| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jax Sotken
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
8
   |
Posted - 2012.07.23 01:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Neither is having militia vehicles available either, as everyone is now using upgraded tanks meaning we are making enough ISK to spam them. The real problem? These big open maps with little true cover that promote the vehicle spam. The solution? At least all vital hack objectives (A, B, C) need to be indoors in addition to having various other forms of enclosed buildings (for ambush maps). This would promote and force infantry play in my opinion. Vehicles would still remain useful as support as they should be without having to nerf them. |
Cricix D
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 02:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
I think that's the case. This is just one map of many. I'm sure there will be wide open vehicle friendly and infantry friendly maps, with a few maps that are mixed. |
Sandromin Hes
Sand Mercenary Corps Inc.
204
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 02:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
an actual, legitimate solution... good job thinking outside of the box...
on another note: unfortunately, this is in the wrong place. It should be in the feedback/requests area |
Jax Sotken
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 02:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
I would prefer mixed maps myself for the most part but wouldn't mind variations to one or the other side. Just not how it is now :P |
Jax Sotken
Seituoda Taskforce Command
Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 02:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sandromin Hes wrote:an actual, legitimate solution... good job thinking outside of the box...
on another note: unfortunately, this is in the wrong place. It should be in the feedback/requests area
Noted and done. |
Icy Tiger
496
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 03:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Old maps were better in the last build. I think they deliberately put an unbalanced map into this build to test out vehicles and stuff. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 03:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
There isn't anywhere a vehicle can go on this map that doesn't provide any cover for enemy infantry, unless they want to actively remove themselves from the fight.
It may not be a situation that's totally favourable to those of us without vehicles, but it's ALSO not free party time for the heavy armour. |
Armatsu
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 04:02:00 -
[8] - Quote
Garrett Blacknova wrote:There isn't anywhere a vehicle can go on this map that doesn't provide any cover for enemy infantry, unless they want to actively remove themselves from the fight.
It may not be a situation that's totally favourable to those of us without vehicles, but it's ALSO not free party time for the heavy armour.
I don't think the problem is the lack of cover, more so just the type of cover. Most of the cover available can be shot around and still hit people with splash. I've killed people hiding behind the wall by B from the other side by simply shooting just past the corner of a wall and hitting them with splash damage.
I also found it weird that objectives were always out in the open. I find it pretty poor design to put an important computer out in the middle of an area instead of a highly guarded facility. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 04:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
Why are you trying to get my favorite game banned
"Cabela's Dangerous Hunt: New Eden Edition"
Made 1.2 million isk in one battle today killing vehicles left and right. |
BAD FURRY
Hellstorm Inc
League of Infamy
247
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 05:51:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jax Sotken wrote:Neither is having militia vehicles available either, as everyone is now using upgraded tanks meaning we are making enough ISK to spam them. The real problem? These big open maps with little true cover that promote the vehicle spam. The solution? At least all vital hack objectives (A, B, C) need to be indoors in addition to having various other forms of enclosed buildings (for ambush maps). This would promote and force infantry play in my opinion. Vehicles would still remain useful as support as they should be without having to nerf them.
O for the love of god shut up about it this is beta and its not even 50% done ! |
Hellhammer Tactical
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 05:59:00 -
[11] - Quote
the vehicles and weapons are not the issue, the issue is the players!!!
always the same nerf this nerf that threads, put down the weed and use your f******G head. this is not a point and click fps, you do have to think about your tactics and not just rush in like a noob
sorry little off topic there! |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 06:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
Militia vehicles don't make sense in their current form in a risk vs. reward form. Even a militia tank is typically capable of getting a few kills, guaranteed, before being taken out. And it costs you nothing. If you tried to run around in militia dropsuit with militia assault rifle, meanwhile, you'd likely get killed by the first CreoDron clone you met.
So yeah, the militia vehicles are the problem. Powerful tools that cost nothing don't jive with Dust's mentality of everything good having a cost to it. But, it's definitely going to change, so it's not a problem to dwell on. |
Pezz IsDank
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
RISE of LEGION
171
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 06:16:00 -
[13] - Quote
After launch isk will be much more difficult to obtain and the prices of marauders are going to skyrocket, to 1.2 mil isk I believe (mine fully fit right now costs 81k). Knowing that I wouldn't expect marauders to appear or be spammed nearly as much after launch and really the lower tier tanks are cake to take out with a prototype swarm launcher. |
Hellhammer Tactical
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.23 06:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
/\ i though they were going up to 1.5m ISK, either way thats really cheap for a tank, real tanks are more expensive, as of this year the Abram costs $8.2m and the challenger 2 costs $7m |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |