| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
9
   |
Posted - 2015.06.27 08:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
The vehicle debate has raged on forever, but if anyone has asked this question, it's been a very long time.
Is the use of vehicles supposed to be a role in the game, one intended to be utilized as a primary means of interaction, or are vehicles intended to be an expensive, financially unsustainable power up intended to increase the value of a single player to a higher value?
If the answer is that it's supposed to be a sustainable role, then I submit that the vehicles need to be brought back to heel in a way that is functionally soloable, but still lethal. I also submit that currently prices are more in line with the power up concept.
If vehicles are intended to be power ups then everyone needs to step back and rethink how we look at vehicles. If they are a power up then they are not a role. If that be the case I have to ask why there is an SP tree that players have to drop a major investment into in order to make them functional.
TL;DR: role = 1 player always equals one player. If power up, the gunnlogi series should be brought up to match the madrugar in efficacy and we need to stop bothering to argue that vehicle pilots are intended to be a role akin to assault or scout.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Bright Cloud
Namtar Elite
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 12:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The vehicle debate has raged on forever, but if anyone has asked this question, it's been a very long time.
Is the use of vehicles supposed to be a role in the game, one intended to be utilized as a primary means of interaction, or are vehicles intended to be an expensive, financially unsustainable power up intended to increase the value of a single player to a higher value?
If the answer is that it's supposed to be a sustainable role, then I submit that the vehicles need to be brought back to heel in a way that is functionally soloable, but still lethal. I also submit that currently prices are more in line with the power up concept.
If vehicles are intended to be power ups then everyone needs to step back and rethink how we look at vehicles. If they are a power up then they are not a role. If that be the case I have to ask why there is an SP tree that players have to drop a major investment into in order to make them functional.
TL;DR: role = 1 player always equals one player. If power up, the gunnlogi series should be brought up to match the madrugar in efficacy and we need to stop bothering to argue that vehicle pilots are intended to be a role akin to assault or scout.
Atcually the shield tanks work quite well vs infantry. Though the main issue is that they get shredded by armor tanks. A decently fitted gunnlogi is near indestructable while shield hardened cause swarms+forgeguns barely do a dent in that thing.
There are however issues on shield tanks which are annoying as hell:
-shield regulators are extremely hard to fit
-low native shield regen
-shield booster can bug out when you are beeing hit by anything while its trying to boost shields
-no option for DPS increase by the usage with low slots
-cant aim the turret low enough to hit infantry up close.
Rudimentary Mercs of scrubs and incompetence. You touch my mind, fumbling in Ignorance, incapable of understanding.
|
Harpyja
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 13:36:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bright Cloud wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:The vehicle debate has raged on forever, but if anyone has asked this question, it's been a very long time.
Is the use of vehicles supposed to be a role in the game, one intended to be utilized as a primary means of interaction, or are vehicles intended to be an expensive, financially unsustainable power up intended to increase the value of a single player to a higher value?
If the answer is that it's supposed to be a sustainable role, then I submit that the vehicles need to be brought back to heel in a way that is functionally soloable, but still lethal. I also submit that currently prices are more in line with the power up concept.
If vehicles are intended to be power ups then everyone needs to step back and rethink how we look at vehicles. If they are a power up then they are not a role. If that be the case I have to ask why there is an SP tree that players have to drop a major investment into in order to make them functional.
TL;DR: role = 1 player always equals one player. If power up, the gunnlogi series should be brought up to match the madrugar in efficacy and we need to stop bothering to argue that vehicle pilots are intended to be a role akin to assault or scout. Atcually the shield tanks work quite well vs infantry. Though the main issue is that they get shredded by armor tanks. A decently fitted gunnlogi is near indestructable while shield hardened cause swarms+forgeguns barely do a dent in that thing. There are however issues on shield tanks which are annoying as hell: -shield regulators are extremely hard to fit -low native shield regen -shield booster can bug out when you are beeing hit by anything while its trying to boost shields -no option for DPS increase by the usage with low slots -cant aim the turret low enough to hit infantry up close.
Also less fitting power. I'm required to use my low slots for complex fitting enhancements for my fit, but not for the Madrugar. For the Gv.0 I will be able to fit (after I get one more level or two in fitting proficiency) all complex heavy rep, 120mm plate, and two hardeners, plus a complex fuel injector, enhanced scanner, and complex heat sink. Proto blaster and two small standard railguns.
Whereas on the Gunnlogi Cv.0 I need a complex PG and CPU upgrade in order to fit three complex heavy extenders and two complex shield hardeners with a proto large missile turret and two small standard blasters. I have maxed fitting proficiency for large missiles so I've basically squeezed as much fitting as I could possibly get.
Basically, the Madrugar can be fit exactly how you want it to be without fitting enhancements, whereas the Gunnlogi is required to fill its low slots with fitting enhancements. Although there isn't anything better to fit in the low slots currently, the Gunnlogi simply doesn't match the Madrugar in fitting power.
"By His light, and His will"- The Scriptures, 12:32
|
Lightning35 Delta514
48TH SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE
724
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 13:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
I have destroyed armor tanks with gunnlogi. The really reason they are crappyis because of blasters. They do to much damage to quickly against shields and need a small nerf. (Notice how I said small)
CEO of 48th Special Operations Force
Twitter-@48SOF
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
498
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 14:47:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lightning35 Delta514 wrote:I have destroyed armor tanks with gunnlogi. The really reason they are crappyis because of blasters. They do to much damage to quickly against shields and need a small nerf. (Notice how I said small)
Blasters do not need another direct nerf.. shields need a buff.
for the 1000th time
Remove shield stacking penalties.
Fix shield boosters to boost more hp over more time.
Revert rediculous shield recharge rate nerf.
Greatly increase fitting capability of gunlogi or reduce costs of extenders, boosters, rechargers.
Some sort of damage mod IN THE LOW SLOT, as is madrugars can max their tank AND max their damage.
Make rechargers act as energizers so there is ANY reason to use these terrible things. If a gunlogi can get up to 200 reps per second, and the cpu/pg tradoff isn't astronomical, there might be a reason to use one. Otherwise a plate is better.
The reason Gunlogis were preferred last year was that you could stack armor and damage... now you stack armor and damage on madrugars. It has never been that shields are superior to armor, even when shield hardeners were at 60%, armor hardeners would outlast shield. It wasn't about the cal logis shields, it was the fast you could also stack armor, had 3 nanohives, the other shield suits were sub par at the time, and core locus grenades wrecked everything that didn't have 500 shields and had some weird headshot multiplier that was fixed.
The problem has always been, since armor was buffed and shields / core nades nerfed that armor trumped all. Don't care about mobility and broken hit detection as this last year was a dark time for Dust and we are hopefully reducing wiggle and will be dealing next with the disaster that is 3 myos. You wanted to be able to jump a railing, now it's bunnyhop-splash damage rooftop camping terrible.
If this is going to be a tactical shooter again, 3 myos will need an adjustment, and at 60-70m, a shield stacked caldari assault with a rail should have a chance vs an armor stacked amar assault with scrambler.. right now it's not even close.
tl;dr
Blaster is fine, buff shields. |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
9
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 16:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
The point.
You all missed it.
This is not a balance thread.
Thank you, drive through.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 16:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
I think they're stuck in the middle right now, but they shouldn't be.
IMO, vehicles should be cheap and easy to destroy. AV needs to be a viable role as well, not just something you have just in case.
Not caring about KD
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
499
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 16:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The point.
You all missed it.
This is not a balance thread.
Thank you, drive through.
you are asking if a component of dust is A or B
it is part A part B with some C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N,O and P.
To think reducing it entirely to black and white will solve anything is not really thinking.
Tanks ( Madrugars and similar armor chassis) can have roles ie: keep dropships off towers, add heavy fire to door of objective, distract mindless red AV drones to lose focus on blue infantry, pincer other tankers or objectives, block doors, smash LAVS, snipe stationary infantry on towers or in redline, etc etc etc.... same with dropships, put links up high, clear links up high, rain missiles on everything below, fast transport, distract tanks.... there are thousands of roles for vehicles.
Tanks (Madrugars and similar armor chassis ) can act as power ups ie; Thales sniper in enemy redline, call in rail tank in own redline, drive up to enemy redline without fear of being headshot by thales sniper, attempt to counter snipe. You have now powered up to be invincible to thales sniper. Some moron with a forge calls in an lav and drives straight at your tank? Activate both hardeners, start backing up and fire at lav, watch forger jump out at last second and limp wrist 3 lai dais at tank while you are backing out of range, shoot forger in face while he is bunnyhopping for cover. You have essentially powered up to avoid a heavy suit with forge from killing you while driving around in an lav. This whole 'power up' question could be applied to suits and weapons as well. If you get blasted close range indoors with a scrambler rifle while wearing an Apex caldari assault, you could 'power up' thanks to your isk reserves, and spawn in with proto gallente heavy with boundless hmg and walk straight into the scrambler user for a closer outcome. Sica with militia rail pop your tank? 'power up' with madrugar and proto rail turret. someone using dirty militia needles on your team for little effect? 'power up' using isk and let wyrkomi bring back 80% health.
There are also Jihad vehicles
There are also intel vehicles
There are vehicles used to destroy installations
There are vehicles used to spawn infantry in the sky
There are vehicles used to solo transport infantry with 1500 armor since they walk slow.
Which brings me to wonder what you are really trying to accomplish by starting this thread when what we really need is balance. Not cheap tanks, not theory crafting ' what is the meaning of life' , just balanced tanks. Shield tanks have no place but the redline, armor tanks own the map. Shield suits snipe in the redline, armor suits own the map.. minmitar assault was op due to hit detection, not it's shields, now movement is getting nerfed... this will return ( for the most part ) the shield vs armor debate, where all armor users will say shields are fine, and all shield users start speccing into armor builds.
tl,dr ; Buff Shields
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
9
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 17:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
You're still missing the point Doc:
Is the pilot tree a ROLE that is intended to be able to use consistently as the role of scout might be used?
Or is it a skillset for a series of in-game power-ups that were never intended to be financially viable as a sustained role?
It's a simple-ass question.
It cannot be both.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
The Attorney General
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 17:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
If you can't solo a tank with AV that is your own damn fault for being a scrub.
3 lai dais and an unbonused PLC round will annihilate all but a pure tank, crap turret gv.0. In a jumping scout suit that only blasters have any chance of killing.
Right now it is one to one. People who can't do it need to stop being lazy on rooftops and put themselves at risk like the tanker is doing.
Vehicle SP is the least efficient SP investment in the game.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
|
|
Riptalis
Horizons' Edge
No Context
344
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 17:31:00 -
[11] - Quote
I just want my Eryx back... 
And to the question, it's kind of everywhere not meant to be everywhere. With the whole unbalanced vehicles and AV it's just all scattered everywhere. I would like for it to be a solo role, primarily because I don't understand the other tank thing option.
"I may not be the strongest, I may not be the fastest, but I'll be damned if I'm not trying my hardest!"
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
9
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 17:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:If you can't solo a tank with AV that is your own damn fault for being a scrub.
3 lai dais and an unbonused PLC round will annihilate all but a pure tank, crap turret gv.0. In a jumping scout suit that only blasters have any chance of killing.
Right now it is one to one. People who can't do it need to stop being lazy on rooftops and put themselves at risk like the tanker is doing.
Vehicle SP is the least efficient SP investment in the game.
And once again, you're not participating in the conversation at hand.
Read the topic, engage your brain and THEN post your response.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Black Eagle495
Brutor Vanguard
Minmatar Republic
15
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 19:34:00 -
[13] - Quote
I believe currently (intended or not) they would be considered "power ups" because of the simple fact that there is a limit of how many can be deployed at once (unless there is a tech reason for this). that alone puts it off the 1:1 ratio. not only that but the fact most vehicles can be operated/occupied by more than one player.
If it were a role as you describe isk costs would almost mirror dropsuits roles. there also would be no reason to limit how fast a player deploys a vehicle (RDV/no spawn as vehicle). Most would probably be single player operated. vehicles would be a much more common occurrence and as such would be about as easy to kill as a heavy is to an assault.
In my opinion depending on the vehicle they should be both. There should be a clear distinction from a common every match vehicle to a team coordinated asset meant for high stakes battles. for example i think there should be two types of HAV. One would have one seat smaller in size, lower hp, cheaper isk, less cpu/pg, faster, smaller turret size and not very upgradable (not a lot of sp related bonuses/requirements). The other would be 4-man operate (driver, primary gunner, secondary gunner, and third gunner) large in size, high hp, better cpu/pg, slower, larger turrets, fully fleshed out sp tree on par with dropsuits. in this case there would be two separate vehicle limits 1-2 team veh, 3-4 solo veh. But that's just me. |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
9
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 19:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'm in favor of dumping the vehicle cap personally. If a team wants to play tank division? Fine by me.
It's .y understanding that the vehicle cap is because of memory issues anyway.
I could absolutely be wrong, but as the only other explanation came from spkr4thedead, I dismissed it out of hand because I fact check him when he says that the moon is still in it's proper orbit.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 21:10:00 -
[15] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The vehicle debate has raged on forever, but if anyone has asked this question, it's been a very long time.
Is the use of vehicles supposed to be a role in the game, one intended to be utilized as a primary means of interaction, or are vehicles intended to be an expensive, financially unsustainable power up intended to increase the value of a single player to a higher value?
If the answer is that it's supposed to be a sustainable role, then I submit that the vehicles need to be brought back to heel in a way that is functionally soloable, but still lethal. I also submit that currently prices are more in line with the power up concept.
If vehicles are intended to be power ups then everyone needs to step back and rethink how we look at vehicles. If they are a power up then they are not a role. If that be the case I have to ask why there is an SP tree that players have to drop a major investment into in order to make them functional.
TL;DR: role = 1 player always equals one player. If power up, the gunnlogi series should be brought up to match the madrugar in efficacy and we need to stop bothering to argue that vehicle pilots are intended to be a role akin to assault or scout.
1 player... minus the ability to enter most nodes
Minus the ability to engage in combat inside a node.
minus the ability to enter a building
minus the ability to hide from anything.
Cannot hack a point.
...and you are also adding you don't want vehicles to be able to kill infantry....
That's a lot of area that vehicles can't be used in. Specifically speaking around ,most of the objectives.
When vehicles can hide from your scans and enter buildings, your argument might hold some truth, but as it is, the power is in exchange for what they are capable of doing.
Have you EVER seen a tank go 1v1 vs an AV user? I haven't. It's always 2-4 people with AV grenades or swarms and forge guns focusing down a tank. The tanks don't get to survive for 5 minutes usually, if they do, other tanks come out, clear the field, and then everyone goes back to infantry.
--On the other hand dropsuits.... Proto gear... where does that stand if not a "Power up". Many people can't afford it, so they create a disparity amongst the population, but I don't see you arguing that point. Trying to bias your argument when there are other aspects of the game that have the same effect won't work here.
http://youtu.be/dtXupQg77SU
Dust to Dust
Remember the dream you had before the day you were born.
|
Dreis ShadowWeaver
0uter.Heaven
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 23:01:00 -
[16] - Quote
It's a role because of the significant SP investment required.
Creator of the 'Nova Knifers United' channel
My Minja Blog
Caldari blood, Matari heart <3
|
Kallas Hallytyr
Skullbreakers
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 23:43:00 -
[17] - Quote
What is the current position? Neither, they're a hot mess.
What should they be? Either, it's kind of irrelevant which as long as a design path actually gets decided upon.
Alt of Halla Murr. Sentinel.
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 00:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
I think it should be a legitimate role. So many people who have supported this game for so long have committed themselves to making vehicles their specialty in the same way others have infantry roles, you yourself Breaking are a recognized Forge Gun Sentinel.
That being said I don't believe that making them a legitimate role means shoe horning them into a 'disposal' asset. All I really want to see for say....HAV is them in a place where they functionally make sense. If the concept is that HAV should be less durable again AV then by all means give HAV and Vehicles the fire power they logically deserve.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
deezy dabest
Evil Syndicate Alliance.
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 00:41:00 -
[19] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The vehicle debate has raged on forever, but if anyone has asked this question, it's been a very long time.
Is the use of vehicles supposed to be a role in the game, one intended to be utilized as a primary means of interaction, or are vehicles intended to be an expensive, financially unsustainable power up intended to increase the value of a single player to a higher value?
If the answer is that it's supposed to be a sustainable role, then I submit that the vehicles need to be brought back to heel in a way that is functionally soloable, but still lethal. I also submit that currently prices are more in line with the power up concept.
If vehicles are intended to be power ups then everyone needs to step back and rethink how we look at vehicles. If they are a power up then they are not a role. If that be the case I have to ask why there is an SP tree that players have to drop a major investment into in order to make them functional.
TL;DR: role = 1 player always equals one player. If power up, the gunnlogi series should be brought up to match the madrugar in efficacy and we need to stop bothering to argue that vehicle pilots are intended to be a role akin to assault or scout.
Unfortunately this is a big part of the problem. Vehicles just do not have any defined role.
Vehicle users think their vehicles should be god like while AV users and infantry think they should be easily eliminated by someone who is invested in AV.
The simple answer should be that vehicles should a force multiplier. If a tank wants to run out on his own he should be easily popped. The game is first and foremost a first person shooter. Something you notice is that in any other game force multipliers are generally some what weak on their own because they are not meant to be used solo.
Unfortunately this will never happen because vehicle users have become use to god like abilities through terrible balance and are forced to invest a bit too much SP for something that is and should be a secondary role. |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
9
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 01:42:00 -
[20] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:I think it should be a legitimate role. So many people who have supported this game for so long have committed themselves to making vehicles their specialty in the same way others have infantry roles, you yourself Breaking are a recognized Forge Gun Sentinel.
That being said I don't believe that making them a legitimate role means shoe horning them into a 'disposal' asset. All I really want to see for say....HAV is them in a place where they functionally make sense. If the concept is that HAV should be less durable again AV then by all means give HAV and Vehicles the fire power they logically deserve.
Oh I'm in favor of the heavy turrets having fangs, make no mistake. Very much in favor of upping the lethality if the defenses get shifted downward.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
|
|
One Eyed King
Nos Nothi
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 01:54:00 -
[21] - Quote
When people have used the price of vehicles to justify their current power, I have always been in favor of significant reductions to vehicle use in conjunction with balance.
Risk/Rewards needs to be balanced, and having a overly high cost is not a reason to make something over perform.
Former CEO of the Land of the BIind.
Any double entendre is unintended I assure you.
|
The Attorney General
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 01:59:00 -
[22] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think it should be a legitimate role. So many people who have supported this game for so long have committed themselves to making vehicles their specialty in the same way others have infantry roles, you yourself Breaking are a recognized Forge Gun Sentinel.
That being said I don't believe that making them a legitimate role means shoe horning them into a 'disposal' asset. All I really want to see for say....HAV is them in a place where they functionally make sense. If the concept is that HAV should be less durable again AV then by all means give HAV and Vehicles the fire power they logically deserve.
Oh I'm in favor of the heavy turrets having fangs, make no mistake. Very much in favor of upping the lethality if the defenses get shifted downward.
Why would defenses need to be shifted down? It is already easy enough for a single suit to nuke a tank, and all adding gunners does is add wp when you get killed.
Not being able to solo tanks with your forge from a rooftop unless they Muppet is a good thing for balance.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
9
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 02:09:00 -
[23] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think it should be a legitimate role. So many people who have supported this game for so long have committed themselves to making vehicles their specialty in the same way others have infantry roles, you yourself Breaking are a recognized Forge Gun Sentinel.
That being said I don't believe that making them a legitimate role means shoe horning them into a 'disposal' asset. All I really want to see for say....HAV is them in a place where they functionally make sense. If the concept is that HAV should be less durable again AV then by all means give HAV and Vehicles the fire power they logically deserve.
Oh I'm in favor of the heavy turrets having fangs, make no mistake. Very much in favor of upping the lethality if the defenses get shifted downward. Why would defenses need to be shifted down? It is already easy enough for a single suit to nuke a tank, and all adding gunners does is add wp when you get killed. Not being able to solo tanks with your forge from a rooftop unless they Muppet is a good thing for balance.
Since you don't know me, don't know how I play, I invite you to merrily screw off.
I cant rooftop snipe for longer than about four minutes because I literally fall asleep from boredom
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 02:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
I still say if you want 1v1 then how can you possibly balance that? How can your suit which is automatically deployed and swappable at a supply depot be balanced against something that takes forever to be deployed, can be destroyed during said deployment, and can only be switched by waiting (while vulnerable) and calling in another (while vulnerable)
This will never = 1v1, so how can you want a 1v1 equation for AV/V?
Also keep in mind that there is a vehicle cap, so if it's 1v1 then AV will ALWAYS be superior to vehicles in the end.
And vehicles can't cap points |
The Attorney General
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 02:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:The Attorney General wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think it should be a legitimate role. So many people who have supported this game for so long have committed themselves to making vehicles their specialty in the same way others have infantry roles, you yourself Breaking are a recognized Forge Gun Sentinel.
That being said I don't believe that making them a legitimate role means shoe horning them into a 'disposal' asset. All I really want to see for say....HAV is them in a place where they functionally make sense. If the concept is that HAV should be less durable again AV then by all means give HAV and Vehicles the fire power they logically deserve.
Oh I'm in favor of the heavy turrets having fangs, make no mistake. Very much in favor of upping the lethality if the defenses get shifted downward. Why would defenses need to be shifted down? It is already easy enough for a single suit to nuke a tank, and all adding gunners does is add wp when you get killed. Not being able to solo tanks with your forge from a rooftop unless they Muppet is a good thing for balance. Since you don't know me, don't know how I play, I invite you to merrily screw off. I cant rooftop snipe for longer than about four minutes because I literally fall asleep from boredom
So then how are tanks too strong?
3 av nades and a forge shot will do it, just don't miss.
You need it to be easier?
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 02:36:00 -
[26] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:The Attorney General wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:True Adamance wrote:I think it should be a legitimate role. So many people who have supported this game for so long have committed themselves to making vehicles their specialty in the same way others have infantry roles, you yourself Breaking are a recognized Forge Gun Sentinel.
That being said I don't believe that making them a legitimate role means shoe horning them into a 'disposal' asset. All I really want to see for say....HAV is them in a place where they functionally make sense. If the concept is that HAV should be less durable again AV then by all means give HAV and Vehicles the fire power they logically deserve.
Oh I'm in favor of the heavy turrets having fangs, make no mistake. Very much in favor of upping the lethality if the defenses get shifted downward. Why would defenses need to be shifted down? It is already easy enough for a single suit to nuke a tank, and all adding gunners does is add wp when you get killed. Not being able to solo tanks with your forge from a rooftop unless they Muppet is a good thing for balance. Since you don't know me, don't know how I play, I invite you to merrily screw off. I cant rooftop snipe for longer than about four minutes because I literally fall asleep from boredom So then how are tanks too strong? 3 av nades and a forge shot will do it, just don't miss. You need it to be easier?
Honestly if we had webifier mines none of this would matter
|
The Attorney General
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 02:42:00 -
[27] - Quote
Why though?
Between proxy traps, RE's and hiding on a nanohive chucking nuclear baseballs there are already more then enough options for area denial.
I am amazed by the lack of imagination of av'ers, especially since all tankers need to grow a second set of eyes and always be moving to survive.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 02:46:00 -
[28] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Why though?
Between proxy traps, RE's and hiding on a nanohive chucking nuclear baseballs there are already more then enough options for area denial.
I am amazed by the lack of imagination of av'ers, especially since all tankers need to grow a second set of eyes and always be moving to survive.
I am an awful tanker apparently haha, I die constantly on the few occasions I play. I usually just punch my hardeners when I want to run past AV nests and then I stick to the outskirts hunting vehicles since if I time the hardener wrong I tend to explode @_@ And I always bump into **** or stop at the wrong time and not have enough acceleration to turn the right way while still shooting that idiot who keeps shooting me.
It's such a shame that this game is on permanent hold for real development. A higher player count in match would really change the dynamic a lot.
I don't play enough now to say what is and isn't balanced, I can just say that losing 1.2 - 8 million ISK in a given play session is not entirely uncommon for me 
I R bad, and stubborn 
 |
The Attorney General
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 02:53:00 -
[29] - Quote
Losing tanks is normal, especially to massed av. Three guys go swarms, enjoy your respawn.
The game becomes about keeping as many enemies as possible in AV suits for the blues to murder.
If I can keep three fools spread around the map chasing me, the odds of a win go slightly up.
The only advantage a tank really has is mobility over time. Use that and survival becomes a faint possibility.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 03:08:00 -
[30] - Quote
The best tanker I ever played with personally was MUDFLAPS back when I was in OSG
He was obnoxiously good and the only reason I ever bothered looking at tanks as anything other than WP. He always said something along the lines of the biggest sin a tanker can commit, is to stop. Never ever ever stop moving. He had some crazy setup that helped him maintain momentum on turns, it was really something else.
He was also the first one I saw / to show me how drive the tank backwards while looking back with your gun to give you a stronger defense during a retreat. Pretty much common knowledge but it was really cool to see back then |
|
|
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 03:16:00 -
[31] - Quote
One Eyed King wrote:
Risk/Rewards needs to be balanced, and having a overly high cost is not a reason to make something over perform.
So you agree to the elimination of Proto suits and gear?
http://youtu.be/dtXupQg77SU
Dust to Dust
Remember the dream you had before the day you were born.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
9
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 03:20:00 -
[32] - Quote
This isn't a balance thread.
If you wanna complain about balancing...
Go make another thread.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
DUST Fiend
17
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 03:29:00 -
[33] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:This isn't a balance thread.
If you wanna complain about balancing...
Go make another thread.
You want them to be 1v1'd or to have no skill line.....
I think that indicates a need for balancing..... |
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
9
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 13:02:00 -
[34] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:This isn't a balance thread.
If you wanna complain about balancing...
Go make another thread. You want them to be 1v1'd or to have no skill line..... I think that indicates a need for balancing.....
No skill line..
That was a question of why, and how, not a request. Purge some bitter out of your system and don't try to Infer things I don't directly say.
The question is:
Is the vehicle tree a ROLE or a skill line for the use of what is intended to be a limited-use power-up?
I'd prefer a role.
FFS learn to read or stop trying to read my mind because you suck at it.
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
The Attorney General
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 13:49:00 -
[35] - Quote
Breakin Stuff wrote:
Is the vehicle tree a ROLE or a skill line for the use of what is intended to be a limited-use power-up?
I'd prefer a role.
FFS learn to read or stop trying to read my mind because you suck at it.
This is what YOU don't get.
Some of us answered that, although not in a special ed format like I am about to.
Now sit down and take your helmet off so you can hear me.
Stop looking out the window. Focus.
Vehicles are already a role.
The 1 to 1 parity is already real, so vehicles are already the most expensive role on the field.
Why am I posting in a stealth nerf vehicles thread, this is pointless.
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
Breakin Stuff
Goonfeet
Special Planetary Emergency Response Group
9
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 17:54:00 -
[36] - Quote
The Attorney General wrote:Breakin Stuff wrote:
Is the vehicle tree a ROLE or a skill line for the use of what is intended to be a limited-use power-up?
I'd prefer a role.
FFS learn to read or stop trying to read my mind because you suck at it.
This is what YOU don't get. Some of us answered that, although not in a special ed format like I am about to. Now sit down and take your helmet off so you can hear me. Stop looking out the window. Focus. Vehicles are already a role. The 1 to 1 parity is already real, so vehicles are already the most expensive role on the field. Why am I posting in a stealth nerf vehicles thread, this is pointless.
You assert what you say, and yet the evidence points to a much different conclusion than you assert, feel free to bugger off, because I will not stop talking no matter how much you and all your buddies try to tell me to.
So quit trying to talk to me like I'm an idiot, because I'm asking a question, and you're superimposing your balance ideas as the answer, which can ONLY be correctly answered...
By a dev.
This is a speculation post so take your high horse and please trot it off the nearest cliff.
I do not need you to instruct me on matters of game balance, which are very clearly out of whack, despite your assertion to the contrary. And your ideas of balance may not jive with everyone else. So do take your OPINIONS and stick em where the sun don't shine unless you intend to present your ideas in a manner that doesn't reek of "Shut up you idiot"
WoW has taught me that Purple means Legendary. This means Quafe suits are the optimal loadout for killing all of you.
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
501
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 19:30:00 -
[37] - Quote
Yeah I don't know what else to say, question has been answered a bunch of times, not sure why it is still a point of interest for anybody short of AV wanting vehicles nerfed. Balance is the more important issue that needs work, which is why OP thinks thread is in tailspin.
Balance those involved in the roles and you balance the power ups.
If you want all vehicles to be 3 shot by every AV weapon, hardeners or not, then I would hope players that enjoy diversity speak up. |
The Attorney General
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 19:36:00 -
[38] - Quote
Evidence? What evidence? Please provide your evidence.
You don't want other people to point out your idiocy, don't air it on a forum.
You say balance is very clearly out of whack, but not how. Please explain how tanks are OP, I need a good laugh
Mr. Hybrid Vayu.
|
Doc DDD
TeamPlayers
Negative-Feedback
501
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 19:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
I mean the whole point of Ratatti introducing 'Proto' HAVS and attempting to balance them was to 'give purpose to skilling into HAVS' .. to be interested in removing skill trees seems counter productive to Ratattis entire proposal.
What do you expect other than a blue post in your thread saying ' working as intended '?
Tailspin is due to community raising valid discussion points regarding real issue at hand. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |