IFV suggestion :) • CCNet

IFV suggestion :) Back

MrTurtleGamer 4 months ago

This suggestion pairs with my other suggestion about guns, and I'll be using similar arguments for both. Don't discredit this suggestion just because it's a PvPer complaining about non-PvP stuff. I really only play ccnet and find most PvP servers boring. I like the custom features like movecraft, but I think they can be improved.
*I will be using the word PvPer to refer to players who fight on the battlefield as infantry*

I think all movecraft is balanced (fighters might do too much natural block damage, but that's not a big problem), except the IFV and tank machine gun. IMO PvP and movecraft should be kept separate. That isn't really the case with IFVs, though. I understand that the whole point of the IFV is anti-infantry, but I think it's done poorly. It's not fair that 1 IFV can take down an entire army without any repercussions. They are completely safe while in the IFV because of periscopes. If they are sunk, which requires the other side to use movecraft, they will almost never die because they can just log out. That is not a fair game mechanic at all. 1 player shouldn't be able to destroy a 10+ player army, especially since it's not skill-based but more knowledge-based. The one solution to IFVs are cannons, so basically the ONLY solution to fighting movecraft is more movecraft, but a solution to fighting PvPers is also movecraft. See how this is an unfair game mechanic? It's kinda like one guy is in creative mode, while the other side is in survival. If one can harm the other, then they both should be allowed to harm each other. Unless movecraft is meant to be superior to PvP, which I don't think is intended or should be intended. Movecraft already has their own sieges, so they shouldn't be able to dominate both types of sieges. Tbh, the main reason why PvP happens so much at town sieges is because more players find it fun. I mean half the players that go to movecraft siege regions just run around pvping, which is entirely useless, but it's fun so they do it anyway. Basically, IFVs shouldn't be invulnerable to pvpers if they can harm them.

Solution 1: I think this is the most obvious solution, but add some form of anti-tank gun. I think it should only be able to be used against IFVs, tanks (not heavy tanks), and maybe fighters. Those are the only movecraft that can do mass damage to players. Maybe the gun could be like the gun thingy on Saigon, or the original anti-tank gun. If it's like the original anti-tank gun, then periscopes should be disabled on IFVs and tanks. Whatever the gun is, it shouldn't be able to affect heavy tanks and other crafts that don't harm PvPers, otherwise it'd ruin movecraft PvP.

Solution 2: Nerf the damage done from IFVs. I do think the damage is a bit high, but I don't think this is the best solution. It also feels more like a temporary fix than a permanent one. It doesn't really fix the problems that I stated above, so I think solution 1 is better.

Solution 3: Make IFVs require more than 1 player somehow. I don't know how this would work, but it would fix 1 player being able to destroy an army. Maybe like ACC and fighters. I also don't like this idea much, but it might help.

Solution 4: Remove IFVs. This is the most radical change, but it's probably the most fair. PvP and movecraft should be kept separate. PvPers shouldn't be able to ruin movecraft fights, and vice versa. However, IFVs currently ruin PvP fights, so removing IFVs (and the tank machine gun) fixes this. PvPers don't like it when movecrafters ruins their fights, and movecrafters didn't like it when PvPers could ruin their fights (before periscopes and when boarding happened a lot)

Comments

MrTurtleGamer 4 months ago

I forgot to mention this, but don't downvote this just because it benefits you AT THE MOMENT. I have no allegiance to any alliance, and I've been apart of both of them. Whenever one side uses these mechanics against the other and destroys them because of it, they complain. I have seen both sides complain about IFVs and guns multiple times, but they stop complaining whenever it benefits them. LOOK AT THIS FROM A FAIR GAMEPLAY POV! NOT WHAT HELPS U THE MOST!

Linnanjohtaja 4 months ago

based suggestion

Melkron 4 months ago

yes you turtle you have allegiance it server core mechanis and if you cant use movecraft to cautrer movecraft why you botter typed this suggestion
there is planty of way you can caouter it and you personaly did it befor all this in my opion is to make your bussnes better to advertise beacuse you lost of lack movecraft skill

Melkron 4 months ago

Fact is you dont need to pilot to sink ifvs
or need to be to skilled to to so
it is neglegese of what tools you are given to solve your problem what i understand is that pvp nation shoud be buffed whit that suggestion turtel ?

ThracianSpy 4 months ago

Where in the suggestion was it stated that a pvp nations should be buffed with Anti-infantry vehicles (or any high damage craft) being nerfed. It's called Anti-Infantry for a reason, it being able to deal high damages to players. And yes, it being an anti-infantry vehicle means it's vulnerable to other forms of counters. But you're missing the point here melkron. It's simple really, if IFVs counter players, why can't players do so without the help of cannons (which is still considered movecraft) and the vehicles itself.

MrTurtleGamer 4 months ago

You are missing the point, melkron. Movecraft is the only solution to ifvs, while movecraft can solve pvp problems. How is this a fair mechanic? If they’re supposed to be equal, shouldn’t they equally be able to harm eachother? Imagine the anti tank gun existed and there were no IFVs. No movecraft existed that could harm pvpers, but pvpers can harm movecraft. That wouldn’t be fair, right? Well that’s how it is right now but for pvpers.

Also why resort to insulting? That either means u have no proper argument or u are just being childish. The fact is I just don’t like movecraft pvp, just like some movecrafters don’t like vanilla pvp. People have the right to like and dislike certain aspects in a game. I almost never participated in siege regions, but I did know how to use movecraft if I needed to. Remember we did tank 1v1 on the creative server with your tank, and I won. I never insult anyone’s pvp skill because either they’re trying their best, or they just don’t like pvp.

This is all irrelevant, though. The argument that movecraft has an advantage over pvp still stands, and until they can both equally harm or not harm eachother, then it will be the case.

Melkron 4 months ago

So let me give you in a more organized manner points.
Ifv has the following counters: cannon,movecraft, and blockades[which range from anti-tank spikes to walls against their damege].
Considering how fights go in sieges massing people will be stronger than using ifvs which will be picked off fast early in the battle sieges should be combined arms not pvp instead priority.
As how sieges operate if you will pvp superiorly you will have the capper advantage If you win the movecraft you will get the ifv luxury to drain pvper from pots helping your infantry stabilized from the loss of pvp which give a dynamic that combined arms should be used rather then making one side better at all stuff.
This comes to the point why infantry should be able to fight craft directly whit needing movecraft as they already do have the option to do so whit building cannon 240 howitzers and filed guns.
I will personally explain to all why the attacker failed to fight off the demons that are IFVs at the last stage. So let's begin by addressing that the first thing that an attacker should do is disable a fort gun and aa defense so you can secure air dominance which if it happens ifvs can't get out at any point until the air is completely gone as they take so little to be taken down. After failing to stop the fort there wore no attempts to be made for an artillery battery of any sort or any meaningful pushes that would render ifvs ineffective in the battles there wore fell attempts of blockades rattle too little too late to be sayed and considering the ifvs themselves could not get kill ratter reduce the effectiveness of infantry which was their purpose make pvper s from the defender's side able to exploit that weakness in their defenses which made them much more cable to take fight agist higher numbers.

Melkron 4 months ago

This is respots to Turtel well as I can tell you that this server is not pvp server and need combined arms between vannila pvp and guns pvp and movecraft svs lacking one of the thises will make you lose yes but if you be better in one these criteria you can cover for the other groups depending on what situation they are

lordsrubka5 4 months ago

> Movecraft is the only solution to ifvs, while movecraft can solve pvp problems. How is this a fair mechanic?

The issue is they are cheap af. You can make a max IFV with like 4-8 stacks of concrete which is a joke. They should either be really expensive so they are not used as much or be a different equal playstyle as the rest of the "kits" and equipment so its a choice not a superior method you must use

There should be some way of infantry being able to sink movecrafts without the usage of cannons or other movecraft but the time to sink crafts should be short. It should be last resort if the enemy is just way better to prevent you from just sitting and looking at it without a way to deal with it

IFVs in my opinion should just have the mass AoE spray kind of gameplay where you dont deal a lot of damage but you deal it to a lot of people in the area

as far as the "(fighters might do too much natural block damage, but that's not a big problem)" goes, yes its a big problem. Fighters are way better than bombers which shouldnt be the case. You can use fighters to fulfill every role needed making bombers only used for very small amount of scenarios. Fighters should be just for fighting other planes and some nerfed damage to concrete. It should not be able to equally duel anti air trucks or tanks. They will not lose their purpose this way since if you force people to use more bombers then people will need to use fighters to fight those bombers anyways

Melkron 4 months ago

I wanna add this to my point which is that papers are infinitely more mobile easy to get in high numbers of people and can swarm having a way that infantry for low risk can harm move craft that being said there is plenty of way of the common pvper s do so already in the current state point that being said let me get back to the point is that a lot less skilled player will be able to overwale movecrart way more effective then they should rendering movecraft as a not great option

Contt 4 months ago

Introduce sticky bombs which only work on IFVs and can be placed by players <:Troll:1092911276310671490>

Melkron 4 months ago

Then lord I'm gonna ask you how a cheaper gun will solve that and make Movecrafre use ifv rather than stay on a wall all day and gun spam from their safe spot next to the gank

Kingstanchez 4 months ago

Side note, usage of movecraft in a siege entirely depends on the terrain, we've seen what nations will do to prevent movecraft interference (large tank spikes, etc)

If a counter is given to pvpers, it must have some "restriction" on it (higher cost, difficult to use, etc) because we don't want another case of "spam them off the battlefield) And when you can get 25+ people per siege on at once, if 10 of them can simply look at an IFV for it to disappear we have tipped the scale too far.

> I'm not for either side, but I see the predicament pvpers are currently in and understand the need for *something* to happen

Melkron 4 months ago

well what I think my friend maybe adding a Waker cannon and then Howizer that costs less but deals more dmg to concrete which is still not as needed 2 good shots at ivf kill it or 1 disables it

lordsrubka5 4 months ago

Melkron please rephrase the question since I have no idea what you asked or said

Contt 4 months ago

He said howitzers kill IFV easily

Fqrtex 4 months ago

Ifvs can easily get countered though, they are extremely vulnerable to cannons, tanks, fighters so there are plenty of ways to sink an IFV and stop it from countering lots of players

lordsrubka5 4 months ago

tanks one tap howitzers, i dont see the point

Frambaby 4 months ago

i already mentioned this before but i think panzerfaust needs to be introduced but not cheap to make, actually expensive

ijustcall 4 months ago

im gonna say the MAIN problem about tanks (not heavy) and ifvs, ITS THE TERRAIN, the fact that these anti infantry machine guns give u high dps, it cancels your jump, why is this problem? Its cause there is HUGE hole between banner and siege base, and u fall in there, then 10 pvpers jump u, and u cant do anything cause most of the times the holes arent pearlable, not to mention that u have to fall in hole every minute, BUFF TERRAIN and ifv, fighter, tanks wont need nerf against infantry,
Trust me

MrTurtleGamer 4 months ago

You guys are still completely missing the point.
Yes, IFVs can be easily countered, but ONLY FROM MOVECRAFT! That’s the problem with them. They can seriously damage pvpers, more than pvpers can damage pvpers, and their only weakness is movecraft. It makes movecraft and pvp very unbalanced. Mass players at banner that you can’t fight —> bring out an IFV. IFV destroying the battlefield —> bring out MORE movecraft. A pvper is kinda useless throughout most of the session when movecraft comes out, while movecraft is always needed because they can damage both pvpers and other movecraft. If the IFV can harm pvpers, then it should be vulnerable to pvpers as well (NOT JUST MORE MOVECRAFT)

Alnh 4 months ago

Hey, me as a pvper who have played pvp mechanics since rlly long time ago, I think that the fun part of ccnet is that you can take a break of only needing to sword fight by using movecraft or guns but at the same time I agree that theres some broken mechanics in guns and movecraft, such as the damage of some guns (I have been 2 shooted tons of times in a siege). However this is not the case of IFVs, although I do think IFVs damage can be annoying the point of this vehicle is to counter pvpers and to be weak vs other movecrafts such as Tanks, I understand why Turtle is saying that it's annoying to get spammed by this but it's annoying to get spammed by any vehicle and any type of gun even crossbows. The whole point of having movecraft in the server is for fighting people with it me as someone who now also know how to use movecraft can say that theres no need of a nerf, stop complaining that much of IFVs and learn how to use em to fight in a siege it's true that if you don't know how to movecraft you can't counter IFVs but thats why everyone is allowed to use movecraft and learn how to use it properly, even if they are pvpers. I used to cry about movecraft but now I understand

lordsrubka5 4 months ago

Bro am I the only one who understand turtles point :(

The point is not to counter it, the point is to prevent the meta where legit everyone would just pull up in a tank at once because everything else is worse

Gav7 4 months ago

Personally I feel that solution 2 makes the most sense

Gav7 4 months ago

If IFVs aren’t invulnerable to players then why use them, stop making the entire battle infantry based and give small towns a shot :)

MrTurtleGamer 4 months ago

I feel like people are just assuming what I am saying and not actually reading my arguments :(

I know that IFVs can be countered by movecraft, but that's the problem. Only movecraft can counter IFVs, while movecraft can also counter PvP. Movecraft is better than PvP because of this, which creates an unbalanced gamemode. Movecraft already has their completely own sieges, so why should they be able to dominate both? I agree that they should be used in town sieges, but they should be EQUAL to PvP, not better. If I found movecraft more fun than PvP, then I would use it over PvP every time and almost never PvP. It can counter both movecraft and PvP, so it's just better.

"If IFVs aren’t invulnerable to players then why use them." Because they would still be a viable option to stopping PvPers, just not invulnerable. PvPers aren't invulnerable to each other, yet they still fight. It's the same thing. If 2 things are meant to be equal, then they should equally be able to destroy each other. Not only one being able to destroy the other

Please guys read my arguments instead of assuming that I don't know how to fight IFVs. I do know how, but I think there needs to be a way to stop IFVs that doesn't include more movecraft. Otherwise town sieges just became movecraft siege regions 2.0

lordsrubka5 4 months ago

> If IFVs aren’t invulnerable to players then why use them

Bro yall goofy af. The point is to add a way to combat it, not to combat it on equal grounds. If anti movecraft gun is added one guy wont be able to kill a vehicle. At best I would say it would be fair that IFV should score at least 3 kills (or 3 inventories of pots used up by enemy) before it sinks. And not to mention it doesnt even need to sink at all, you can just drive it back to your base and repair it since players do so little damage to it

lordsrubka5 4 months ago

Aka the whole point is for IFV (and planes and normal tanks) to at least be somewhat damageable by the players. Everyone here is having some weird imagination that the gun should have op damage or whatever. All the man is asking for is SOME damage. We should be talking about how much damage to concrete and other plane blocks wont be too op instead of just denying it

lordsrubka5 4 months ago

Lets take the smallest craft, Fighter, into consideration. Its size is between 100-300 so we will take 200 as average. If the craft sinks at about 75% hull integrity on average that would mean you have to destroy 50 blocks to sink it. If we for an example take 10 people who carry that gun instead of any other one, each one must destroy 5 blocks to sink it. Based on that it can be discussed how long a plane should survive against 10 people with anti movecraft rifle to know how much actual damage and fire rate the gun will have

xDarth_Fenerx 4 months ago

I think the best solution is to give to the infantry an anti tank gun, but i don't think it should damage plans

xDarth_Fenerx 4 months ago

Airplans*

greymesa 4 months ago

In my opinion this issue can easily be combatted with the implementation of the anti-tank gun. I do agree that it is unfair that only movecraft can combat movecraft and by giving infantry access to the same tool as someone with a heavy tank or a cannon may have this problem is negated. Alternatively no changes need to be implemented imo, if you're being shot at by an IFV and you have no movecraft, jump in ganks, head on top of your fort or if it's a siege base out of claims and build a few cannons. There are many possible solutions to this issue, or even no need for one. Its very dependant on what the consensus of players think but in my opinion the one thing we should stray from is nerfing them outright. Its a lazy solution and not future-proof in the slightest.

greymesa 4 months ago

*and by giving infantry access to the same tool as someone with a heavy tank or a cannon negates this problem

Gav7 4 months ago

Then the tank gun should be nerfed, cause there’s only a limited amount in Saigon map. Also won’t it replace the movecraft vs tank combat