| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Richard Gamerich-R
Capital Acquisitions LLC
162
   |
Posted - 2015.11.19 14:56:00 -
[31] - Quote
You understand nothing guys, if it need only one AV to destroy a tank, vehicle would be useless. Say that the tank is indestructible, it's also a bullshit. A tank is ineffective when you have only +2 AV on the field. In the better case, the pilot go to his redline to save the vehicle, or he looses 1,2 mil ISK. But yeah, vehicles are too OP for their ******* price. You need to play 4 pub matchs to buy ONLY 1 proto tank, but yeah they are too OP for their price.
Moreover, compare hit box of an infantry player, and of a tank. Yeah, it's so hard to hit a tank compared to others classes. Try to play with a rail gun or missile launcher, before complains about vehicles.
Vehicles are playing for a typical strategy. A tank is useless in the city, and very vulnerable. Their utility is only in outside. I play PC since 2 years, and I'm pilot since the closed beta, and except for the bridge map, tank spam never was the solution for the win.
But well, let's go, nerf vehicles again. I love people who cry on the vehicles, and who never played with them. And when you have a pilot in your side who help you to push on the field, and who try to destroy others vehicles, nobody complain about that?
Vehicles is not an only anti-infantry class (you know, blaster is not the only turret of the game), it's a versatile class who help the team. Vehicles are not the easy part of the game. If it was the case, explain me why players with the best KDR (except duna, he play only for the KDR with tank spam) are infantry players, and not pilots?
Few months ago (when proto tank was released), tank was OP, but now it's not the case.
If you nerf vehicles again, or rebuff AV as the past, remove vehicles, it would be more simple. I don't want to wait 1,5 year to play in vehicle if I know it's useless for my team, I will be more efficient with my gun.
Wait I'm restocking...
// DUST 514 - Get Rekt: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLx9VURwhIB1N2kNbg6hFCiRMhJ07e041L
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.19 21:46:00 -
[32] - 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
|
maybe deadcatz
Serris Inc
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 02:49:00 -
[33] - Quote
I swear.......
IS THERE A ******* FACEPALM SYMBOL WE CAN USE HERE FOR FOCKING PETES SAKE?!?
do you really think that a 1.2 million isk tank with several million sp invested in the skills to even make it work should be able to be killed by one focking scrub with a swarm launcher in a suit that costs maybe 1/5th at most?
You. Focking.wh0t.m8.
Cat_facepalm.PNG
*flips desk.
Ha!You can't kill me! I'm already dead!
|
Baal Omniscient
Qualified Scrub
2
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 07:26:00 -
[34] - Quote
THEAMAZING POTHEAD wrote:Baal Omniscient wrote:THEAMAZING POTHEAD wrote:Commandos means theres always 3-7 swarms near every red berry furball.
Until theres not an average 4 av'ers every game that can insta pop everything that comes near them, you cant talk about 1v1 balance. In chrome a proto aver could solo maxed out tanks but it wasnt a huge problem because there was only 1 or 2 proto avers ever in a game, and redline rail gunnys kept other tanks, in redlines anyways.
I'd have no problem with proto av 1v1 killing tanks if tere weren't 4 on average each game. And who did you get that info from? Any time I play I do so with my girlfriend and we're the only 2 AV players in the entire match 9 times out of ten because most people these days would rather avoid the triple hardened fortresses trying to camp them rather than attempt to fight them alone. But just like your little tale, mine is purely annecdotal as well and has no bearing on the average match. Instead of using av and following a tank after its running away, then saying you dont see any av- pull out a tank, see how long you last, and see if you can get over 5 kills with it.
When a tank does run it's often only gone for about 20 seconds tops, even with proto AV denying an area to a tank that's ADV or above and stacking hardeners with one or two AV players is virtually impossible unless the pilot is completely inept. When there's 1 person who's counterable by a squad, what happens when there's 4 tanks? That means one squad of proto tanks working together are counterable by.... the entire enemy team? Where's the balance there? I don't have a solution to the issues facing AV and tanks, but I'm also not going to sit quietly and let people completely misrepresent the situation without a proper counter argument. So far I've yet to see a good reason for why tanks should not be able to be killed 1v1, the only thing offered is price points and I've already covered that in my responses to True.
añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ
"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."
añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
|
Baal Omniscient
Qualified Scrub
2
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 07:29:00 -
[35] - Quote
maybe deadcatz wrote:do you really think that a 1.2 million isk tank with several million sp invested in the skills to even make it work should be able to be killed by one focking scrub with a swarm launcher in a suit that costs maybe 1/5th at most?
Yes. For the same reason I think a 0 SP starter fit should be able to nade spam and kill a fully kitted officer suit. Balance. This is about gameplay, not price points.
añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ
"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."
añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
|
Arcadiia Kain
The Naughty Ninjas
133
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 11:20:00 -
[36] - Quote
I'm sorry, but i'm going to have to agree with the earlier comment about you just being bad at AV.
I run lai dais on nearly ever light and medium frame I run. I solo tanks on a regular basis.
Hitting tanks from behind with Lai Dai doesn't always ensure a hit to the weak spot, but it gets it near every time.
I also regularly run calmando with swarms. I do occassionaly manage solo kills, but against HAV, it isn't meant to. The commando is a MULTIPURPOSE suit meant to deal with a variety of situations, but that does not make it an AV specialist, and it shouldn't be.
My preferance is a GK.0 scout with swarms, lai dais, hive and proxy with a magsec primary.
This suit has done the job very well, with the ability to cover distance quickly, allowing me to proxy an tank's escape root, then hit them from the other direction.
My corp and I run regular AV squads, and HAV squads, often coordinating both.
With the profileration of proto tanks on the field (played in matches with 4 red pro tanks at one many times), practing and coordinating good AV tactics is not only necesary, but also quite profitable.
That said, as the dedicated rail gunner in Rookie's tanks, I can tell you that Lai Dais are our worst nightmare. More than any officer FG, kubo's PLC, or beacon.
Maybe instead of yelling for a nerf, you should be reevaluating your tactics, because they obviously are not working.
The Naughty Ninjas
Just another player.
Gk.0 logi, scout, sentinel, assault. Mk.0 commando
|
Union118
TH3 STRUGGL3
979
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 12:43:00 -
[37] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP.
Ways to fix since I put this here...
1 keep tanks strong, but take away their acceleration
2 make tanks weak, but keep the acceleration.
3 add dispertion to all hybrid large turrets, and nerf the range on them.
Hey, let me know if any of these things happen so I can actually enjoy a game not based on tank vs tank warfare only.
Life is not fair in your world.
Starter Fit Suits are OP :-)
|
Union118
TH3 STRUGGL3
979
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 12:45:00 -
[38] - Quote
Tebu Gan wrote:Text Grant wrote:I run proto AV every match. I can't kill well built somas, much less gunnies, or maddies. Until 1 AV'er can kill 1 tanker, so long dust. It's been a crappy 4 years, and I'd like a refund for my aurum CCP.
Ways to fix since I put this here...
1 keep tanks strong, but take away their acceleration
2 make tanks weak, but keep the acceleration.
3 add dispertion to all hybrid large turrets, and nerf the range on them.
Hey, let me know if any of these things happen so I can actually enjoy a game not based on tank vs tank warfare only. I honestly feel sorry for you. It take a lot to admit a fault like this. "I can't kill a well built soma with AV" man I'm sooo sorry dude. Best advice I can give you, Get Gud. Maybe try pulling out some proto AV and mix it up with some AV nades. I though generally just sneezed in a MLT tanks general direction and watched a pretty explosion back when I played. Maybe try a different game that isn't nearly as difficult, like Yoshi's Island.
Little big planet should work.
Starter Fit Suits are OP :-)
|
Ice Royal Glantix
0.P.
306
|
Posted - 2015.11.20 16:08:00 -
[39] - Quote
For all of you defending the tank side of the argument, I remind you that ISK cost should never be considered when balancing an item, simply due to the extreme wealth of many players.
However, for those of you who think that a single AVer should be able to destroy a tank, your just a little stupid.
The point of a tank is battlefield presence. By running a tank, compared to an assault/scout/sentinel, a player understands he is sacrificing kills. A tank simply cannot kill as much as a properly run slayer suit. If one person could easily destroy a tank, it totally ruins the idea of creating a large presence that must be dealt with.
If a tank is causing you trouble, you can always just hide from it. If a tank is causing your team trouble, your team can deal with it. If you could destroy a tank with just one person, then the tanker would be better off in an assault.
If you want to 1 v 1 a tank, use a tank.
Sincerely,
Glantix / Ice
"Solitude is not a burden; it is a gift, for independence allows us to realize our own potential."
Glantix / Ice
|
Baal Omniscient
Qualified Scrub
2
|
Posted - 2015.11.22 22:24:00 -
[40] - Quote
Ice Royal Glantix wrote:For all of you defending the tank side of the argument, I remind you that ISK cost should never be considered when balancing an item, simply due to the extreme wealth of many players.
However, for those of you who think that a single AVer should be able to destroy a tank, you're just a little stupid.
The point of a tank is battlefield presence over killing ability. By running a tank, compared to an assault/scout/sentinel, a player understands he is sacrificing kills. A tank simply cannot kill as much as a properly run slayer suit.
If one person could easily destroy a tank, it totally ruins the idea of creating a large presence that must be dealt with.
If a tank is causing you trouble, you can always just hide from it. If a tank is causing your team trouble, your team can deal with it. If you could destroy a tank with just one person, then the tanker would be better off in an assault or other dropsuit.
If you want to 1 v 1 a tank, use a tank.
Sincerely,
Glantix / Ice
This is perhaps one of the more lucid responses I've heard to the issue, despite it still being wrong. +1 for understanding price points aren't to be balanced around however, that's a rare trait at least among those who run tanks and post on the forums. Now I'm not going to just say your wrong and leave it there, that would appear derisive and that isn't my intent. I'll explain it as briefly as I can.
Even if I were to concede that tankers sacrifice kills (which is hard to do since I see proper tankers regularly getting in the top 3 with more kills than most of the rest of their team), logi suits sacrifice killing potential as well as survivability for the ability to simply have access to more gear all at once than other suits and have a minor bonus for their racial one. They are susceptible to every weapon in the game barring swarms while also being just much a priority target for infantry to remove as a tank if not moreso due to their ability to maintain a group of soldiers. And I won't even go into how hard ADS pilots have it.
In short, even if tanks were sacrificing kills to be a presence on the field, sacrificing kills is no reason for someone to not be soloable. It should not take 1/4th of a team to counter 1/16th of the other team, you cannot have balance by trying to support numbers like that.
añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ
"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."
añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
|
|
|
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 01:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
Ice Royal Glantix wrote:For all of you defending the tank side of the argument, I remind you that ISK cost should never be considered when balancing an item, simply due to the extreme wealth of many players.
However, for those of you who think that a single AVer should be able to destroy a tank, you're just a little stupid.
The point of a tank is battlefield presence over killing ability. By running a tank, compared to an assault/scout/sentinel, a player understands he is sacrificing kills. A tank simply cannot kill as much as a properly run slayer suit.
If one person could easily destroy a tank, it totally ruins the idea of creating a large presence that must be dealt with.
If a tank is causing you trouble, you can always just hide from it. If a tank is causing your team trouble, your team can deal with it. If you could destroy a tank with just one person, then the tanker would be better off in an assault or other dropsuit.
If you want to 1 v 1 a tank, use a tank.
Sincerely,
Glantix / Ice
While it is a fair statement to make that an in game currency should not significantly impact the characters abilities on a fundamental level with the design of EVE and Dust in general as well as the relative difference and coupled with the current met of Dust 514 it somewhat has to act as a balancer by incentivising or de-incentivising the vehicles deployment.
In my mind there should be a currency aspect in the game that can be used as a resource to effectively allow players to acquire certain benefits in combat but should not cause a large power disparity between players. Though I stand by the ideal that players who commit large amounts of in game currency to the combat action should be suitable compensated as a result.
As for your assessment of HAV.... I find myself agreeing with it in part. Presence is on thing that really does throw enemy players into complete disarray and denies them ground and cover they might other wise opt to use. However tanks are not nearly as useful of valuable to the team on most maps an another rifleman as they cannot capture objectives, cannot reach most objectives, have a very limited range, and are only viable to drive when hardeners are active.
Nothing pisses off a tanker more or effectively takes them out of a fight as much as being blue-balled by infantry who continue to operate normally without engaging or presenting themselves.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
Ice Royal Glantix
T.H.I.R.D R.O.C.K
Damage LLC
315
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 01:51:00 -
[42] - Quote
Baal Omniscient wrote:-snip-
It takes a very skilled tanker to pull off 30+ kill games, something your average assault can do in any game. A tank can easily be hid from and out maneuvered, making it hard to chase down what would be easy kills for any infantry member.
Therefore, and I am repeating my main argument at this point, a tank really shines in terms of battlefield presence, not killing ability. It can keep accessible points on lockdown and prevent infantry from crossing open fields. These tasks are what a tank should strive to accomplish, and you know what? All it takes is a single person to stop a tank from doing this. Yes, a single AVer probably won't be able to destroy the tank, but he/she will be able to scare off the tank, thus removing its immense presence.
This is no different than pushing a sniper off of objective overwatch or forcing an Amarr Logi to retreat, preventing him/her from from dropping links where they are needed. Both of these people will still be able to get kills, but they won't be able to do the job they were designed to do.
That is all I have to ramble on about. My apologies if I was rude/offensive in this post; that was not the intention.
Sincerely,
Glantix / Ice
"Solitude is not a burden; it is a gift, for independence allows us to realize our own potential."
Glantix / Ice
|
Baal Omniscient
Qualified Scrub
2
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 04:30:00 -
[43] - Quote
Ice Royal Glantix wrote:
It takes a very skilled tanker to pull off 30+ kill games, something your average assault can do in any game. A tank can easily be hid from and out maneuvered, making it hard to chase down what would be easy kills for any infantry member.
Therefore, and I am repeating my main argument at this point, a tank really shines in terms of battlefield presence, not killing ability. It can keep accessible points on lockdown and prevent infantry from crossing open fields. These tasks are what a tank should strive to accomplish, and you know what? All it takes is a single person to stop a tank from doing this. Yes, a single AVer probably won't be able to destroy the tank, but he/she will be able to scare off the tank, thus removing its immense presence.
This is no different than pushing a sniper off of objective overwatch or forcing an Amarr Logi to retreat, preventing him/her from from dropping links where they are needed. Both of these people will still be able to get kills, but they won't be able to do the job they were designed to do.
That is all I have to ramble on about. My apologies if I was rude/offensive in this post; that was not the intention.
Sincerely,
Glantix / Ice
An average assault player working with a squad can and does frequently clear 20 kills, 30 perhaps as an average for some of the moderately better players, but a solo assault is not going to be averaging 30 kills in an normal game. It takes a very skilled assault to pull off 30+ kill games playing solo as well.
An average skill level solo assault is going to be bouncing widely between anywhere from 5-20 on average depending largely on who's on the other team, what gear the opposing team is running, gear the player is willing to risk running and the content of their own team (officer squads are a huge drain on kills for everyone else in the match, just as an example) which are numbers I also see average solo tankers frequently pulling.
I play either solo or as a duo with my girlfriend exclusively these days, I never run in a full squad. I've been playing Dust since Replication and she's been playing since open beta and we both run both assault classes and AV and have done so for years now. A good match for us is when we top 20 kills individually, but typically we end up only averaging between 10 and 20 kills per game with bad games dipping into the single digits and really good games veering near the 30 mark. It's completely subjective for a solo player, and unless a tanker is good at working as a proper support for a squad (extrordinarily rare to see) they are basically a solo player whether they are in a squad or not (this being the reason for the emphasis on the solo assault experience).
As for a solo AV player being able to scare off a tank - Yes, if they can get behind them and get enough alpha damage on them with AV grenades and whatever AV weapon they have on hand through their hardners (because a tank isn't going to sit there with it's hardners down). Then, if they can manage that while dodging enemy fire, that tank will rocket off into the distance nearly as fast as a top speed LAV only to return to the same spot 20 seconds later fully repped and aware that someone's pulled AV so they should probably farm kills in 3rd person for a while to keep an eye on their week spot.
There is a very big balancing issue right now with making fits that are viable for tanks that aren't just triple hardened fortresses, I understand the issues there and don't deny that there is a big issue with that, however that doesn't excuse the abusability of the triple hardened tank. At MLT and basic levels it's not so bad, but once someone has fully specced into vehicle skills it can take a squad fully focused on AV just to scare off certain proto triple hardened tanks who know good routes and how to properly use cover.
Now all of that said, a tanker working with a squad won't necessarily net more kills like an assault or heavy would in a squad. The tank has a very difficult obstical to overcome if it is ever to truly feel at home in Dust, and that is utility. It doesn't have enough seats to carry a squad, it's useless when stuck outside apart from parking on a hill and trying to fire into the doorways/windows, it requires modules to manage dispersion on it's main anti infantry turret, etc, etc, etc. The presence of a tank will keep people indoors, but forcing people into hiding in tight groups is counter productive as it forces your team to have to breach a room already fortified by a blob of enemies already forted up with hives and uplinks in most cases. This is not a role. The tank lacks a proper role. I personally preffered it much more back when I could 1v1 a tank and it was completely up in the air who would win because their rounds were deadly accurate and I had to duck in and out and between different available cover just to try and shoot at them. At least then they had a role, and that was being a deadly machine that could die relatively easily. People didn't all run indoors to avoid the tanks because they had faith that someone would be able to scare it away soon, whereas now no one expects anyone to do anything about them so they all GTFO of the way of the tank to try to save their own gear. Back then 4-6 shots and a tank would go down from my swarms, and 1-3 shots from their blaster and I was dead. Tanks weren't perfect, but they had options and they had an at least workable purpose.
Sorry if my response seems grouchy or rattled, unable to sleep and my brain is hating me for trying to post through the haze of exhaustion.
añ¼añ+añ¦-añ¬añ+añƒañ¦-añÿañ¿añ+añ+añ¦-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ
"Baal comes...and destruction follows him like a storm."
añ¿añ+añ¦añ¿aÑìaññañ¦añ+añ¿aÑìañºañòañ+añ¦añ+aññ-añªañ+añùañ¿aÑìaññ-añ¦añ¦añÖaÑìañù
|
Ice Royal Glantix
CASSETTE 514
317
|
Posted - 2015.11.23 16:11:00 -
[44] - Quote
Baal Omniscient wrote:
An average assault player working with a squad can and does frequently clear 20 kills, 30 perhaps as an average for some of the moderately better players, but a solo assault is not going to be averaging 30 kills in an normal game. It takes a very skilled assault to pull off 30+ kill games playing solo as well.
An average skill level solo assault is going to be bouncing widely between anywhere from 5-20 on average depending largely on who's on the other team, what gear the opposing team is running, gear the player is willing to risk running and the content of their own team (officer squads are a huge drain on kills for everyone else in the match, just as an example) which are numbers I also see average solo tankers frequently pulling.
I play either solo or as a duo with my girlfriend exclusively these days, I never run in a full squad. I've been playing Dust since Replication and she's been playing since open beta and we both run both assault classes and AV and have done so for years now. A good match for us is when we top 20 kills individually, but typically we end up only averaging between 10 and 20 kills per game with bad games dipping into the single digits and really good games veering near the 30 mark. It's completely subjective for a solo player, and unless a tanker is good at working as a proper support for a squad (extrordinarily rare to see) they are basically a solo player whether they are in a squad or not (this being the reason for the emphasis on the solo assault experience).
While you make a legitimate point on what the average assault can do, solo or not is an irrelevant fact: Some people do better solo, some do better squaded. Either way, your average blaster tank still isn't going to compare in kills, earning roughly 10 or so per match. (Maybe 20 if the enemy team doesn't use AV)
Baal Omniscient wrote:
As for a solo AV player being able to scare off a tank - Yes, if they can get behind them and get enough alpha damage on them with AV grenades and whatever AV weapon they have on hand through their hardners (because a tank isn't going to sit there with it's hardners down). Then, if they can manage that while dodging enemy fire, that tank will rocket off into the distance nearly as fast as a top speed LAV only to return to the same spot 20 seconds later fully repped and aware that someone's pulled AV so they should probably farm kills in 3rd person for a while to keep an eye on their week spot.
One swarmer engaging from any angle is enough to make a non-reckless tanker move, unless the tanker is utilising a fit capable of shrugging off the damage, in which case they'll have to retreat anyway to allow their hardeners to recharge.
Baal Omniscient wrote:
There is a very big balancing issue right now with making fits that are viable for tanks that aren't just triple hardened fortresses, I understand the issues there and don't deny that there is a big issue with that, however that doesn't excuse the abusability of the triple hardened tank. At MLT and basic levels it's not so bad, but once someone has fully specced into vehicle skills it can take a squad fully focused on AV just to scare off certain proto triple hardened tanks who know good routes and how to properly use cover.
Just a question: Who the hell uses triple hardened fits?
Baal Omniscient wrote:
Now all of that said, a tanker working with a squad won't necessarily net more kills like an assault or heavy would in a squad. The tank has a very difficult obstical to overcome if it is ever to truly feel at home in Dust, and that is utility. It doesn't have enough seats to carry a squad, it's useless when stuck outside apart from parking on a hill and trying to fire into the doorways/windows, it requires modules to manage dispersion on it's main anti infantry turret, etc, etc, etc. The presence of a tank will keep people indoors, but forcing people into hiding in tight groups is counter productive as it forces your team to have to breach a room already fortified by a blob of enemies already forted up with hives and uplinks in most cases. This is not a role. The tank lacks a proper role. I personally preffered it much more back when I could 1v1 a tank and it was completely up in the air who would win because their rounds were deadly accurate and I had to duck in and out and between different available cover just to try and shoot at them. At least then they had a role, and that was being a deadly machine that could die relatively easily. People didn't all run indoors to avoid the tanks because they had faith that someone would be able to scare it away soon, whereas now no one expects anyone to do anything about them so they all GTFO of the way of the tank to try to save their own gear. Back then 4-6 shots and a tank would go down from my swarms, and 1-3 shots from their blaster and I was dead. Tanks weren't perfect, but they had options and they had an at least workable purpose.
Sorry if my response seems grouchy or rattled, unable to sleep and my brain is hating me for trying to post through the haze of exhaustion.
Suppression is a role, currently filled by tanks and to a certain extent commandos.
I'm actually in a rush at the moment, so I cannot type out a full response.
Sorry about that.
Sincerely,
Glantix / Ice
"Solitude is not a burden; it is a gift, for independence allows us to realize our own potential."
Glantix / Ice
|
Text Grant
PIanet Express
442
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 05:00:00 -
[45] - Quote
Sure, suppression can be a role that tanks, and commandos do, but commandos can be one shotted by snipers for staying in one area, while tanks can take several clips from weapons specifically designed to "kill" them. |
Ice Royal Glantix
CASSETTE 514
319
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 16:06:00 -
[46] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Sure, suppression can be a role that tanks, and commandos do, but commandos can be one shotted by snipers for staying in one area, while tanks can take several clips from weapons specifically designed to "kill" them.
Designed to kill after a long period of constant fire.
Tanks are suppression; AV is counter suppression.
"Solitude is not a burden; it is a gift, for independence allows us to realize our own potential."
Glantix / Ice
|
Ghost Steps
G0DS AM0NG MEN
32
|
Posted - 2015.11.28 19:02:00 -
[47] - Quote
Why dont the tank use a 2 or 3 man to operate?,that would set a 2vs2 or 3vs3 on the AV vs Tank.
Caldari Scouts should be Ninjas.
|
deezy dabest
IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP
Evil Syndicate Alliance.
4
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 10:58:00 -
[48] - Quote
Until vehicles position in the game is accepted as what it should be there will never be balance. The lack of that decision is why this is the greatest of all never ending balance cycles.
In a FPS vehicles are a FORCE MULTIPLIER. They are meant to be naturally weaker than infantry when they are run solo. Why should one person get to call in a tank and enter god mode just because he went tanks instead of infantry in an infantry game?
It also does not help that we have some kind of ghetto excuse for AV which is also being balanced versus infantry for some reason. Why should the PLC or the forge take a nerf against everything just because it was killing infantry too effectively? A/V weapons, specifically the high alpha ones should do a flat 10% of their damage to infantry. This makes them ineffective as a killing tool but still allows them to assist in defending the area along with their squad.
Show there is a future #CCPSpeakOn514
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 16:40:00 -
[49] - 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
|
deezy dabest
IMPERIAL SPECIAL FORCES GROUP
Evil Syndicate Alliance.
4
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 16:46:00 -
[50] - Quote
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.
Show there is a future #CCPSpeakOn514
|
|
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 16:58:00 -
[51] - 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
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 17:14:00 -
[52] - Quote
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".....
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 18:12:00 -
[53] - 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
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 18:22:00 -
[54] - Quote
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.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Godin Thekiller
Negative-Feedback.
Negative-Feedback
3
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 20:08:00 -
[55] - 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
|
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 20:34:00 -
[56] - Quote
This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost...
If you don't like me, take that to the locker room.
I simply pointed out the road that brought us here.
Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Text Grant
PIanet Express
444
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 21:22:00 -
[57] - Quote
Devadander wrote:This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost...
If you don't like me, take that to the locker room.
I simply pointed out the road that brought us here.
Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it.
Actually, the suggestions were quite reasonable for the literate :D |
Devadander
Woodgrain Atari
1
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 21:47:00 -
[58] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Devadander wrote:This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost...
If you don't like me, take that to the locker room.
I simply pointed out the road that brought us here.
Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it. Actually, the suggestions were quite reasonable for the literate :D
So two personal attacks, and nothing to actually further any kind of discussion.
Gêå You want a toe? I can get you a toe dude. Gêå
Joined - 06-28-12 ~Deal with it~
|
Text Grant
PIanet Express
444
|
Posted - 2015.11.29 22:20:00 -
[59] - Quote
Devadander wrote:Text Grant wrote:Devadander wrote:This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost...
If you don't like me, take that to the locker room.
I simply pointed out the road that brought us here.
Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it. Actually, the suggestions were quite reasonable for the literate :D So two personal attacks, and nothing to actually further any kind of discussion.
I was replying to what you were speaking of. You didn't comment on the post, so I assumed you couldn't read. Maybe you just forgot to read? Either way, you didn't read. |
True Adamance
Praetoriani Classiarii Templares
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
21
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 00:57:00 -
[60] - Quote
Text Grant wrote:Devadander wrote:Text Grant wrote:Devadander wrote:This whole thread is somewhat of a shitpost...
If you don't like me, take that to the locker room.
I simply pointed out the road that brought us here.
Would like to help make both sides more fun. But this is obviously not the thread for it. Actually, the suggestions were quite reasonable for the literate :D So two personal attacks, and nothing to actually further any kind of discussion. I was replying to what you were speaking of. You didn't comment on the post, so I assumed you couldn't read. Maybe you just forgot to read? Either way, you didn't read.
Simply put the suggestions are simply too basic and not fleshed out enough, moreover you don't address any of the core concerns that typically get brought up in discussions of vehicle vs AV balance.
Finally you suggest giving a turret type marred by a very noticeable and quite frankly ridiculous dispersion which is more like to miss a running target at short range that hit it a lesser range and also greater projectile dispersion. While the Large Blaster has no place as an Anti Tank Turret making such changes would see it pushed to the point of disuse.
Em shah tey et naGÇÖemsaer ek rahvi, amarr osedah gasi ubday pahk. Ekin tey vahka ijed div ema ziel. Et tey vamatal em.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |