|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Rusty Shallows
Black Jackals
94
   |
Posted - 2013.06.09 08:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
I cannot beleive you are forcing me to defend IWS.
The comment is being taken out of context. He was posting a hypothetical option, loosely stated at that. If the CPM had an official or grouped position on AV/Vehicle balancing I'd like to hear it. Currently they're probably still trying to make somekind of meaningful contact with CCP.
Exmaple Core you are certainly right about "tanks and AV never being balanced" since something new always has a way of popping up in the form of weapon, changes in maps, changes in game mode, etc. |
Rusty Shallows
Black Jackals
95
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 09:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
ladwar wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:I cannot beleive you are forcing me to defend IWS.
The comment is being taken out of context. He was posting a hypothetical option, loosely stated at that. If the CPM had an official or grouped position on AV/Vehicle balancing I'd like to hear it. Currently they're probably still trying to make somekind of meaningful contact with CCP.
Exmaple Core you are certainly right about "tanks and AV never being balanced" since something new always has a way of popping up in the form of weapon, changes in maps, changes in game mode, etc. that's actually not out of context. all of CPM have little to no sp vehicles in general and some are AV guys that want more nerfs on vehicles.
I never disputed any claim about CPM and the vehicles lobby having no presence.
Go and re-read IWS words and the direction of the thread the quote is from. In no where did he state that was the view of the CPM or even his own goal. It was structured noncommittal and fluffy. Any interpretation that is somehow a platform or an agenda is the very definition of taking something out of context.
An official statement, the minutes to a meeting, or even an assertive post are needed.
People are getting too hyper sensitive on these forums. In all fairness there is plenty of causes for stress to be had and I'm the last person to tell someone else to chill out. But we all really need to take a deep breath and enjoy a cold drink. |
Rusty Shallows
Black Jackals
95
|
Posted - 2013.06.09 09:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Exmaple Core wrote:Rusty Shallows wrote:I cannot beleive you are forcing me to defend IWS.
The comment is being taken out of context. He was posting a hypothetical option, loosely stated at that. If the CPM had an official or grouped position on AV/Vehicle balancing I'd like to hear it. Currently they're probably still trying to make somekind of meaningful contact with CCP.
Exmaple Core you are certainly right about "tanks and AV never being balanced" since something new always has a way of popping up in the form of weapon, changes in maps, changes in game mode, etc. The point is tanks are bad now and the ppl CCP are listening to want tanks to have it even worse. CCP does not listen to the public for balancing, they listen to CMPs and it is apparent tanks are going to be hit again
Tanks aren't the all powerfully pub-stomping anymore. People aren't calling for HAV-nerfs in every other thread anymore either. We also know that CCP does monitor and react to these forums. They did over Nerf-batted vehicles at the start of this build followed by the HP buff stop-gap fix. /rambling mode off
I'd like to think that the Devs are serious about no longer doing big changes. So even if they do a needless small nerf I'd suggest that we get as many of the pilots and AV guys together as possible and do a sustained stink on the forums to a point where moderators are locking repetitive threads plus forum bans until something is fixed.
With organized play the tanking side of things is far more fair now than in Chromosome. They had reason to reduce the DPS as well but they clearly went too far. In my opinion for whatever little it is worth blasters and missiles need an incremental DPS buff and the whole nanos-grenades-spamming needs to be reviewed to see if the last fix wasn't far enough. |
|
|
| |
|