Bay 12 Games Forum

I think you underestimate how easy it is to find a second person in a game with hundreds of people playing at any given moment.

Quote from: Knight of Fools on October 31, 2013, 06:20:12 pm

I get inordinately pleased with AA. A proper AA rocket launcher will probably be my next investment for when I don't want to/can't afford my AA MAX.

The only major problem with the game right now, as I see it, is the disproportionate strength of armor against infantry. AA options evened the playing field a lot with Infantry versus Air (Though I wouldn't mind seeing the option for a Heavy to carry a single burster), but Infantry versus Armor needs something similar to the burster for Anti-Armor (That the Heavy can also carry). Rockets are just too slow to be effective against armor, and that's all infantry have for ranged engagements with armor.

You're forgetting about MAX AV weapons, lock-on launchers, the engi AV turret, mines, and C4.

Infantry have plenty of options against armor. They have more options against armor than armor does against infantry.

Yes, but armor is hardly helpless against infantry if it happens to have a particular build. Whether a tank has AI, AV, or AA, it's going to tear through Infantry with abandon. How much abandon depends on the exact situation, but you'll very rarely see a tank helpless against infantry just because it has a particular turret.

MAX AV weapons are typically rockets or slow moving projectiles, and all of them but the VS varients have a ton of drop. The only exception that are effective are the Ravens and the TR MAX lock-ons, but those cost 2000 certs to unlock both arms. Hardly something every infantryman will have. The VS MAX have the most effective long-range AV weapons among all the MAXes (And AI weapons, for that matter...), with the Vortex and Comet being actual projectiles instead of rockets.

C4 is useful mainly against small groups of tanks that don't have any radar or are too focused to check for people sneaking up on them. The larger the group gets, the higher your chances of getting caught are. You have to be right on top of the tank in order to use it, so it's hardly a viable long-range option (Which is mostly what I'm talking about). Since this is the only AV weapon for Light Assault and Medics, it makes their AV options extremely limited. Tank mines have the same limitations of C4, but are more "fire, forget, and hope something drives over it". It can be used like C4 against stationary targets, but it utility is very limited. C4 is more useful against MAXes and infantry than it is against vehicles.

Engineers have guided rockets that are very viable at the cost of 1000 certs, and heavies have lock-on launchers, but again, both of those are slow moving, with the additional warning for vehicles that have a lock-on. Any vehicle that sees it coming and has enough cover can easily avoid it.


And I meant something for infantry with an effective range and speed similar to the Burster. I just want a fast projectile weapon similar to the Burster, except with armor piercing. It should have the ability to a harasser similar to the Burster's ability to kill a fighter jet (Two non-extended clips of continuous hits) and similar accuracy, but without the near-hit flak damage that Bursters get. Nothing special, but powerful enough to make infantry more effective against armor that's more than a few feet away. These will be given to MAXes for both arms, and if they ever decide to let Heavies hold a single Burster Heavy Infantry would be able to use one.

Additionally, a new ammunition type "Armor Piercing" should be introduced, which is little more than a tool for harassing armor and making combat against lightly armored vehicles with small arms more viable. This will give all infantry something to hit armor with if they find themselves unable or unwilling to switch to a dedicated AV class (Like the Heavy). Its downside is that it is significantly weaker against infantry and doesn't do a whole lot of damage to armored vehicles.

I've heard several anecdotal accounts of harassers tearing apart tanks with impunity. Which is silly - They shouldn't be able to take more than one or two tank shells before becoming uselessly exploded.

Because causing the already underfunded and stressed school system unnecessary pain is totally a great idea. Even better if you get expelled for doing it, or if they press charges and start throwing hacking laws at you that have a maximum sentence of 25 years! Oh boy, sure sounds fun.

It's not uncommon to run across school software that doesn't work properly. Count your blessings, hope no one notices, and if they do notice hope they don't think it was your doing.

Either that or you're being considered for a top-secret government spy thingy that recruits by spying on high schoolers.

They were so good, the forum whined until SOE nerfed 'em.  I hardly use my Duo-Burster MAX now, and I had just bought the extended mags for both when the nerf-hammer fell.

Oh yeah, I'm quite aware. NC MAXes still consistently under perform compared to the other MAXes just because of our poor AI and AV weapons. Whenever I see another MAX, I simply use my charge ability to get the heck out of there. It's no contest. I've pumped entire clips of my extended mag, slug Grinders into ZOE MAXes and still not killed them. It's ridiculous.

I sure hope that's not the case. My CPU is significantly better than my GPU, since the GPU's the only major part I haven't gotten around to replacing on my computer yet. Still, I'm looking forward to the potential bump in player membership that'll come with the patch. I suspect a lot of the NC on my server are from China and the like, since after a few patches killed the frame rate for a lot of people we started bleeding members pretty quickly. We went from having the only server with NC capable of standing their own to VS dominating everything with impunity in a short span of time.


In other news, I recently unlocked the second burster on my MAX and it's freaking awesome. I get so many certs from sitting near a fight doing AA. I've also discovered the joys of slug rounds with dual MAX shotguns. It's kind of funny seeing infantry poke out at mid-range expecting to get a few easy hits off on me and nailing them to the ground with a few quick shots. I've gone from getting an average K/D ratio of 2.0 - 3.0 with just infantry to 6.0 - 10.0 just with my MAX.

I'm working towards unlocking extended magazines for my bursters, and then I'll go for longer range MAX shotguns since grinders are pretty inaccurate. It'll only take me 3400 certs to get there, 4400 if I want extended magazines on the new shotguns, too...

MAXes sure are expensive.

I'm really not sure why you keep arguing with me. I've read plenty of studies, and all of them say that any exercise has a post-burn effect. The only factor that consistently plays a role in the post-burn effect is the intensity and duration of the workout. Whether you run, lift, dance, or whatever, it doesn't matter. You do it harder and longer, and you'll have a better post-burn, regardless of whether the exercise was aerobic or anaerobic.

Now, there is evidence that lifting creates a bigger post-burn effect. Depending on the study, it ranges from "significantly larger" to "not noticeable". Muddling it further, it also changes from person to person. Now, more post-burn with lifting makes sense, because your body is building more muscle than recovering from an aerobic exercise would require.

My main issue with your argument is that you say jogging has no post-burn, and the fact that you dismiss any exercise other than lifting as a waste of time. The fact is that any exercise creates post-burn, and just because jogging doesn't create as much post-burn as weight lifting doesn't make it a waste of time. I've stated several times that it's better to have a well-rounded exercise routine than rely on a single exercise. By doing both aerobic and anaerobic exercises, you'll be getting the best of both worlds and look good while doing it.

The claim that aerobic exercise only works the heart and nothing else is wrong as well. You have to work some other part of your body in order to work your heart. The heart doesn't jog on its own. If you're running or biking, you'll be getting a decent lower body workout. You can even do aerobic exercise with weights and work your upper body. Naturally, you won't gain as much muscle mass during aerobic exercise, but saying that you won't work anything but your heart is ridiculous.

And quit bringing up the "jogging is bad for overweight people" as an argument against me, because I've acknowledged that so many times I'm beginning to wonder if you even read what I write. Early in the thread I even say that Draignean shouldn't jog until he loses more weight or sees a doctor for advice. Any exercise can be dangerous if done improperly, and running while overweight opens a lot of potential for improper exercise.


Finally, since this seems to be a major sticking point with you: Do you know why I dismiss your past? Because it's entirely anecdotal. Nothing that I post has a foundation in bro-science or anecdotal evidence. Everything I argue has articles, studies, and research behind it. You had better luck lifting weights than running? Congratulations, I'm happy for you. Seriously, I am. I love it when people make healthy life decisions, and you should always do what works best for you.

But taking something that worked for you without any scientific evidence or study to back it up and then touting it as the One True Way is misleading. We don't know how intense you playing soccer was compared to you going to the gym and lifting. We don't know what other diet changes you made and forgot about. We don't know if everyone who does what you did will have the same results. We don't even know if you're human or not. Just because you say something doesn't make it true, and your own recollection of what happens could be flawed as well. Even if you wrote down every single thing you ate and the intensity and duration of all your workouts before and after you transitioned to lifting and had folks verify that everything was true, we'd only know that it worked for you.

As it is, everything I find contradicts what you're claiming. I don't think you're lying, but I do think you're wrong.