|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2673
   |
Posted - 2015.01.06 05:58:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm trying really hard to try to give a **** and explain how you're a ******* idiot, but I just can't.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2677
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 21:03:00 -
[2] - Quote
Djinn SouI wrote:Quasar Storm wrote:Djinn SouI wrote:All of these responses and I still have not received any answers to my questions... I bolded them for a reason. I am giving you guys a chance to state your case. If this is the best all of you can do then it only reinforces my belief that they should be removed. I would answer seriously, If I could take you seriously. Cause you're not Soul. It doesnt matter who I am. CCP will probably read this and see that not one single person can provide one counter arguement. My questions are very simple and I answered them for every other role.
You do realize that nobody is giving you a answer because nobody is taking you serious, right?
Damn, if Ripper says can't take you serious, you have issues.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2677
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 21:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Djinn SouI wrote:True Adamance wrote:Sure tanks don't currently have a role.
This doesn't mean they shouldn't have one. That is also why I asked what tankers believe their role in the battlefield should be. With 0 suggestions or answers to this question... It just makes HAV's pointless. So what should be the point?
The problem is, I've already answered this question, several times over, and you claim that I haven't, or that anyone here hasn't, several times. You sound like a creationist, and it tickles me.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2677
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 21:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Okay, but adding proto vehicles equals one of two things: either AV balance remains the same and the vehicles receive an irrelevant increase in statistics making the proto not worth having, or proto AV is rebalanced to the dramatically more durable vehicles (I mean, proto infantry can have fully twice as much HP as STD) and STD vehicles get royally screwed.
I suppose the answer is to do the latter, but make the PRO vehicles cost millions upon millions, and make proto AV cost a proportionate amount.
Or **** tiers tiercide.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2681
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 11:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:Okay, but adding proto vehicles equals one of two things: either AV balance remains the same and the vehicles receive an irrelevant increase in statistics making the proto not worth having, or proto AV is rebalanced to the dramatically more durable vehicles (I mean, proto infantry can have fully twice as much HP as STD) and STD vehicles get royally screwed.
I suppose the answer is to do the latter, but make the PRO vehicles cost millions upon millions, and make proto AV cost a proportionate amount. Or **** tiers tiercide. Look where tiericide landed us Godin.........
Tiercide hasn't happened yet for infantry, and has always existed for vehicles. I don't see what you mean by that.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
Top Men.
2694
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 19:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote:I like the WP cost for vehicles. It doesnt have to be much, but it would justify the buffing of vehicles as they would be more 'valuable'. LAVs and DSs would keep their 'free' cost as some people need the help traversing the field. ADSs and Tanks would cost WP so that it is clear that you are and infantryman first, then a pilot. Depending on the WP cost we could have the ISK cost of ADSs and Tanks go down
Hell ******* no. Why should I have to pay a WP cost when my role ingame for the most ppart is to be a ******* pilot?
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
Godin Thekiller
The Corporate Raiders
2704
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 03:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Djinn SouI wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:SgtMajSquish MLBJ wrote:I like the WP cost for vehicles. It doesnt have to be much, but it would justify the buffing of vehicles as they would be more 'valuable'. LAVs and DSs would keep their 'free' cost as some people need the help traversing the field. ADSs and Tanks would cost WP so that it is clear that you are and infantryman first, then a pilot. Depending on the WP cost we could have the ISK cost of ADSs and Tanks go down Hell ******* no. Why should I have to pay a WP cost when my role ingame for the most ppart is to be a ******* pilot? Maybe a wp cost for special types of vehicles with upgrades ontop of what is already available?
**** you, no. It makes ZERO sense, and on top that, it cuts off strategies where those are needed at any point. Just no.
Also, powerup vehicles are a serious **** no.
click me
Blup Blub Bloop. Translation: Die -_-
|
|
|
| |
|