|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
   |
Posted - 2015.11.19 21:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'd rather tweak the performance of HAV's in general (large turret revamps, adjusting modules to become more involved, say making reps active, making/returning the variation of pre 1.7, etc.) and then tuning the monetary gains for pilots to where they can make a decent living, but at the same time has to put up a risk to have such utility. Having cheap destructible **** won't be fun imo.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 16:40:00 -
[2] - Quote
Suppression was actually tried as a role, but it failed. People started bitching that "Big HAV was killing me, and I can't kill it easily, nerf!". AV was an option, but people refused to use it.
And "Suppression" doesn't pay for losses, nor did it ever on the vehicle price scaling, so it's not a viable role tbh. Vehicles as a whole didn't do suppression either (or they shouldn't, and were nerfed). Vehicles in general needs to relieve roles, actual roles. I have some ideas actually, but a lot of them simply aren't possible atm. At this point in time, the only real thing that can fix vehicles is a port, with a rework within that port.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 16:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
deezy dabest wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Suppression was actually tried as a role, but it failed. People started bitching that "Big HAV was killing me, and I can't kill it easily, nerf!". AV was an option, but people refused to use it.
And "Suppression" doesn't pay for losses, nor did it ever on the vehicle price scaling, so it's not a viable role tbh. Vehicles as a whole didn't do suppression either (or they shouldn't, and were nerfed). Vehicles in general needs to relieve roles, actual roles. I have some ideas actually, but a lot of them simply aren't possible atm. At this point in time, the only real thing that can fix vehicles is a port, with a rework within that port.
Not once did I use the word suppression. I said even in all capital letters FORCE MULTIPLIER. Force multiplication is much than just suppression. It is providing cover for your team, delivering damage or kills to clear the way for your team, and in some case providing a semi safe staging point. The key here is nothing in that description says pull it out solo, easily destroy or avoid a/v, and generally run amok on the battle field. A vehicle should have to depend on its team just like its team should be able to take advantage of having a vehicle to assist. A port does absolutely nothing for poor design. We have seen 3 years and cumulatively 100s of changes made only to keep coming back to the same debate. Some of those changes even included removing a huge amount of content to try and make it easier.
I wasn't actually speaking to you, I was talking to anyone who was speaking on the matter.
And it's the same tune really. Force multipliers aren't profitable in this game on a vehicle pricing.Also, I never said that you shouldn't work with your team in a vehicle. I said that they need a role that can put the food on the table, and keep the lights on.
And I like how you have no idea what my ideas are, yet you say something like that. This post is just a full on jumping the gun lol.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 18:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
Devadander wrote:Vehicle price point IS a valid argument. In a new Eden that didn't see pc 1.0.....
If you talk about killing pro HAV with anything less than a beacon, Aldin, or lai dai, you cannot be saved.
If you have trouble killing sica/soma, maybe stay inside the sockets..
If you constantly lose pro HAV, maybe watch the map and plan ahead next time.
Main problem here is the vortex paradox of "balance". I will explain.
That will take too long, me me sum up.
Tanks many modules/turrets - varied and crazy fits everywhere.
Choices removed - one viable fit meta rises.
Shield boosters changed to one off pulse - maddy rises.
Hardener buff - maddy meta rises further.
AV balance for OP maddy - rest of vehicles screwed.
Turret ranges/reload/etc nerfed - HAV becomes moving target.
Ads skill stack nerf - perpetuates maddy meta.
Smalls become useless - solo tanker rises.
LAV nerf - HAV only target for AV main.
Pro hulls - maddy meta worsens.
Blaster gets buff - missiles and rails get further nerf.
Av tuned to fight pro HAV - anything < pro = screwed.
Gunni shield buff - maddy still meta.
Some finer points here and there I may have missed. But hopefully we see the pattern here.
Again price should have dictated usage from the get go all the way to current meta. HelI, the price of pro dropsuits is supposed to be prohibitive...
The anti HAV crowd has cried us DIRECTLY into the state we currently observe.
But yeah, lets try more "balance".....
Funny how you point fingers at this "Anti-HAV" group saying it's their fault, when for the most part Pilots and AV (most AV aren't anti-HAV, although some are) only asked for AV tweaks, and general QoL improvements before the "rework" was done. The rest of the stuff is a multitude of people trying to fix that mistake.
Also, you say that as if balance isn't a universal thing that happens in most multiplayer games. It's not going away, deal with it.
Also, instead of whining, how about you put up your ideas on how to solve the issues at hand?
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 20:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
Devadander wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Devadander wrote:Vehicle price point IS a valid argument. In a new Eden that didn't see pc 1.0.....
If you talk about killing pro HAV with anything less than a beacon, Aldin, or lai dai, you cannot be saved.
If you have trouble killing sica/soma, maybe stay inside the sockets..
If you constantly lose pro HAV, maybe watch the map and plan ahead next time.
Main problem here is the vortex paradox of "balance". I will explain.
That will take too long, me me sum up.
Tanks many modules/turrets - varied and crazy fits everywhere.
Choices removed - one viable fit meta rises.
Shield boosters changed to one off pulse - maddy rises.
Hardener buff - maddy meta rises further.
AV balance for OP maddy - rest of vehicles screwed.
Turret ranges/reload/etc nerfed - HAV becomes moving target.
Ads skill stack nerf - perpetuates maddy meta.
Smalls become useless - solo tanker rises.
LAV nerf - HAV only target for AV main.
Pro hulls - maddy meta worsens.
Blaster gets buff - missiles and rails get further nerf.
Av tuned to fight pro HAV - anything < pro = screwed.
Gunni shield buff - maddy still meta.
Some finer points here and there I may have missed. But hopefully we see the pattern here.
Again price should have dictated usage from the get go all the way to current meta. HelI, the price of pro dropsuits is supposed to be prohibitive...
The anti HAV crowd has cried us DIRECTLY into the state we currently observe.
But yeah, lets try more "balance"..... Funny how you point fingers at this "Anti-HAV" group saying it's their fault, when for the most part Pilots and AV (most AV aren't anti-HAV, although some are) only asked for AV tweaks, and general QoL improvements before the "rework" was done. The rest of the stuff is a multitude of people trying to fix that mistake. Also, you say that as if balance isn't a universal thing that happens in most multiplayer games. It's not going away, deal with it. Also, instead of whining, how about you put up your ideas on how to solve the issues at hand? Many of those changes were due to howling on the forums. So yeah, I have to go with anti-av crowd as main. (There are always outliers) So far all the suggestions from non-pilots in this particular thread have been counter-productive to any actual balance being achieved. And I do suggest changes and ideas and suggestions and such. Wonder where I would post such things?.... Guaranteed not in a thread named such as this one.
The first few were reactionary changes by the devs, with no input or calls for by the players, and the rest were people actually trying to figure out what is wrong with the system. It was a lot of calling for things on both sides. You're just going to point fingers like a little kid.
And if you want to change anything, even perceptions and attitudes, that is not how you do it. Unless you're just shitposting, in which, why are you even here?
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.25 00:32:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Flix Keptick wrote:Why do you even want to kill tanks? It's not like they can reliably kill infantry anyways... They just sit there, trying (and failing) to kill things. Basically, unless the tank has good gunners (let's face it that never happens) it will have a harder time engaging infantry than infantry has engaging it. I honestly wish I had a co-axial small turret. This...So much this...as much this as possible...
Infantry (for some reason vov) won't let that happen until the large blaster loses it's ability to fire quickly (even though it's already inaccurate against them). Arguing otherwise will end up making them saying "You just want to be all powerful monsters!" or some dribble like that, and the conversation will end there, as it always has.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.27 22:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ghost Steps wrote:Tanks on the beta old days were balenced but really expensive, everything went wrong after the hardener modules, back in the day, tanks were HP mountains (like beating a boss in most vg) or weak with quick regen.
They should keep tanks simple, with just 1 hardener per fitting or go back to the tank of old days but with infantry prices (well not that cheap, slightly more can do the trick).
I like how people ignore (still) that hardeners were barely changed, and is surrounded by a bunch of other more heavy changes, such as a complete rework of regen.
But let's just point at one singular thing and say it's that thing's fault.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.12.27 22:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Godin Thekiller wrote:Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:True Adamance wrote:Flix Keptick wrote:Why do you even want to kill tanks? It's not like they can reliably kill infantry anyways... They just sit there, trying (and failing) to kill things. Basically, unless the tank has good gunners (let's face it that never happens) it will have a harder time engaging infantry than infantry has engaging it. I honestly wish I had a co-axial small turret. This...So much this...as much this as possible... Infantry (for some reason vov) won't let that happen until the large blaster loses it's ability to fire quickly (even though it's already inaccurate against them). Arguing otherwise will end up making them saying "You just want to be all powerful monsters!" or some dribble like that, and the conversation will end there, as it always has. Well...I'm pretty sure you know I want blaster mechanics to change, but that's because I want the turrets on the HAVs to feel like MBT turrets (also...a high RoF makes landing the individual shots less important...so there's that balance reasoning xD), but I respect that some people do like the fast firing turret as-is. So I will still campaign for something like a giant shotgun or Plasma cannon, I won't say that you are flat out wrong for liking what we have/had
Fair enough. Although, I wonder what AC's would be.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.04 01:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
kickin six wrote:I'm a FG'er and this is an age-old situation that CCP makes worse on every release. I don't want to be able to take a tank out without some hard ass work but to even things I think they should lose one of their advantages when 1/2 damaged; Speed, Repairing or Firing. Disable any one and that's closer to fairness. Or maybe if they are severely damaged then high-acceleration increases the damage. That would give FG one more chance from long-distance.
I still take out a lot of tanks but I also die more since their aim precision was improved. Just part of the game. Other than picking off someone running in the open from 150m, there's nothing funner than watching a tank try to get away and not make it. Cheers
I'll accept this when I can shoot at infantry and disable them too.
Also, unless they've actually changed something since the last time I checked (2 weeks ago), precision on not a single turret, or anything else has improved.
Top lel
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2016.01.04 22:58:00 -
[10] - Quote
Medical Crash wrote:Just take out that module that increases tanks speed temporarily out of the game (can't remember it's name). See how OP armour tanks are after that.
Then remove all forms of maneuverability modules from infantry.
Top lel
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|