|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
621
   |
Posted - 2013.03.24 19:27:00 -
[1] - Quote
No |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
622
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 19:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:any reason why, or are you just still mad at me?
A long range one shotting weapon that can be easily use in cqb, and a crossbow at that, the community has spoken many times against them
Btw are you bring that up because you knew you were wrong? |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
622
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 20:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
Heathen Bastard wrote:Vermaak Doe wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:any reason why, or are you just still mad at me? A long range one shotting weapon that can be easily use in cqb, and a crossbow at that, the community has spoken many times against them Btw are you bring that up because you knew you were wrong? 1. I'm right that Light vehicles should not be able to stand up to anti armor meant for taking on things with 5x their EHP, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about. 2. assuming you mean close quarters, you have to be a minimum distance(my thought was 20m, maybe up that to 30, possibly 40) for the detonation feature to activate, and it will only act as a one shot when the target is down to armor, shields basically stop the things dead(still take a hit, but you can definitely run before it's reloaded) its a two shot kill weapon that has to be reloaded between shots.
1. You may be right as far as real life goes but not for game balance
2. That makes armor tanking useless as suits like heavies have only small amounts of shields compared to armor, not even the mass driver does this
|
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
623
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 20:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vermaak Doe wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:Vermaak Doe wrote:Heathen Bastard wrote:any reason why, or are you just still mad at me? A long range one shotting weapon that can be easily use in cqb, and a crossbow at that, the community has spoken many times against them Btw are you bring that up because you knew you were wrong? 1. I'm right that Light vehicles should not be able to stand up to anti armor meant for taking on things with 5x their EHP, so I don't know what the hell you're talking about. 2. assuming you mean close quarters, you have to be a minimum distance(my thought was 20m, maybe up that to 30, possibly 40) for the detonation feature to activate, and it will only act as a one shot when the target is down to armor, shields basically stop the things dead(still take a hit, but you can definitely run before it's reloaded) its a two shot kill weapon that has to be reloaded between shots. 1. You may be right as far as real life goes but not for game balance 2. That makes armor tanking useless as suits like heavies have only small amounts of shields compared to armor, not even the mass driver does this
1. militia should kill militia, and no open-top ever made will have its occupants survive a direct hit from a volley of missiles, it's basic logic.
2. I have seen about... 4 i think? armor tanked infantry. it's generally regarded as worse because it relies on having a logi crammed in your colon if you want to survive. it would do roughly 500 a detonation(base, bonuses factor in later) and again, shields stop these things cold(I'm thinking maybe 250 damage to shields) it is made to deal specifically with armor. if you don't use armor or you still have shields, it's basically worthless.[/quote]
1. That's true but it shouldn't be one shotted and again, realism vs balance
2. It really doesn't, if anything it's meant to give you a larger buffer than shields can with a constantly running armor repairer which makes logis a bit less important, you're making the mass driver useless because it's only advantage would be an explosive radius, you're numbers with it are overpowered no ifs, ands, or buts. Armor tanking is supposed to be just as viable as shield tanking |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
623
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 20:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Even the current weapons meant to be less effective against shields aren't this lopsided, that's pretty much the role of av grenades but with slightly different attributes that let it also be used against infantry |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
624
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 21:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Because those aren't the only roles to be filled, we don't have aa shor range high shield damage av weapon, vice versa for armor, or, a high rof high recoil long range rifle that does more damage to shields, your design introduces a weapon yoy say is meant for Av but yours allows for easy use against infantry |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
624
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 21:34:00 -
[7] - Quote
It's much harder to use those in roles other than they are meant, and this is still a mid range instant armor killer. That's not what I said, most weapons cam be used outside their role but not to the same effect as dedicated weapons, what you want is a jack of all trade weapon that can kill basically anything you point it at with very little effort, which is why you try to justify the imbalance vs dropships and lavs |
Vermaak Doe
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
625
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 23:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
In what sense is having a purposely weak weapon for a finishing blow a good idea? If the target isn't hit with the same if not more power than it was to start woth it's given a chance to heal, this basically sounds like you want to take vehicle kills from dedicated Av. This isn't about making lavs or dropships kill more it's about making them survive, or have you not understood anything I've been saying? Losing your shields IS NOT BEING WEAKENED if you are in armor tanked, how can you not realize this? The disadvantages you gave are offset by the I win button spam every few seconds |
|
|
| |
|