Reinhard Manderfelt
Technically Legal
9
   |
Posted - 2015.03.13 20:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
AV did not receive more options. We got one extra AV grenade. I've seen enough HAV's take one grenade to the front, and then they'll chicken off to their redline and let their Armour reps take over until they're ready to get back in. Because a barely Dead HAV is an HAV that got away and will come back within 60sec, after it somehow repaired 3K+ Armor and regained it's shields. Offcourse the Proto Nades will do a ton of damage. They're Proto for a reason, and we pay for that extra damage, just like how Tanks pay extra for their Ion Cannons and Neutron Blaster and whatnots.
The slight increase to PLC damage is a joke. It's not enough. If they'd kept the PLC at its previous damage, but increased the damage it did vs. Armour; it'd be a decent choice for AV, as well as keep it balanced for Infantry killing. (it already Instant kills anyone on a direct hit, so what's the problem?)
I also don't think you've ever been on the AV side enough. Swarmers going through cover? Never seen that happen ever. Mine occasionally even veer out of their path to strike random objects not even in their intended flight path.
I'll grant you the AHMG shooting at tanks is weird, but then again, if a blast of Plasma hits the side of your fancy Challenger tank, it'd vaporize the armor, along with everyone inside that tank. But that's not the case when it hits your HAV. So I'm not up to complaining about the AHMG and bringing real world arguments into it, because real-work AT weapons are designed to knock out Tanks in a single shot, but place this in a game, and AT would become OP, and nobody would use Tanks.
And a single Proto AV guy taking out an HAV is op, but a guy solo'ing an entire team in an HAV isn't OP? Sure, Proto v. Proto should be a fair contest, but I can't see why a fully Proto AV fit should have to waste 300-400K on AV fits just to kill a Militia HAV. A Proto Tank should, and will, stomp a Militia Tank, just like how a Proto Assault should, and most likely will stomp a Militia assault. That's the point of having tiers. Yet for Infantry AV vs. HAV's it's suddenly different, and they demand you require at least 3 people to knock out one tank.
It sucks the fun out of AV when you need buddies, instead of skill, to kill a tank. AV needs more variety (and Vehicles can't complain because you guys at least have a ton of modules to use in different setups), and decent counters to specific builds (such as full Active Module builds.). Then you'll get a semblance of balance, with interesting AV v. Armour battles, and requires both AV and Tankers to think outside the box to gain the upper hand. And then the most skilled player wins, and then, in true Internet fashion, one of the sides will receive a nerf because: "See signature"
In online gaming: Skill=OP!
|
Reinhard Manderfelt
Technically Legal
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 01:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Templar XIII wrote:[
You are so funny, my dear.
Did you ever compare the investment in ISK each side has to make?
AV Proto suit spends like 160-180k ISK, where
the tanker has to invest 1-1.2 million ISK.
Changing suits once the job is done is easier as well.
The tanker has to defend against infantry as well as other tanks, so does the infantryman.
His guns being anti-infantry or anti-tank centric mirror the decision the infantryman has to make.
When one side has to invest at least 5 times the amount of ISK the other side has to,
would you not expect, as a tanker, to get something for it?
Your demand to have investment / commitment not be a deciding factor in a violent
engagement but personal skill as you call it (AV nades auto-track, so do swarms...skill?)
sounds nothing but delusional.
First of all, your argument about investment is not correct, as each AV guy dies an average of 5-6 times due to varying circumstances, be it the HAV itself, or Infantry running around. SO that means a decent AV fit will spend as much, if not more than the Tanker, and gain little to nothing in return, while the Tanker is getting kill after kill without dying. One of the two will end the match having gained ISK, the other will have run a negative ISK balance that match. Guess which one.
The only thing truly skewed in this is the SP investment. AV costs way less to pro to up than HAV's. But then again, Proto AV's need at least 3 guys to reliably take down a GOOD tanker. Note the distinction made here. I've blasted more than my fair share of unexperienced HAV drivers to bits, but it's the good tankers who know how to get out of sticky situations. And kudos to them, because that's the challenge for Infantry AV.
I agree that Auto-tracking stuff require little skill. I agree that it is AV "easy-mode" but the problem we face is that we have literally 0 different options (that are effective, FG's range cap killed its effectiveness by a large margin, and PLC has it's own problems). And that's the inherent problem. You guys want to strip all the auto-aim weapons, and nerd them into the ground, but they're all we have. Which is a problem.
@Takahiro: Quote:Plasma doesn't exist Either your fancy disclaimer lies about the trolling, or you are truly ignorant of this, but here: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)[/url]
Pay specific attention to the part about Industrial uses. Note: Metal cutting.
SCIENCE! 
How does one OHK a Tank with a single weapon/ shot? (serious question)
Not when it's on full health you don't. Even 6 Proto Mines don't cut that. Note that rushing a tank with 3 guys teaming it and killing it in a second isn't the same as a OHK. -->> More than one hit you see. 
@JARREL:
1st: That statement was an obvious exaggeration. I do apologize for not making that clear in my post.
2nd: The fact about AV vs. HAV is that it isn't balanced at any tier. It's too easy on some, and too hard on others. Basically, non-proto AV doesn't cut it, and you're forced to go to Proto Swarms/ AV grenades. Again, I believe the auto-aim weapons need to be toned down in favor of weapons that require some skill, rather than "throw/shoot in general direction".
--> I'm agreeing with you guys here. Just putting thus in writing to ensure no miscommunications happen.
3rd: Meh, words, words. I've solo'd plenty of tanks, even solo'd 2 Gunnlogi's at the same time. But offcourse, as you weren't there you'll discount this as fiction. So just to show you I do respect you, even though I've never played with or against you to my knowledge, I believe your statement of soloing a Tank with a cheap scout suit, on nothing else than your word. No sarcasm.
The signature does not refer to my personal opinion on the matter of skill. It references this:
Balanced weapon used by a bad player--> Weapon=UP
Balanced weapon used by a decent player-> Weapon=Good
Balanced weapon used by a skilled player-> Weapon=OP
It's to reference the idiotic practice of Online FPS Gamers to discount skil in the players, and focus wholly on the weapons, and thus demand nerfs on weapons because a handful of skilled player are "too good with it". Hence: Skill=OP
Think about it, you'll all have seen this happen at some point.
(It's a joke statement, meant in jest, not to be taken seriously.) 
Also, as a final point to you sir, there's no need to personally attack people having a calm discussion. It really detracts from your arguments. Just saying.
Final general point: I'm trying to discuss the touchy subject of AV balance with you guys in a calm and respectful manner, so if, on the off chance I offended anyone, I apologize for this. 
In online gaming: Skill=OP!
|