Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Buster Friently
Rosen Association
132
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 01:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
Personally, I think the idea of a vehicles banned game mode sets a bad precedent, but meh. |
knight of 6
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
101
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 01:59:00 -
[32] - Quote
my concern is that the non-infantry only ambush would just become one massive vehicle fest. tanks can't survive without infantry support. non-infantry only would die because anti-infantry tanks (blaster) wouldn't be able to make a profit anymore because they don't do AV well at all and would leave. without anti infantry tanks the prey would be gone for AV players and railgun tanks which would undoubtedly move on to greener pastures
step 1) what this means to infantry, is nothing less than the death of the tanker (it would lose it's profit, why would anyone do it?) step 2) a dramatic increase in the number of HMG heavies (all the forge gunners gotta do something) step 3) the death of AV. (why would you need it?) step 4) corp/district matches roll around the tankers wipe the cobwebs off their 60 tonne death machines, unchecked by AV the leviathans roll about the battlefields cutting down swaths of unprepared AP babes, frantically the AR and lazor babes find old fits with AV nades only to find out they are completely useless against the 7000 hitpoint monsters. the few forge gunners still active are swamped to the point they can't counter the tanks. step 5) people complain that tanks are op though they aren't, the soldiers are simply unprepared to fight them. step 6) CCP lays down the nerf hammer yet again on the poor tankers. hammering home the final nail in their coffin. tanks go the way of the large missile turret and slowly sink into uselessness.
vehicles are part of the game. i'd like to keep them a part. i think that rather than having infantry only maps. a wiser path would be maps poorly suited to tanking tight areas with lots of verticality to provide swarm and forge vantage points (not unlike the sky-fire battery map). and removing the bowl/crater shape that allows tank snipe |
J Lav
Lost-Legion Orion Empire
37
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 02:05:00 -
[33] - Quote
The only reason Tanks are an issue in current ambush, is that CCP has completely failed to implement ANY close quarters environments into their maps. At most, there's one or two places on 2 maps, that have a single corridor with a corner. In the future build, they've promised more CQC, and that should go a long way to redeem people's choice to engage a tank or not, and sidearms like the SMG. |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
539
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 02:15:00 -
[34] - Quote
BobThe843CakeMan wrote:ICECREAMK1NG wrote:Funny how things change.
I made a thread requesting this 9 or 10 months ago.
One idiot said to me, quote '' I will defend to the death my right to bring tanks to ambush''
Tanks on these stupid maps, that are designed for tanks, is one of the biggest reasons the player base is almost non existant.
Personaly i don't care about tanks, I just avoid them or afk the game if there;s 4 or 5 and let all the blue dots die to get my isk.
game is dumb, game is dumb. i still think tanks should be allowed. i mean i used my skill points for tanks he used his for infantry of course im going to use tanks or i'm going to die. assuming we r equally skilled on foot. due to him having better infantry gear. but you know thts my look on it. You don't have to die to get into a tank, you don't have to die to get out of a tank. I do have to die to get into an AV fit, I do have to die to get out an Av fit. It's simply not fair for there to be tanks if infantry doesn't have access to supply depots. |
Lance 2ballzStrong
SyNergy Gaming
900
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 02:28:00 -
[35] - Quote
knight of 6 wrote:my concern is that the non-infantry only ambush would just become one massive vehicle fest. tanks can't survive without infantry support. non-infantry only would die because anti-infantry tanks (blaster) wouldn't be able to make a profit anymore because they don't do AV well at all and would leave. without anti infantry tanks the prey would be gone for AV players and railgun tanks which would undoubtedly move on to greener pastures
step 1) what this means to infantry, is nothing less than the death of the tanker (it would lose it's profit, why would anyone do it?) step 2) a dramatic increase in the number of HMG heavies (all the forge gunners gotta do something) step 3) the death of AV. (why would you need it?) step 4) corp/district matches roll around the tankers wipe the cobwebs off their 60 tonne death machines, unchecked by AV the leviathans roll about the battlefields cutting down swaths of unprepared AP babes, frantically the AR and lazor babes find old fits with AV nades only to find out they are completely useless against the 7000 hitpoint monsters. the few forge gunners still active are swamped to the point they can't counter the tanks. step 5) people complain that tanks are op though they aren't, the soldiers are simply unprepared to fight them. step 6) CCP lays down the nerf hammer yet again on the poor tankers. hammering home the final nail in their coffin. tanks go the way of the large missile turret and slowly sink into uselessness.
vehicles are part of the game. i'd like to keep them a part. i think that rather than having infantry only maps. a wiser path would be maps poorly suited to tanking tight areas with lots of verticality to provide swarm and forge vantage points (not unlike the sky-fire battery map). and removing the bowl/crater shape that allows tank snipe
1- There's still Skirmish, and Ambush OMS. Being a drama queen about "the death of the tanker"...c'mon.
2- Heavies are a problem? looool...Last i checked, duvolles + dmg mods melts heavies faster then they even reach assault armor.
3- Drama queen again. Death of AV? Seriously? I have proto FG's and don't play Ambush. Again, there's Skirmish.
4- ???
5- Unprepared? Well there's no supply depots in Ambush, so yeah. Why do you think there's so few tanks in OMS. There's supply depots and installations to counter tanks.
6- Who's talking about nerfing tanks??? I don't think a single person in this thread mentions ANYTHING about nerfing tanks.
People are just asking for a infantry vs infantry game mode. This IS A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER, and correct me if I'm wrong but infantry vs infantry is the core mechanic of shooters. |
knight of 6
ZionTCD Legacy Rising
101
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 02:34:00 -
[36] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:BobThe843CakeMan wrote:ICECREAMK1NG wrote:Funny how things change.
I made a thread requesting this 9 or 10 months ago.
One idiot said to me, quote '' I will defend to the death my right to bring tanks to ambush''
Tanks on these stupid maps, that are designed for tanks, is one of the biggest reasons the player base is almost non existant.
Personaly i don't care about tanks, I just avoid them or afk the game if there;s 4 or 5 and let all the blue dots die to get my isk.
game is dumb, game is dumb. i still think tanks should be allowed. i mean i used my skill points for tanks he used his for infantry of course im going to use tanks or i'm going to die. assuming we r equally skilled on foot. due to him having better infantry gear. but you know thts my look on it. You don't have to die to get into a tank, you don't have to die to get out of a tank. I do have to die to get into an AV fit, I do have to die to get out an Av fit. It's simply not fair for there to be tanks if infantry doesn't have access to supply depots. Ambush should be just Infantry Tank drivers still have OMS, but the infantry can fight back there, which is what a lot tank drivers don't seem to like.
your right. they price for leaving a tank is much higher than simply death. it's death and the loss of 4-5 matches earnings... one does not simply leave a tank. while we don't need to die to get into a tank. there is no way the pilot will EVER leave their tank not sober anyways. we're in the same boat as you only the stakes are much higher. what do you propose we do with the tank once we leave? just leave 500,000 isk lying about like a discarded shell hoping nobody will take it and get blown up? what we get out simply to kill you? because my militia AR is so much better than the 125+ DAM main gun on the tank no doubt. |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
540
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 02:51:00 -
[37] - Quote
knight of 6 wrote: your right. they price for leaving a tank is much higher than simply death. it's death and the loss of 4-5 matches earnings... one does not simply leave a tank. while we don't need to die to get into a tank. there is no way the pilot will EVER leave their tank not sober anyways. we're in the same boat as you only the stakes are much higher. what do you propose we do with the tank once we leave? just leave 500,000 isk lying about like a discarded shell hoping nobody will take it and get blown up? what we get out simply to kill you? because my militia AR is so much better than the 125+ DAM main gun on the tank no doubt.
When people start talking about the price of a tank it's because they're treating it as an "I win", button. You may not realize it, but you just said that it will take you 4-5 matches to make up for the loss of a tank; therefore the tank should last you 4-5 matches. Do you honestly think it's okay for you to stomp your way through 4 matches just because that's what your tank costs?
Bringing in a tank is always a big risk., they're not meant to be sustainable. The problem is that there is currently is very little risk in Ambush matches because of the lack of supply depots, people are essentially going "I deserve to win this match because I spent this much ISK". Sorry, but no one forced you to bring in your 500,00 ISK killing machine into a pub match that's only going to pay you about 300. If you lose a tank then you will go in the negatives for that match. Don't use it if you're not willing to lose it. |
Vance Alken
Commando Perkone Caldari State
101
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 03:03:00 -
[38] - Quote
More interior fights would be cool, but that should be due to base design, not some silly gamemode limitation. |
Lance 2ballzStrong
SyNergy Gaming
902
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 03:44:00 -
[39] - Quote
Vance Alken wrote:More interior fights would be cool, but that should be due to base design, not some silly gamemode limitation.
"game mode limitation"? You do realize nobody is suggesting to take out a game mode right? The point of this is give players a choice. Last time I checked, having more game modes = more things to do.
I still can't comprehend why people have a problem with adding another game mode just for infantry?!!... like... honestly, what's the big deal? |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
764
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 03:59:00 -
[40] - Quote
Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:Vance Alken wrote:More interior fights would be cool, but that should be due to base design, not some silly gamemode limitation. "game mode limitation"? You do realize nobody is suggesting to take out a game mode right? The point of this is give players a choice. Last time I checked, having more game modes = more things to do. I still can't comprehend why people have a problem with adding another game mode just for infantry?!!... like... honestly, what's the big deal? As others have said it sets a bad precedent, and a lot of people will end up playing it extensively and not see the need to invest in AV, right now getting stomped by a tank gives people good motivation to invest in AV. And stop complaining about having to die to switch to an AV fit, his tank is much more expensive than your suit. Besides it teaches players they have to be adaptable and be able to deal with different situations instead of pure infantry on infantry, what ccp need to do is improve the map designs, make them larger so we have more space to move around in and make area's where only infantry can access so people can have close range brawls they want. |
|
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
598
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
If their was no ambush oms I'd be pissed, but since there is guess how much I care? |
Baal Omniscient
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
357
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:05:00 -
[42] - Quote
Mavado V Noriega wrote:KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf wrote:I really hope they just make Ambush no vehicles, instead of creating yet another new varation. no need to make another read my thread using the current 2 modes u make OMS able to drop vehicles and have vanilla changed to be infantry only Too lazy to read the thread, thanks for the summary. And agreed 100%. |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
540
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:06:00 -
[43] - Quote
gbghg wrote:Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:Vance Alken wrote:More interior fights would be cool, but that should be due to base design, not some silly gamemode limitation. "game mode limitation"? You do realize nobody is suggesting to take out a game mode right? The point of this is give players a choice. Last time I checked, having more game modes = more things to do. I still can't comprehend why people have a problem with adding another game mode just for infantry?!!... like... honestly, what's the big deal? As others have said it sets a bad precedent, and a lot of people will end up playing it extensively and not see the need to invest in AV, right now getting stomped by a tank gives people good motivation to invest in AV. And stop complaining about having to die to switch to an AV fit, his tank is much more expensive than your suit. Besides it teaches players they have to be adaptable and be able to deal with different situations instead of pure infantry on infantry, what ccp need to do is improve the map designs, make them larger so we have more space to move around in and make area's where only infantry can access so people can have close range brawls they want. Except these would just be "modes", the main purpose of Dust is FW an district control and all that jazz, and those will definitely involve vehicles. So yeah, you don't have to invest in AV to play an infantry only mode, but you do( or at least need someone who has) if you ever want to play at a higher level. |
Johnny Guilt
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:07:00 -
[44] - Quote
Well ****,there goes my safe haven, i just got used to barley seeing any tanks in OMS compared to regular ambush. |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
764
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:11:00 -
[45] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:gbghg wrote:Lance 2ballzStrong wrote:Vance Alken wrote:More interior fights would be cool, but that should be due to base design, not some silly gamemode limitation. "game mode limitation"? You do realize nobody is suggesting to take out a game mode right? The point of this is give players a choice. Last time I checked, having more game modes = more things to do. I still can't comprehend why people have a problem with adding another game mode just for infantry?!!... like... honestly, what's the big deal? As others have said it sets a bad precedent, and a lot of people will end up playing it extensively and not see the need to invest in AV, right now getting stomped by a tank gives people good motivation to invest in AV. And stop complaining about having to die to switch to an AV fit, his tank is much more expensive than your suit. Besides it teaches players they have to be adaptable and be able to deal with different situations instead of pure infantry on infantry, what ccp need to do is improve the map designs, make them larger so we have more space to move around in and make area's where only infantry can access so people can have close range brawls they want. Except these would just be "modes", the main purpose of Dust is FW an district control and all that jazz, and those will definitely involve vehicles. So yeah, you don't have to invest in AV to play an infantry only mode, but you do( or at least need someone who has) if you ever want to play at a higher level. IMO i think making a new mode would be a bad idea, making new maps that are designed to screw tankers and vehicle users in every possible way= yes. you preserve the existing modes while also having maps where infantry has every advantage, and a reliance on someone else to bring the AV is why tankers can stomp so much, it doesn't cost much sp or isk to get an advanced swarm launcher, and stick a couple of damage mods on it and you can make sure that tankers will respect the danger infantry can pose |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
540
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:11:00 -
[46] - Quote
Johnny Guilt wrote:Well ****,there goes my safe haven, i just got used to barley seeing any tanks in OMS compared to regular ambush . lol there's like a 3/5 chance that someone will call in a tank in ambush, it's like .5 in OMS. Skirmish has more tankers than OMS for some reason though. |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
764
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:16:00 -
[47] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:Johnny Guilt wrote:Well ****,there goes my safe haven, i just got used to barley seeing any tanks in OMS compared to regular ambush . lol there's like a 3/5 chance that someone will call in a tank in ambush, it's like .5 in OMS. Skirmish has more tankers than OMS for some reason though. more space and better cover for them |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
541
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:18:00 -
[48] - Quote
gbghg wrote:get an advanced swarm launcher, and stick a couple of damage mods on it and you can make sure that tankers will respect the danger infantry can pose I don't think that they don't realize the dangers of infantry, it's that they know that their will be very little AV in Ambush, I blame that on the absence of supply depots. Essentially most tankers stick to ambush because it's a safe bet. It doesn't matter if it's just militia AV or how expensive your tank is, if an entire team switches to AV then your tank is going down, but that will almost never happen in an Ambush match and tankers know it.
So yes, I think Ambush should infantry only, tankers still OMS. or we could add supply depots to Ambush, but then what purpose does OMS serve?
gbghg wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:Johnny Guilt wrote:Well ****,there goes my safe haven, i just got used to barley seeing any tanks in OMS compared to regular ambush . lol there's like a 3/5 chance that someone will call in a tank in ambush, it's like .5 in OMS. Skirmish has more tankers than OMS for some reason though. more space and better cover for them Ahh, right
Hell, if tanks were OMS and Skirmish only then I would actually call them under powered, but in Ambush? No. |
Jotun Hiem
The Tritan Industries
505
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:20:00 -
[49] - Quote
Hooray! Now all the points I put into AV are essentially useless in Ambush.
You guys keep fighting the good fight! |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
598
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:21:00 -
[50] - Quote
Jotun Hiem wrote:Hooray! Now all the points I put into AV are essentially useless in Ambush.
You guys keep fighting the good fight! Even as a part time tanker this realization brings me to tears |
|
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
764
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:33:00 -
[51] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:gbghg wrote:get an advanced swarm launcher, and stick a couple of damage mods on it and you can make sure that tankers will respect the danger infantry can pose I don't think that they don't realize the dangers of infantry, it's that they know that their will be very little AV in Ambush, I blame that on the absence of supply depots. Essentially most tankers stick to ambush because it's a safe bet. It doesn't matter if it's just militia AV or how expensive your tank is, if an entire team switches to AV then your tank is going down, but that will almost never happen in an Ambush match and tankers know it. So yes, I think Ambush should infantry only, tankers still OMS. or we could add supply depots to Ambush, but then what purpose does OMS serve? gbghg wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:Johnny Guilt wrote:Well ****,there goes my safe haven, i just got used to barley seeing any tanks in OMS compared to regular ambush . lol there's like a 3/5 chance that someone will call in a tank in ambush, it's like .5 in OMS. Skirmish has more tankers than OMS for some reason though. more space and better cover for them Ahh, right Hell, if tanks were OMS and Skirmish only then I would actually call them under powered, but in Ambush? No. making an infantry only mode would affect lav's and dropships as well, some ambush maps are actually pretty fun to call lav's in and they make a good addition. but as i said before it comes done to poor map design, i mean manus peak practically screams for tanks to be called in but a couple of others (can't remember the names) have area's where only infantry can access while tanks are restricted to the outskirts and roads, these are the best maps as gives tankers the opportunity to get kills as enemy infantry moves about while also giving infantry a haven from the tank. we need more maps like this |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
542
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:34:00 -
[52] - Quote
Jotun Hiem wrote:Hooray! Now all the points I put into AV are essentially useless in Ambush.
You guys keep fighting the good fight! Getting rid of dumb-fire for Swarms was a dumb idea, just saying... |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
542
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:38:00 -
[53] - Quote
gbghg wrote:
making an infantry only mode would affect lav's and dropships as well, some ambush maps are actually pretty fun to call lav's in and they make a good addition. but as i said before it comes done to poor map design, i mean manus peak practically screams for tanks to be called in but a couple of others (can't remember the names) have area's where only infantry can access while tanks are restricted to the outskirts and roads, these are the best maps as gives tankers the opportunity to get kills as enemy infantry moves about while also giving infantry a haven from the tank. we need more maps like this
We do need more variety in regards to maps, and 2 of those maps have CRUs and Supply Depots for some reason... but I also see no harm in an infantry only mode. If we get more maps with "safe zones" then that's also fine with me, but I also think an infantry only mode would be fun. |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
764
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:39:00 -
[54] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:Jotun Hiem wrote:Hooray! Now all the points I put into AV are essentially useless in Ambush.
You guys keep fighting the good fight! Getting rid of dumb-fire for Swarms was a dumb idea, just saying... yeah i struck a swarm launcher on a logi suit earlier, it let me dual stack complex damage mods on an advanced swam launcher, if i had dumbfire i could protect myself against enemy infantry |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
764
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:43:00 -
[55] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:gbghg wrote:
making an infantry only mode would affect lav's and dropships as well, some ambush maps are actually pretty fun to call lav's in and they make a good addition. but as i said before it comes done to poor map design, i mean manus peak practically screams for tanks to be called in but a couple of others (can't remember the names) have area's where only infantry can access while tanks are restricted to the outskirts and roads, these are the best maps as gives tankers the opportunity to get kills as enemy infantry moves about while also giving infantry a haven from the tank. we need more maps like this
We do need more variety in regards to maps, and 2 of those maps have CRUs and Supply Depots for some reason... but I also see no harm in an infantry only mode. My fear is that it might split the playerbase and some people will play only infantry only (can we shorten that to IO i'm getting bored of typing it) and neglect everything else the game has to offer. my other fear is that a weapon balanced towards a mode with vehicles will be considered unbalanced in the IO mode and it'll get nerfed/buffed across the board completely throwig it out of balance. |
Johnny Guilt
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:47:00 -
[56] - Quote
gbghg wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:gbghg wrote:
making an infantry only mode would affect lav's and dropships as well, some ambush maps are actually pretty fun to call lav's in and they make a good addition. but as i said before it comes done to poor map design, i mean manus peak practically screams for tanks to be called in but a couple of others (can't remember the names) have area's where only infantry can access while tanks are restricted to the outskirts and roads, these are the best maps as gives tankers the opportunity to get kills as enemy infantry moves about while also giving infantry a haven from the tank. we need more maps like this
We do need more variety in regards to maps, and 2 of those maps have CRUs and Supply Depots for some reason... but I also see no harm in an infantry only mode. My fear is that it might split the playerbase and some people will play only infantry only (can we shorten that to IO i'm getting bored of typing it) and neglect everything else the game has to offer. my other fear is that a weapon balanced towards a mode with vehicles will be considered unbalanced in the IO mode and it'll get nerfed/buffed across the board completely throwig it out of balance. The player base is already split to late to bring this up |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
764
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:50:00 -
[57] - Quote
Johnny Guilt wrote:gbghg wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:gbghg wrote:
making an infantry only mode would affect lav's and dropships as well, some ambush maps are actually pretty fun to call lav's in and they make a good addition. but as i said before it comes done to poor map design, i mean manus peak practically screams for tanks to be called in but a couple of others (can't remember the names) have area's where only infantry can access while tanks are restricted to the outskirts and roads, these are the best maps as gives tankers the opportunity to get kills as enemy infantry moves about while also giving infantry a haven from the tank. we need more maps like this
We do need more variety in regards to maps, and 2 of those maps have CRUs and Supply Depots for some reason... but I also see no harm in an infantry only mode. My fear is that it might split the playerbase and some people will play only infantry only (can we shorten that to IO i'm getting bored of typing it) and neglect everything else the game has to offer. my other fear is that a weapon balanced towards a mode with vehicles will be considered unbalanced in the IO mode and it'll get nerfed/buffed across the board completely throwig it out of balance. The player base is already split to late to bring this up no need to do anymore splitting then, huh? |
Johnny Guilt
Algintal Core Gallente Federation
61
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:51:00 -
[58] - Quote
gbghg wrote:Johnny Guilt wrote:gbghg wrote:Sloth9230 wrote:gbghg wrote:
making an infantry only mode would affect lav's and dropships as well, some ambush maps are actually pretty fun to call lav's in and they make a good addition. but as i said before it comes done to poor map design, i mean manus peak practically screams for tanks to be called in but a couple of others (can't remember the names) have area's where only infantry can access while tanks are restricted to the outskirts and roads, these are the best maps as gives tankers the opportunity to get kills as enemy infantry moves about while also giving infantry a haven from the tank. we need more maps like this
We do need more variety in regards to maps, and 2 of those maps have CRUs and Supply Depots for some reason... but I also see no harm in an infantry only mode. My fear is that it might split the playerbase and some people will play only infantry only (can we shorten that to IO i'm getting bored of typing it) and neglect everything else the game has to offer. my other fear is that a weapon balanced towards a mode with vehicles will be considered unbalanced in the IO mode and it'll get nerfed/buffed across the board completely throwig it out of balance. The player base is already split to late to bring this up no need to do anymore splitting then, huh? it's not splitting, it's cutting off a growth that was killing a mode. |
Sloth9230
Reaper Galactic
542
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:52:00 -
[59] - Quote
gbghg wrote: 1. My fear is that it might split the playerbase and some people will play only infantry only (can we shorten that to IO i'm getting bored of typing it) and neglect everything else the game has to offer.
2.my other fear is that a weapon balanced towards a mode with vehicles will be considered unbalanced in the IO mode and it'll get nerfed/buffed across the board completely throwig it out of balance.
1. Then those players are choosing to not get the complete Dust experience, but I think that's a choice they should be able to make. Just like I don't play skirmish cause I find it boring. 2. I can't think of any weapons where that would be the case. Maybe the Plasma Cannon once we get it, and Swarm Launchers if they ever get dumb-fire back, but it's not something I can really say for sure.
Edit: 1 thing, we should never balance for "modes", just like balancing for public matches is stupid. What might seem Op in ambush might be "just fine" or even under-powered in a corp battle. |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. Legacy Rising
764
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 04:56:00 -
[60] - Quote
Sloth9230 wrote:gbghg wrote: 1. My fear is that it might split the playerbase and some people will play only infantry only (can we shorten that to IO i'm getting bored of typing it) and neglect everything else the game has to offer.
2.my other fear is that a weapon balanced towards a mode with vehicles will be considered unbalanced in the IO mode and it'll get nerfed/buffed across the board completely throwig it out of balance.
1. Then those players are choosing to not get the complete Dust experience, but I think that's a choice they should be able to make. Just like I don't play skirmish cause I find it boring. 2. I can't think of any weapons where that would be the case. Maybe the Plasma Cannon once we get it, and Swarm Launchers if they ever get dumb-fire back, but it's not something I can really say for sure. You're right I am thinking more along future weapon lines on the second point, and i'll concede the first point |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |