All Races Equal?

[infra]

Was just wondering about your thoughts on how well balanced the three sides are. I myself play as TR and personally I think we are at a disadvantage to the other two sides. Our so called advantage is that our weapons while being a lot weaker, fire a lot faster than the other teams. I won't argue that we have some serious rapid fire but the thing to think about is that when we go into rapid firing we can't hit a damn thing so it's totally useless unless you are at POINT BLANK range. I think the lasher is far too powerful, the splash damage is unreal! Also, out Anti Vehicular weapon, the striker absolutely sucks. It has no power at all. It would probably take more than 10 shots to take out a tank or aircraft and the rate of fire is too slow to be able to pull that off before you get run over of blown to bits. Another thing I have noticed is that in the three weeks I have been playing, the TR haven't won (I don't think) and also the VS and NC gang up on us and seem to have this unofficial alliance when hunting down TR, we become the primary target!!

Just my 2 cents, please let me know what you think and remember to quote the side you play for.

I'll try run a pole here...I hope it works properly.

[WolfA4]

personally i used to play as TR, but that was before the striker nerf. as TR i thought the infantry was the strong point. the prowler wasnt anything to sneeze at either but the infantry was our strong point even tho we didnt have the all powerfull jackhammer we had alot of weapons that worked well in CQB wich is what base hacking comes down to. then our striker ruled all like 80% of any given TR force carried a striker so any enemy air craft that flew over had to quickly leave or it would have a striker on its ass.

[FraudulentBob]

Originally Posted by WolfA4

personally i used to play as TR, but that was before the striker nerf. as TR i thought the infantry was the strong point. the prowler wasnt anything to sneeze at either but the infantry was our strong point even tho we didnt have the all powerfull jackhammer we had alot of weapons that worked well in CQB wich is what base hacking comes down to. then our striker ruled all like 80% of any given TR force carried a striker so any enemy air craft that flew over had to quickly leave or it would have a striker on its ass.

Wheres my official translator?

The period is not your enemy, feel free to use it.

[WolfA4]

Originally Posted by FraudulentBob

Wheres my official translator?

The period is not your enemy, feel free to use it.

so are you saying there are no periods in what i wrote? instead of a smart ass comment just skip over it.

[Acaila]

First off, every empire thinks that the other 2 gang up upon them.

Having a main character who is NC, I agree with the sentiments that TR do indeed have it rough in the MAX area. If I am out of decis and running from an enemy MAX and I see an SC approaching, I breath a sigh of relief as it can kick the shit out of most MAXs and infantry.

As TR, I am always switching to AP to help our MAXs down other MAXs as I am not confident in their ability to do so. A DC is almost a free kill for anyone with AP loaded in their HA weapon, and only has a marginal increase in anti-MAX abilities over the SC when not anchored. The Pounder is still very effective AI but is pathetic against another MAX. The Burster is a redeeming feature, it is lethal and has an extremely high "irritation" factor when it spams grunts coming out of doorways. TR has a MAX problem imo.

Any VS who complains about the status of their MAXs now should be shot. The Comet is great against other MAXs and reasonable against infantry, the Quasar has good range and good killing power. The Starfire is great AA, can hurt other MAXs, but is worse than shit against infantry.

The SC is a funny MAX, it is incredibly useful while also being a hopeless peice of crap at the same time. Its MAX vs MAX abilities are great, and its AI is great sometimes, the range however is pathetic. I like it because of the anti-MAX factor whilst also having good AI at close range. The falcon is alright, it does decent AI and decent anti-MAX from range. Upclose it suffers from the same problem as the Pounder, it kills itself. The Sparrow is the best value MAX in the game, great AA, decent anti-MAX, alright AI. Shields are useful, anyone who says otherwise doesn't know when to use them.

I say anti-MAX instead of AV because the anti-MAX abilities of a MAX are far more important than how it doesn't () handle vehicles.

AV is all shit now, all it can achieve is dead MAXs and infrequently kill buggies, lightnings and aircraft outside, or the possibilty of chasing off an MBT if there is enough people using it.

TR have the mobility advantage in AV weapons, you can move constantly and still use the striker effectively. I am aware it takes a bit of skill to do this. VS have the most damage output, but sacrifice an amount of mobility for it. Whilst having the lowest DPS by far, NC have the unique advantage of not requiring LoS, though total mobility is sacrificed for this feature. The only thing that makes the Phoenix powerful is how many of them are currently floating around. They are exponentially more useful in groups, more so than any other weapon in the game, if you compare how useless they are alone.

Personally I don't think that AV is worth 3 cert points, considering what you can obtain as a replacement. AV should have double the ammo per box to make it more viable, I think.

MBTs are a funny topic. The Prowler has the obvious AI advantage now, thanks to its RoF. Though it has the highest damage output, it is the slowest, has the worst acceleration and a massive profile. I consider it Magrider bait. The Vanguard still has good AI, plus the most armour and decent damage output. It has a smaller profile and is lower than the Prowler, making it harder to hit. Whilst the size is less important upclose, when moving and turning at top speed over uneven terrain, like in most MBT vs MBT encounters, it can become an issue. The Mag is the most fun tank to use, and has the best AA capabilities. The HRB can hit enemy aircraft with relative easy. It has the smallest profile, and is the fastest, plus the water advantage. A mag on water is very powerful. Those Cyssor bridge battles are hell when fighting VS because of this. I believe things are more or less balanced in this aspect.

The MCG is a good weapon if you learn that you have to lead your target at any range, it is my favourite HA. I get more kills than I do with a JH, however I believe that can be attributed to it fitting my play style. Even at 1m you have to lead slightly or you will miss alot of your shots.

The Lasher is also a good weapon, except that you have to reload all the time. Also, it causes lash damage, which is damage as it passes a target, not splash damage which is damage caused from an explosion, whoever commented on the Lasher's splash damage.

Surge makes any weapon powerful, the thing that knocks the JH up is the triple shot and the lack of tracers. However try using a JH without surge, unless you catch your target unawares, you are in trouble when it comes to closing the distance. The TTK of the HA weapons is basically the same, only the triple shot gives the JH an edge, which makes up for its poor abilities at range. And by range I mean the distance from the bottom wall of a staircase in a tower to the top wall. Lack of tracers is an advantage, it doesn't give your position away when your target moves suddenly and you miss a shot, anyone who fights a JH regularly knows this. It also makes it difficult to distinguish which NC is shooting at who in crowded situations.

I think HA is fairly balanced, the Lasher could use a slight clip increase. When the anti-warping changes go through, prepare for JH buff threads. ALOT of NC rely upon warping and speed predicion (I don't mean cheating, I mean the prediction algorithm which speeds the user up inorder to update their position. This is akin to warping, but they don't actually disappear.) to use their JH effectively, even though they don't know it. I am sure I am one of them, however I don't complain about weapon balance very often, there is enough people doing that already. I use what I have and try to find the best way how. We won't know until the changes are in effect and have been played for a while.

Buggies are fucking ridiculous compared to MBTs and aren't worth considering until the tech plant requirement is removed.

MA is perfect, few complain about it as there is no reason to.

This got alot longer than I initially intended .

Originally Posted by FraudulentBob

Wheres my official translator?

The period is not your enemy, feel free to use it.

Evidently the apostrophe must be your enemy.

[Veteran]

The only difference between the empires is equipment.

TR has a big problem with the Striker and Pounder and its MAXs' special ability.

Thus, TR is at a disadvantage. It's just math.

Striker: Obviously stupid
Pounder: Obviously stupid
MAX Special Ability: Decimator is broken and overly common.

That's all the argument I care to offer.

[Rarzo]

Lasher is overpowerful? Those orbs are so slow you can almost outrun them.

[TeraHertz]

a few of us from my outfit got bored so we started a deathmatch in an empty facility on a locked continent. The lasher is so unbelievably easy to dodge! I started using an MCG out of my locker. A few hints for the TR MCG users:

At range we WANT you to dance about. It ruins your accuracy. We don't need that accuracy; we can just arc spam you. Once you've wasted your health, we can just pull a pulsar or pistol and finish you off.

Surge AWAY, crouch, turn, and fire. You will outrun our orbs, waste our precious clip, gain your range advantage, and kill us while we reaload. (looong ass reload)

I'm affraid I have no hints to combat the Jackhammer, other than grab a jackhammer out of your locker. Agile/surge/Jackhammer...it's just too much.

[STEALTHKILLER]

Originally Posted by Rarzo

Lasher is overpowerful? Those orbs are so slow you can almost outrun them.

And i have outrun those little orbs.

[Veteran]

Lasher is designed not to damage friendlies. Is that why it looked so easy?

[Ed the MAD]

why does everyone always want to have all things on an equal footing? i understand the need for some equality, but overbalancing ruins the whole game. especially when you tweak the equipment every three days. you don't see the U.S. army making their M-16s less effective because they have more troops, do you? no. you don't see them making their M-1 Abrams slower and less accurate because it's too powerful", do you? you don't see the brits nerfing their Challenger2 because it's the best tank in the wourld, do you? feck no! if you have an advantage, you work like hell to keep it, if your enimy has the avantage, you fight like the devil to wrench it out of their cold, dead hands. that's how it's done. just because you don't have the firepower to take a hill, doesn't mean it's an unfair advantage. you just need to rethink your tactics.

[SilverLord]

Originally Posted by Ed the MAD

why does everyone always want to have all things on an equal footing? i understand the need for some equality, but overbalancing ruins the whole game. especially when you tweak the equipment every three days. you don't see the U.S. army making their M-16s less effective because they have more troops, do you? no. you don't see them making their M-1 Abrams slower and less accurate because it's too powerful", do you? you don't see the brits nerfing their Challenger2 because it's the best tank in the wourld, do you? feck no! if you have an advantage, you work like hell to keep it, if your enimy has the avantage, you fight like the devil to wrench it out of their cold, dead hands. that's how it's done. just because you don't have the firepower to take a hill, doesn't mean it's an unfair advantage. you just need to rethink your tactics.

Dude, this is a game, it's not reality, calm down.

[BadAsh]

Originally Posted by Ed the MAD

why does everyone always want to have all things on an equal footing? i understand the need for some equality, but overbalancing ruins the whole game. especially when you tweak the equipment every three days. you don't see the U.S. army making their M-16s less effective because they have more troops, do you? no. you don't see them making their M-1 Abrams slower and less accurate because it's too powerful", do you? you don't see the brits nerfing their Challenger2 because it's the best tank in the wourld, do you? feck no! if you have an advantage, you work like hell to keep it, if your enimy has the avantage, you fight like the devil to wrench it out of their cold, dead hands. that's how it's done. just because you don't have the firepower to take a hill, doesn't mean it's an unfair advantage. you just need to rethink your tactics.

With respect to your post I think you are just comparing completely different things. This is a game and not reality. In a game you want things even to foster competition. In reality you do whatever you have to for the purpose of crushing your enemy. In reality there is no balance and no desire to achieve balance. You don�t want this in a game. If you did it would be like playing a �reality� game of U.S. vs. Iraq. If so sign me up for the U.S. team please. With a 5,000 to 1 kill ratio things were probably not �even� or �fair�.

BadAsh

[Ed the MAD]

Originally Posted by BadAsh

With respect to your post I think you are just comparing completely different things. This is a game and not reality. In a game you want things even to foster competition. In reality you do whatever you have to for the purpose of crushing your enemy. In reality there is no balance and no desire to achieve balance. You don�t want this in a game. If you did it would be like playing a �reality� game of U.S. vs. Iraq. If so sign me up for the U.S. team please. With a 5,000 to 1 kill ratio things were probably not �even� or �fair�.

BadAsh

i'd say that all three empires would have roughly the same production abilities. therefor, it would not be a "U.S. vs Iraqi" type deal. more of a "WW1 prior to U.S. involvement" type of fight. where neither side can maintain supremecy over any other faction for very long.

all i'm saying is, stop farting around with the weapons and equipment. they are fine. the problem lies in the end users of the weapons and equipment. a sad minority(majority?) of them are morons. don't listen to them, as they would probably pick their ears with an S&W .38. i'm not sugesting anything related to suicide, i'm just stating a fact that they are stupid, and simply don't know how to properly utilise said weapons and equipment.

[Veteran]

you don't see the U.S. army making their M-16s less effective because they have more troops, do you

I agree with some of your points, but the quoted piece is based on an interesting fact that conflicts with your statement...

The M-16 is designed to fire a tumbling bullet that is more likely to inflict a wound than cause fatality. This is done to strain the enemy's support resources.

So less effective in one way, more effective in another.