Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Khun-Al
135
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 22:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
Based on the statements in this thread I created a list what should be done with both.
Tanks: 1. They need a higher top speed and a far lower acceleration. 2. Their turret rotation should be lower. 3. They should have weak spots with their own hp bar. They should be tracks, tower slewing ring, motor intake socket and cameras. The cameras should at every turret and a camera drone should follow the tank. If you knock them out they are blind and have to look outside of the tank where they can be shooten out. If the motor intake socket, tracks or the slewing ring is half destroyed they are slower and if they are destroyed the tank cannot do their function. They can be repaired with a certain module but it should be like hacking.
AV: 1. Make AV grenades staying just a certain time so they cannot be used as mines. 2. RE should be sticky. 3. The swarm launcher shouldnt be a fire and forget weapon. You should be able to steer them for a certain time after start or at least let them fly staight for a few seconds before they start homing. 4. The forge gun needs at least the same range as a small railgun turret. 5. You should add anti-tank rifles. They could require a heavy slot and a lot of CPU/PG, a very long charging time and a one shot magazine. Its damage should be about the of a sniper rifle but it ignores the armor and shield of a tank and just damages the crew due to the splinter flying inside the tank after a hit. 6. The damage of the weapons should stay at the current stats.
If you introduce these features tanks wouldnt be solo vehicles they would require some escorting troops and the AV weapons would be more effective. All together they would be balanced. |
Vesta Ren
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
33
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 00:24:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tanks seem OP right now because there arn't large groups able to co-ordinate AV defenses, its mostly lone heavies with forge guns or militia swarms. CCP has done the right thing and balanced them for co-ordinated play, otherwise tanks would be useless in their intended role of spearheading attacks into heavily defended places.
I played 2 builds ago before the swarm and forge gun nerf and i can tell you that AV was way too powerful. A single heavy with an assault forge gun behind a rock could force you to retreat because there was no way to hit them behind cover well they did massive amounts of DPS. Even as an infantry player now i feel the changes are needed. |
Average Joe81
57
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 00:33:00 -
[3] - Quote
Khun-Al wrote:Based on the statements in this thread I created a list what should be done with both. Tanks: 1. They need a higher top speed and a far lower acceleration. 2. Their turret rotation should be lower. 3. They should have weak spots with their own hp bar. They should be tracks, tower slewing ring, motor intake socket and cameras. The cameras should at every turret and a camera drone should follow the tank. If you knock them out they are blind and have to look outside of the tank where they can be shooten out. If the motor intake socket, tracks or the slewing ring is half destroyed they are slower and if they are destroyed the tank cannot do their function. They can be repaired with a certain module but it should be like hacking. AV: 1. Make AV grenades staying just a certain time so they cannot be used as mines. 2. RE should be magnetical. 3. The swarm launcher shouldnt be a fire and forget weapon. You should be able to steer them for a certain time after start or at least let them fly staight for a few seconds before they start homing. 4. The forge gun needs at least the same range as a small railgun turret. 5. You should add anti-tank rifles. They could require a heavy slot and a lot of CPU/PG, a very long charging time and a one shot magazine. Its damage should be about the of a sniper rifle but it ignores the armor and shield of a tank and just damages the crew due to the splinter flying inside the tank after a hit. 6. The damage of the weapons should stay at the current stats. If you introduce these features tanks wouldnt be solo vehicles they would require some escorting troops and the AV weapons would be more effective. All together they would be balanced. 1.exists already 2.exists already 3.too complcated and gay sounding
1.exists already 2.why 3.you've obviously not played before E3 4.exists already 5.you mean a really overpowered weapon that could lead to the thefts of multi million ISK tanks? 6.as a tank driver myself, even i say no |
Chao Wolf
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
209
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 00:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Last night I was in a corp battle and there was 6 mercs all trying to take down one HAV to no real effect... Something is SERIOUSLY wrong. |
Khun-Al
135
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 07:24:00 -
[5] - Quote
Average Joe81 wrote:Khun-Al wrote:Based on the statements in this thread I created a list what should be done with both. Tanks: 1. They need a higher top speed and a far lower acceleration. 2. Their turret rotation should be lower. 3. They should have weak spots with their own hp bar. They should be tracks, tower slewing ring, motor intake socket and cameras. The cameras should at every turret and a camera drone should follow the tank. If you knock them out they are blind and have to look outside of the tank where they can be shooten out. If the motor intake socket, tracks or the slewing ring is half destroyed they are slower and if they are destroyed the tank cannot do their function. They can be repaired with a certain module but it should be like hacking. AV: 1. Make AV grenades staying just a certain time so they cannot be used as mines. 2. RE should be magnetical. 3. The swarm launcher shouldnt be a fire and forget weapon. You should be able to steer them for a certain time after start or at least let them fly staight for a few seconds before they start homing. 4. The forge gun needs at least the same range as a small railgun turret. 5. You should add anti-tank rifles. They could require a heavy slot and a lot of CPU/PG, a very long charging time and a one shot magazine. Its damage should be about the of a sniper rifle but it ignores the armor and shield of a tank and just damages the crew due to the splinter flying inside the tank after a hit. 6. The damage of the weapons should stay at the current stats. If you introduce these features tanks wouldnt be solo vehicles they would require some escorting troops and the AV weapons would be more effective. All together they would be balanced. 1.exists already 2.exists already 3.too complcated and gay sounding 1.exists already 2.why 3.you've obviously not played before E3 4.exists already 5.you mean a really overpowered weapon that could lead to the thefts of multi million ISK tanks? 6.as a tank driver myself, even i say no
1/2. If that exists already they need to be decreased again. 3. If you want a uncomplicated game play pokemon. Maybe i have explained it complicated but you can read it up here. It would be tank warfare anno 1914. 2. because they are toally uneffective you lay them on the ground and the tank has driven over it before you blow them up. 3. I havent played before E3 but I played the E3 version and there every swarm missle came at least close to the tank. Now they are flying into rocks beside you. 4. A railgun can still shoot farer than a forge gun. 5. Why would it be owerpowered. It is weapon with piercing ammo, a splash radius of about 1m and about 100 splash damage. So you have to know where your enemy is to hit him. 6. Why is it bad if the AV weapon ststs are lower. I mean the current stats that means 250 per swarm missle, 900 damage of a forge gun etc. |
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV
Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 07:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Chao Wolf wrote:Last night I was in a corp battle and there was 6 mercs all trying to take down one HAV to no real effect... Something is SERIOUSLY wrong.
you can attack with 12 mercs....if none of them have an adequate av fit, nothing is gonna happen soon |
Shiro Mokuzan
220
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 07:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
Vesta Ren wrote:Tanks seem OP right now because there arn't large groups able to co-ordinate AV defenses, its mostly lone heavies with forge guns or militia swarms. CCP has done the right thing and balanced them for co-ordinated play, otherwise tanks would be useless in their intended role of spearheading attacks into heavily defended places.
I played 2 builds ago before the swarm and forge gun nerf and i can tell you that AV was way too powerful. A single heavy with an assault forge gun behind a rock could force you to retreat because there was no way to hit them behind cover well they did massive amounts of DPS. Even as an infantry player now i feel the changes are needed.
I agree with this, but I do think they need limited ammo. |
Khun-Al
135
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 07:38:00 -
[8] - Quote
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV wrote:Chao Wolf wrote:Last night I was in a corp battle and there was 6 mercs all trying to take down one HAV to no real effect... Something is SERIOUSLY wrong. you can attack with 12 mercs....if none of them have an adequate av fit, nothing is gonna happen soon
That isnt so much of the problem. The milita sl has enough damage to kill a standard tank. If they do it a bit tactical like waiting after the repairer has depleted beore they shoot they would win. |
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV
Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 07:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
Shiro Mokuzan wrote:Vesta Ren wrote:Tanks seem OP right now because there arn't large groups able to co-ordinate AV defenses, its mostly lone heavies with forge guns or militia swarms. CCP has done the right thing and balanced them for co-ordinated play, otherwise tanks would be useless in their intended role of spearheading attacks into heavily defended places.
I played 2 builds ago before the swarm and forge gun nerf and i can tell you that AV was way too powerful. A single heavy with an assault forge gun behind a rock could force you to retreat because there was no way to hit them behind cover well they did massive amounts of DPS. Even as an infantry player now i feel the changes are needed. I agree with this, but I do think they need limited ammo.
with ewar you will be able to shut off their turrets by draining capacitors. different means to the same end |
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV
Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 07:38:00 -
[10] - Quote
Khun-Al wrote:STB-LURCHASAURUS EV wrote:Chao Wolf wrote:Last night I was in a corp battle and there was 6 mercs all trying to take down one HAV to no real effect... Something is SERIOUSLY wrong. you can attack with 12 mercs....if none of them have an adequate av fit, nothing is gonna happen soon That isnt so much of the problem. The milita sl has enough damage to kill a standard tank. If they do it a bit tactical like waiting after the repairer has depleted beore they shoot they would win.
too complex for whiners |
|
Khun-Al
135
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 07:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV wrote:Shiro Mokuzan wrote:Vesta Ren wrote:Tanks seem OP right now because there arn't large groups able to co-ordinate AV defenses, its mostly lone heavies with forge guns or militia swarms. CCP has done the right thing and balanced them for co-ordinated play, otherwise tanks would be useless in their intended role of spearheading attacks into heavily defended places.
I played 2 builds ago before the swarm and forge gun nerf and i can tell you that AV was way too powerful. A single heavy with an assault forge gun behind a rock could force you to retreat because there was no way to hit them behind cover well they did massive amounts of DPS. Even as an infantry player now i feel the changes are needed. I agree with this, but I do think they need limited ammo. with ewar you will be able to shut off their turrets by draining capacitors. different means to the same end This is a short and uncomplicated version of my third point.
|
Kyy Seiska
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
188
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 08:26:00 -
[12] - Quote
The whole "you need team work to take down a tank" argument blows big time. Giving one player that kind of power and survivability just breaks the whole balance and pretty much makes the game Pay or Grind to win. "But they cost so much so they should be that powerful" is almost like defending tanks by saying that the game is pay to win.
Taking down a tank should be a team effort? what a ******* joke. Guess we need 3 teams to take down 3 or just sit back and watch while tanks are "fighting the real battle" since there's no other build or fit that can fight them on equal grounds.
Since tank doesn't need team effort to survive, why do we need team effort to destroy one? |
Shiro Mokuzan
220
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 08:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
Kyy Seiska wrote:The whole "you need team work to take down a tank" argument blows big time. Giving one player that kind of power and survivability just breaks the whole balance and pretty much makes the game Pay or Grind to win. "But they cost so much so they should be that powerful" is almost like defending tanks by saying that the game is pay to win.
Taking down a tank should be a team effort? what a ******* joke. Guess we need 3 teams to take down 3 or just sit back and watch while tanks are "fighting the real battle" since there's no other build or fit that can fight them on equal grounds.
Since tank doesn't need team effort to survive, why do we need team effort to destroy one?
Because this is not a typical FPS match. This is total war. Money matters. Teamwork matters. A tank should be difficult to destroy because it's a tank.
You have the wrong mindset for this game. |
xAckie
Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising
125
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 09:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Shiro Mokuzan wrote:Kyy Seiska wrote:The whole "you need team work to take down a tank" argument blows big time. Giving one player that kind of power and survivability just breaks the whole balance and pretty much makes the game Pay or Grind to win. "But they cost so much so they should be that powerful" is almost like defending tanks by saying that the game is pay to win.
Taking down a tank should be a team effort? what a ******* joke. Guess we need 3 teams to take down 3 or just sit back and watch while tanks are "fighting the real battle" since there's no other build or fit that can fight them on equal grounds.
Since tank doesn't need team effort to survive, why do we need team effort to destroy one? Because this is not a typical FPS match. This is total war. Money matters. Teamwork matters. A tank should be difficult to destroy because it's a tank. You have the wrong mindset for this game.
and that mindset will keep the game broken. It is broken. Its Tank Wars. Tanks are for area denial and destroying buildings or dropping heavy artillery into certain locations. These tanks seem to be rolling assault soldier fortresses able to pick off infantry.
It seems to me that AV is more time consuming to spec into than tanks. I am running assault and still havent got my assault beyond level 4 nearly finished my shields got weaponry up etc - haven't even started on AV build - approx 3.7m sp? So not for another 2.5 3m will I bother going swarm and getting proto. Proto is necessary to even do light damage to these tanks.
last build I had a swarm launcher 3 complex mods, remotes and AV grenades. So I know the AV route. Not that they much helped.
Swarms should be shoot and forget. And should be buffed
Tanks are way to powerful. Seeign people go 40 - 0 tells us so. There seems to be no available AV counter for infantry to effectively use, particularly at the early stages.
|
Dakir Osaka
Red and Silver Hand Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 09:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
A limit would be nice at least on how many tanks 1 side can have, if you dont impose a limit when Dust finally goes live and everything stays as it is, everyone will spec for tanks because they are effective against everything and very little to actually threaten them. and Dust will become a glorified World of tanks FPS and everything else in between (Lavs, Dropships etc) will have been forgotten about |
Kyy Seiska
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
188
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 09:21:00 -
[16] - Quote
Shiro Mokuzan wrote:Kyy Seiska wrote:The whole "you need team work to take down a tank" argument blows big time. Giving one player that kind of power and survivability just breaks the whole balance and pretty much makes the game Pay or Grind to win. "But they cost so much so they should be that powerful" is almost like defending tanks by saying that the game is pay to win.
Taking down a tank should be a team effort? what a ******* joke. Guess we need 3 teams to take down 3 or just sit back and watch while tanks are "fighting the real battle" since there's no other build or fit that can fight them on equal grounds.
Since tank doesn't need team effort to survive, why do we need team effort to destroy one? Because this is not a typical FPS match. This is total war. Money matters. Teamwork matters. A tank should be difficult to destroy because it's a tank. You have the wrong mindset for this game.
With similar argument I could say that AV-builds should have no trouble destroying tanks, because well they are anti-vechicle builds. But the way money and team work matters now seems terribly one-sided.
Luckily CCP seems to be aware of this problem and hopefully they will remedy the problem asap.
|
Khun-Al
135
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 09:48:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dakir Osaka wrote:A limit would be nice at least on how many tanks 1 side can have, if you dont impose a limit when Dust finally goes live and everything stays as it is, everyone will spec for tanks because they are effective against everything and very little to actually threaten them. and Dust will become a glorified World of tanks FPS and everything else in between (Lavs, Dropships etc) will have been forgotten about
That wont come to dust. CCP hasnt done any restictions in EVE so why should they do this here.
|
Khun-Al
135
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 10:01:00 -
[18] - Quote
Kyy Seiska wrote:The whole "you need team work to take down a tank" argument blows big time. Giving one player that kind of power and survivability just breaks the whole balance and pretty much makes the game Pay or Grind to win. "But they cost so much so they should be that powerful" is almost like defending tanks by saying that the game is pay to win.
Taking down a tank should be a team effort? what a ******* joke. Guess we need 3 teams to take down 3 or just sit back and watch while tanks are "fighting the real battle" since there's no other build or fit that can fight them on equal grounds.
Since tank doesn't need team effort to survive, why do we need team effort to destroy one? Thats what those changes should attain. Then tanks need some escort by assault and logi guys. |
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV
Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 10:06:00 -
[19] - Quote
two things baffle me....
for some reason people seem to forget a tank has three people in it. common sense dictates you should attack it with at least three av guys to counter....
secondly, where are you people getting the idea that speccing into av takes longer than tanks? seriously? i have 10 mil into my tanks and im nowhere near done. |
xAckie
Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising
125
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 11:04:00 -
[20] - Quote
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV wrote:two things baffle me....
for some reason people seem to forget a tank has three people in it. common sense dictates you should attack it with at least three av guys to counter....
secondly, where are you people getting the idea that speccing into av takes longer than tanks? seriously? i have 10 mil into my tanks and im nowhere near done.
Sure. And I understand your point. But as I see it the SP i sink into shields, electronics, and mechanics, repair, enginnering, etc. etc works with vehicles. So its 2x gift of SP for both specialist classes. There is no equivalent to counter this route by skiling into an AV / assault build.
And I agree about your 10, point as well. I wouldn't be anywhere done with 10 million on an assault infantry guy either. |
|
D3LTA NORMANDY
Doomheim
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 11:18:00 -
[21] - Quote
I play as a AV . I have already made SL and AV grenade to advanced and they work pretty well against standard tanks. But yesterday I had my first encounter with a marauder this build and they do nearly nothing. I dont think that Proto weapons can do this better because their 350 damage more are nothing against 5500 shield and nearly 1500 armor. The raise between standard and marauders is about 2500 HP. AV weapons should have a similar raise between advanced and Proto
|
Kyy Seiska
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
188
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 11:26:00 -
[22] - Quote
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV wrote:two things baffle me....
for some reason people seem to forget a tank has three people in it. common sense dictates you should attack it with at least three av guys to counter....
secondly, where are you people getting the idea that speccing into av takes longer than tanks? seriously? i have 10 mil into my tanks and im nowhere near done.
You don't need to spec in turrets or Tank to reap the benefits. Joining tank with it's slaughter fest is free ticket to High amount of kills with literally no risk. You can easily bail out if things look bad and find another tank.
How much do you think AV-infantry gets per match basis? They aren't using tanks you know, and they are heavily gimping their abilities to deal with infantry as well. This all translates to less kills -> less points and often -> more deaths which is -> Less SP and ISK.
Grenades, heavy-suit, swarm-launcher and/or forge-gun skills aren't exactly cheap, not to mention other one is a light weapon and other a heavy weapon. If you hope to survive infantry encounters you also need to spec on SMG's and side arms. Grenade skill is expensive as hell but needed for AV-nades. |
xAckie
Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising
125
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 11:31:00 -
[23] - Quote
Kyy Seiska wrote: Grenade skill is expensive as hell but needed for AV-nades.
too expensive in my view |
Anatoly Gasputin
Doomheim
40
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 11:33:00 -
[24] - Quote
Something must be done so tanks don't dominate the battlefield ads they do now. I think that killing a tank should present a serious threat and would require multiple persons to take down. But as I suppose CCP is already on it and trying to fix stuff so that everybody will be happy. Well besides those that get butthurt over everything ofc. |
Dewie Cheecham
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
677
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 15:20:00 -
[25] - Quote
Vesta Ren wrote:Tanks seem OP right now because there arn't large groups able to co-ordinate AV defenses, its mostly lone heavies with forge guns or militia swarms. CCP has done the right thing and balanced them for co-ordinated play, otherwise tanks would be useless in their intended role of spearheading attacks into heavily defended places.
I played 2 builds ago before the swarm and forge gun nerf and i can tell you that AV was way too powerful. A single heavy with an assault forge gun behind a rock could force you to retreat because there was no way to hit them behind cover well they did massive amounts of DPS. Even as an infantry player now i feel the changes are needed.
The problem with Forge Guns and to some extend Swarm Launchers were that you could aim and charge while safely behind cover, pop up and shoot, and pop back down. Even if a tank were looking at your location, it couldn't (still cant) track a lone heavy fast enough most of the time to kill it. Now, with the large Rail guns on tanks being what they are, it takes it some 30 seconds to do a 180, that is 10-12 shots with a Forge Gun before the main tank can even begin to engage. Maybe a little exaggerates. But AV people seem to thing they were the only ones nerfed, they aren't. Tanks were severely nerfed, and not just in cost, at the beginning of this build. |
Dewie Cheecham
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
677
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 15:22:00 -
[26] - Quote
Anatoly Gasputin wrote:Something must be done so tanks don't dominate the battlefield ads they do now. I think that killing a tank should present a serious threat and would require multiple persons to take down. But as I suppose CCP is already on it and trying to fix stuff so that everybody will be happy. Well besides those that get butthurt over everything ofc.
Look at the 2012 E3 DUST trailer, and tell me CCP aren't planning for a LOT more tanks... |
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV
Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 19:28:00 -
[27] - Quote
single av guy does not equal a tank
av guys are tank busters for sure, but a tank is a tank.....people need to get it out of their heads that everything has a perfect and equal balance to it. ccp doesnt do balance |
D3LTA NORMANDY
Doomheim
101
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 20:58:00 -
[28] - Quote
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV wrote:single av guy does not equal a tank
av guys are tank busters for sure, but a tank is a tank.....people need to get it out of their heads that everything has a perfect and equal balance to it. ccp doesnt do balance
Tanks are strong against infantry, who are strong against aircrafts which are strong against vehicles. When they implement them the sides will change and tankers will cry that bombers bomb down their tanks. |
Nazkim
Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 21:33:00 -
[29] - Quote
Just take down the kdr leaderboards. Take away the k/d spread at the end of the match and show contribution. Implement the ranking system where you can tell about how long somebody has been playing or how many skill points they have spent. Todays average fps player looks at the tank going 30-0 with zero gun skill(any skill at all lol and you know its true) and rages. They don't think man that guy has been playing this game a long time, and if I play that long I can has supreme power too.. Man ok lets do it... this is like an MMO. No what they are going to do is say Kitten this muthakitten game. This is some bullkitten. Its all how you look at it. If you where thinking to yourself, as long as I don't spend 2 million isk trying to kill this tank, we really won this battle. (Make battles last a lot longer?) But it's not currently looked at that way because of KDR leaderboards and other crap that really shouldn't be in this game AT ALL unless one person can successfully take down a tank and there is balance PER LIFE not balance PER ISK/SP that I believe the system is wanting to lead toward. |
Kincate
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 21:57:00 -
[30] - Quote
Khun-Al wrote:Based on the statements in this thread I created a list what should be done with both. Tanks: 1. They need a higher top speed and a far lower acceleration. 2. Their turret rotation should be lower. 3. They should have weak spots with their own hp bar. They should be tracks, tower slewing ring, motor intake socket and cameras. The cameras should at every turret and a camera drone should follow the tank. If you knock them out they are blind and have to look outside of the tank where they can be shooten out. If the motor intake socket, tracks or the slewing ring is half destroyed they are slower and if they are destroyed the tank cannot do their function. They can be repaired with a certain module but it should be like hacking. AV: 1. Make AV grenades staying just a certain time so they cannot be used as mines. 2. RE should be sticky. 3. The swarm launcher shouldnt be a fire and forget weapon. You should be able to steer them for a certain time after start or at least let them fly staight for a few seconds before they start homing. 4. The forge gun needs at least the same range as a small railgun turret. 5. You should add anti-tank rifles. They could require a heavy slot and a lot of CPU/PG, a very long charging time and a one shot magazine. Its damage should be about the of a sniper rifle but it ignores the armor and shield of a tank and just damages the crew due to the splinter flying inside the tank after a hit. 6. The damage of the weapons should stay at the current stats. If you introduce these features tanks wouldnt be solo vehicles they would require some escorting troops and the AV weapons would be more effective. All together they would be balanced.
Tanks 1. No comment 2. Have you used a Large railgun? horribly slow, maybe modify missile turrets to be like that but leave large blasters alone 3. Eh I dont see the need for this
AV 1. Mines = bad 2. would be awesome 3. Not against this. Swarm launchers can be prehaps a bit to powerful against LAVs 4. Yes 5. AV rifle good, killing crew could be unbalancing though so if it isnt exposed leave it be. 6. No comment |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |