|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1353
   |
Posted - 2015.02.14 02:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
No.
As revealed in your other thread, your end goal is to make dropships incapable of destroying HAVs:
Godin Thekiller wrote:Problem is, why is a DS (vehicle made for transport) trying to engage HAV's instead of transporting?
No infantry suit is incapable of killing another infantry suit: consequently, no vehicle should be incapable of killing another vehicle. You have no justification for this reasoning other than that you don't like ADSs destroying HAVs.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1356
|
Posted - 2015.02.14 03:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Not necessarily. More so, that was asking why is a secondary function regarded as the primary function. I'm fine with ADS's being able to, but it shouldn't be as good vs. taking on them with AV or a HAV (even MAV's should be better, seeing as MAV's will probably have medium turrets). If I wanted them not to at all, I would have stated "Why are they taking them at all, period", or "why can they?". Again, you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to get across.
I even have a goal at the very top of the thread: "To allow Pilots in HAV's to reasonably engage Pilots in ADS's with their Large turrets without breaking the balance between them, and to allow ADS's to still earn a decent amount of WP's.". There's a thing called reading.
Why is the ADS engaging? To threaten the HAV with death and thus giving it a new priority target and/or forcing it to withdraw?
Thee current balance is that an ADS requires a fairly long time to kill an HAV. Adjust the turret elevation will make HAVs immensely less vulnerable to aerial threats by being able to apply their far higher firepower. As before, the HAV has the advantage in firepower and resilience, so removing the ADSs one advantage (insofar as an engagement is concerned) then the ADS will never have the potential to win.
That's like saying a scout will always show up on a sentinel's passive scans, and that's fair because the weakness of sentinels has now been made so that the scout's advantage is no longer there.
Increasing turret elevation would upset the balance by making HAVs too effective at removing dropships (of all stripes) unless your possible DS buffs include buffing their EHP up to HAV levels and making their firepower much more HAV-like so that they can actually compete.
---
What's the point of an assault variant of something if it's not going to be of any use when assaulting? You've said before that an ADS should run before it gets engaged by AV, so in what way is it better at assaulting? A normal DS can provide supporting fire, and if it's EHP means it must run, then the ADS is pointless, since it's worse at transporting and incapable of actually providing any useful fired support.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1362
|
Posted - 2015.02.20 19:12:00 -
[3] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:2: Try to talk actual balance instead of digging your head into a hole.
The irony in this statement is beyond belief.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1368
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 19:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I can't facepalm hard enough
This is exactly how I feel reading most of your posts.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1368
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 22:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Kallas Hallytyr wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:I can't facepalm hard enough This is exactly how I feel reading most of your posts. Seeing as you've yet to prove me wrong on any of them, quiet.
And that's another to the tally.
Since you haven't proved any of your points right, quiet.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1369
|
Posted - 2015.02.24 23:52:00 -
[6] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I've pointed out all the ways that could could easily avoid any existing counters, and pointed out that no examples shows otherwise.
Again, show me some examples otherwise.
Your point is predicated on the present counters being entirely unusable, which many in this thread and the last have vehemently disagreed with.
You're saying that no counters exist because of your singular experience: many others are saying that there are counters (that do not require teamwork) that exist and that they have success with them. This leads to one of several conclusions:
- you are bad at the game and incapable of operating a vehicle well enough to defend yourself
- many others are entirely wrong, for some reason
- you are specifically lying about the ability to use these techniques to drive forward an agenda.
Frankly, I think the third is probably the mostly likely, considering certain choices statements you've made about the ADS.
One of the things you seem to be ignoring is that HAVs have the greatest firepower on the field, as well as the greatest resilience. A dropship, or any stripe, has to maintain a very careful position to threaten an HAV because the tank and DPS figures are so incredibly skewed in the favour of the HAV (and that's reasonable.) By making the positional advantage of the DS practically irrelevant, you're making it all about HP/DPS, which will always be in the HAVs favour.
Effectively, you're taking the current situation of positioning vs firepower and making it into a flee vs everything situation.
Godin Thekiller wrote:Also, I'd like to point out how instead of being reasonable, you're just saying no, I refuse to converse.
This is pinnacle of hypocrisy. You're continued refusal to accept that counters (that dont require teamwork) exist is entirely unreasonable.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1369
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 02:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:Again, if you want to say "It's completely fine, no change needed." Then either prove it with examples, or shut it.
EDIT: What I'm trying to suggest is put IN the stalemate. Currently, that doesn't exist.
So, the HAV doesn't have far higher EHP and higher DPS, even after the changes? and in return has far less flexibility of movement, giving rise to a relatively small angle in which it cannot attack one kind of enemy?
Thing is, DSs have very little use in the game as is. The effectiveness vs HAVs is fairly limited, and I have shown that with numbers (like how a maxed out ADS took around 25 seconds to kill a half awake, terrible HAV operator), such that by giving the HAV less disadvantage in this situation is tantamount to making the ADS essentially irrelevant as far as the HAV vs ADS balance is concerned.
Even with a buff to DS EHP, the HAV still has more (and rightly so) and more DPS - so where is the fairness for the DS? Surely if the HAV has little to no disadvantage engaging, then shouldn't the DS get EHP/DPS much closer to the HAV has?
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1369
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 12:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I avoid them all the time.
Again, show me proof of otherwise. I'm waiting.
Also, Rockets are getting nerfed on top of that, they'll be even worse.
This is exactly what I'm talking about - you say that all I ever do is say no, well that's exactly what the above statement is doing: all you've done is say, "I can, therefore it's fine/not fine" but when anyone else does that you demand proof.
You have provided no evidence, why should anyone else?
And yes, while Missiles are getting nerfed, they're still a large turret and deal far higher DPS than any small turret platform.
Godin Thekiller wrote:eHP changes time, and DPS only helps if you can actually hit the ADS, and consistently. That simply doesn't exist. Try again.
Also, the ADS can easily escape AND return.
Right, so one has an EHP advantage, and by your proposal will be able to hit far more consistently. Where is the ADSs advantage? Bring able to, literally, run away? Oooh, so great, especially when it won't be able to kill an HAV anywhere near fast enough before the HAV can swing around and either knock it straight out of the sky or force it to run.
So how about you show evidence for a ******* change, huh? Oh you can't record? And you can't be bothered finding videos? Then you have an unfounded argument with no basis for implementation other than your own personal experience, which is countered by half a dozen or more equally experienced players' statements.
And as for giving the DSs help? Yes, you're trying to sideline them into a very specific and extremely unwanted part of the game (ie, trying to force them to be transport only, essentially.) How is that any fun for the pilot? "Yeah I'll come help you fight at alpha...wait...is there any AV at all? Is there a tank on the field? Oh, well then I'm out, because Godin said I'm not allowed to help if either of those is true."
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1370
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 02:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:[quoBy the looks of it, you are just gonna keep asking for example after example after example.
ANYTHING can be shot down by saying "that's just one isolated incident" - no proof will ever be enough.
Thank goodness I did not go thru uploading all cases.
Yeah, it's pretty much why I don't want to let Godin push these changes. So much hinges on Godin's opinions that seem to match very few others'.
I also generally hate Godin's vilification of anyone who disagrees. I want balance as much as the next person, but the proposals don't, as far as many peoples' experiences show, actually help balance anything and calling them 'progress' is simply changing something for the sake of changing something. Change is not always better and the current state of ADS/HAV combat is pretty balanced unless you're as godlike/utterly **** as Godin seems to be.
Are there things that need some work? Of course, the entire game is needs some core mechanics reworked and some parts definitely need to be looked at, but HAV/ADS balance is close to spot on when two equally skilled players are fighting.
But just remember, if Godin says something is broken, it obviously is and we're just bad at the game and/or want to have an unfair advantage.[/sarcasm] 
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1370
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 12:40:00 -
[10] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:I don't vilifcate people, they do that themselves by simply saying "No, **** you, no change required, stop being the scrub.".
No, this changes for the better. You've yet to prove why.
You've yet to prove that this would be a change for a better. Even though you refuse to admit it, all you have been doing is saying that it would be and that anyone who disagrees is just trying to shout you down. I honestly don't think that your elevation changes would be good for the health of HAV/ADS balance, because HAVs would just blap ADSs a ton, even with large turret DPS reductions.
Godin Thekiller wrote:I've still yet to see otherwise that you're claiming to see.
That's your opinion. You've yet to prove that as fact.
And again, that's your opinion. You still haven't proven that as fact.
Kettle, Pot.
Godin Thekiller wrote:EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I know of at least 10 others that although agree with me, just simply don't want to deal with it, because of a lot of Pilots that refuses progress, kinda like what you're doing.
Why not have them just post and go? Or post on your seven hundred alts?
Again, I'm butting heads with you because I genuinely think your elevation idea is a bad one. I barely fly any more because AV is so ridiculously irritating to deal with, but if I got shot by every HAV on the field, there'd be no reason for me to ever use an ADS, even though I want to use an ADS more than any other thing in the game. Rooftop links? Just take a viper up there.
So yeah, I'm an ADS advocate, but my opposition of your elevation idea is not out of a want to see ADSs OP against HAVs (like you claim they are) but because I believe that this change would render all dropships pretty much obsolete, even with an EHP buff.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
|
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1370
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 15:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Godin Thekiller wrote:And as I said, several times now, the ways to do it are debatable. Instead of doing what Shamarskii Simon did and actually GAVE OTHER IDEAS (note: he doesn't like it either, and I wasn't even sure about it), you simply shut the entire thing down. That is why I said you and others are being unreasonable.
I honestly don't think a change is needed. And I think a change along the lines of your proposal (ie, increased elevation) would be bad for balance. What change do I suggest? None, because I think the situation is not broken. You think the opposite, and that's the extent of it.
You are not inherently right just because you are campaigning for change.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
|
|
| |
|