| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kain Spero
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
898
   |
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:38:00 -
[91] - Quote
I think the biggest issues is that on the maps we don't have areas where vehicles can't exert influence. One of the biggest balancing factors now is that ONLY infantry can cap a null cannon. The problem is that vehicles can completely lock any null cannon down.
We need large interior areas on the map that only infantry can go. We have maps like the orbital cannon that somewhat accomplish this. The only problem right now is they are so buggy that most people won't play on them due to the frame rate drops.
The finals were amazing and a testament to mixed arms combat. I think vehicles are fine in terms of health, but turrets in many cases (especially missile turrets small and large) are extremely over powered. |
Reimus Klinsman
BetaMax.
319
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 17:45:00 -
[92] - Quote
Tourny on a broken game. Sweet. Vehicles can currently provide every role needed to win a match aside from hacking points. How long before we get vehicles with code breakers on them. |
Vance Alken
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
94
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 18:03:00 -
[93] - Quote
This thread is chock full of people who don't understand the concept of mechanized warfare... |
semperfi1999
Internal Error.
Negative-Feedback
317
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 18:21:00 -
[94] - Quote
I dont mind vehicles in the games....even a ton of vehicles. Last time I played against a team that was constantly calling in vehicles I made over 400K ISK and we still won (because no enemy would hop out of the vehicle and take an objective). There were 4 tanks and 2 high lvl LAVs and then several militia LAVs running around. It was money money money. I even took out a sica with my adv AV nades. Then I just pulled out my free starter AV kit and just started going to town on the LAVs. I had never gotten more than 290K until this game. People who pull out tons of vehicles in pub matches are usually scrubby enough to lose some of those vehicles. |
Knightshade Belladonna
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
288
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 18:22:00 -
[95] - Quote
Vance Alken wrote:This thread is chock full of people who don't understand the concept of mechanized warfare...
Our suits are mech also, mech warfare does not mean vehicle spam. Sure the original dawn of mech warfare with tanks in ww1 was vehicle only.. but we are thousands of years in the future hear where everything is technological and machine driven. Oh and by the way this isn't labled as mech warfare or mech warriors online.. it's a fps with more infantry roles than vehicle.. so point is mute |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 18:28:00 -
[96] - Quote
AltTest wrote:There are no competitive shooters where vehicles are more important than infantry.
So there's an unfilled niche for a game like that. Almost a shame DUST isn't filling the role. |
Tony Calif
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
2002
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 19:18:00 -
[97] - Quote
Having played the tournament, whoever brings the best vehicle game wins. Because they remove the oppositions vehicles. That gives you air superiority & armour superiority. Infantry are worthless at that stage.
Infantry is just the name given to people waiting for vehicles. |
Garrett Blacknova
Codex Troopers
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 19:24:00 -
[98] - Quote
Tony Calif wrote:Having played the tournament, whoever brings the best vehicle game wins. Because they remove the oppositions vehicles. That gives you air superiority & armour superiority. Infantry are worthless at that stage.
Infantry is just the name given to people waiting for vehicles.
If the vehicles are evenly matched, the Infantry turn the tide of battle.
If one side has air superiority and the other side has the best tanks, the better infantry can, again, tip the balance. |
Knightshade Belladonna
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
288
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 19:25:00 -
[99] - Quote
Tony Calif wrote:Having played the tournament, whoever brings the best vehicle game wins. Because they remove the oppositions vehicles. That gives you air superiority & armour superiority. Infantry are worthless at that stage.
Infantry is just the name given to people waiting for vehicles.
lol, sad but pretty much true |
ICECREAMK1NG
WARRIORS 1NC
391
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 20:57:00 -
[100] - Quote
Tony Calif wrote:Having played the tournament, whoever brings the best vehicle game wins. Because they remove the oppositions vehicles. That gives you air superiority & armour superiority. Infantry are worthless at that stage.
Infantry is just the name given to people waiting for vehicles.
Which is why the playerbase is a joke and so many have quit.
This is a bad beta for starters, the fact it's advertised as an FPS is ridiculous, and obviously said to draw the huge FPS crowd, if they had told the truth no body would have come in the first place.
EVE on the ground is not working CCP and you know it and you all now probably have dirty underwear.
Oh and ..... ty village idiot butthurt borg.......... it's not a WARRIOR. But keep QQin about us after all this time, Ilove it.  |
|
|
Governor Odius
Doomheim
177
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 21:22:00 -
[101] - Quote
Knightshade Belladonna wrote:Vance Alken wrote:This thread is chock full of people who don't understand the concept of mechanized warfare... Our suits are mech also, mech warfare does not mean vehicle spam. Sure the original dawn of mech warfare with tanks in ww1 was vehicle only.. but we are thousands of years in the future hear where everything is technological and machine driven. Oh and by the way this isn't labled as mech warfare or mech warriors online.. it's a fps with more infantry roles than vehicle.. so point is mute
Not sure if demonstrating complete lack of understanding of the concept of mechanized warfare on purpose... |
mikegunnz
Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz
RISE of LEGION
425
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 22:52:00 -
[102] - Quote
Kain Spero wrote:I think the biggest issues is that on the maps we don't have areas where vehicles can't exert influence. One of the biggest balancing factors now is that ONLY infantry can cap a null cannon. The problem is that vehicles can completely lock any null cannon down.
We need large interior areas on the map that only infantry can go. We have maps like the orbital cannon that somewhat accomplish this. The only problem right now is they are so buggy that most people won't play on them due to the frame rate drops.
The finals were amazing and a testament to mixed arms combat. I think vehicles are fine in terms of health, but turrets in many cases (especially missile turrets small and large) are extremely over powered.
Agree 100%. I previously stated there isnt a good balance with infantry and vehicles, but wasnt sure how to go about improving the situation. This is probably the single best idea. Keep vehicles and AV as is (since its only slightly imbalanced) and increase the amount of interior areas on maps. We need more areas with objectives that have roofs to minimize dropship effectiveness AND areas with tight pathways that are not accesible to HAVs.
This alone, would probably balance thing out enough. |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 23:20:00 -
[103] - Quote
Totally redesigning maps is a rather complicated solution. I'd bet there's a better solution, one that involves limiting vehicles to an extent, which makes more sense. I seem to recall there once being talk that War Points would be used not only for orbital strikes, but also for vehicle call-ins. That WP accumulation would represent an escalation of fighting. That seems like a decent solution to me. Make stuff like tanks require a lot of WP to be called in -- WP that could otherwise be spent on alternative vehicles, or orbital strikes, or perhaps even other things like supply drops or scans or something. |
AltTest
Doomheim
21
|
Posted - 2012.11.13 01:12:00 -
[104] - Quote
Vance Alken wrote:This thread is chock full of people who don't understand the concept of mechanized warfare...
You don't understand the concept of an FPS. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |