|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Styrnkaar Valkeris
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
12
   |
Posted - 2012.09.10 06:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've noticed that some people have issues with the current set up of weapons, so I'd like to submit that it's less of an 'overpowered' problem and more of a tactical error in judgement. I think the same thought is also being brought up against Tanks, Drop Ships, and Aurum - Based weaponry.
Consider if you will that most of the high-end gear ( and therefore the Aurum - Based weapons) are naturally going to be more effective. The lower end to mid-range weapon weapons have detestable kick-back and do less damage, but the cost is negligible considering how much you can earn back per match. Why should so gear so incredibly cheap be as effective as the most expensive? And wouldn't that make leveling anything up in those categories fairly pointless?
So what if the upper tier of weapons have incredible power! The top assault guns can tear through all suits in seconds, the top sniper rifles can down people in a hit or two, the top grenades have incredibly damage and range. The same is true of armor, in that you can boost your armor to be able to withstand even the upper tier weapons long enough to react. Things tend to balance to about the same as the start once people get leveled up ( with the exception that the guns feel more accurate).
The point is that every class and vehicle supports the team through different functions. Assault clears the way, Logistics supply and set up forward positions, Heavies defend against vehicles, Scouts give covering fire and long-range support to everyone else. Drop Ships harass enemy positions while delivering troops (but are very vulnerable to excessive heavy weapon fire), Tanks provide the power to punch through positions that are otherwise unbreakable, and the light vehicle give the quick speed and damage you need to get to objectives.
Getting killed by snipers, or gunned down by high-speed assault guns, or destroyed by vehicles is not the fault of the enemy team for using their preferred weapon. It's a problem of teamwork and/or situational awareness for the side you're fighting on.
Level up, work together, and win. |
Styrnkaar Valkeris
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 16:11:00 -
[2] - Quote
Well, my point was that it's not about powering down things that are currently really good. What we should be doing is asking to have the antithesis of the best things get powered up. And yes, teamwork is not a catch-all ( considering you need competent players ), but your use of tools can drastically improve the effectiveness of a concentrated squad effort.
Tanks have somewhere between 900 - 3120 shields, not including bonuses. Even the most basic flux grenades do 1200 damage to electronics/shields, and they get an additional 300 dmg for each improved version. A mid-range flux grenade can take out the shields of basically any tank in two shots.
Forge guns can similarly do 900 - 1500 damage at base, and gets an additional 100-ish damage per level. If the tanks will have armor that is in direct opposition to the shields, so somewhere in the same range (1000 - 3200), which means once again it's only a hit or two to actually cut through a tank's armor.
On larger, open maps I can see how that might be an issue, assuming you have no other vehicle support. On maps that feel smaller ( via alleys, walls, structures, etc), you have the tools at your disposal to take down even the high end multi-million ISK tanks in 5 well placed hits.
A good Drop Ship can out-maneuver a tank and with a proper set up can destroy them without too much difficulty. It should take about 10-15 direct hits with missile turrets. Drop Ships currently have a lot of issues with swarm launchers, so I'd like to see some sort of manual defense a pilot can deploy to avoid them ( at a 25-30 second cooldown).
Either way you just need the right gear, or a good Drop Ship pilot and gunner. I'll definitely agree that I'd like to see other ways to combat tanks, as Baal Roo suggests. They do have anti-vehicle grenades, but you'd have to have a full group of people throwing tons of them at the tank. There has to be some sort of hidden damage modifier if it actually hits vehicle armor, or those need to get their damage improved.
On a side note, however, Heavies definitely do need to feel more dangerous than they currently are. I'd love to see the Heavies get boosted up in armor, or at least be able to utilize a much better armor / shield bonus module. Until they can get a superior version of a shield & armor boost, it might be worth it to max out the speed biotic boost so they can at least move at about 4.0 meters/sec, versus their current 3.6 (in comparison to logistics 4.7, Assault 5, and scout 5.7). |
Styrnkaar Valkeris
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 20:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Ah, my bad, I definitely should have taken bonuses and damage reduction into account. But, my point was that there are still tools you can use to take down tanks (although some are apparently broken right now, like the flux grenades?). And, like I said at the beginning of that post, we should be asking for those AV tools to be powered up to combat the excessive use of tanks that you mention is so effective.
I'd rather have tanks as a reliable option to use in a variety of situations than as a -hopefully- useful tool in specific situations.
Drop Ships can take down tanks, even if a good return shot or two could destroy them. If you stay above them, and your gunners concentrate fire on them, they will go down without too much trouble (even if it takes a while). It's generally only viable if you only have one or two tanks at a time to deal with, though.
Out of curiosity, Do you actually keep your tank after the end of the match if it hasn't been destroyed? I haven't gotten my vehicle command up enough to try it out, but the DS's I've used don't appear to stay even if I am piloting them safely.
And to Goric: I definitely could see having a person other than the pilot doing the lock-on missile negation be interesting. Maybe one of the passengers in the DS, even? |
|
|
| |
|