|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
   |
Posted - 2015.08.03 20:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Hardener's Up? Speed reduced by 50%.
You call that less broken?
How about when a heavy is being repaired, he has his movement speed reduced by 50%?
Another "suggestion" by someone that doesn't use vehicles.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.03 20:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Good to see you back, buddy! Just in time for the next nerf.
lol I'm not back. Read my tagline. I'm done with it. My "suggestions" never mattered anyway, because those that don't know what they're talking about and don't play the game, knew with absolute certainty that they knew what was best for vehicles, and that a pilots' opinion didn't at all matter.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:47:00 -
[3] - Quote
Adipem Nothi wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Good to see you back, buddy! Just in time for the next nerf. lol I'm not back. Read my tagline. I'm done with it. My "suggestions" never mattered anyway, because those that don't know what they're talking about and don't play the game, knew with absolute certainty that they knew what was best for vehicles, and that a pilots' opinion didn't at all matter. If your PS3 is in a box, how can you possibly comment accurately on the state of anything?
Because this will never change. Infantry cries, vehicles get nerfed, wash rinse repeat. We tell you how to take us down, then whine that it shouldn't be that way, that you should be able to throw a rock and blow us up. It's always the same thing, and will never end until the time the servers are shut down.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mina Longstrike wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Good to see you back, buddy! Just in time for the next nerf. lol I'm not back. Read my tagline. I'm done with it. My "suggestions" never mattered anyway, because those that don't know what they're talking about and don't play the game, knew with absolute certainty that they knew what was best for vehicles, and that a pilots' opinion didn't at all matter. Your suggestions never mattered because they lacked critical thought and you were unwilling to compromise so that both sides could have fun. I'm not surprised that you ate the forum ban you did, you're a raving psychopath. Some people are actually concerned with getting vehicles and av into healthy places for both, and this current build is healthy for neither.
I actually have quite good critical thinking skills, but it's not my problem that everybody completely glossed over what I had to say. Why should I compromise when there was nothing left to compromise? All infantry does is take from us. What compromise is there? That's a dictatorship, not a discussion.
Again, I wasn't banned, I just chose not to bother on here because every time I checked it, it was always the same thing. Broken matchmaking, tryhards, buff this, nerf that, and always complaining about vehicles.
And no, people really don't care about getting vehicles and AV into a healthy place. They care about AV being akin to an asteroid on the battlefield, while tanks are nothing more than Hot Wheels with a water gun. Of course it isn't balanced or healthy, because pilots present valid arguments, and infantry covers their ears while yelling "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU." Chromosome had it best: tanks countered tanks. The turret damage did need a nerf, but it was indeed the best time. AV was supplementary damage, and tanks were usually left alone to whack the hell out of each other.
I really don't see how that's a problem. Let vehicles counter vehicles. AV should not be the be-all end-all solution.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Varoth Drac wrote:Tanks aren't too difficult to destroy with AV, large blasters are too good at killing infantry. The dispersion needs a large increase.
Now, you should be able to murder infantry in a tank, but only with a second crew member. Therefore, with large blaster anti infantry nerfed, the small blaster should get a large buff to both dispersion (reduce it) and damage.
Gunning as a passenger in a tank should net you way more kills than running around with a rifle. Currently this is far from the case.
It already requires luck to kill infantry with a blaster, why should it be made even more difficult?
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:53:00 -
[6] - Quote
Cross Atu wrote:Adipem Nothi wrote:Idea! Hardener's up? Speed reduced by 50%.
Maybe not. But something. Something to make hardened blaster HAVs less EZ Mode against infantry. Step one to any HAV fix at this point is to address the double rep'ed doubled hardened maddy fit. The effects on player behavior both infantry and pilot, are too substantial to be overlooked (they impact things on a meta scale not purely a mechanical or single instance one). Further alterations may be required but I'd be deeply hesitant to make any of them until that one is addressed and we see the results. Don't want to go back to the wild balance swings Dust used to cope with on a patch by patch basis. 0.02 ISK EDIT: PS ~ I am of the stated view that changes to the fit described are best begun by making armor rep mods active rather than leaving them passive.
See, thing is, we find a fit and stick with it. Because we had our options reduced to next to nothing in 1.7, and barely got anything back at the beginning of the year, we experiment, find a few fits that work, and that's all there is to it. There's still nowhere near enough variety.
Since you want to limit vehicle fittings, how about limit infantry fittings? That's fair to me.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
Spkr4theDead
Red Star.
3
|
Posted - 2015.08.05 22:55:00 -
[7] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:True Adamance wrote:
Fundamentally disagree with you on this one Malleus. Considering where tank balance was arguably the best and most enjoyed by the general community the consensus generally comes down to 'more raw hp focused with modules that apply small yet meaningful damage mitigation, less examples of prolific ehp based tanks.'
I think it would be more interesting to have vehicle HP to be something you manage actively rather than as something to are simply trying to prevent the loss of.
True enough, I think we started to see a decline in the overall enjoyability of both tanking and AVing when they shifted away from more raw HP and more into stronger passive reps and higher movement speed. The thing is that the effective resistance of hardeners is not that different from what we used to have (though I've said this before) if you account for the passive resistance skills which were 10% if recall. The huge difference of course is that they didn't last as long and they cooled down faster so you ended up managing them on the fly for short bursts
There was a decline in enjoyability when we realized our PG skill was nerfed into the ground. That was the beginning of the end for vehicles.
PS3 is back in its box.
|
|
|
| |
|