|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dane Stark
Golgotha Group
178
   |
Posted - 2012.09.14 19:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Drommy Hood wrote:Well that was a waste of 3 million sp's.
Tanks weren't overpowered, just that no one wanted to deal with the problem. I went 37/0 yesterday. Sat mainly in thee same spot 50 meters of a flag. Was I overpowered? Who knows, although the team was spawning there constantly and being killed every time they came into the open only one person actually thought....... maybe I should spawn as AV! And he bought free stuff to shoot my madruger.
When i play av, i use my darkside rockets and solo kill 75% of tanks no probs.
The problem wasnt tanks, the problem was every noob with an AR.
Re buff within 90 days of corps going live and everyone realising they've made a key battle piece into a waste of isk rather than a show of power
The problem here is lack of understanding how a Beta test works. You will win some -- you will lose some.
FACT: Did you know that everyone else that plays this game ISN'T necessarily a tanker that we would like to actually play a field combat game?
FACT: Good tankers get a crew together to roll the field and nail folks as a team! Sorry you died trying to do it alone.
FACT: Every tank in REAL LIFE takes a crew of at least 4 people to function. Join the Army - you'll find out soon enough.
FACT: A two man crew could pull it off -- gunner and driver, but...booo...4 man crew should be req. in my eyes. Then power 'em up as much as you want! |
Dane Stark
Golgotha Group
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 20:06:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dewie Cheecham wrote:Roy Ventus wrote:...They were OP. There were AV full squads who attack tanks, did little damage, and when tank was beaten down it ran and got repaired quickly and came back out. Now while all this was happening those tanks were racking up kills. They need to find a balance. What you're talking about is not a balance.
The tanks weren't OP at all. There were some BUGS with some modules that needed fixing, as they were too aggressive, or stacking penalties weren't applied. Who knows. They overdid it, instead of fixing the bugs, they just hypernerfed the tanks yet again, and buffed the AV side at the same time. So where Tanks were generally fine, baring a few issues, they are now so severely underpowered that I doubt I'll be using any once my current stock is depleted.
Disagree - it's a test man - really - CCP Wolfman even said so. Why don't folks read the stickys? |
Dane Stark
Golgotha Group
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 20:09:00 -
[3] - Quote
Dewie Cheecham wrote:Roy Ventus wrote:...They were OP. There were AV full squads who attack tanks, did little damage, and when tank was beaten down it ran and got repaired quickly and came back out. Now while all this was happening those tanks were racking up kills. They need to find a balance. What you're talking about is not a balance.
The tanks weren't OP at all. There were some BUGS with some modules that needed fixing, as they were too aggressive, or stacking penalties weren't applied. Who knows. They overdid it, instead of fixing the bugs, they just hypernerfed the tanks yet again, and buffed the AV side at the same time. So where Tanks were generally fine, baring a few issues, they are now so severely underpowered that I doubt I'll be using any once my current stock is depleted.
Oh yeah - one more thing - HAV == no where near 'generally fine' - a few issues - lol  -- It's all good - I just disagree - please don't flame me for my opinion BTW - just a statement.  |
Dane Stark
Golgotha Group
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 20:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Dane Stark wrote:Dewie Cheecham wrote:Roy Ventus wrote:...They were OP. There were AV full squads who attack tanks, did little damage, and when tank was beaten down it ran and got repaired quickly and came back out. Now while all this was happening those tanks were racking up kills. They need to find a balance. What you're talking about is not a balance.
The tanks weren't OP at all. There were some BUGS with some modules that needed fixing, as they were too aggressive, or stacking penalties weren't applied. Who knows. They overdid it, instead of fixing the bugs, they just hypernerfed the tanks yet again, and buffed the AV side at the same time. So where Tanks were generally fine, baring a few issues, they are now so severely underpowered that I doubt I'll be using any once my current stock is depleted. Disagree - it's a test man - really - CCP Wolfman even said so. Why don't folks read the stickys? Because they are using metrics like KDR for tank balancing. 18 is apparently too high. 18 kills won't pay for 1/10 of a tank, so if that is the balance point, it is really questionable how expensive they are.
How do you know they are using KDR? I have never seen a reference to that. And, unless you have a "DEV" tag, I fail to see how you know this as fact. Just an observation... |
Dane Stark
Golgotha Group
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 20:13:00 -
[5] - Quote
Dewie Cheecham wrote:Dane Stark wrote:Disagree - it's a test man - really - CCP Wolfman even said so. Why don't folks read the stickys? If it is a test. make the hardware cheaper so we can AFFORD testing it. Stickys are fine. brains are better. most are missing some.
Sadly, I have no choice but to +1 this. :-( |
Dane Stark
Golgotha Group
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 20:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Wolf Ritter vonKaldari wrote:Dane Stark wrote:FACT: Every tank in REAL LIFE takes a crew of at least 4 people to function. Join the Army - you'll find out soon enough.
FACT: A two man crew could pull it off -- gunner and driver, but...booo...4 man crew should be req. in my eyes. Then power 'em up as much as you want! Not exactly true. Of the twenty third-generation MBTs, half of them (the Pakistani/Chinese Al-Khalid, French Leclerc, Polish Twardy, Russian T-80 & T-90, Ukrainian T-84, Japanese Type 90, Type 10, and Chinese Type 96 & Type 98/99) all have autoloaders.
My apologies - My facts are outdated by new tech. I would hope that the truth of how hard it is to RUN a tank would shine through though. Thank you for the correction. |
Dane Stark
Golgotha Group
178
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 20:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
Wolf Ritter vonKaldari wrote:Dane Stark wrote:My apologies - My facts are outdated by new tech. I would hope that the truth of how hard it is to RUN a tank would shine through though. Thank you for the correction. Not to be a **** but autoloading tanks with three man crews have been commonplace since like 1963 with the advent of the T-64. :p
I don't take it as an a-hole remark. But I will confer that man-power, in this realm, has been considered more efficient. Otherwise, there would not be a loader on the most advanced tanks in history. *cough M1 Abrams* But I am certainly trying to play nice and entertain all ideas because, I actually understand that there are differences amongst us all. |
|
|
| |
|