Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Icy Tiger
496
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 15:02:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm not the best tanker in the world, but I am pretty decent and can hold my own against higher end tanks in a Madrugar. I've even 1 v 1'ed Lurchasaurus' tank a couple times in the same match, and the outcome was that both our tanks blew up.
I want to ask the major tankers out there how this adjustment affects them. It was a pretty big deal, and the one thing that probably caught people off guard was the amount of nerfs they piled on. They literally put out 6 different nerfs/buffs in one day, all of which negatively impacted tankers.
I believe that this wasn't the way to go. SoonGäó, we will be getting webifiers, and e-war equipment, which will cripple vehicles in general. Swarms aren't the way to go. Forge Guns are. Dedicated Vehicle combatants. They have rough requirements, and need a Heavy suit to use. So CCP. Take out the Swarm Launcher buff, and instead give it to the Forge Gunners. |
DUST Fiend
Immobile Infantry
1903
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 15:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
Icy Tiger wrote:I'm not the best tanker in the world, but I am pretty decent and can hold my own against higher end tanks in a Madrugar. I've even 1 v 1'ed Lurchasaurus' tank a couple times in the same match, and the outcome was that both our tanks blew up.
I want to ask the major tankers out there how this adjustment affects them. It was a pretty big deal, and the one thing that probably caught people off guard was the amount of nerfs they piled on. They literally put out 6 different nerfs/buffs in one day, all of which negatively impacted tankers.
I believe that this wasn't the way to go. SoonGäó, we will be getting webifiers, and e-war equipment, which will cripple vehicles in general. Swarms aren't the way to go. Forge Guns are. Dedicated Vehicle combatants. They have rough requirements, and need a Heavy suit to use. So CCP. Take out the Swarm Launcher buff, and instead give it to the Forge Gunners.
Active shield / armor hardeners, and Afterburners / boosters. I think they're just tweaking things in anticipation for the upcoming changes. |
Skihids
Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising
969
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 15:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
DUST Fiend wrote:Icy Tiger wrote:I'm not the best tanker in the world, but I am pretty decent and can hold my own against higher end tanks in a Madrugar. I've even 1 v 1'ed Lurchasaurus' tank a couple times in the same match, and the outcome was that both our tanks blew up.
I want to ask the major tankers out there how this adjustment affects them. It was a pretty big deal, and the one thing that probably caught people off guard was the amount of nerfs they piled on. They literally put out 6 different nerfs/buffs in one day, all of which negatively impacted tankers.
I believe that this wasn't the way to go. SoonGäó, we will be getting webifiers, and e-war equipment, which will cripple vehicles in general. Swarms aren't the way to go. Forge Guns are. Dedicated Vehicle combatants. They have rough requirements, and need a Heavy suit to use. So CCP. Take out the Swarm Launcher buff, and instead give it to the Forge Gunners. Active shield / armor hardeners, and Afterburners / boosters. I think they're just tweaking things in anticipation for the upcoming changes.
Pilot suits / Turret speed modules / Chaff / Flares
Things will be very different next build. Meanwhile see what you can do to adapt to the harsh environment. |
Laz Ulian Sol
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz RISE of LEGION
187
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 15:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
It's not eliminated a lot of the power of a HAV, just the amount of time you can keep one in the middle of a firefight.
Sure our shields and armor hit points took a large cut but the control and situational awareness involved in adequately manning an HAV helps compensate.
Most HAV's are popping in the first few days following this because people haven't readjusted to the shorter fight times and longer retreat times.
Also, Railguns are almost purely anti-vehicle / installation like they are apparently meant to be. I've still gotten some lucky kills with it but it's incredibly difficult to use a railgun to actively engage infantry. The reduction on the cooldown time for blasters was a welcome buff that is slowly bringing the blaster back as an effective mounting choice. Especially with it having the best tracking speed.
As far as HAVs are concerned it's livable, even though it's annoying to have both a nerf and a buff that only tip the scale in one direction minus the blaster heat buff that was favorable for HAV.
I'm mostly concerned about vehicles in general, I mean why bother when the price and so much hard earned SP leads to maybe a few minutes of enjoyable flying / driving before one person decides to just completely destroy that investment with a fraction of the cost and work.
I can agree that the disparity in SP investment between AV and HAV was in favor of HAV but I'd of preferred to see a drop in the skill investment and maybe even the prices instead of a buff. Something to encourage more people to fit an AV role instead of making the current AV guys handle the issue better without more help. I dunno we'll see how it ends up because we really are missing a lot, and I stress this, a lot of modules and tools. I might be discouraged but I'm not gonna complain.
Note: I've always wondered, what do people think is the perfect number of players to take out vehicles? Is it like 1 = LAV, 2 = Dropship, 3 = HAV?
If we can agree on something like that, maybe we can tell when the balance doesn't make sense. |
Skihids
Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising
969
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 15:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Laz Ulian Sol wrote:
I'm mostly concerned about vehicles in general, I mean why bother when the price and so much hard earned SP leads to maybe a few minutes of enjoyable flying / driving before one person decides to just completely destroy that investment with a fraction of the cost and work.
I see this as the wrong question long term. Except for TDM, the focus will be on concrete objectives. Then the question won't be "What do I feel like doing this match?", it will be "What assets does my team require to complete our contract in this battle?"
At that point it may well be worth sacrificing a tank to achieve a breakthrough that changes the course of he battle. |
Just Bad
Crux Special Tasks Group Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Imma terrible tank driver and sadly wasn't able to test the new balance yesterday to any great degree (got the reboot/stuck in squad while not squadded bug fairly early on) but my initial impressions are that it's too many changes at once.
I liked: - Resistance module changes. They've impacted tank v tank dynamics in a good way - fights are more brutal and short. - Blaster heat generation. In combination with the resistance changes makes them a reasonable option for tank fights although with direct damage of the launchers being untouched on paper they'll likely still lose in a straight up brawl with a long range weapon system. - Railgun splash reduction. Great it was too easy to put a round over on the other side of the map and kill infantry with splash. - Forge gun range. It was terrible at the start of this build and in combination with the still not so great HMG put me off skilling into Heavies from the start as my infantry option.
I question: - Damage increase on AV. I think this was rolled in prematurely and when in combination with the module changes above have acted like one damage buff on top of another damage buff. Sadly this rebalancing to help with HAVs has had the side effect of making things terrible for Dropships and LAVs.
I think if these balance changes were staggered out over a couple of days or weeks we'd have had a better idea when we'd either hit or passed a happy medium for all parties. Of course with the new build (hopefully) not too far away we can see how things pan out when it lands and take it from there.
|
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:06:00 -
[7] - Quote
Skihids wrote:Laz Ulian Sol wrote:
I'm mostly concerned about vehicles in general, I mean why bother when the price and so much hard earned SP leads to maybe a few minutes of enjoyable flying / driving before one person decides to just completely destroy that investment with a fraction of the cost and work.
I see this as the wrong question long term. Except for TDM, the focus will be on concrete objectives. Then the question won't be "What do I feel like doing this match?", it will be "What assets does my team require to complete our contract in this battle?" At that point it may well be worth sacrificing a tank to achieve a breakthrough that changes the course of he battle.
In organized play, these tanks would be a pretty firework show and nothing more. It takes 4 prototype swarms to take down one Sagaris. What exactly do you expect to do with said tank that will achieve a breakthrough? |
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
For me the DC/resist mods changes were uneeded tbh
Also the turret turn speed was also uneeded, the splash damage/radius nerf i can see for railguns but both together is a double nerf because if the radius just got reduced then at least when you hit ther feet you would cause damage which doesnt happen now and if the damage got reduced instead you would cause less damage but at least damage would be caused
Im hitting infantry on ther feet and they are taking no damage or very little in general with the railgun and it says damage within 2.5m and 200 splash but at most im barely taking 50% shields
20% buff to SL was uneeded they just need to put the AV back to where it used to be |
Laz Ulian Sol
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz RISE of LEGION
187
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Skihids wrote:
I see this as the wrong question long term. Except for TDM, the focus will be on concrete objectives. Then the question won't be "What do I feel like doing this match?", it will be "What assets does my team require to complete our contract in this battle?"
At that point it may well be worth sacrificing a tank to achieve a breakthrough that changes the course of he battle.
Yes that's a valid point for the hardcore crowd and I do ask myself that very thing in matches now more so than pre hot fix; but I didn't mean it so literally in my post about fun. I meant basically what you're saying. Only how long can you make a complete turn around of a match with such limited survivability. |
Skihids
Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising
969
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Skihids wrote:Laz Ulian Sol wrote:
I'm mostly concerned about vehicles in general, I mean why bother when the price and so much hard earned SP leads to maybe a few minutes of enjoyable flying / driving before one person decides to just completely destroy that investment with a fraction of the cost and work.
I see this as the wrong question long term. Except for TDM, the focus will be on concrete objectives. Then the question won't be "What do I feel like doing this match?", it will be "What assets does my team require to complete our contract in this battle?" At that point it may well be worth sacrificing a tank to achieve a breakthrough that changes the course of he battle. In organized play, these tanks would be a pretty firework show and nothing more. It takes 4 prototype swarms to take down one Sagaris. What exactly do you expect to do with said tank that will achieve a breakthrough?
You might put it in to take out a Blaster installation that is blocking infantry from using a pass. Back it up with enough infantry support to hold off the AV for a minute and/or have two or three Logistics with remote reppers supporting it from behind and it would last long enough to take out the installation. |
|
Roy Ventus
Foxhound Corporation
172
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:22:00 -
[11] - Quote
Skihids wrote:DUST Fiend wrote:Icy Tiger wrote:I'm not the best tanker in the world, but I am pretty decent and can hold my own against higher end tanks in a Madrugar. I've even 1 v 1'ed Lurchasaurus' tank a couple times in the same match, and the outcome was that both our tanks blew up.
I want to ask the major tankers out there how this adjustment affects them. It was a pretty big deal, and the one thing that probably caught people off guard was the amount of nerfs they piled on. They literally put out 6 different nerfs/buffs in one day, all of which negatively impacted tankers.
I believe that this wasn't the way to go. SoonGäó, we will be getting webifiers, and e-war equipment, which will cripple vehicles in general. Swarms aren't the way to go. Forge Guns are. Dedicated Vehicle combatants. They have rough requirements, and need a Heavy suit to use. So CCP. Take out the Swarm Launcher buff, and instead give it to the Forge Gunners. Active shield / armor hardeners, and Afterburners / boosters. I think they're just tweaking things in anticipation for the upcoming changes. Pilot suits / Turret speed modules / Chaff / Flares Things will be very different next build. Meanwhile see what you can do to adapt to the harsh environment.
Wow a Caldari made me realize something...
Lol. But seriously I forgot about Pilot Suits. Those might just be the key here. See it would make a TON of sense if pilots, who spend a lot on their tank already, would have to pay for their perfect dropsuit fitting that gives them their own boosts.
Now. Consider this. If the tanks were okay now instead of nerfed then when pilot suits drop in they would be, because of the dropsuits, on the level or near the level of the old build's tanks.
This might not be true but it makes sense, right? Tank drivers shouldn't just be ordinary infantry men and women they should be specifically pilots which most tank drivers actually are. They never leave their tanks...well at least until now...
|
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:22:00 -
[12] - Quote
Skihids wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:Skihids wrote:Laz Ulian Sol wrote:
I'm mostly concerned about vehicles in general, I mean why bother when the price and so much hard earned SP leads to maybe a few minutes of enjoyable flying / driving before one person decides to just completely destroy that investment with a fraction of the cost and work.
I see this as the wrong question long term. Except for TDM, the focus will be on concrete objectives. Then the question won't be "What do I feel like doing this match?", it will be "What assets does my team require to complete our contract in this battle?" At that point it may well be worth sacrificing a tank to achieve a breakthrough that changes the course of he battle. In organized play, these tanks would be a pretty firework show and nothing more. It takes 4 prototype swarms to take down one Sagaris. What exactly do you expect to do with said tank that will achieve a breakthrough? You might put it in to take out a Blaster installation that is blocking infantry from using a pass. Back it up with enough infantry support to hold off the AV for a minute and/or have two or three Logistics with remote reppers supporting it from behind and it would last long enough to take out the installation.
Requiring support means it is very hard to take down without removing the support first. There is very little any infantry can do to stop a swarm launcher from killing the tank like it was made of paper. Rallying the teamwork drum sounds good, but doesn't actually do anything. |
Sees-Too-Much
332
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:28:00 -
[13] - Quote
An addition I'd like to see is infantry deployable point defense equipment. You lay it on the ground similar to a nanohive or drop uplink and it shoots at swarm missiles that come within a certain range. Invaluable as far as making vehicles a team-based tool. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:32:00 -
[14] - Quote
Sees-Too-Much wrote:An addition I'd like to see is infantry deployable point defense equipment. You lay it on the ground similar to a nanohive or drop uplink and it shoots at swarm missiles that come within a certain range. Invaluable as far as making vehicles a team-based tool.
I like this idea, but it isn't even on the drawing board at CCP yet, so hardly what they had in mind when they said tanks require support (what did they have in mind, anyway, b/c these changes do nothing for that). |
Sees-Too-Much
332
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Sees-Too-Much wrote:An addition I'd like to see is infantry deployable point defense equipment. You lay it on the ground similar to a nanohive or drop uplink and it shoots at swarm missiles that come within a certain range. Invaluable as far as making vehicles a team-based tool. I like this idea, but it isn't even on the drawing board at CCP yet, so hardly what they had in mind when they said tanks require support (what did they have in mind, anyway, b/c these changes do nothing for that). As I was saying to the AV whiners, eWar is coming. Add vehicle bonuses, pilot suit bonuses, and lord knows what else into the mix and everything we know about vehicle/anti-vehicle balance is going to be thrown on its head. There's almost no point in speculating on balance at this point, because so much is going to change. |
Skihids
Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising
969
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 17:06:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ambush has no need for tanks, and neither does the current crop of Skirmish maps. CCP seems to be saying that tanks are for use agaist other tanks and heavy installations as they are used today. Lacking that need tanks are used as anti-infantry tools much like dropships are being misused.
I believe the lack of strategic need is a big part of the problem. Now create a map with terrain protected installations overlooking the letters and you will see drivers calling in tanks and infantry supporting them as they remove the installations. Everyone will be happy to see tanks on their side again and the drivers can be heros instead of SP farmers.
Every role has a need to be needed. |
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV
Circle of Huskarl Minmatar Republic
173
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 17:10:00 -
[17] - Quote
if tanks weren't meant to take on infantry then there wouldn't be any large blaster turrets. |
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 17:14:00 -
[18] - Quote
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV wrote:if tanks weren't meant to take on infantry then there wouldn't be any large blaster turrets.
Missile turrets for infantry |
Skihids
Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising
969
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 17:15:00 -
[19] - Quote
STB-LURCHASAURUS EV wrote:if tanks weren't meant to take on infantry then there wouldn't be any large blaster turrets.
Those are for self defense rather than offense, much like the door guns on dropships. They could be used for offense, but then you will need additional support against AV. |
Sees-Too-Much
332
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 17:16:00 -
[20] - Quote
I would actually argue that the current skirmish maps are particularly favorable to heavy armor, and vehicles in general. They're wide open with little cover, which means the tactical advantage of being small and nimble is pretty trivial. One of the things I liked about the five-letter skirmish map was that it had a mix of open and closed areas, which would give advantages to vehicles and infantry respectively. You push from one objective to another with HAVs and when you get there the infantry pour in because walking into the such a Linear Danger Area should be suicide for something as bulky as a HAV. |
|
Tony Calif
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
2002
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 17:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
Hello everyone :)
I would class myself as a beast tanker. I have no SP wasted there. However I have used Sicas to blow up everything, only target I haven't bagged is a black ops HAV. Here's my thoughts.
Yes, it's a great deal of change all at once. However, I have made a HUGE change from Railgun Sica to Blaster Soma. My KDR is going up, my ISK is going up, and my SP is still better in a tank than on foot due to vehicle assist points being insane. I have noticed my tank fills up faster now, because less people are willing to risk their own ISK. So they come risk mine :D
So why a Soma? More health. You never use the armour on a Sica, you do use the shields on the Soma. Having 5k hp and a heavy repper means you can hit hard and fast, but will need to go somewhere safe to regain lost armour. A couple of guys have used militia repair tools, and they speed up this process.
So why a blaster? Because I tried the auto railgun. It's terrible, seems like a rich mans militia blaster, but worse. I haven't skilled missiles this build, but can imagine they would be good. I have killed several enemy tanks and Dropships with the blaster, installations too. People also don't want to stick their face in front of my blaster, allowing me to suppress the enemy while I escape. And I can turn the turret round fast enough that no one is safe.
And yes I run for my life when I see Proto swarms launching. But their Dropsuit is the same cost as my tank roughly... (150k)
Btw Noc, if infantry can't help you against swarmers, you need new infantry. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 18:15:00 -
[22] - Quote
Tony Calif wrote:Hello everyone :)
I would class myself as a beast tanker. I have no SP wasted there. However I have used Sicas to blow up everything, only target I haven't bagged is a black ops HAV. Here's my thoughts.
Yes, it's a great deal of change all at once. However, I have made a HUGE change from Railgun Sica to Blaster Soma. My KDR is going up, my ISK is going up, and my SP is still better in a tank than on foot due to vehicle assist points being insane. I have noticed my tank fills up faster now, because less people are willing to risk their own ISK. So they come risk mine :D
So why a Soma? More health. You never use the armour on a Sica, you do use the shields on the Soma. Having 5k hp and a heavy repper means you can hit hard and fast, but will need to go somewhere safe to regain lost armour. A couple of guys have used militia repair tools, and they speed up this process.
So why a blaster? Because I tried the auto railgun. It's terrible, seems like a rich mans militia blaster, but worse. I haven't skilled missiles this build, but can imagine they would be good. I have killed several enemy tanks and Dropships with the blaster, installations too. People also don't want to stick their face in front of my blaster, allowing me to suppress the enemy while I escape. And I can turn the turret round fast enough that no one is safe.
And yes I run for my life when I see Proto swarms launching. But their Dropsuit is the same cost as my tank roughly... (150k)
Btw Noc, if infantry can't help you against swarmers, you need new infantry.
I promise you, if it was 16 on 1, and I had a prototype swarm launcher, your tank would die just as quickly. Your anecdote proves what I was saying, it doens't affect their ability to kill. However any decent squad would rip a tank apart before it even manages it's weight in kills. |
Whispercrow
Seituoda Taskforce Command Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 18:32:00 -
[23] - Quote
I agree with Sees-Too-Much to such a degree that it hurts.
Everyone is concerned with the numbers determining what gets used, but it's really all about the map design.
Some maps are far too tight and cramped for vehicles to be used at all, while some are so wide open and flat it's all about them, and other maps are wide open with lots of rocks and mountains to the point where it becomes a sniper heaven.
Good maps should have a mix of all these things.
Put the objectives in tight little city-like arrangements where the vehicle can't just dominate them, where you need ground troops to go door-to-door or floor-to-floor to take the objective.
Have wide open areas between where vehicles can go and its almost necessary to use them, even if just LAV's, to get to those control points.
Put rocky outcroppings at the edges and 'between' the control points, so that snipers can have access to such but still have to worry about vehicles (and the snipers from other installations).
Well designed maps will provide opportunities for EVERYONE to shine and for all aspects of the game to be used.
---
ONE MORE THING... can we get a lock-on missile turret? PLEEEAAASSE? Specifically for Anti-Air and Anti-Tank? Something so that when you call it down, Dropships have to avoid you, but small vehicles and infantry have nothing to fear, and you have decent odds of surviving agianst another tank? (thinking like 30-35% or so on an even fight, so at least you can threaten it). Would be very nice. |
Icy Tiger
496
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 18:48:00 -
[24] - Quote
Tony Calif wrote:Hello everyone :)
I would class myself as a beast tanker. I have no SP wasted there. However I have used Sicas to blow up everything, only target I haven't bagged is a black ops HAV. Here's my thoughts.
Yes, it's a great deal of change all at once. However, I have made a HUGE change from Railgun Sica to Blaster Soma. My KDR is going up, my ISK is going up, and my SP is still better in a tank than on foot due to vehicle assist points being insane. I have noticed my tank fills up faster now, because less people are willing to risk their own ISK. So they come risk mine :D
So why a Soma? More health. You never use the armour on a Sica, you do use the shields on the Soma. Having 5k hp and a heavy repper means you can hit hard and fast, but will need to go somewhere safe to regain lost armour. A couple of guys have used militia repair tools, and they speed up this process.
So why a blaster? Because I tried the auto railgun. It's terrible, seems like a rich mans militia blaster, but worse. I haven't skilled missiles this build, but can imagine they would be good. I have killed several enemy tanks and Dropships with the blaster, installations too. People also don't want to stick their face in front of my blaster, allowing me to suppress the enemy while I escape. And I can turn the turret round fast enough that no one is safe.
And yes I run for my life when I see Proto swarms launching. But their Dropsuit is the same cost as my tank roughly... (150k)
Btw Noc, if infantry can't help you against swarmers, you need new infantry.
I don't know who you play against then, because I have literally killed Gunloggis and Madrugar's and even a couple of Suryas by running straight behind them, unloading 4 Swarm clusters by spamming the fire button, and then finishing them off by spamming 3 AV grenades. 4000+ Damage from Swarms, about 2000 from AV grenades. Good luck. |
howard sanchez
Conspiratus Immortalis
448
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 19:00:00 -
[25] - Quote
I envision what eve players tend to think of as the 'king of ewar', the Jamming module, as a black ops tanker's umbrella. It will disrupt all current target locks and prevent new ones while the module is active. It will be Area of Effect based module with the vehicle sporting it at the center of its projection radius.
As racially designed weapons systems become the norm, racially specific jamming modules with higher effectiveness vs their counter faction's technology will be employed.
Very CPU and capacitor intensive, target jammers will project an umbrella of electronic protection over allied units. |
Skytt Syysch
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
235
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 19:15:00 -
[26] - Quote
I watched one of my Suryas blow up to 3 av grenades and a single swarm volley. Tanks will be useless in coordinated play at their current levels. |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 19:28:00 -
[27] - Quote
I can still tank, with or without infantry. I'm hoping some of the nerfs are undone, especially the nerf to railgun turn rate. I used to be able to pop moving LAV's at a distance but cant track anything anymore. There should be some trade offs, low tracking for high damage, faster tracking for lower damage/more splash. As it is the railgun is only good against tanks and installations, and after you kill those you are stuck in a useless and easily killed tank for the rest of the match. |
HowDidThatTaste
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
2242
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 20:10:00 -
[28] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:I can still tank, with or without infantry. I'm hoping some of the nerfs are undone, especially the nerf to railgun turn rate. I used to be able to pop moving LAV's at a distance but cant track anything anymore. There should be some trade offs, low tracking for high damage, faster tracking for lower damage/more splash. As it is the railgun is only good against tanks and installations, and after you kill those you are stuck in a useless and easily killed tank for the rest of the match.
Welcome to the AV world we are stuck in an AV load out which is easy pray to all infantry. So after we kill a tank or whatever we can not change suits because you tank drivers blew up all the resupply depots.
Grenades are either for AV or infantry nit both. The forge guns and swarms are only good for vehicles not both. although as a fatty the forge guners do take me out on occasion.
A rail gun decision to bring out should be a choice like infantry has to make. It can't be for both. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 20:15:00 -
[29] - Quote
If you shield tank, you can still get by if you slap nanos, a large buffer, and the large missile turret, and stay behind cover hugging the redline border. Everything else comes down to luck and relying on the opponents being too stupid to use even militia swarms. |
Laz Ulian Sol
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz RISE of LEGION
187
|
Posted - 2012.09.16 08:30:00 -
[30] - Quote
All I've done so far to adapt is swap out my railgun for a blaster and throw on my armor rep earlier than later.
So far seems to be working out unless a forge gun decides to show up. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |