DUST Search - Vehicle Balance Proposal or How To Never Be CPM

Void Echo wrote:

Zan Azikuchi wrote:

Void Echo wrote:

Mobius Wyvern wrote:

A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention:

My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else.

Void Echo wrote:

With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design.

Care to elaborate.

If you really need an explanation then ok.

1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret?

2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%.

3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting.

4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people.

5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless.

So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know?

Testing out this game killing idea is fine, but never should it be actually implimented, there is literally no incentive to spec into their side if this is what will happen.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Scheneighnay McBob Tribal Liberation Force Paramilitary 7	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:12:00 - [31] - Quote Good idea, but almost as old as Dust itself, and poses the problem that we can't add fighters or MTACs Rule 34.6.1: every parody will have a crossover
Tesfa Alem Death by Disassociation 1	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:27:00 - [32] - Quote No need to rant, especially if your idea presupposes alot of development that dust will never see. I don't mind people trying to be creative. You're going to school in the fall, so you're a young buck no need to put you down. Keep it real, there's not exaclty a line of people that have to be reluctantly discouraged from voting for you as the volunteer community feedback guy for a free to play game on a last gen console. Better off focusing on school and devote your time to success / education IRL. Enjoy the summer Winter is coming. Redline for Thee, but no Redline for Me. "I sometimes wonder why I share stuff "- CCP Rattati
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:28:00 - [33] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote: With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. Skilling would be adjusted to match the current goal of applying turret stats based on the higher skill. If the gunner has more SP into turrets than the pilot, his bonuses are used. If not, the pilot's are used. As to your other major sticking point, I edited my post to include that this idea assumes the deployment of owner vehicle locking, which I would mention is in CCP Rattati's notes on Trello. This means that you can deploy into a battle in a squad with your gunner, lock your vehicle, and then only permit your gunner into the main turret. You can develop synergy with good gunners and be far more effective and survivable as a team than you could be on your own. This is aimed at you rolling with Corp members you trust, not with randoms. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Zan Azikuchi G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance 57	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:33:00 - [34] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote: With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know? G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
Void Echo Helix Order 2	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:39:00 - [35] - Quote Zan Azikuchi wrote: Void Echo wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote: With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know? Testing out this game killing idea is fine, but never should it be actually implimented, there is literally no incentive to spec into their side if this is what will happen. Closed Beta Vet. Founder of Helix Order. For the Federation, For Freedom, *Till all are Free*.
Void Echo Helix Order 2	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:41:00 - [36] - Quote This idea has been shot down by all pilots, HAV, drop ships and LAVs, not to mention some of the infantry community, lots of people know that this will without a doubt kill tanking immediately. Closed Beta Vet. Founder of Helix Order. For the Federation, For Freedom, *Till all are Free*.
Zan Azikuchi G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance 58	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:42:00 - [37] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Zan Azikuchi wrote: Void Echo wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote: With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know? Testing out this game killing idea is fine, but never should it be actually implimented, there is literally no incentive to spec into their side if this is what will happen. And if it turn's out far better than you thought it would? What then? G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
Zan Azikuchi G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance 58	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:43:00 - [38] - Quote Void Echo wrote: This idea has been shot down by all pilots, HAV, drop ships and LAVs, not to mention some of the infantry community, lots of people know that this will without a doubt kill tanking immediately. Didn't see any infatry or LAV driver's come here and chat about it, so that's a bit invalid... (also apologies for the double post ) G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:45:00 - [39] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Zan Azikuchi wrote: Void Echo wrote: Mobius Wyvern wrote: A friend of mine pointed out something I forgot to mention: My concept assumes the existence of selective vehicle locking. That way you can ensure that your gunners are the people you want and no one else. Void Echo wrote: With that idea your sure to never get the CPM position, that idea will literally kill HAVs. 5 main problems come with that design. Care to elaborate. If you really need an explanation then ok. 1. Who skills into what? Who will put their SP into the HAV itself and who will go with the turret? 2. If the HAV dies then who takes a blow to their wallet, there's no way to determine because one person could spec into turrets 70% and the HAVS 60%. 3. This would be like making it where you need 2 others to pilot your suit aloen, one for movement, one for aiming and one for shooting. 4. Blue dots have an IQ of .5, there's no way you can justify forcing HAV pilots to trust a random person to not drive them into a suicide nor can you trust them to shoot at the right people. 5. Quite plainly nobody will spec into either one, the investment in something like this would make it absolutely worthless. So what if we keep enforcer tanks as they are now, but make normal tank's use the OP? This way, we'll see who out performs who, the synergy tank? Or the solo tank, IT'S TIME FOR A DUST BATTLE~! (like a death battle, but in dust). Okay joke's aside, I really think this may be the way to go. Beside's it's not like EVERY vehicle would end up with this, only if it's super effective, gotta test it out first, y'know? Testing out this game killing idea is fine, but never should it be actually implimented, there is literally no incentive to spec into their side if this is what will happen. Did you read my response addressing your concerns? Again, the idea is that both vehicle classes would be available, and not that this be done right now. You would be able to trade maximum investment in HAVs for an extremely mobile solo armored vehicle with some disadvantages to balance it out. Part of the issue for me with the MTAC concept was it fit under the category of "Cool asset, bro" without actually adding anything. With this model team play is a greater factor in vehicle usage, and those who want can still push for a more balanced solo vehicle. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Void Echo Helix Order 2	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:48:00 - [40] - Quote I will never accept this concept, no pilot would (back in closed and open beta this was brought up countless times) Closed Beta Vet. Founder of Helix Order. For the Federation, For Freedom, *Till all are Free*.

Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 22:58:00 - [41] - Quote Void Echo wrote: I will never accept this concept, no pilot would (back in closed and open beta this was brought up countless times) You noticed how I mentioned that, right? I remember you doing exactly this in one of my old threads on the subject. How far do you want this endless and frankly moronic conflict over Vehicles and AV to go on? Vehicle users and AV users both refuse to rethink the dynamic. We just keep bickering endlessly over damage output and vehicle regen when the fact remains that no matter how long we beat that dead horse it's not going to wake up and be rideable. You've been here as long as I have because I remember you all the way back in March when I first got in. You know as well as I do how many YEARS we have been flogging this dessicated corpse of what used to be a horse and we've never gotten to a state that didn't have one side or the other upset with the status quo and some people leaving the game based on their displeasure. We can't keep going like this. We need to be willing to look at tearing up the foundation and trying something new. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Void Echo Helix Order 2	Posted - 2015.06.05 23:03:00 - [42] - Quote Something new is fine, but this suggestion isn't nor will it ever be an option. Your suggesting a mechanic that will literally eliminate the want or incentive to use HAVs, no game that has tanks is using this mechanic and for good reason, because they know that if they do it they might as well just remove tanks completely and make it like cod. Closed Beta Vet. Founder of Helix Order. For the Federation, For Freedom, *Till all are Free*.
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.05 23:13:00 - [43] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Something new is fine, but this suggestion isn't nor will it ever be an option. Your suggesting a mechanic that will literally eliminate the want or incentive to use HAVs, no game that has tanks is using this mechanic and for good reason, because they know that if they do it they might as well just remove tanks completely and make it like cod. Okay, I was willing to try and discuss this reasonably, but you're really going to pull the CoD card? Games like CoD and Halo use single-suit vehicles because of their more casual focus. I'm trying to find a way for vehicles to be a powerhouse without being an easy mode win button or helplessly shredded by clouds of easymode Swarms. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Zan Azikuchi G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance 59	Posted - 2015.06.05 23:24:00 - [44] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Something new is fine, but this suggestion isn't nor will it ever be an option. Your suggesting a mechanic that will literally eliminate the want or incentive to use HAVs, no game that has tanks is using this mechanic and for good reason, because they know that if they do it they might as well just remove tanks completely and make it like cod. So, with the way this game is going, your willing to just let this game play as is? Player's have already lost incentive because AV simply blow's them up, warbarges kill them while their looking into the mini map, where's the incentive if your too busy doing 1 thing to notice the other? This game dies because your not willing to look the other way for 1-3 month's over something that may save the game or rather vehicles, in-fact, how do I know your not simply fighting against vehicles at this point? Mobius is trying to improve yet you constantly decide no, old way thinking is dying faster than the japanese art of blacksmithing, we need new method's, new gameplay, unique gameplay, something to set this game apart from all the rest out there. And Cod? Seriously? Are you an 8 year old screaming into the mic trying to troll some other 8 year old kid? G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
Void Echo Helix Order 2	Posted - 2015.06.05 23:35:00 - [45] - Quote And you think that forcing them to rely on someone else to drive or shoot their own HAV will give them incentives? Closed Beta Vet. Founder of Helix Order. For the Federation, For Freedom, *Till all are Free*.
Operative 1174 Uuali Krullefor Organization Minmatar Republic 796	Posted - 2015.06.05 23:53:00 - [46] - Quote I like HAVs and ADS. I like to be able to play solo with them. EVE ships also offer solo play hence CCP supports this one player, one vehicle concept. There are better ways to balance vehicles. I was thinking about running for CPM too. I'll detail that in a CPM post if so. I've mentioned balance ideas before though. I like the idea of offering multiple players to control vehicles. That should be a force multiplier though and that would mean OP mode for vehicles. The CPM candidate we need, not the one we want. The candidate for the rest of us.
Zan Azikuchi G.R.A.V.E The Ditanian Alliance 61	Posted - 2015.06.06 00:04:00 - [47] - Quote Operative 1174 Uuali wrote: I like HAVs and ADS. I like to be able to play solo with them. EVE ships also offer solo play hence CCP supports this one player, one vehicle concept. There are better ways to balance vehicles. I was thinking about running for CPM too. I'll detail that in a CPM post if so. I've mentioned balance ideas before though. I like the idea of offering multiple players to control vehicles. That should be a force multiplier though and that would mean OP mode for vehicles. But it would be appropriate since it's 3-4 people operating one vehicle (1 driver, 1 main tank gunner, optional 2 side gunner's). In BF4 there's always reliance on a teammate when vehicles involved, and with the proper knowledge, both driver and pilot (unless somehow shot out of the vehicle) will naturally go 10+/0- because the two of them actually know what their doing, + this idea also limits HAV usage and spam as well, which is another +. G.R.A.V.E - Dead men tell no tale...
Void Echo Helix Order 2	Posted - 2015.06.06 00:13:00 - [48] - Quote Then separate your dropsuits, one person to move your dropsuit, one to aim and the other to shoot your gun. Closed Beta Vet. Founder of Helix Order. For the Federation, For Freedom, *Till all are Free*.
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 00:59:00 - [49] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Then separate your dropsuits, one person to move your dropsuit, one to aim and the other to shoot your gun. You used that one already, you got anything else? See, the issue here is you're looking at this as me taking your tank away from you, but that's not the right way to see it, so picture two things: 1. Receiving a respec in associated vehicle trees just like they've done before so you can put your points where you want 2. A two-legged walker with more firepower and mobility than your HAV at the cost of lower base hitpoints. Got that? Now we get to the good stuff. This thing is composed of 5 different subsystems. Each category has at least 5 options so you can pick and choose your base functionality and then put modules on top of that to get an MTAC that performs exactly how you want it. I want you to imagine trading in your solo tank for a ***** Mech that can be tripped up by hits to the legs and is a little more vulnerable, but in exchange let's you truly be a one-man killing machine. See, what you want is tanks that are giant Dropsuits. I'm saying ** that. Just take a giant Dropsuit. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Void Echo Helix Order 2	Posted - 2015.06.06 02:17:00 - [50] - Quote Yeah, your wanting to turn this into cod 514, with your suggestion tanking would die. There is no reward for being forced to deal with randoms with your class. There is no logical reason for your idea, its an excuse for ccp to say "let's get rid of tanks" when they see that 0% of players spec into having someone drive them around or shoot our of their own tank. Closed Beta Vet. Founder of Helix Order. For the Federation, For Freedom, *Till all are Free*.

Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 02:39:00 - [51] - Quote Void Echo wrote: Yeah, your wanting to turn this into cod 514, with your suggestion tanking would die. There is no reward for being forced to deal with randoms with your class. There is no logical reason for your idea, its an excuse for ccp to say "let's get rid of tanks" when they see that 0% of players spec into having someone drive them around or shoot our of their own tank. I used to be specced into tanks, and this ruins them for everyone, I'm not gona waste millions of SP for some random ****** to drive me directly into a suicide nor will I do it just to drive around while some idiot gets all the kills leaving me with nothing. And Corp mates aren't on 24/7 so your basically saying that tanks should me nerves into the ground and only used when others are online, making the SP in it completely worthless. I get the feeling I'm not going to get anything but hostility from you. I had hoped that several years of the same crap would loosen up some of the "vets" but apparently there are some of you that just can't let go of the current meta. I want you to answer this for me: what gameplay is there in Dust that isn't available in any other game? You've made the point yourself that tank gameplay in Dust is virtually identical to that in every other combined-arms game, except that in this one you have people who can drive around going on murder sprees while demanding that an entire squad needs to work together in order to kill them. Has it not occured to you that you're basically demanding that your SP investment render you better than everyone else? Have you ever considered how much fun the infantry who are unable to stop you and that you're farming over and over again are having? This isn't just a game about tanks, Void, and part of what leads so many people to just blow this game off is that it has NOTHING to make them stay. Are you really so dedicated to keeping things as they are that you don't care about anyone else? Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Void Echo Helix Order 2	Posted - 2015.06.06 02:48:00 - [52] - Quote I really don't care about anyone else, staying up till 4 a.m with a knife under your bed at night waiting for your bastard father to try and do something eliminates feelings for anyone else. Can you not see that what your demanding is basically for HAVS to not be in the game anymore? Answer this, why would anyone skill into something that requires someone else for it to work resulting in a complete waste of your SP because you can call anytime in because your friends aren't online? That's a complete waste. Results of your idea being put into action: 1. HAV class completely dies because nobody specs into them, because nobody wants to depend on someone else completely just to run their desired class. 2. CCP removes HAVS from the game because nobody uses them. Closed Beta Vet. Founder of Helix Order. For the Federation, For Freedom, *Till all are Free*.
Void Echo Helix Order 2	Posted - 2015.06.06 02:53:00 - [53] - Quote And to answer your question, investment is the answer. In dust 514, you literally have to invest everything into what you want, we call it SP. There is nothing like it in any other game. In battlefield there isn't a mechanic that you get skill points to drive or shoot out of a tank or gun, in cod there aren't even vehicles, no other game besides eve requires complete personal investment. Your saying that we should force pilots to invest their stuff so that a completely random person has full access to it. There is no possible outcome that is good from your suggestion. Closed Beta Vet. Founder of Helix Order. For the Federation, For Freedom, *Till all are Free*.
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 03:57:00 - [54] - Quote Void Echo wrote: And to answer your question, investment is the answer. In dust 514, you literally have to invest everything into what you want, we call it SP. There is nothing like it in any other game. In battlefield there isn't a mechanic that you get skill points to drive or shoot out of a tank or gun, in cod there aren't even vehicles, no other game besides eve requires complete personal investment. Your saying that we should force pilots to invest their stuff so that a completely random person has full access to it. There is no possible outcome that is good from your suggestion. Where did I ever say a completely random person? I actually specifically specified that vehicle users should be able to control access to their vehicles. Do you never play with anyone in your Corporation? Void Echo wrote: I really don't care about anyone else, staying up till 4 a.m with a knife under your bed at night waiting for your bastard father to try and do something eliminates feelings for anyone else. ...whoah...okay That went in a direction I did not expect. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Sgt Kirk Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 11	Posted - 2015.06.06 03:59:00 - [55] - Quote TUNNEL SNAKES RULE TUNNEL SNAKES RULE!
Planetside2B0mber Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 26	Posted - 2015.06.06 04:02:00 - [56] - Quote Planetside 2 Coming to PS4 June 23rd PS4 Beta footage with intense CQC action PS4 Beta footage with defense PS4 Beta Huge battle PS4 Beta another Huge battle with over 256 players PS4 Beta Huge 35 min Battle 1080p Ultra settings at Night Intense Open Field Battle 100 Man Infantry Objective Push Desert Infantry Line Huge Desert Tank Battle Intense Uphill Battle Open Desert Firefight 100 Tank Convoy 150 man Air Raid 65/0 Kill streak in the air True Teamwork Galaxy Drops NC Montage Planetside 2 Machinima Why you should try Planetside 2
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 04:03:00 - [57] - Quote I thought you only did that once per thread? Are you actually checking the front page to make sure everything's getting rolled? Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
Nightfury Wyrnspire Seituoda Taskforce Command 20	Posted - 2015.06.06 08:13:00 - [58] - Quote Void crying about even the idea of not being able to have a solo tank is hilarious.
Mobius Wyvern Fatal Absolution Negative-Feedback 6	Posted - 2015.06.06 13:48:00 - [59] - Quote Nightfury Wyrnspire wrote: Void crying about even the idea of not being able to have a solo tank is hilarious. I mean I want to try and reach a middle-ground, and I knew it would be a hard sell, which is why I made that semi-satirical thread title. I guess I might be weird in this, but all I really want is to be able to have fun with my chosen asset without taking the fun away from other people. Amidst the blue skies A link from past to future The sheltering wings of the protector
The Attorney General 2	Posted - 2015.06.06 14:24:00 - [60] - Quote Mobius Wyvern wrote: I will reiterate a point I have made many times in the past that had me quickly shouted down by the GÇ£Pro TankersGÇ¥ of earlier years: the idea that a high enough skillpoint investment should render a single player nigh-unkillable is rather silly. Incorrect premise, argument deeply flawed. Even if there are some scrub tankers who think that you should be invincible, those people are both wrong, and complaining loudly that they can't really solo, because tanks are made of paper when the AV hits. As long as infantry can hold three nuclear baseballs, any talk about nerfing tanks is just bads complaining about being bad. I run Lai Dais on a adv Gallente scout, and tanks explode so easily, its pathetic. Give me a week or two to get good PLC skills and I won't even need to be in my tank. That is the problem with vehicles, they are not optimal versus infantry, and infantry AV can do a better job of wiping out tanks without them getting away. Mr. Hybrid Vayu.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page