|
Originally Posted by BadAsh
Everything in this game has it's counter measure...
|
Yup, agree 100%. I fully realize just how fragile a reaver is. The thing that has caught my attention is not firepower balance (which is what the devs focus on). It's cost balance. Most time in game I see lots of vehicles, but tanks. Sure, there are some dedicated tank drivers (I used to be one), but looking at the time and cost of fielding a tank vs most other vehicles, and I can now see why tanks are less seen on the battlefield. I agree that nerfing airtowers is not a solution (other than pissing off pilots). Adding vehicle repair pads to some towers is a start. But somehow, there needs to be a better cost vs performance tradeoff on things like tanks.
I think a lot of the complaints about air are because they are by far the cheapest cost per performance of any vehicle out there (as well as being very versatile). True they are more fragile than a tank, however, due to the cheap cost and speed, they are able to sustain more deaths in combat and still be very effective. Combine this with the way some folks use acft (tower hot drops from a mossy come to mind), and you end up with folks getting sick of air.
I really believe, that the devs really do need to add cost as a factor in their balance equations. You see this in other cert catagories as well (the infamous surgile vs rexo is a good example where you need an implant and a 3 point cert to counter an implant). Somehow, they need to factor in the cost associated with a weapon/weapon system in with the firepower/defensive capabilities of that weapon. Untill then, we are going to continue to see threads like this one, surge or a variety of other complaints, not because the item is unbalanced in firepower, but because it is unbalanced in Cost.