Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: (¬_¬)
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2004-11-01, 07:11 AM | [Ignore Me] #17 | |||||
First Sergeant
|
|
|||||
|
2004-11-01, 07:43 AM | [Ignore Me] #19 | |||
|
||||
|
2004-11-01, 12:08 PM | [Ignore Me] #21 | ||
Contributor Major
|
I think the changes will go too far personally. We have repeated historical precident for this. The intent will be to provide some ability for infantry to affect a BFR (which I commend) but sadly I fear BFRs will be nerfed so badly that they will become Phoenix fodder and cloakers will be able to solo them
|
||
|
2004-11-01, 06:29 PM | [Ignore Me] #23 | ||
Private
|
I just gotta say that many times, BFRs suck..however..there are times that they kick ass.
Ceryshen Saturday night on Emerland. TR BFRs coming down on NC-owned Tarqaq from the northern base Nerrivik. Fire was being constantly exchanged, and infantry in the hills keeping the AV fire up. Even had engineers running among the feet of the BFRs running repairs. It was awesome to see. ..and then...somewhere..the NC managed to double the TR BFR numbers, and Nerrivik became the hell that makes people complain..the BFR zerg sieges. ..of course, that's when I got my CR5 out, bailed out onto an NC BFR, shot around in circles, and OSed the bunch that came for my head....bait n hook...bait n hook.. > So my stance on BFRs is the same as my political one, unaffiliated. I've seen the good, the bad, the badass, and the ugly. |
||
|
2004-11-01, 06:39 PM | [Ignore Me] #24 | ||
Contributor Major
|
I can support all the proposed changes. Mainly the shield is way too beefy and EMPs need to be more effective but I have grave concerns about boosting Infantry AV damage. I just dont see Infantry AV as the counter to BFRs. Rather, judicious use of Jammers, Radiators, EMPs, minefields, other vehicles, aircraft, and infantry taking down the shield Gen with small arms fire the answer.
It is going to really really suck ass if BFRs become Phoenix fodder. This is my primary concern. BFRs will be sitting ducks for dudes firing clouds of Phoenix missles from protection with no possibility of danger. I am far less concerned about the Striker and Lancer, both of which can be retaliated against Last edited by Queensidecastle; 2004-11-01 at 06:41 PM. |
||
|
2004-11-01, 10:45 PM | [Ignore Me] #25 | ||
First Sergeant
|
Can someone please explain to me the logic of exempting BFRs from Jammer effects? All other vehicles have their guns jammed. Why are BFRs exempt. I think you would see far less complaints, if infantry could jammer them just like tanks. That would give them incentive to keep some distance, or work in concert with their own infantry. As it is now, there is just too much emphasis on lone wolfing/kill whoring in the current BFR implementation. Somehow, they need to push this back into a team concept and force BFRs to be part of a team. After all, these are supposed to be Heavy Tanks (dev concept), not somekind of super max.
__________________
KIAsan [BWC] If it's not nailed down, it's mine. If I can pry it up, it's not nailed down. |
||
|
2004-11-02, 07:10 AM | [Ignore Me] #27 | |||
|
||||
|
2004-11-02, 02:18 PM | [Ignore Me] #28 | |||
Ejaculator
|
I have two thoughts
1) if the BFRs were 2 get crapped up (which im against) i think they shud be the timer thing down. its not worth waitin like an hour to get a piece of crap. 2) I tihnk the BFrs are fine the way they are. Whats wrong with them? Little girls scared cos of their armor and their guns? Are they too powerful. Well, we've all learned to live with the NC and kick their asses some times. lets give BFRs a chance
|
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|