackluster in tank battle mechanics/modules? Would bringing in more diversity in modules and vehicles solve some puzzles? Should tank survivability versus AV be increased? Maybe just the Madrugar/Soma?
I'd say bring the old modules and hulls back, swap things back to active modules but allow that more advanced style of gameplay to be more rewarding. For those who don't know what they're doing though, AV likely sends the less skilled fleeing to the forums to complain, but for the pilots who have it together, it's a joke.
I want to punch.
|
LUGMOS
YELLOW JESUS EXP FORCE
1005
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 00:57:00 -
[39] - Quote
TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:LUGMOS wrote:So, the general idea is that it is too unfulfilling and boring, with lack of actual skill in input from the operator. It is more about slaying, as its focus has been shifted from having to do multiple things at once, tank battles are generally nonexistent and bland.
So, more food for thought: What would be the best way to bring in more fun to tanking? Is the power of AV scaring some tankers away from fielding tanks? Is it the lack of profit to be made? Is it the general lackluster in tank battle mechanics/modules? Would bringing in more diversity in modules and vehicles solve some puzzles? Should tank survivability versus AV be increased? Maybe just the Madrugar/Soma? I disagree with your general consensus. In all fairness, all roles outside of Logi's is a slayer role, by general consensus, and the general consensus of Logi's seems to be that Logi's should be able to slay too lol. People aren't generally creative, that doesn't mean you can't do many creative things with HAV's. Most people just think big tank me kill now, though. Shoot... I meant...
I didn't clarify. Shouldn't have used that word. Vehicle slaying and infantry area support/denial/siege is better.
Quafe
Anti-FoTM Prof. V
Forum Scavenger Prof. V
|
LUGMOS
YELLOW JESUS EXP FORCE
1005
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:01:00 -
[40] - Quote
Crimson ShieId wrote:LUGMOS wrote:So, the general idea is that it is too unfulfilling and boring, with lack of actual skill in input from the operator. It is more about slaying, as its focus has been shifted from having to do multiple things at once, tank battles are generally nonexistent and bland.
So, more food for thought: What would be the best way to bring in more fun to tanking? Is the power of AV scaring some tankers away from fielding tanks? Is it the lack of profit to be made? Is it the general lackluster in tank battle mechanics/modules? Would bringing in more diversity in modules and vehicles solve some puzzles? Should tank survivability versus AV be increased? Maybe just the Madrugar/Soma? I'd say bring the old modules and hulls back, swap things back to active modules but allow that more advanced style of gameplay to be more rewarding. For those who don't know what they're doing though, AV likely sends the less skilled fleeing to the forums to complain, but for the pilots who have it together, it's a joke. I was thinking passive reps forever was a good idea, but there should be an option for sort of like a rep booster, an active module that boosts the rep rate of a vehicle for some amount of time, having a cool down. This would encourage smart module activation and would reward smarter gameplay. The overall module system as has been pointed out before generally lacks what it used to have in diversity; you had different modules to choose from that made your tank different from others'.
Quafe
Anti-FoTM Prof. V
Forum Scavenger Prof. V
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15361
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:02:00 -
[41] - Quote
Crimson ShieId wrote:Quote:Is that Calypso guy the guy that always seems to have a small rail gunner? If so, yeah that guy ******* wrecks or at least that two man team. The large rail not such an issue but the guy on the small rail never seems to miss when I'm trying to forge him. It's a nightmare dealing with those two. Most of the time I've seen him, he's actually solo, he just swaps in between piloting and gunning, but yea, it is indeed a nightmare to try and take him out. One of the few I've come across that actually requires a two-three man team to down.
That's how I do it as well, Main Anti Tank Gun and switch on hardeners and to a Small Rails if infantry presents itself.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15361
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:04:00 -
[42] - Quote
LUGMOS wrote:Crimson ShieId wrote:LUGMOS wrote:So, the general idea is that it is too unfulfilling and boring, with lack of actual skill in input from the operator. It is more about slaying, as its focus has been shifted from having to do multiple things at once, tank battles are generally nonexistent and bland.
So, more food for thought: What would be the best way to bring in more fun to tanking? Is the power of AV scaring some tankers away from fielding tanks? Is it the lack of profit to be made? Is it the general lackluster in tank battle mechanics/modules? Would bringing in more diversity in modules and vehicles solve some puzzles? Should tank survivability versus AV be increased? Maybe just the Madrugar/Soma? I'd say bring the old modules and hulls back, swap things back to active modules but allow that more advanced style of gameplay to be more rewarding. For those who don't know what they're doing though, AV likely sends the less skilled fleeing to the forums to complain, but for the pilots who have it together, it's a joke. I was thinking passive reps forever was a good idea, but there should be an option for sort of like a rep booster, an active module that boosts the rep rate of a vehicle for some amount of time, having a cool down. This would encourage smart module activation and would reward smarter gameplay. The overall module system as has been pointed out before generally lacks what it used to have in diversity; you had different modules to choose from that made your tank different from others'.
EWWWWW please. Passive reps on Armour was the worst thing that was every done to HAV, and buffed pulsing Shield reps absolutely a big no no of shields where slow constant regen was acceptable.
Passive reps on armour are also too ******* easy and doesn't require any thought.
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:05:00 -
[43] - Quote
Crimson ShieId wrote:LUGMOS wrote:So, the general idea is that it is too unfulfilling and boring, with lack of actual skill in input from the operator. It is more about slaying, as its focus has been shifted from having to do multiple things at once, tank battles are generally nonexistent and bland.
So, more food for thought: What would be the best way to bring in more fun to tanking? Is the power of AV scaring some tankers away from fielding tanks? Is it the lack of profit to be made? Is it the general lackluster in tank battle mechanics/modules? Would bringing in more diversity in modules and vehicles solve some puzzles? Should tank survivability versus AV be increased? Maybe just the Madrugar/Soma? I'd say bring the old modules and hulls back, swap things back to active modules but allow that more advanced style of gameplay to be more rewarding. For those who don't know what they're doing though, AV likely sends the less skilled fleeing to the forums to complain, but for the pilots who have it together, it's a joke.
Never should something be a joke for others to attempt against you. In a competitive environment there is no such sure way to ensure Monotonous game play then by making one aspect god mode when mastered. |
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:09:00 -
[44] - Quote
Crimson ShieId wrote:Quote:Is that Calypso guy the guy that always seems to have a small rail gunner? If so, yeah that guy ******* wrecks or at least that two man team. The large rail not such an issue but the guy on the small rail never seems to miss when I'm trying to forge him. It's a nightmare dealing with those two. Most of the time I've seen him, he's actually solo, he just swaps in between piloting and gunning, but yea, it is indeed a nightmare to try and take him out. One of the few I've come across that actually requires a two-three man team to down.
It wasn't the same guy, but still I'd imagine quite hard to beat given how good and underestimated small turrets are. The guy I was thinking of kept turning the vehicle to face me as the gunner fired. It was a gunnlogi so my caldari heavy couldn't strafe faster then his turning and he'd just center me as I hit em with my proto forge. his gunner fired at me several times but it only takes like 3 hits for a proto small rail to wreck my caldari heavy. |
LUGMOS
YELLOW JESUS EXP FORCE
1005
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:34:00 -
[45] - Quote
OK, so what reasoning do you give that there are no real HAV battles anymore?
I assure you, I'm definitely not Spkr 2.0 in any way. I just want HAVs to be something... More meaningful. And more fulfilling.
Quafe
Anti-FoTM Prof. V
Forum Scavenger Prof. V
|
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:36:00 -
[46] - Quote
LUGMOS wrote:OK, so what reasoning do you give that there are no real HAV battles anymore?
I assure you, I'm definitely not Spkr 2.0 in any way. I just want HAVs to be something... More meaningful. And more fulfilling.
I can't answer a question that supposes something I don't agree with. HAV battles occur pretty much every time I enter a HAV. Only when the infantry AV dedicates hard to stopping me do I really get destroyed otherwise it takes another HAV to dominate me. And that's coming from someone that doesn't even have ADV/PRO modules. |
LUGMOS
YELLOW JESUS EXP FORCE
1005
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:38:00 -
[47] - Quote
TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:LUGMOS wrote:OK, so what reasoning do you give that there are no real HAV battles anymore?
I assure you, I'm definitely not Spkr 2.0 in any way. I just want HAVs to be something... More meaningful. And more fulfilling. I can't answer a question that supposes something I don't agree with. HAV battles occur pretty much every time I enter a HAV. Only when the infantry AV dedicates hard to stopping me do I really get destroyed otherwise it takes another HAV to dominate me. And that's coming from someone that doesn't even have ADV/PRO modules. So you think HAVs are perfect right now...
I want to see where the community sees shortcomings with HAVs as they stand at the moment. Would you like to see more modules reintroduced? What would you like to see more in an HAV?
Quafe
Anti-FoTM Prof. V
Forum Scavenger Prof. V
|
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:43:00 -
[48] - Quote
LUGMOS wrote:TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:LUGMOS wrote:OK, so what reasoning do you give that there are no real HAV battles anymore?
I assure you, I'm definitely not Spkr 2.0 in any way. I just want HAVs to be something... More meaningful. And more fulfilling. I can't answer a question that supposes something I don't agree with. HAV battles occur pretty much every time I enter a HAV. Only when the infantry AV dedicates hard to stopping me do I really get destroyed otherwise it takes another HAV to dominate me. And that's coming from someone that doesn't even have ADV/PRO modules. So you think HAVs are perfect right now... I want to see where the community sees shortcomings with HAVs as they stand at the moment. Would you like to see more modules reintroduced? What would you like to see more in an HAV?
As to more modules being introduced its not that I don't want to see new content, its that no new content has come since 1.8 which was before CCP announced it was for less of a better term, pulling the plug. Granted we got some new sockets but I'm still skeptical that we will actually see the introduction of new content player wise (Weapons, equipment, modules, etc.) as much as I'd love to mind you.
I mean those sockets could have been in the works already. God knows we know there exists place holders for a lot of other things like vehicles that haven't been introduced still over a year after the official release.
As to balance. Armor HAV's need to be readdressed and I think raising armor hardeners to be on par with shield hardeners is a pretty good start. Given that they constantly regen and can do so on par or higher then shield tanks combined with their higher e/hp may be enough to rebalance them, although they may still be disadvantaged by the overwhelming amount of long range armor profiled AV. Not sure what to do about that but to add new content IE. adding Amarr shield based heavy weapon AV or something, but again I wouldn't hold your breath for that. |
LUGMOS
YELLOW JESUS EXP FORCE
1005
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 01:58:00 -
[49] - Quote
Perfect! I knew I could get more out of you!
As for the introduction of different modules, it would not be difficult and most entirely possible. The only reason they still aren't in game is because of balancing, as Rattati doesn't believe there is true balance in vehicles ATM.
The RE-introduction of modules wouldn't be difficult, as the assets exist and it would only be a matter of putting them back into the game code. Only numbers would be changed on them.
I would totally agree with you on the armor vehicle bit. Its not even just HAVs. Its all armor vehicles. I had proposed an idea to temporarily remove AV weapon damage profiles, as there is only one shield based AV weapon at the moment, which is entirely unfair to armor vehicles. What's more is that their hardeners also have less strength in comparison. The original intent was for armor hardeners to reflect an armor tank's strength as a vehicle that could take constant hits, and for shield HAVs to be hit and run specialists. Its why the armor hardener doesn't have as much resistance but lasts longer. However, the armor tanks strengths isnt good against the alpha based rail and missile shield based tanks, as the resists won't do you much good. At least not as much as the shield tank's would...
Quafe
Anti-FoTM Prof. V
Forum Scavenger Prof. V
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star. EoN.
2421
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:06:00 -
[50] - Quote
Getting stuck on rocks, boxes and walls, and having to wait 3 whole seconds to get off of them.
Going so slow over the slightest bumps (especially LAVs) that an old woman in a powered scooter can go faster.
LAVs slow down going up the slightest incline.
Dropships handle like an aircraft carrier trying to turn in the ocean. They're supposed to be the helicopter of the future. There should be a greater distinction between forward movement and upward movement. Turning radius on the regular STD dropships should be decreased. Definitely faster than they are now, but not as fast as the ADS. Fix the turret auto-correcting itself to look straight forward when it reaches a certain point. I've shot myself out as a side gunner more than once, and this needed to be fixed a long time ago.
Large missile turrets aren't always full auto. When it's not full auto, it fires 2, 3 or 4 missiles at a time. Sometimes you need to be able to hold down the trigger and let them all loose in 2 seconds, instead of trying to quickly tap the trigger.
Large railguns have been screwed up for a much longer time. I'll sometimes have a reload glitch where it can't finish reloading for a minute or more. When it won't fix itself, the only option is to recall. Another one, I'll be firing my rail, holding the trigger down, nothing will come out, then I'll release the trigger and one round will fire, as a delayed reaction. Much worse than that, I'll hold down for 2 rounds, then my rail starts to auto-fire, getting down to 2 rounds left before overheating. This has gotten me killed far too many times.
Turret rotation speed is too slow. The change of the seasons happens faster than a 360-¦ rotation of a large rail or missile turret. Rarely when I switch from third to first person, my rail will be looking off to the side. Not good when I'm about to engage a vehicle.
Rail spool up time needs to be reduced. Overheat needs to be reduced. Give us 350m or 400m range.
(off topic, but move the spawns back a few hundred meters, probably the redline too - it'll prevent redline sniping from both infantry and railguns)
There's no good reason to take infantry's advice on vehicles. They only ask for us to be nerfed. They had the armor reps, armor hardeners, shield hardeners, and afterburner nerfed. Why? because they don't want to reload to take out a vehicle. If they have to reload, that's not fair. Pilots should be consulted on a fair compromise. So far, it's been infantry having the sole voice in the direction vehicles take.
Don't like the lack of variety as far as modules go. We had so much stuff before that we could fit a tank any way we wanted. We were actually able to fit a logi tank, because you could get shot out of the LAV.
The main thing I don't like about vehicles? Pilots aren't asked what we want done to them. We never have been. That needs to change. My voice falls on deaf ears; infantry literally hates me because before, I never, ever compromised on the role I chose.
I remember when I was able to shrug off while fighting a tank, because a tank should be the biggest threat to another tank. Have an annoying blaster tank that won't let you move out? Get a rail tank and vaporize it. But then with that, it comes down to rail fights. ADS ruining your day? Shoot it with a rail to instill the fear of god into the pilot.
And last, infantry said the placeholder stats for the pilot suits were OP. We didn't know if they had module, equipment or weapon slots, or if they would have their own specialized modules to further improve the vehicle. Infantry declared them OP, and then they were forgotten about. This needs to change.
Hear our voices, Rattati. We're not slobbering morons that so many on here will lead you to believe. It was pilots that pointed out the incredible buff to swarms when they were changed, because infantry couldn't do anything immediately after firing a volley. It worked out to 7000 damage before reloading. When the TAC ARs were OP, it was worked out that the damage they put out was on par with a large blaster, the neutron I believe. It's still possible to one-shot an armor tank in the sweet spot with the PRO breach forge, Caldari sentinel, proficiency 5 and 4 damage mods. I've nearly done it when I had the Minmatar sentinel and proficiency 3. If I had the Cal sentinel with 4 damage mods and proficiency 5, there's no doubt in my mind I would've been able to destroy armor tanks in one shot. That, obviously is all about positioning, aim, and the right timing.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
|
TIGER SHARK1501
Savage Bullet
64
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:08:00 -
[51] - Quote
LUGMOS wrote:So in the light of this question, what about vehicles pisses you off?
1. If you don't kill it, they go 30-0 and lose no ISK? 2. Is it because they instagank you? 3. Is it because all they're good for is camping CRUs? 4. Is it because they have no defined role? 5. Is it because they die too quickly to make a difference? 6. Do you feel that AV should be a more viable counter to HAVs and ADS than other HAVs or ADS? 7. Other? And please explain what.
For pilots: 1. When a tank on the enemy team appears, are you reluctant to field your own in fear of death? 2. Do you feel AV should be a thorn on your backside, while other vehicles the real threat? 3. Should Forge Guns be more effective than swarms? 4. Should Plasma Cannons be more effective than swarms? 5. Do you think AV or Anti Infantry is your primary role as a HAV/ADS pilot?
I will also post a possible solution if my suspicions are correct in the second post, which shall be reserved. I'll try my best to answer your questions. 1. No but the biggest threat to me besides a well oiled AV squad and installations are another tank. I try to think what large turret they are using and how can I attack them to have an advantage? 2. Yes and No. One individual should with a skilled weapon should give me pause but I feel that an organized group should be a threat. 2 high level operators of a forge gun or swarm can have skills to push my back making them my immediate threat and put them in my crosshairs. Vehicles are typically the greatest threat to me. 3. I think forge guns should be more of a threat because heavies are slow enough I can back off versus swarmers that can move at higher speeds making it hard to disengage. 4. I'd say Plasma Cannons and Swarms are on the same playing field but swarmns are far easier to operate. All you do with swarms is lock-on, fire and forget. Plasma cannons need aim and adjustment for your distance to target. They tend to need skill or at least more so than swarms. Truthfully they should be about equal in performance. 5. I feel that my primary role is AV in that I remove vehicles/installations from hindering my infantry teammates. When all of those are removed I do my best to suppress advancing red berries so that my teammates can advance. I myself in my vehicle cannot take a point since I would need to get out in order to hack a point. CCP has stated the intent of vehicles was not to act as an anti infantry force. I would say however that should stop vehicles from posing a threat to infantry. |
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:09:00 -
[52] - Quote
LUGMOS wrote:Perfect! I knew I could get more out of you!
As for the introduction of different modules, it would not be difficult and most entirely possible. The only reason they still aren't in game is because of balancing, as Rattati doesn't believe there is true balance in vehicles ATM.
The RE-introduction of modules wouldn't be difficult, as the assets exist and it would only be a matter of putting them back into the game code. Only numbers would be changed on them.
I would totally agree with you on the armor vehicle bit. Its not even just HAVs. Its all armor vehicles. I had proposed an idea to temporarily remove AV weapon damage profiles, as there is only one shield based AV weapon at the moment, which is entirely unfair to armor vehicles. What's more is that their hardeners also have less strength in comparison. The original intent was for armor hardeners to reflect an armor tank's strength as a vehicle that could take constant hits, and for shield HAVs to be hit and run specialists. Its why the armor hardener doesn't have as much resistance but lasts longer. However, the armor tanks strengths isnt good against the alpha based rail and missile shield based tanks, as the resists won't do you much good. At least not as much as the shield tank's would...
Only issue I see with the damage profile removal is that Forge guns and PLC's can still effect other infantry. You can certainly say I told you so when it happens but with as long as development has taken with this game I seriously doubt the re-introduction of anything has anything to do with balance. Armor having staying power just doesn't work in this game mechanic wise. Considering everything is sectioned off by SP walls and not say kill streaks or what have you, the only logical choice is always the power choice. If armor tanks or any tanks for that matter can sit there and take punishment there is no reason for all players not to spec and play with said things. People overplay hacking objectives if the entire team could field tanks, they would, and one guy would just walk out to cap the objective/s once they are surrounded. This game has a long history of ignoring obvious simple game abuses for months, that's just Rattatai's doing his job to say x is in the works. Don't take any company's word for it unless you want to be a sucker. |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star. EoN.
2421
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:13:00 -
[53] - Quote
LUGMOS wrote:Crimson ShieId wrote:LUGMOS wrote:So, the general idea is that it is too unfulfilling and boring, with lack of actual skill in input from the operator. It is more about slaying, as its focus has been shifted from having to do multiple things at once, tank battles are generally nonexistent and bland.
So, more food for thought: What would be the best way to bring in more fun to tanking? Is the power of AV scaring some tankers away from fielding tanks? Is it the lack of profit to be made? Is it the general lackluster in tank battle mechanics/modules? Would bringing in more diversity in modules and vehicles solve some puzzles? Should tank survivability versus AV be increased? Maybe just the Madrugar/Soma? I'd say bring the old modules and hulls back, swap things back to active modules but allow that more advanced style of gameplay to be more rewarding. For those who don't know what they're doing though, AV likely sends the less skilled fleeing to the forums to complain, but for the pilots who have it together, it's a joke. I was thinking passive reps forever was a good idea, but there should be an option for sort of like a rep booster, an active module that boosts the rep rate of a vehicle for some amount of time, having a cool down. This would encourage smart module activation and would reward smarter gameplay. The overall module system as has been pointed out before generally lacks what it used to have in diversity; you had different modules to choose from that made your tank different from others'. We used to have that. On a Madrugar in the old days, the only module you didn't have to activate was an armor plate. I've juggled a rep, 3 hardeners, a scanner and a NOS. On a Gunnlogi, I used to juggle a booster and 3 hardeners.
Active modules are certainly not new, and there's a lot of us that perfected module management/activation in order to survive as well as take out vehicles.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15367
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:19:00 -
[54] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:LUGMOS wrote:Crimson ShieId wrote:LUGMOS wrote:So, the general idea is that it is too unfulfilling and boring, with lack of actual skill in input from the operator. It is more about slaying, as its focus has been shifted from having to do multiple things at once, tank battles are generally nonexistent and bland.
So, more food for thought: What would be the best way to bring in more fun to tanking? Is the power of AV scaring some tankers away from fielding tanks? Is it the lack of profit to be made? Is it the general lackluster in tank battle mechanics/modules? Would bringing in more diversity in modules and vehicles solve some puzzles? Should tank survivability versus AV be increased? Maybe just the Madrugar/Soma? I'd say bring the old modules and hulls back, swap things back to active modules but allow that more advanced style of gameplay to be more rewarding. For those who don't know what they're doing though, AV likely sends the less skilled fleeing to the forums to complain, but for the pilots who have it together, it's a joke. I was thinking passive reps forever was a good idea, but there should be an option for sort of like a rep booster, an active module that boosts the rep rate of a vehicle for some amount of time, having a cool down. This would encourage smart module activation and would reward smarter gameplay. The overall module system as has been pointed out before generally lacks what it used to have in diversity; you had different modules to choose from that made your tank different from others'. We used to have that. On a Madrugar in the old days, the only module you didn't have to activate was an armor plate. I've juggled a rep, 3 hardeners, a scanner and a NOS. On a Gunnlogi, I used to juggle a booster and 3 hardeners. Active modules are certainly not new, and there's a lot of us that perfected module management/activation in order to survive as well as take out vehicles.
Hmmm you had a very odd build?
I remember my two armour fits being 2 hardeners and 1 repper or 2 reppers and one hardener.
Damage Control II and a Heat Sink II in the highs
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star. EoN.
2421
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:20:00 -
[55] - Quote
Henrietta Unknown wrote:Summa Militum wrote:The only vehicles that **** me off are the dropships that can shoot you from head-on (not the ones that have turrets on the side of the drop ship, I am talking about the one with the turret in the front of the dropship facing forward) . I can be taking on a group of people single-handedly and kicking some serious ass and then the next thing I know the ground around me is being blown to hell and I die.
I give props to the guy in the dropship who just saved his team but at the same time that guy can go **** himself. It's called an Assault Drop Ship, and it's very expensive - some 200K ISK. That's not at all expensive. My current Gunnlogi missile fit is 455k ISK, which is 1/3 the price my PC-quality fit used to cost.
I may be missing something, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't call for a tank nerf before Uprising 1.7. - Atiim
|
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:24:00 -
[56] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Henrietta Unknown wrote:Summa Militum wrote:The only vehicles that **** me off are the dropships that can shoot you from head-on (not the ones that have turrets on the side of the drop ship, I am talking about the one with the turret in the front of the dropship facing forward) . I can be taking on a group of people single-handedly and kicking some serious ass and then the next thing I know the ground around me is being blown to hell and I die.
I give props to the guy in the dropship who just saved his team but at the same time that guy can go **** himself. It's called an Assault Drop Ship, and it's very expensive - some 200K ISK. That's not at all expensive. My current Gunnlogi missile fit is 455k ISK, which is 1/3 the price my PC-quality fit used to cost.
In all fairness, currently a 200kish ADS will get swatted out of the sky in 2-3 swarm volleys aka a single load aka one person can shoot those things out of the sky. The good ADS cost far more. HAVs are only really more expensive than an ADS when you use 2 proto small turrets on the HAV. Because, turrets in general are ridiculously over priced. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15367
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:26:00 -
[57] - Quote
TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Henrietta Unknown wrote:Summa Militum wrote:The only vehicles that **** me off are the dropships that can shoot you from head-on (not the ones that have turrets on the side of the drop ship, I am talking about the one with the turret in the front of the dropship facing forward) . I can be taking on a group of people single-handedly and kicking some serious ass and then the next thing I know the ground around me is being blown to hell and I die.
I give props to the guy in the dropship who just saved his team but at the same time that guy can go **** himself. It's called an Assault Drop Ship, and it's very expensive - some 200K ISK. That's not at all expensive. My current Gunnlogi missile fit is 455k ISK, which is 1/3 the price my PC-quality fit used to cost. In all fairness, currently a 200kish ADS will get swatted out of the sky in 2-3 swarm volleys aka a single load aka one person can shoot those things out of the sky. The good ADS cost far more. HAVs are only really more expensive than an ADS when you use 2 proto small turrets on the HAV. Because, turrets in general are ridiculously over priced.
Pfff not even.
I loved it when Prototype turrets cost 981,000 ISK!
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
15367
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:26:00 -
[58] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Henrietta Unknown wrote:Summa Militum wrote:The only vehicles that **** me off are the dropships that can shoot you from head-on (not the ones that have turrets on the side of the drop ship, I am talking about the one with the turret in the front of the dropship facing forward) . I can be taking on a group of people single-handedly and kicking some serious ass and then the next thing I know the ground around me is being blown to hell and I die.
I give props to the guy in the dropship who just saved his team but at the same time that guy can go **** himself. It's called an Assault Drop Ship, and it's very expensive - some 200K ISK. That's not at all expensive. My current Gunnlogi missile fit is 455k ISK, which is 1/3 the price my PC-quality fit used to cost.
No tanks cost 1.5 Million ISK Spkr
I said, "Empress, I do this, I thought that you knew this.
Can't stand non-believers and honest, the truth is...
|
Mossellia Delt
Militaires Sans Jeux
1927
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:29:00 -
[59] - Quote
What annoys me is tanks not setting off my proxies, not taking damage from my forge gun and having my av nades bounce off of tanks. What annoys me tanking is my gun constantly resetting to the middle of the screen every 2 seconds.
Delt for CPM2
CPM1 MISSION : FAILED
Moss-delt on skype
|
TYCHUS MAXWELL
The Fun Police
637
|
Posted - 2014.12.03 02:31:00 -
[60] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:TYCHUS MAXWELL wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Henrietta Unknown wrote:Summa Militum wrote:The only vehicles that **** me off are the dropships that can shoot you from head-on (not the ones that have turrets on the side of the drop ship, I am talking about the one with the turret in the front of the dropship facing forward) . I can be taking on a group of people single-handedly and kicking some serious ass and then the next thing I know the ground around me is being blown to hell and I die.
I give props to the guy in the dropship who just saved his team but at the same time that guy can go **** himself. It's called an Assault Drop Ship, and it's very expensive - some 200K ISK. That's not at all expensive. My current Gunnlogi missile fit is 455k ISK, which is 1/3 the price my PC-quality fit used to cost. In all fairness, currently a 200kish ADS will get swatted out of the sky in 2-3 swarm volleys aka a single load aka one person can shoot those things out of the sky. The good ADS cost far more. HAVs are only really more expensive than an ADS when you use 2 proto small turrets on the HAV. Because, turrets in general are ridiculously over priced. Pfff not even. I loved it when Prototype turrets cost 981,000 ISK!
That crap better shot rainbows at the MCC while spitting its own Null Missiles for that much isk... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |