I would if I could actually play the game past 20 FPS
Fix the performance issues first.
[QUOTE=Killer900;41144628]I would if I could actually play the game past 20 FPS[/QUOTE]
shit it's so slow and unwieldy. it should be way more accessive for a f2p game.
I tried it out for the first time yesterday with a friend. The scale of the battles is pretty amazing, but really it felt really unbalanced for newer players and anything that's P2W is just stupid.
For example we literally shot five RPGs at an enemy hover tank and when it finally killed us both it hadn't lost any health or shielding at all. And there were a dozen of those tanks around so how are you supposed to defend your base against these as a new player without unlocks?
[QUOTE=Selek;41145471]I tried it out for the first time yesterday with a friend. The scale of the battles is pretty amazing, but really it felt really unbalanced for newer players and anything that's P2W is just stupid.
For example we literally shot five RPGs at an enemy hover tank and when it finally killed us both it hadn't lost any health or shielding at all. And there were a dozen of those tanks around so how are you supposed to defend your base against these as a new player without unlocks?[/QUOTE]
use tanks
[QUOTE=Selek;41145471]I tried it out for the first time yesterday with a friend. The scale of the battles is pretty amazing, but really it felt really unbalanced for newer players and anything that's P2W is just stupid.
For example we literally shot five RPGs at an enemy hover tank and when it finally killed us both it hadn't lost any health or shielding at all. And there were a dozen of those tanks around so how are you supposed to defend your base against these as a new player without unlocks?[/QUOTE]
You're expecting to take a Magrider head on with the ML-7 launcher, with a dozen more at the horizon? Also, tanks don't have shields (except Vanguard special but whatever). Front armor can take 7 rockets as well, so you should've either flanked, or stay with your platoon.
Also, most unlocks are complete sidegrades. I use the stock RL just as much - if not more - as the Striker.
[editline]22nd June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;41145534]use tanks[/QUOTE]
Also this. Fight fire with fire.
[QUOTE=DarkWolf2;41145784]You're expecting to take a Magrider head on with the ML-7 launcher, with a dozen more at the horizon? Also, tanks don't have shields (except Vanguard special but whatever). Front armor can take 7 rockets as well, so you should've either flanked, or stay with your platoon.
Also, most unlocks are complete sidegrades. I use the stock RL just as much - if not more - as the Striker.
[editline]22nd June 2013[/editline]
Also this. Fight fire with fire.[/QUOTE]
Tanks taking 5+ rockets to kill is utterly stupid whichever way you cut it. If you're dumb enough to get hit 5 times you deserve to be a miserable, smoking wreck.
I had experiences in BF3 where tanks would take roughly 5-7 rockets to the front/side armour and that killed any desire I had to play an Engineer tank hunter. Taking out tanks should be a very risky thing but with a huge pay off and satisfaction.
[QUOTE=Killer900;41144628]I would if I could actually play the game past 20 FPS[/QUOTE]
Pretty much.
Goddamnit SoE.
Should I know who Rezzed is?
Because I don't.
[QUOTE=Selek;41145471]I tried it out for the first time yesterday with a friend. The scale of the battles is pretty amazing, but really it felt really unbalanced for newer players and anything that's P2W is just stupid.
For example we literally shot five RPGs at an enemy hover tank and when it finally killed us both it hadn't lost any health or shielding at all. And there were a dozen of those tanks around so how are you supposed to defend your base against these as a new player without unlocks?[/QUOTE]
A lot of new players jump to the conclusion that it's P2W, but it's usually because of it just generally being a difficult game to get used to. Some of the default weapons are actually pretty good.
The tank should have taken plenty of damage, it may have been a display bug or you might have been looking at the players health instead. You wouldn't be doing much better with an unlockable rocket launcher. A Magrider takes 6 hits with the default launcher to destroy it from anything but the rear. 5 hits will set it on fire which will eventually destroy it without repairs. It only takes 4 hits to destroy it if you hit its rear armour though. (Although the tank could have slightly improved rear or side armour).
The only other 'dumb fire' launcher will take 1 less rocket to do all that, but it also holds 1 less rocket, reloads much slower and has half the velocity of the default one. The lock on launchers are good to have, but in close quarters I always switch to the default one since it's just a liability having to wait for a lock on when a tank is right in front of you.
The problem is, PS2 can vary so much in the scale of its battles that it's hard to balance. If they made it much easier to take out a tank then they would be shredded instantly in larger fights. Basically the game relies on you being in a squad, or some kind of group most of the time.
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;41145941]Tanks taking 5+ rockets to kill is utterly stupid whichever way you cut it. If you're dumb enough to get hit 5 times you deserve to be a miserable, smoking wreck.
I had experiences in BF3 where tanks would take roughly 5-7 rockets to the front/side armour and that killed any desire I had to play an Engineer tank hunter. Taking out tanks should be a very risky thing but with a huge pay off and satisfaction.[/QUOTE]
PS2 isn't BF3. It's much larger and has different battle dynamics, so the devs balanced around that. All classes except the Infiltrator has some kind of way of dealing with armor. Plus, unlike in BF3, tanks aren't free. And the EXP payoff is pretty big, even for an assist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
