Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kazeno Rannaa
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
145
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 16:29:00 -
[31] - Quote
In all honesty, the role of the HAV needs to be further elaborated upon. This fluctuation between buffing and nerfing of equipment (weapons, dropsuits, and vehicles alike), granted is a necessary aspect of a beta, seems to me to be TOO much of a play to the crowd (the herd-poison infecting the demagogues, interesting??!!??) rather than it being a complete application of of a pre-existing plan and role for the equipment being deployed upon the battlefield.
IN a contemporary time line, i.e., now, a tank on the battlefield is a game changer. For both sides. And they are able to get up to speed quite easily (given the advent and usage of such a thing like a 1500 HP jet turbine - M1A3). And we are supposed to be partaking in a universe that has galactic travel, consciousness transference, and other gloriously imaginative things. If history has played a part (a history of a sorts, not necessarily our history) then the HAV (tank) should also be a game changer. They should not be easy to kill, made so because they are SOOO expensive. So why should someone that is not operating the equipment, let alone fielding it, make it their job to shorten the lifespan of said equipment because some people on the ground that have decided NOT to skill in the directions (and field the necessary equipment that are connected to those skills) needed to handle the given situations? (EDIT: I know that something may have created us, but I don't see it telling us " hay, that tank you made. well, ... it's TOOOO good. You have to take it down a notch." On the other hand it does let us produce the biggest and baddest stuff for war and blow the S%*T out of other countries. So why not here?) Essentially this is the idea; if I am a proper tanker/tank commander, why should I be limited in how long I am able to furnish the survival of my equipment? CCP hasn't done that to EVE players and their ships (Granted EVE has gone through a number of iterations and balancing issues over the last 10 years). If you play in EVE and you are able to PVP and PVE without loosing your ship, you are not penalized by your skill. If anything you are rewarded because you don't have to spend the ISK to regather the modules and the ship hull to rebuild for favorite ship. Instead you get to bank the cash and work on other ventures.
Why, as DUSTERS, are we being placed into a different frame of mind and understanding, if ultimately we are doing this for the money, and there is no better way to make money than by not dying (if at all possible) and maintaining the same equipment (i.e., not having to spend the money to replace gear unnecessarily). If there is an issue with the survivability of certain pieces of equipment, un-nerf the forge guns and bring into play other pieces of AV gear to help balance this issue. That is what we do today in warfare; we don't go to our enemies and say "BTW, that tank you guys are fielding, well .... I can't seem to destroy the damn thing. Can you thin up the armor and have your guys drive slower so I can blow it up?"
They would look at you like you are crazy, laugh at you, and then call in their own OB/OS.
Without the balance of the market items being available to the players to see how that equipment and the fielding of said equipment begins to fill the gaps left by or produced by the fielding of the existing gear, this constant catering to these OP's inability to work in teams, use the in-game comms, and problem solve on the fly (this is an issue I see with this younger generation of players and people) is only going to cause more headaches for the developers and programers down the road as they realize that they have to change everything back because the adjustments they made to cater to these people was really unfounded and not based upon the entire reality being presented. It was based upon a reality as seen through the eyes of some horse with blinders on (i.e., narrow and limited).
I say this in relation to the fact that the nerfs and buffs that have occurred since the initial build that hit back in December of this year have been so extreme as to cause a number of people to become very polarized about the game, about CCP's ability to produce the product and experience that have envisioned, and produce a product that is not only true to themselves, but also true to the new community of DUSTERS and EVE pilots. This is a new community that is being created amongst an existing community (as it always happens - fusing and fissioning).
What I see is this; a lot of those individuals that want everything to work perfect now with only a fraction of the game mechanics and equipment available are out of their minds. We are still in the beta phase, which means the exploration of what is and what could be. Yet the thing that I find interesting is the fact that we (as a collective group of people within this beta) seem to forget that CCP has dedicated themselves to producing a longer term product and experience. Not just another COD, BF, BFBC, MOH or any other of the once great FPS games (and I have enjoyed them all at one point in time or another). Those were games that were only single iterations in a line of a hopeful franchise.
Rather DUST, much like EVE, I would rather describe it as being almost an entity in it of itself. A game that will grow and evolve as the players and CCP does. It seems to me that their intentions with DUST are along the same lines as what they have intended and have fought hard to produce in EVE.
So lets hold off on OVER NERFING CCP, please!?!!?! I feel that we have only seen the 10% of the ice berg that happens to exist above water. The other 90% is waiting to be discovered and revealed to us. So blowing off the top of it is not going to show what lies beneath the surface. We need to be guided, but we also need to be understanding and patient.
Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was New Eden. So what is driving us to expect that DUST should be now? |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 16:49:00 -
[32] - Quote
lDocHollidayl wrote:Totally understand. I am not trying to say anything except players need to stop assuming that no one is grouping against these tanks. That night we slayed maybe 10 tanks total.( maybe 4 standard) But many was due to the driver not running away. We are talking very dedicated AV. The kind that have a hard time fighting infantry. The tank speed is insane and shield mods that are broke in their favor do not help.
A dedicated team should have very little issue dealing with standard and below. Black ops is another story.
Let me clear the story up too. Once we snuck up on it...hailing 9 AV nades in one huge volley. Did not kill it .....got very close. Then we laid in it with our swarms and forge.... my swarms misfired (the dumb glitch that makes your swarms just not dumb fire).
To say the least we could not have done much more....I repeat...miltia tank.
Post meant for Paran Tadec, who believes this current EZ mode state is due to the lack of AV and his awesome tank skills.
I almost threw up after typing that last sentence.
QQ harder please. |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 16:52:00 -
[33] - Quote
Kazeno Rannaa wrote:In all honesty, the role of the HAV needs to be further elaborated upon. This fluctuation between buffing and nerfing the equipment (weapons, dropsuits, and vehicles alike), granted is a necessary aspect of a beta, seems to me to be TOO much of a play to the crowd (the herd-poison infecting the demagogues, interesting??!!??) rather than it being a complete application of of a pre-existing plan and role for the equipment being deployed upon the battlefield.
IN a contemporary time line, i.e., now, a tank on the battlefield is a game changer. For both sides. And they are able to get up to speed quite easily (given the advent and usage of such a thing like a 1500 HP jet turbine - M1A3). And we are supposed to be partaking in a universe that has galactic travel, consciousness transference, and other gloriously imaginative things. If history has played a part (a history of a sorts, not necessarily our history) then the HAV (tank) should also be a game changer. They should not be easy to kill now, made so because they are SOOO expensive. So why should someone that is not operating the equipment, let alone fielding it, make it their job to shorten the lifespan of said equipment because some people on the ground that have decided NOT to skill in the directions necessary to handle given situations. Essentially this is the idea that if I am a proper tanker/tank commander, why should I be limited in how long I am able to furnish the survival of my equipment? CCP hasn't done that to EVE players and their ships (Granted EVE has gone through a number of iterations and balancing issues over the last 10 years). If you play in EVE and you are able to PVP and PVE without loosing your ship, you are not penalized by your skill. If anything you are rewarded because you don't have to spend the ISK to regather the modules and the ship hull to rebuild for favorite ship. Instead you get to bank the cash and work on other ventures.
Why, as DUSTERS, are we being placed into a different frame of mind and understanding, if ultimately we are doing this for the money, and there is no better way to make money than by not dying (if at all possible) and maintaining the same equipment (i.e., not having to spend the money to replace gear unnecessarily). If there is an issue with the survivability of certain pieces of equipment, un-nerf the forge guns and bring into play other pieces of AV gear to help balance this issue. That is what we do today in warfare; we don't go to our enemies and say "BTW, that tank you guys are fielding, well .... I can't seem to destroy the damn thing. Can you thin up the armor and have your guys drive slower so I can blow it up?"
They would look at you like you are crazy, laugh at you, and then call in their own OB/OS.
Without the balance of the market items being available to the players to see how that equipment and the fielding of said equipment begins to fill the gaps left by or produced by the fielding of the existing gear, this constant catering to these OP's inability to work in teams, use the in-game comms, and problem solve on the fly (this is an issue I see with this younger generation of players and people) is only going to cause more headaches for the developers and programers down the road as they realize that they have to change everything back because the adjustments they made to cater to these people was really unfounded and not based upon the entire reality being presented. It was based upon a reality as seen through the eyes of some horse with blinders on (i.e., narrow and limited).
I say this in relation to the fact that the nerfs and buffs that have occurred since the initial build that hit back in December of this year have been so extreme as to cause a number of people to become very polarized about eh game, about CCP's ability to produce the product and experience that have envisioned, and produce a product that is not only true to themselves, but also true to the new community of DUSTERS and EVE pilots. There is a new community that is being created amongst an existing community (as it always happens - fusing and fissioning).
What I see is this; a lot of those individuals that want everything to work perfect now with only a fraction of the game mechanics and equipment available are out of their minds. We are still in the beta phase, which does mean the exploration of what is and what could be. Yet the thing that I find interesting is the fact that we (as a collective group of people within this beta) seem to forget that CCP has dedicated themselves to producing a longer term product and experience. Not just another COD, BF, BFBC, MOH or any other of the once great FPS games (and I have enjoyed them all at one point in time or another). Those were games that were only single iterations in a line of a hopeful franchise.
Rather DUST, much like EVE, I would rather describe it as being almost and entity in it of itself. A game that will grow and evolve as the players and CCP does. It seems to me that their intentions with DUST are along the same lines as what they have intended and have fought hard to produce in EVE.
So lets hold off on OVER NERFING CCP, please!?!!?! I feel that we have only seen the 10% of the ice berg that happens to exist above water. The other 90% is waiting to be discovered and revealed to us. So blowing off the top of it is not going to show what lies beneath the surface. We need to be guided, but we also need to be understanding and patient.
Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither was New Eden. So what is driving us to expect that DUST should be now?
This. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 17:48:00 -
[34] - Quote
Other things to throw out the airlock when it comes to predicting player behaivor on the field.
Cost, SP investments.
Cost should be an ignored factor overall, you will have a team that can deploy as much and any peice of equipment hwoever they desire espeically if it means that equipment will survive the encounter. This lead to titan and super carrier overprofiliation that the tought of cost would factor into keeping number low the current nubmer of titans are well... staggering. Blow a titan up? who cares we got nother one.
SP investment becomes something that is nullified in time, Eventually it becomes the big melting pot and you will have all sorts of players in all sorts of skills and professions. There is only so much an older player can do shoving skills into sniping he will ahve to consider a secondary role sooner and later.
But as it stands now HAVs are to the point of asking the overal big picture question of WHY even deploy dropsuits? If dust 514 is a puzzel then the HAV is a hammer, it doesnt fit into the puzzel it wrecks it.
In the previous build they did fit in a few roles though mostly seiging faciliteis and turret encampments and making the battelfield much safer form overly powerful groups of infantry and battelfield dominance with a tank was difficult because of the dropships that could hound them to death. However large multitude of AV nefs went in. Heavy HP significnatly dropped, Range on AV wepaons severly reduced, damage was eliminated a quater off (to which some degree I have ot say the AV nade needed it the most out of all that) HP on all suits normalized. Sensors are too good, Tanks got better anti infantry weapons, and if the drop ship controls were not made so difficult the lot of you would not be complaining about tanks atm I will assure you the lot of you be complaing about people like me flying around in dropships.
Its also much safer to nerf an 'OP' thing so you can see what is causing it to die too often instead of having an OP thing never die.
LAVs and DS should be uneffected by most of hte module tweaks though because they cant equip the heavy modules.
Overall the IRC topics brings to mind the following issues with HAVs.
The HAV itself is considered 4th in the entire aspect The AV response is 3rd part The envionrment is the second most important part and the culture is the highest part for the entire king of the hill itis tanks are experincing at the moment.
HAV itself isnt that entirely overflawed, the velocity 'nerf' is just to make sure the webifier mines work as it becomes a trait that can be ajdusted on HAVs and other vehicles (and I hope suits) . CCP has pointed this out several times its not the base that been having problems. So if it wasnt the base they turned thier attention to the modules and began to find the issues stemming from there. While the updates on stats may not all be that accurate an exaggeration of 90% damage resists HAV with an extender and nanofibers can be a seriously strong and tough cookie to destroy.
AV response I already went over mostly alot of them got nerfed and in most secnarios where its multiple tanks vs multiple av squad the av squad only gets one dumbire launch off before they're blown to bits, rarely do they get the chance to fire twice.
The enviornment is why they dont have the chance to shoot twice, there is not enough infantry sized cover for the av squads to setup and use for thier tank busting ambushes. Majority of the maps we are using now are HAV fiendly and have HAV sized cover which is why running away on these maps has such an appeal and is quite doable.
Finally culture. Lack of Role, No incentive to kill a HAV, and CCP thinking on paper is the worst offender in causing HAV misbalances. These habit forming behaviors are most dangerous becuase they will lead to players quitting. Currenlty the effort time and isk wasted brought to possibly 'kill a tank' is extremly fustrating to the point it is far more effective to avoid the tank and kill infantry and its very true,. Another issue severly hurting culture is ccp's thoery on HAVs not needing infantry to do its 'job' whatever it may be. IRC group reminds ccp that tanks should not be 'solomobiles' and require infantry support to keep the HAV safe that HAVs should be moved from main goto unit to useful tool you call in when you need it for 'situation' IE Turrets pinning your guys down out in the open between your spawn and the base is when you call in a tank to take care of the turrets.
On one final note this is beginning to sound like IRC most of the day when somone mentions tank. |
Kain Spero
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
903
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 18:40:00 -
[35] - Quote
The biggest thing in these posts that has rung true for me is the mention that tanks in future builds will NEED infantry to accomplish tasks on the field and remain safe. Infantry cover the tank and the tank covers the infantry.
The problem right now is the ability of a tank to ride right up an infantry with no worry, even if the infantry formation includes an AV team. I think if the speed reduction comes through this will go a long way to helping this situation.
A really good article about tanks working closely with infantry can be found here:
http://www.efour4ever.com/infantry_tanks.htm
Personally I would love a way for infantry to mount onto a tank and go for a ride WW2 style. |
Maximus Stryker
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
393
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 18:51:00 -
[36] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:The biggest thing in these posts that has rung true for me is the mention that tanks in future builds will NEED infantry to accomplish tasks on the field and remain safe. Infantry cover the tank and the tank covers the infantry. The problem right now is the ability of a tank to ride right up an infantry with no worry, even if the infantry formation includes an AV team. I think if the speed reduction comes through this will go a long way to helping this situation. A really good article about tanks working closely with infantry can be found here: http://www.efour4ever.com/infantry_tanks.htmPersonally I would love a way for infantry to mount onto a tank and go for a ride WW2 style.
I rode an enemy tank last night for about 2 minutes and got a Kelly Slater Trophy
(Ok so I didn't get the trophy but true story of riding the tank) |
JL3Eleven
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz RISE of LEGION
131
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 19:14:00 -
[37] - Quote
So when are they going to fix the hit dection issues and the horrible grenade arch? I dont care about the HAV's and the snipers they are only minor annoyances, what I care about are the BASIC FPS mechanics being top notch. Remember this is a FPS not world of tanks or battleship galactica. |
J'Jor Da'Wg
KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION
648
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 19:18:00 -
[38] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Sorry we couldnt get any questions asked CCP nothin took the lead in disucssion.
HAV Nerfs 'We're considering doing either max speed reduction or velocity penalty making tanks take longer to get to full speed. Either way they're getting tested internally now. The main problem with havs also was found to be with the modules which havent been tweaked to keep current, which partially fits problem the shield resistance amp the most notorious of them. so a near future pass on all modules will be made expect significant changes not in the HAV's favor.'
Looks like CCP is bowing to the noobs who cant be bother to train up AV. Tanks already go down against AV, no reason to add a nerf in. I expect even after this nerf the whiners will whine when they still can't kill a tank with an assault rifle. CCP Devs have numbers, from the looks of it tanks are survivng too long for thier price tag. Against who, a team of random noobs? Tankers shouldnt be punished for using their equipment correctly, which lets me get away 90% of the time. Often when the enemy team does come at me with AV gear I either have to back off or charge through them. AV against tanks right now is fine when opposition brings it onto the field and uses it correctly. STOP THE HANDHOLDING. Its just like all of those pathetic highsec miners who begged for more nerfs to suicide ganking until finally CCP gave the mining barges battleship HP.
So you somehow think its balanced to need 3/4 completely AV specced enemies to destroy you? Enemies who can't keep up, who can be OHK'd easily by you, and whose AV weapons take much longer to kill your tank ? You can simply run away and repair faster than they can catch you. In the process your team alphas them and make them lose several extremely expensive suits?
The cost/benefit ratio should be roughly equal between AV & HAVs if they are balanced. Currently HAVs give far more payout than a pure AV fit would.
Also, thats 3-4 less players contributing to he enemy team to cap objectives. Id your team calls in 2 HAVs, now there are roughly 6-8 enemies trying to manage only 2 of you...
And in the process, the AV players by completely skilling into AV just to take down your tank have made themselves useless for any other situation.
Does this mean a non AV should be able to take out a tank? No.
It does mean that two AV players should be able to drive off several enemy tanks though, if they are smart about it.
Currently the only way to take out a tank is to concentrate a bunch of swarms on it at once and hope youcan knock it out before you run off.
Rock, paper, scissors.
AV needs de-nerfed, tank speed needs slowed down, and web nades need put in the game.
With these tools, a AV fit should be able to handle a tank if specced well. It should still take some effort for non AVs to drive off a tank. But an AV should really be able to take out a tank with only 1 or two people.
My 2 ISK |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 19:51:00 -
[39] - Quote
J'Jor Da'Wg wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Sorry we couldnt get any questions asked CCP nothin took the lead in disucssion.
HAV Nerfs 'We're considering doing either max speed reduction or velocity penalty making tanks take longer to get to full speed. Either way they're getting tested internally now. The main problem with havs also was found to be with the modules which havent been tweaked to keep current, which partially fits problem the shield resistance amp the most notorious of them. so a near future pass on all modules will be made expect significant changes not in the HAV's favor.'
Looks like CCP is bowing to the noobs who cant be bother to train up AV. Tanks already go down against AV, no reason to add a nerf in. I expect even after this nerf the whiners will whine when they still can't kill a tank with an assault rifle. CCP Devs have numbers, from the looks of it tanks are survivng too long for thier price tag. Against who, a team of random noobs? Tankers shouldnt be punished for using their equipment correctly, which lets me get away 90% of the time. Often when the enemy team does come at me with AV gear I either have to back off or charge through them. AV against tanks right now is fine when opposition brings it onto the field and uses it correctly. STOP THE HANDHOLDING. Its just like all of those pathetic highsec miners who begged for more nerfs to suicide ganking until finally CCP gave the mining barges battleship HP. So you somehow think its balanced to need 3/4 completely AV specced enemies to destroy you? Enemies who can't keep up, who can be OHK'd easily by you, and whose AV weapons take much longer to kill your tank ? You can simply run away and repair faster than they can catch you. In the process your team alphas them and make them lose several extremely expensive suits? The cost/benefit ratio should be roughly equal between AV & HAVs if they are balanced. Currently HAVs give far more payout than a pure AV fit would. Also, thats 3-4 less players contributing to he enemy team to cap objectives. Id your team calls in 2 HAVs, now there are roughly 6-8 enemies trying to manage only 2 of you... And in the process, the AV players by completely skilling into AV just to take down your tank have made themselves useless for any other situation. Does this mean a non AV should be able to take out a tank? No. It does mean that two AV players should be able to drive off several enemy tanks though, if they are smart about it. Currently the only way to take out a tank is to concentrate a bunch of swarms on it at once and hope youcan knock it out before you run off. Rock, paper, scissors. AV needs de-nerfed, tank speed needs slowed down, and web nades need put in the game. With these tools, a AV fit should be able to handle a tank if specced well. It should still take some effort for non AVs to drive off a tank. But an AV should really be able to take out a tank with only 1 or two people. My 2 ISK
It doesnt require an expensive suit to kill a tank. me and one other guy took out a well specced gunnlogi with swarms and AV grenades in a few seconds. Also, its pretty hard to OHK a heavy with a forgegun using a railgun, unless you directly hit them.
Same could be said for tanks, you can't cap objectives in a tank, while using AV you certainly can cap an objective. My AV fit uses swarms and submachine gun, and I can get kills with both, so stop QQing. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:02:00 -
[40] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:
It doesnt require an expensive suit to kill a tank. me and one other guy took out a well specced gunnlogi with swarms and AV grenades in a few seconds. Also, its pretty hard to OHK a heavy with a forgegun using a railgun, unless you directly hit them.
Same could be said for tanks, you can't cap objectives in a tank, while using AV you certainly can cap an objective. My AV fit uses swarms and submachine gun, and I can get kills with both, so stop QQing.
On a tank heavy team there is no need to cap points... you just kill them faster than your mcc drops. |
|
Knarf Black
Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
397
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:12:00 -
[41] - Quote
These tank guys are getting kind of desperate to hold onto their e-peens. How does it not get boring in there? I have even less fun on the winning side of a tank domination match.
The game completely breaks down: one side scrambling just to survive for a few more seconds and the other roaming around looking for kills. No tactics. No challenge. Just a charnel house. Entertaining only to an e-peen stroking, griefer mentality, and ultimately poisonous to the game community's long term prospects. |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:12:00 -
[42] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:
It doesnt require an expensive suit to kill a tank. me and one other guy took out a well specced gunnlogi with swarms and AV grenades in a few seconds. Also, its pretty hard to OHK a heavy with a forgegun using a railgun, unless you directly hit them.
Same could be said for tanks, you can't cap objectives in a tank, while using AV you certainly can cap an objective. My AV fit uses swarms and submachine gun, and I can get kills with both, so stop QQing.
On a tank heavy team there is no need to cap points... you just kill them faster than your mcc drops.
I've never seen that happen, even when our team had 3-4 tanks and dropships. |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:16:00 -
[43] - Quote
Knarf Black wrote:These tank guys are getting kind of desperate to hold onto their e-peens. How does it not get boring in there? I have even less fun on the winning side of a tank domination match.
The game completely breaks down: one side scrambling just to survive for a few more seconds and the other roaming around looking for kills. No tactics. No challenge. Just a charnel house. Entertaining only to an e-peen stroking, griefer mentality, and ultimately poisonous to the game community's long term prospects.
Cause you whiners will continue to whine until you can single handedly bring down a tank with an assault rifle, just like EVE's carebears whined until CCP removed one of the most exciting highsec events. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:17:00 -
[44] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:
It doesnt require an expensive suit to kill a tank. me and one other guy took out a well specced gunnlogi with swarms and AV grenades in a few seconds. Also, its pretty hard to OHK a heavy with a forgegun using a railgun, unless you directly hit them.
Same could be said for tanks, you can't cap objectives in a tank, while using AV you certainly can cap an objective. My AV fit uses swarms and submachine gun, and I can get kills with both, so stop QQing.
On a tank heavy team there is no need to cap points... you just kill them faster than your mcc drops. I've never seen that happen, even when our team had 3-4 tanks and dropships.
You also havent seen 6 hav deployed on the same team either I wonder how long before we start seeing teams with 12 of these things on 12v12 maps. |
FatalFlaw V1
ISK Faucet Industries
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:18:00 -
[45] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Let me put it to you this way.
"I don't feel like dying today" should never be an option for a HAV pilot. If you play it right you should be able to play with 0 deaths. I've seen people have zero deaths even with multiple tanks on the opposition. I'm not saying the tanks should be invincible, they are fine as they are now, it just requires a little bit of communication and teamwork to take them out quickly, as the SP and ISK investment are quite higher. Read those posts I linked from guys using AV. Players shouldn't have to hide in buildings or constantly run to avoid being stomped by a tank.
The game has roles. A vehicle pilot is just one of those roles. To be perfectly honest, training into a vehicle is really not much more SP than training infantry. Advanced dropsuits and higher meta guns take a ton of SP. A tank driver can wear all militia gear and just train the basic vehicle skills and dominate. There is no valid reason why one role, HAV pilot, should make countless infantry roles comparatively irrelevant.
Tanks need a heavy handed nerf. In fact, I would like to see them do reduced damage to infantry so they aren't one-shotting any non heavy. That would give them more of an anti-vehicle/anti-inatallation role and leave the infantry to fight each other.
|
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:19:00 -
[46] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Knarf Black wrote:These tank guys are getting kind of desperate to hold onto their e-peens. How does it not get boring in there? I have even less fun on the winning side of a tank domination match.
The game completely breaks down: one side scrambling just to survive for a few more seconds and the other roaming around looking for kills. No tactics. No challenge. Just a charnel house. Entertaining only to an e-peen stroking, griefer mentality, and ultimately poisonous to the game community's long term prospects. Cause you whiners will continue to whine until you can single handedly bring down a tank with an assault rifle, just like EVE's carebears whined until CCP removed one of the most exciting highsec events.
Removed? Lol. Suicide ganking is quite possible still you just need to ship scan for the idiots that dont fit tanks.
Whole reason why they stopped fitting tanks was to lower cost of the ship, you couldnt reasonably get a miner's EHP high enough cost effectively against some of the newer ships before concord showed up. |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:24:00 -
[47] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:Knarf Black wrote:These tank guys are getting kind of desperate to hold onto their e-peens. How does it not get boring in there? I have even less fun on the winning side of a tank domination match.
The game completely breaks down: one side scrambling just to survive for a few more seconds and the other roaming around looking for kills. No tactics. No challenge. Just a charnel house. Entertaining only to an e-peen stroking, griefer mentality, and ultimately poisonous to the game community's long term prospects. Cause you whiners will continue to whine until you can single handedly bring down a tank with an assault rifle, just like EVE's carebears whined until CCP removed one of the most exciting highsec events. Removed? Lol. Suicide ganking is quite possible still you just need to ship scan for the idiots that dont fit tanks. Whole reason why they stopped fitting tanks was to lower cost of the ship, you couldnt reasonably get a miner's EHP high enough cost effectively against some of the newer ships before concord showed up.
What game are you playing? The majority of those miners are AFK while they mine, or before, used botting software. After the concord buff even a slight tank was enough to hold on until concord showed up and killed the offender, unless you used multiple pilots. Hulkageddon was one of the few things that brought excitement and danger to the Dullscape that is HighSec. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:29:00 -
[48] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Paran Tadec wrote:Knarf Black wrote:These tank guys are getting kind of desperate to hold onto their e-peens. How does it not get boring in there? I have even less fun on the winning side of a tank domination match.
The game completely breaks down: one side scrambling just to survive for a few more seconds and the other roaming around looking for kills. No tactics. No challenge. Just a charnel house. Entertaining only to an e-peen stroking, griefer mentality, and ultimately poisonous to the game community's long term prospects. Cause you whiners will continue to whine until you can single handedly bring down a tank with an assault rifle, just like EVE's carebears whined until CCP removed one of the most exciting highsec events. Removed? Lol. Suicide ganking is quite possible still you just need to ship scan for the idiots that dont fit tanks. Whole reason why they stopped fitting tanks was to lower cost of the ship, you couldnt reasonably get a miner's EHP high enough cost effectively against some of the newer ships before concord showed up. What game are you playing? The majority of those miners are AFK while they mine, or before, used botting software. After the concord buff even a slight tank was enough to hold on until concord showed up and killed the offender, unless you used multiple pilots. Hulkageddon was one of the few things that brought excitement and danger to the Dullscape that is HighSec.
Acutally dull space is non fw low sec. They dont calll it the great wildlands for nothing. Hell roaming in null takes two hours to get a fight thats how dull its gotten lately.
Why dont you guys migrate back to low and null those where exiting times during the great war. Oh thats right, hot drop 0' clock. |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:44:00 -
[49] - Quote
Only reason null is dull is because the carebears are too afraid to venture out of highsec, because they might actually have to learn how to fit correctly. There is a vast amount of room in null for players, most of them are just too scared to try to take it. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 23:22:00 -
[50] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:Only reason null is dull is because the carebears are too afraid to venture out of highsec, because they might actually have to learn how to fit correctly. There is a vast amount of room in null for players, most of them are just too scared to try to take it.
Pffft Nullbears reject the idea of ever needing industry geared characters just ask test allaince and thier bleeding wallet. |
|
mikegunnz
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz RISE of LEGION
425
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 00:08:00 -
[51] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:lDocHollidayl wrote:Totally understand. I am not trying to say anything except players need to stop assuming that no one is grouping against these tanks. That night we slayed maybe 10 tanks total.( maybe 4 standard) But many was due to the driver not running away. We are talking very dedicated AV. The kind that have a hard time fighting infantry. The tank speed is insane and shield mods that are broke in their favor do not help.
A dedicated team should have very little issue dealing with standard and below. Black ops is another story.
Let me clear the story up too. Once we snuck up on it...hailing 9 AV nades in one huge volley. Did not kill it .....got very close. Then we laid in it with our swarms and forge.... my swarms misfired (the dumb glitch that makes your swarms just not dumb fire).
To say the least we could not have done much more....I repeat...miltia tank.
Post meant for Paran Tadec, who believes this current EZ mode state is due to the lack of AV and his awesome tank skills.
I almost threw up after typing that last sentence. QQ harder please.
Clearly the tanks are OP. Almost EVERYONE (including many tank users) thinks so. Only ppl that don't are a couple delusional tankers like this. No point in trying to discuss with him.... especially with responses like "QQ harder"
All I'd say to Paran Tadec is: You're tank is getting nerfed...now YOU QQ harder.
PS: @ IronWolf.... Keep up with the good work transcribing the IRC...it's appreciated. |
Rorek IronBlood
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
746
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 00:23:00 -
[52] - Quote
Really the whole tank argument has it's pros and cons. All I know is that the tanks needs it's own role and fitting on the battlefield. I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, but if you look at just the top one hundred on the leader board you can assume who abuses the tank pretty easily. Of the thousand players ranked on the leader board I'd say there are more people with a kill to death ratio above eight or more then there ever was in previous builds simply because, people are abusing a single device in-game -- the tank. I do not have beef with those operating these tanks as it is not particularly your fault, but CCP should have done a better job at fitting them into the game. Because, as it stands at the moment tanks are being abused, and the game is becoming lopsided. Thankfully the game is still in a closed enviroment and testing is being done. This again is why we testers are here. To ensure this sort of thing is prevented before release of the actual game.
Just do not get me wrong. I'm not saying that tanks are over powered. Just not functioning as intended within' the game boundries itself. Maybe the laser rifle will help even this out -- or at the very least I'd like to think so. I'd like to see the laser rifle be a multi-purposed weapon designed for both anti-vehicle combat, and anti-infantry warfare. Also giving tanks more realistic damage, or weakness may help to balance them more so. Just floating ideas. I already offered my suggestions to increasing, and tweeking the entire skill structure to increase the difficulty in skilling, but people griefed in my thread about that, and CCP as always is mute.
|
tastzlike chicken
ROGUE SPADES
59
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 01:02:00 -
[53] - Quote
Thanks for this! |
Kazeno Rannaa
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
145
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:14:00 -
[54] - Quote
JL3Eleven wrote:So when are they going to fix the hit dection issues and the horrible grenade arch? I dont care about the HAV's and the snipers they are only minor annoyances, what I care about are the BASIC FPS mechanics being top notch. Remember this is a FPS not world of tanks or battleship galactica.
Actually it is a bit of all three. There are tanks, folks on the ground, and big battle ships in the night sky.
|
Kengfa
138
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:34:00 -
[55] - Quote
Clone Number 1 wrote:So the arguments that took place in irc about sniper rifles is important? Because the dust forums don't seem to reflect this? Maybe someone could post their arguments for or against. Since this seems to be important to the irc/ devs.
It is discouraging to see so many odd nerfs and buffs. With no real rime or reason may come from the irc.
Silly really. Yes I should be in there and not here the official forums. What was I thinking face palm
Devs get more reliable information on the IRC. A lot of us can usually agree on things that need to happen, or at least things that need to be changed. Not so much, what needs to happen. On here, devs have to sift through garbage, and then try verifying whatever it is, that they found out, going through bitching about many, many different things that need to be nerfed or buffed, most of which not making any sense at all, and usually revolving around people not knowing what they are doing with whatever it is they are complaining about. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:52:00 -
[56] - Quote
Yeah IRC doesnt fill up nerf tanks they're op statements at all.
The sort of arguments that rise out out of IRC is concerning tanks, would be like Why isnt there more infnatry sized cover? Sensors are too good that it prevents alot of ambuses and how tanks can easily choose to get out of a fight wher eas infnatry must commit to death. Why is only one missile out of the entire swarm launch hitting? Why is the forge gun reticule lying to us? Why do AV nades have just the same issue as other explosives and the sorts?
You can go though a half dozen Fourum threads and you wont see issues about tanks being brought up like this. There is some sort of refinment and discovery processes IRC goes though when it brings up an issue.
If I where to transcribe and use all the logs of IRC's arguments about tanks it be more than enough than convincing that the HAV needs to be nerf, but also it be about two pages long on reasons why and reasons you may not have considered before. We look over things like eveolution of the HAV, devolution of AV and man poewr efforts
Mostly the IRC is in full agreement that HAVs and AV need another pass over especially with the newer tools comming in. Velocity nerf was required for the new mine to work that was explained. Also this would commit a tank to death. |
Scalesdini
Universal Allies Inc.
58
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 17:56:00 -
[57] - Quote
Tanks are kinda OP.
I decided to try my hand at tanking yesterday and using only a militia sica with militia gear, I went something like 87-8 all day. 3 of the deaths were from rolling out of bounds and blowing up due to not paying attention, 4 were from high level tanks picking on me, only 1 was from ground troops, and it took quite a few of them to pull it off.
And this was in a tank so cheap that even if I lose one per match, I can still come out ahead on ISK. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
2867
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 18:00:00 -
[58] - Quote
Scalesdini wrote:Tanks are kinda OP.
I decided to try my hand at tanking yesterday and using only a militia sica with militia gear, I went something like 87-8 all day. 3 of the deaths were from rolling out of bounds and blowing up due to not paying attention, 4 were from high level tanks picking on me, only 1 was from ground troops, and it took quite a few of them to pull it off.
And this was in a tank so cheap that even if I lose one per match, I can still come out ahead on ISK.
^and we dont get this sort of stuff up here in IRC |
Corax D
2
|
Posted - 2012.09.16 22:25:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kazeno Rannaa wrote:That is what we do today in warfare; we don't go to our enemies and say "BTW, that tank you guys are fielding, well .... I can't seem to destroy the damn thing. Can you thin up the armor and have your guys drive slower so I can blow it up?"
They would look at you like you are crazy, laugh at you, and then call in their own OB/OS.
Life is not a game; games shouldn't have to be life-like.
During the course of human history, every time that a civilization has clashed with another, much less technologically advanced one, the latter got trounced. Life isn't PVP balanced. Some countries simply cannot afford the tech or have the manpower to face certain other countries in war. Can you imagine USA vs Albania? USA vs Malta? USA vs Ethiopia? ...well, USA vs most countries in the world? The USA's military budget at the moment is almost that of the rest of the world combined.
Moreover, the battlefields in our world aren't a stable 24 v 24, they can very well be 5k v 1k. To add insult to injury, the 5k could be armed with cutting edge gear while the 1k are holding glorified mechanical slingshots. Life isn't PVP balanced. There's no almighty arbiter/game designer examining the game data and deciding how things should be. What (little?) balance does exist is created through diplomacy: no one wants to play Global Thermonuclear War.
Now, in life, when you can't afford to face what looks like a superior military, you just don't fight. You surrender, go into negotiations, ask for help etc. However, if you apply this to a competitive based on conflict like Dust, it means that we'd either get a stagnant tankfest metagame or no game at all. We are not asking our opponents to please not use their best tech, we are asking the creators of a competitive game to maintain PVP balance, so that the game can actually develop a following. You can't have a Massively Multiplayer Online [Anything] without massive amounts of players and you can't have a game based around conflict if no one's fighting.
As others have said, that's my 2 ISK. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |