Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Christ0pher Blair
Deep Space Republic
34
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:20:00 -
[31] - Quote
Paran Tadec wrote:whiners gonna whine
Say what you will, however a game without any limitation other than a map border is bound to be abused. Eventually it will devolve into monotone gameplay of the few who pay for it or grind to proto.
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising
886
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:25:00 -
[32] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:The dark cloud wrote:foolish boys. The final was a very hard played match including vehicle spam on both sides. And thats how this game is supposed to be played. Well then the game will fail on that alone. Nobody plays FPS's just to sit in vehicles all game. If they can't balance the game for infantry players which would make up the majority of the game then good luck with retaining players... I highly doubt that nobody isnt a precise description. I see plenty off tanks, LAV'S and dropships on the field.
You see them because players are being forced to put down their guns and pick up vehicles because the vehicles are tearing everyone down. The counters aren't as effective by yourself unless you have a forge gun. Either way, you still have to put your AR or HMG down to concentrate on taking the vehicle out.
In other vehicle games, you have effective AV weapons in the loadout. So, you don't have to die so you can take out the vehicle and then die again to go back to your handheld weapon. |
Christ0pher Blair
Deep Space Republic
34
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:26:00 -
[33] - Quote
Tyrus 4 wrote: Vehicles are a part of the game. period.
^ PART of the game is key here. Allow the game to abuse vehicles and you alienate a large portion of your player base. Take them out and you do the same. They should be part of the game, but not focused on it. Balance is something BETA doesn't currently portray, and might be hard to implement given the circumstance. However, if these 'high level' matches are representative of a large portion of the final release's game play then this game will hardly be an MMO with a large 5+ year active player base (IMO).
Honestly, these posts** are sad and cater to both extremes of the scale.
**e.g. : Remove vehicles; stop whining and LTP its all fine; etc
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising
886
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:32:00 -
[34] - Quote
Tyrus 4 wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:The dark cloud wrote:foolish boys. The final was a very hard played match including vehicle spam on both sides. And thats how this game is supposed to be played. Well then the game will fail on that alone. Nobody plays FPS's just to sit in vehicles all game. If they can't balance the game for infantry players which would make up the majority of the game then good luck with retaining players... Vehicles are a part of the game. period. people need to HTFU about it, or go back to playing their vehicle-less GUNGAME(tm) shooters. and this is coming from someone who doesn't even have a vehicle fit beyond the starter one. there are vehicles, and there are anti-vehicle measures. and more anti-vehicle measures to come. just because Anti-Vehicle measures are beneath the Elite GUNGAME(tm) and thus people refuse to use them and continue to die to tanks, doesn't mean that vehicles should be done away with. people seem to think that if they can hold down R1 while strafing their sights over someone that they should never die to anything. and for the OP, if you think that CCP will put a non-vehicle playmode in anything other than High-Sec, I've got an unpopulated planet in Jita to sell you.
You can tell people to deal with it...but regis has a point. People play FPSs to shoot. You can tell people to deal with it but there may be only a few people "dealing with it", leading to a failure of the game.
Noone is totally against having vehicles....look at the Battlefield series. It is a series heavy on vehicles. But people don't mind because there are effective counters and you don't have to be all AV or bust. You can use your AR and carry C4, stingers, rockets, etc. In dust you either have your swarm launcher or your forge. And don't talk about sidearms with ARs gunning you down at distances. |
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising
886
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:34:00 -
[35] - Quote
Christ0pher Blair wrote:Tyrus 4 wrote: Vehicles are a part of the game. period.
^ PART of the game is key here. Allow the game to abuse vehicles and you alienate a large portion of your player base. Take them out and you do the same. They should be part of the game, but not focused on it. Balance is something BETA doesn't currently portray, and might be hard to implement given the circumstance. However, if these 'high level' matches are representative of a large portion of the final release's game play then this game will hardly be an MMO with a large 5+ year active player base (IMO). Honestly, these posts** are sad and cater to both extremes of the scale. **e.g. : Remove vehicles; stop whining and LTP its all fine; etc
+1 exactly |
Leither Yiltron
KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION
417
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:38:00 -
[36] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:get vehicle game scrub.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
742
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:38:00 -
[37] - Quote
Ydubbs81 RND wrote:Tyrus 4 wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:The dark cloud wrote:foolish boys. The final was a very hard played match including vehicle spam on both sides. And thats how this game is supposed to be played. Well then the game will fail on that alone. Nobody plays FPS's just to sit in vehicles all game. If they can't balance the game for infantry players which would make up the majority of the game then good luck with retaining players... Vehicles are a part of the game. period. people need to HTFU about it, or go back to playing their vehicle-less GUNGAME(tm) shooters. and this is coming from someone who doesn't even have a vehicle fit beyond the starter one. there are vehicles, and there are anti-vehicle measures. and more anti-vehicle measures to come. just because Anti-Vehicle measures are beneath the Elite GUNGAME(tm) and thus people refuse to use them and continue to die to tanks, doesn't mean that vehicles should be done away with. people seem to think that if they can hold down R1 while strafing their sights over someone that they should never die to anything. and for the OP, if you think that CCP will put a non-vehicle playmode in anything other than High-Sec, I've got an unpopulated planet in Jita to sell you. You can tell people to deal with it...but regis has a point. People play FPSs to shoot. You can tell people to deal with it but there may be only a few people "dealing with it", leading to a failure of the game. Noone is totally against having vehicles....look at the Battlefield series. It is a series heavy on vehicles. But people don't mind because there are effective counters and you don't have to be all AV or bust. You can use your AR and carry C4, stingers, rockets, etc. In dust you either have your swarm launcher or your forge. And don't talk about sidearms with ARs gunning you down at distances.
Thing is, BF Vehicles are weak, but don't cost anything to use. Grab it from the spawn and go. Half you guys believe Vehicles should be easy to take down, but at the current price, that's totally unreasonable. If a good tank didn't cost a million ISK atleast and instead was a lot cheaper, then sure we could make them weaker, but they're expensive pieces of equipment. To top of it off, the majority of people that dislike vehicles are people who've not specced into AV. I'm mostly Vehicles, but I have ok Infantry skills and I've actually used points for AV, it's not that hard to pop vehicles solo either. |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
742
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:40:00 -
[38] - Quote
Dark Cloud Pee Arr Style OP OP OP OP
|
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising
886
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:42:00 -
[39] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:SoTa PoP wrote:They just need to up it to 32vs32. Will just mean more vehicle spam, tbh. Wps needed to call in a vehicle is a good idea. That's a ******* awful idea. How about, EVERYONE has to use Militia Assault Rifles and then can only upgrade once they've got a certain amount of WPs in a match (So, Militia, then say 200 WP for next weapon, then another 200 WP for another). Sounds good right? By making it so only players with WP in a match are allowed to use a Vehicle, you effectively destroy any attempt at making a solely vehicle character. If you hadn't noticed, many skills now have "Infantry" in front of them, which means that you will have to choose which role you want to go into until much later in the game, which means if this WP system was in place, Vehicle players (Who will have put all their SP into vehicles) will be nowhere near as good as Infantry only players, which means they'll rarely get to use the vehicles that are costing them 10x what your suits are costing you.
So then what about the infantry players who can't even make it 50m because of the tank and dropship spamming missiles everywhere? The reason for the wps is because vehicles are devastating on the battlefield in pub matches. Just like an orbital strike is.....someone gets in a dropship and that's exactly what they're doing.
Its the reason why you have to earn the OB and isn't simply something that you can buy with ISK. This is a shooter but it has become more about vehicles than anything else. |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
742
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:46:00 -
[40] - Quote
Ydubbs81 RND wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:SoTa PoP wrote:They just need to up it to 32vs32. Will just mean more vehicle spam, tbh. Wps needed to call in a vehicle is a good idea. That's a ******* awful idea. How about, EVERYONE has to use Militia Assault Rifles and then can only upgrade once they've got a certain amount of WPs in a match (So, Militia, then say 200 WP for next weapon, then another 200 WP for another). Sounds good right? By making it so only players with WP in a match are allowed to use a Vehicle, you effectively destroy any attempt at making a solely vehicle character. If you hadn't noticed, many skills now have "Infantry" in front of them, which means that you will have to choose which role you want to go into until much later in the game, which means if this WP system was in place, Vehicle players (Who will have put all their SP into vehicles) will be nowhere near as good as Infantry only players, which means they'll rarely get to use the vehicles that are costing them 10x what your suits are costing you. So then what about the infantry players who can't even make it 50m because of the tank and dropship spamming missiles everywhere? The reason for the wps is because vehicles are devastating on the battlefield in pub matches. Just like an orbital strike is.....someone gets in a dropship and that's exactly what they're doing. Its the reason why you have to earn the OB and isn't simply something that you can buy with ISK. This is a shooter but it has become more about vehicles than anything else.
Gonna quote the most important thing you said there:
REAALLYYY IMPORTANNNTTT THINGG wrote: Missiles
We've established that Missiles are greatly OP and it's ridiculous (Even as a Vehicle user myself). They're no skill weapons that OHK every infantry player out there, but it's not the vehicles that are OP, Vehicles themselves are greatly UP, but the Turrets? Those are seperate items that make vehicle seem OP. |
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Bojo's School of the Trades
1058
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:46:00 -
[41] - Quote
The dark cloud wrote:foolish boys. The final was a very hard played match including vehicle spam on both sides. And thats how this game is supposed to be played. let's hope that's what the winner does against CCP- spam the most OP things they can find. Maybe then they'll do something about it. |
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising
886
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:49:00 -
[42] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:Tyrus 4 wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:The dark cloud wrote:foolish boys. The final was a very hard played match including vehicle spam on both sides. And thats how this game is supposed to be played. Well then the game will fail on that alone. Nobody plays FPS's just to sit in vehicles all game. If they can't balance the game for infantry players which would make up the majority of the game then good luck with retaining players... Vehicles are a part of the game. period. people need to HTFU about it, or go back to playing their vehicle-less GUNGAME(tm) shooters. and this is coming from someone who doesn't even have a vehicle fit beyond the starter one. there are vehicles, and there are anti-vehicle measures. and more anti-vehicle measures to come. just because Anti-Vehicle measures are beneath the Elite GUNGAME(tm) and thus people refuse to use them and continue to die to tanks, doesn't mean that vehicles should be done away with. people seem to think that if they can hold down R1 while strafing their sights over someone that they should never die to anything. and for the OP, if you think that CCP will put a non-vehicle playmode in anything other than High-Sec, I've got an unpopulated planet in Jita to sell you. You can tell people to deal with it...but regis has a point. People play FPSs to shoot. You can tell people to deal with it but there may be only a few people "dealing with it", leading to a failure of the game. Noone is totally against having vehicles....look at the Battlefield series. It is a series heavy on vehicles. But people don't mind because there are effective counters and you don't have to be all AV or bust. You can use your AR and carry C4, stingers, rockets, etc. In dust you either have your swarm launcher or your forge. And don't talk about sidearms with ARs gunning you down at distances. Thing is, BF Vehicles are weak, but don't cost anything to use. Grab it from the spawn and go. Half you guys believe Vehicles should be easy to take down, but at the current price, that's totally unreasonable. If a good tank didn't cost a million ISK atleast and instead was a lot cheaper, then sure we could make them weaker, but they're expensive pieces of equipment. To top of it off, the majority of people that dislike vehicles are people who've not specced into AV. I'm mostly Vehicles, but I have ok Infantry skills and I've actually used points for AV, it's not that hard to pop vehicles solo either.
What does it matter how much the vehicle cost when people are bringing them out like water? Not to mention, the future ISK EVE transfers. Listen, you think protoype weapons and dropsuits are cheap? It is in no comparison to a sargaris but what if I used a proto AR dropsuit with some proto modules, some advanced, etc. I could easily build a suit close to $200K. If I die once with that suit @ these current ISK rewards, I may have lost money already. I could go advanced for the rest of the match and be in the red easy.
Yet, infantry dies as easy as anything. Our suits' health (hp) don't increase as you go higher. Just more slots. |
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising
886
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:50:00 -
[43] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:The dark cloud wrote:foolish boys. The final was a very hard played match including vehicle spam on both sides. And thats how this game is supposed to be played. let's hope that's what the winner does against CCP- spam the most OP things they can find. Maybe then they'll do something about it.
Sooooooo this |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
742
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 00:58:00 -
[44] - Quote
Ydubbs81 RND wrote:
What does it matter how much the vehicle cost when people are bringing them out like water? Not to mention, the future ISK EVE transfers. Listen, you think protoype weapons and dropsuits are cheap? It is in no comparison to a sargaris but what if I used a proto AR dropsuit with some proto modules, some advanced, etc. I could easily build a suit close to $200K. If I die once with that suit @ these current ISK rewards, I may have lost money already. I could go advanced for the rest of the match and be in the red easy.
Yet, infantry dies as easy as anything. Our suits' health (hp) don't increase as you go higher. Just more slots.
So you can build a dropsuit which costs 200k for protogear? Isn't a Black Ops Tank (Pretty much Proto Tank right?) something like 2 mil for the tank alone? Then we include all the module to make it actually useful, which will bring us close to 2.5mil or so for the Tank (I'm pretty sure it's more than that actually), at that cost, you'll need to die about 12 times to be worth what that tank is. Now remember that this Tank will still pop to a good group of Forge Gunners. Still seems pretty balanced. As I said, Missiles are Broken, Tanks themselves are UP. |
Mobius Wyvern
BetaMax.
1216
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:02:00 -
[45] - Quote
Wintars Boar wrote:There has also been talk to vehicle deployment being based on squad WP. Any corroboration on this? Just no. There aren't any limits on dropsuits, and there shouldn't be limits on vehicles. |
Christ0pher Blair
Deep Space Republic
34
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:04:00 -
[46] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:
What does it matter how much the vehicle cost when people are bringing them out like water? Not to mention, the future ISK EVE transfers. Listen, you think protoype weapons and dropsuits are cheap? It is in no comparison to a sargaris but what if I used a proto AR dropsuit with some proto modules, some advanced, etc. I could easily build a suit close to $200K. If I die once with that suit @ these current ISK rewards, I may have lost money already. I could go advanced for the rest of the match and be in the red easy.
Yet, infantry dies as easy as anything. Our suits' health (hp) don't increase as you go higher. Just more slots.
So you can build a dropsuit which costs 200k for protogear? Isn't a Black Ops Tank (Pretty much Proto Tank right?) something like 2 mil for the tank alone? Then we include all the module to make it actually useful, which will bring us close to 2.5mil or so for the Tank (I'm pretty sure it's more than that actually), at that cost, you'll need to die about 12 times to be worth what that tank is. Now remember that this Tank will still pop to a good group of Forge Gunners. Still seems pretty balanced. As I said, Missiles are Broken, Tanks themselves are UP.
When each match devolves into a few tanks, LAVs, and Dropships vs a anti-vehicle suits...then you have only a game mode that gets old real fast. |
Caeli SineDeo
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:05:00 -
[47] - Quote
At most times Imp had 5 guys in vehicles. The other 10 where infantry with either AV fits or set up going against other infantry.
So no tourney was not won by a spam of vehicles. Yes Vehicle users kept there vehicles up at all times but that was it.
So get of this high horse of vehicles destroying gameplay i think everyone can agree on corp v corp matches this adds to the excitement It adds to multi lvl planing for corps. And yes to keep vehicles up and running it cost corps tons of isk. So yes you need to be good to afford running vehicles.
Having good vehicle users does not make you automatically win the game. They are just a important assest. Yes a none vehicle team will get ran over by a team that supports decent vehicle users. But if that tank does not have ground support he is toast.
So no the tourney is not a testament to what you said because the 1st place corp did not spam vehicles.
Unless you count the 3 vehicle users that called in vehicles to replace the ones they loss.
|
Knightshade Belladonna
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
288
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:07:00 -
[48] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:SoTa PoP wrote:They just need to up it to 32vs32. Will just mean more vehicle spam, tbh. Wps needed to call in a vehicle is a good idea. That's a ******* awful idea. How about, EVERYONE has to use Militia Assault Rifles and then can only upgrade once they've got a certain amount of WPs in a match (So, Militia, then say 200 WP for next weapon, then another 200 WP for another). Sounds good right? By making it so only players with WP in a match are allowed to use a Vehicle, you effectively destroy any attempt at making a solely vehicle character. If you hadn't noticed, many skills now have "Infantry" in front of them, which means that you will have to choose which role you want to go into until much later in the game, which means if this WP system was in place, Vehicle players (Who will have put all their SP into vehicles) will be nowhere near as good as Infantry only players, which means they'll rarely get to use the vehicles that are costing them 10x what your suits are costing you.
It can be based off squad WP then, will it really kill you to stay in militia AR or sniper starter you have selected for a min or 2 before jumping into tank? It will cut down alot of the initial vehicle spam that imediatly decides most matches |
Osiris Greywolf
Edimmu Warfighters Gallente Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:13:00 -
[49] - Quote
Knightshade Belladonna wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:Ydubbs81 RND wrote:SoTa PoP wrote:They just need to up it to 32vs32. Will just mean more vehicle spam, tbh. Wps needed to call in a vehicle is a good idea. That's a ******* awful idea. How about, EVERYONE has to use Militia Assault Rifles and then can only upgrade once they've got a certain amount of WPs in a match (So, Militia, then say 200 WP for next weapon, then another 200 WP for another). Sounds good right? By making it so only players with WP in a match are allowed to use a Vehicle, you effectively destroy any attempt at making a solely vehicle character. If you hadn't noticed, many skills now have "Infantry" in front of them, which means that you will have to choose which role you want to go into until much later in the game, which means if this WP system was in place, Vehicle players (Who will have put all their SP into vehicles) will be nowhere near as good as Infantry only players, which means they'll rarely get to use the vehicles that are costing them 10x what your suits are costing you. It can be based off squad WP then, will it really kill you to stay in militia AR or sniper starter you have selected for a min or 2 before jumping into tank? It will cut down alot of the initial vehicle spam that imediatly decides most matches
Originally, that's what war points were going to be used for, vehicles and installations, to bring more balance into the game. How they ended up as what they are now, I have no idea :/ |
Ydubbs81 RND
Ahrendee Mercenaries Legacy Rising
886
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:14:00 -
[50] - Quote
Caeli SineDeo wrote:At most times Imp had 5 guys in vehicles. The other 10 where infantry with either AV fits or set up going against other infantry.
So no tourney was not won by a spam of vehicles. Yes Vehicle users kept there vehicles up at all times but that was it.
So get of this high horse of vehicles destroying gameplay i think everyone can agree on corp v corp matches this adds to the excitement It adds to multi lvl planing for corps. And yes to keep vehicles up and running it cost corps tons of isk. So yes you need to be good to afford running vehicles.
Having good vehicle users does not make you automatically win the game. They are just a important assest. Yes a none vehicle team will get ran over by a team that supports decent vehicle users. But if that tank does not have ground support he is toast.
So no the tourney is not a testament to what you said because the 1st place corp did not spam vehicles.
Unless you count the 3 vehicle users that called in vehicles to replace the ones they loss.
You're talking about an organized corp match where you have guys pre-selected into certain fits with certain jobs to do for the entire game. We are talking about regular random pub matches, in which most games are played. |
|
The dark cloud
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1060
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:19:00 -
[51] - Quote
Wp for calling in vehicles right buddy you are insane. Tell me then i put all my SP into vehicles, no infantry skills (ar etc.) and i spend millions of ISK to actually buy the vehicle and fit it right and then i should be bothered to get WP as infantry unit which i wouldnt have much off a chance against maxed out infantry players. You sir are a absolute muppet. I skilled into vehicles, i payd for the vehicle so i can call my vehicle in whenever i want to. And that stays right there where it is. |
HECATONCHIRES COTTUS
Doomheim
14
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:19:00 -
[52] - Quote
Everyone in this thread who is bitching about vehicles needs to get proto something whether it SWARMS or A FORGE or get some vehicle skills.....please cease the crying.Tanks cost 3.5 million ISK. Please ....you get pissed cuz your running around as a flesh bag and havent even spent a tenth of that......even if you rock all proto assault you wouldnt spend that.
1 side bitches about drop ships but the drop ships take out snipers and bombard tanks....Tanks remove turrets and are area denile weapons Im sorry its called ARMOR for for a reason.Go fuckin play ambush.
people are so 1 dimensional....and egotistical and can believe it when they die .I think whats more sad is there ok kickin the **** out of unorganized newbs while there in a squad of kick ass FPS players and have that crutch...go 25/30 and 0 alot of matches then ***** when they get owned by a tank....Im ok with it....to me its just karma biting me in the ass.Ill end up skilling vehicles at some point and SWARS and FORGE so it really doesnt matter at all.Ill be doing the same **** they are.Give me somthin to shoot for .Those same guys get out of the tank and they get owned there skills are in vehicles...if you want to hide in some Kidnegarten game mode go ahead.
EDIT:oh yeah 1 more thing you ***** about tanks but you dont ***** when someone on your team gets out a tank to kill all the LAV spam ....you know the guys that will be running over you when your running around in your VK01 with your Duvall lol get real. |
HECATONCHIRES COTTUS
Doomheim
14
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:25:00 -
[53] - Quote
Knightshade Belladonna wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:SoTa PoP wrote:They just need to up it to 32vs32. More players means more vehicles. Not if they keep current vehicle cap with a 32 v 32, if we ever went 64 v 64 like ccp claims will be , then ofc there is need for a higher cap. but 5 tanks per side for a 32 v 32 is plenty, that's 15 people right there per side using tank/dropship And for those who think " but I specced into tanks and now somene with lesser skills can call one in before me so I can't do anything until he gets blown up" learn to use other stuff aswell. Tanks should not be a neccessary thing for every battle and have to be called in right from the start. Which is why i'm fond of the wp required to deploy idea, you will have to fight on the ground with a suit, earn a few points and escalate the battle.. then call in a tank if you feel it's needed. Not just call in a tank immediatly at start of a battle just because you can.
Stupidity
|
Caeli SineDeo
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
294
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:26:00 -
[54] - Quote
Ydubbs81 RND wrote:Caeli SineDeo wrote:At most times Imp had 5 guys in vehicles. The other 10 where infantry with either AV fits or set up going against other infantry.
So no tourney was not won by a spam of vehicles. Yes Vehicle users kept there vehicles up at all times but that was it.
So get of this high horse of vehicles destroying gameplay i think everyone can agree on corp v corp matches this adds to the excitement It adds to multi lvl planing for corps. And yes to keep vehicles up and running it cost corps tons of isk. So yes you need to be good to afford running vehicles.
Having good vehicle users does not make you automatically win the game. They are just a important assest. Yes a none vehicle team will get ran over by a team that supports decent vehicle users. But if that tank does not have ground support he is toast.
So no the tourney is not a testament to what you said because the 1st place corp did not spam vehicles.
Unless you count the 3 vehicle users that called in vehicles to replace the ones they loss.
You're talking about an organized corp match where you have guys pre-selected into certain fits with certain jobs to do for the entire game. We are talking about regular random pub matches, in which most games are played. Did you read the title??? "Tourney was a testiment to what I've always said."
|
Knightshade Belladonna
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
288
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:27:00 -
[55] - Quote
HECATONCHIRES COTTUS wrote:Knightshade Belladonna wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:SoTa PoP wrote:They just need to up it to 32vs32. More players means more vehicles. Not if they keep current vehicle cap with a 32 v 32, if we ever went 64 v 64 like ccp claims will be , then ofc there is need for a higher cap. but 5 tanks per side for a 32 v 32 is plenty, that's 15 people right there per side using tank/dropship And for those who think " but I specced into tanks and now somene with lesser skills can call one in before me so I can't do anything until he gets blown up" learn to use other stuff aswell. Tanks should not be a neccessary thing for every battle and have to be called in right from the start. Which is why i'm fond of the wp required to deploy idea, you will have to fight on the ground with a suit, earn a few points and escalate the battle.. then call in a tank if you feel it's needed. Not just call in a tank immediatly at start of a battle just because you can. Stupidity
Ignorance ^ |
HECATONCHIRES COTTUS
Doomheim
14
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:30:00 -
[56] - Quote
Knightshade Belladonna wrote:HECATONCHIRES COTTUS wrote:Knightshade Belladonna wrote:Regis Mk V wrote:SoTa PoP wrote:They just need to up it to 32vs32. More players means more vehicles. Not if they keep current vehicle cap with a 32 v 32, if we ever went 64 v 64 like ccp claims will be , then ofc there is need for a higher cap. but 5 tanks per side for a 32 v 32 is plenty, that's 15 people right there per side using tank/dropship And for those who think " but I specced into tanks and now somene with lesser skills can call one in before me so I can't do anything until he gets blown up" learn to use other stuff aswell. Tanks should not be a neccessary thing for every battle and have to be called in right from the start. Which is why i'm fond of the wp required to deploy idea, you will have to fight on the ground with a suit, earn a few points and escalate the battle.. then call in a tank if you feel it's needed. Not just call in a tank immediatly at start of a battle just because you can. Stupidity Ignorance ^ Is that how it works in EVE ...egghead.Can i not get out my Titan....lol |
Knightshade Belladonna
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
288
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:33:00 -
[57] - Quote
[/quote]
Not if they keep current vehicle cap with a 32 v 32, if we ever went 64 v 64 like ccp claims will be , then ofc there is need for a higher cap. but 5 tanks per side for a 32 v 32 is plenty, that's 15 people right there per side using tank/dropship
And for those who think " but I specced into tanks and now somene with lesser skills can call one in before me so I can't do anything until he gets blown up" learn to use other stuff aswell. Tanks should not be a neccessary thing for every battle and have to be called in right from the start. Which is why i'm fond of the wp required to deploy idea, you will have to fight on the ground with a suit, earn a few points and escalate the battle.. then call in a tank if you feel it's needed. Not just call in a tank immediatly at start of a battle just because you can.[/quote] Stupidity [/quote]
Ignorance ^[/quote] Is that how it works in EVE ...egghead.Can i not get out my Titan....lol[/quote]
No, it does not work in eve like that.. you dont just get in your titan and hey guys im here for the fkn party woooooo... there is logistics set in motion before that titan can do a thing. |
Forlorn Destrier
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
914
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:35:00 -
[58] - Quote
ALM1GHTY STATIUS wrote:Vehicles were spammed like mother *******, 2-3 infantry and the other 12 people in vehicles, yeah, real fun game CCP.
I won't say much more as I'm hoping you implement a no vehicle game-mode.
Not sure how you are able to talk like you were in the tournament... NPC corps weren't let in. :P |
Knightshade Belladonna
Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation
288
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:36:00 -
[59] - Quote
Forlorn Destrier wrote:ALM1GHTY STATIUS wrote:Vehicles were spammed like mother *******, 2-3 infantry and the other 12 people in vehicles, yeah, real fun game CCP.
I won't say much more as I'm hoping you implement a no vehicle game-mode. Not sure how you are able to talk like you were in the tournament... NPC corps weren't let in. :P
could be an alt letting his feelings out? |
HECATONCHIRES COTTUS
Doomheim
14
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 01:45:00 -
[60] - Quote
Knightshade Belladonna wrote:
Not if they keep current vehicle cap with a 32 v 32, if we ever went 64 v 64 like ccp claims will be , then ofc there is need for a higher cap. but 5 tanks per side for a 32 v 32 is plenty, that's 15 people right there per side using tank/dropship
And for those who think " but I specced into tanks and now somene with lesser skills can call one in before me so I can't do anything until he gets blown up" learn to use other stuff aswell. Tanks should not be a neccessary thing for every battle and have to be called in right from the start. Which is why i'm fond of the wp required to deploy idea, you will have to fight on the ground with a suit, earn a few points and escalate the battle.. then call in a tank if you feel it's needed. Not just call in a tank immediatly at start of a battle just because you can.[/quote] Stupidity [/quote]
Ignorance ^[/quote] Is that how it works in EVE ...egghead.Can i not get out my Titan....lol[/quote]
No, it does not work in eve like that.. you dont just get in your titan and hey guys im here for the fkn party woooooo... there is logistics set in motion before that titan can do a thing.[/quote]
A tank driver will put in 4 million skill points be fore its all said and done for PROTO everything.Some guy bitching that his Assault only character cant compete with that is quite frankly....nonsense.The COST is the MECHANIC. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |