Is the Falcon OP?

[[P]etya]

Well.. I was testing Falcon and I have to say that it is really OP. Not because of it's manouverability really. The projectile's damage is so great and the rate of fire is also very high. Furthermore the projectiles travel rather fast. I think reducing the projectile's damage output might fix the Falcon OP problem.

[Cheese_it!]

The alt-fire on the falcon is devastating at point-blank range (Wasp too!).

Random ideas:

Would it be possible to reduce the HP inflicted by the Falcon weapons ?
Or how about remove the the alt-fire completely, and replace it with a non-lethal confetti gun/silly string
Or maybe we could reduce its armour down to something really crappy (150HP?), so it becomes a lot easier to kill.

[fors]

you say that Minotaur erases all for 1 shot, Ion-tank for 1 shot kill any flying transport, Falcon too fast and destroys for 1 shot all any infantry.
FACEPALM
And you don't have the intelligence to think that there is a melee and ranged weapons??? Shot in the head, Goliath, double damage, 3 rockets, bomb dragon - how many things I have to mention, that kill in less than a second? or you such professionals that it can't stop you ? how can you not know such simple things!?
Flak cannon is designed for close combat, Sniper rifle is designed for long-distance battle also about the technique you know. What do you want?? reduce the number of shrapnel from 8 to 1 ? Or do rate of fire of sniper rifle 1 once in an hour? And what will happen from this ? of course weapons will be "balanced," only to use no one will because it would not kill anyone. So let's remove all the weapons and machines! it all the same not balanced and kills for a second!

"for those who first saw the non-standard vehicles."
-> if you still do not understand - Falcon (like shotgun) is designed exclusively for close combat. Minotaur (as shock rifle or sniper) is designed exclusively far and middle-fight. WHAT does it mean? => this means that the Falcon will NOT can ANYTHING in the long and medium distance and the Minotaur will generally SELF-destruction if the shot is too close.
Have you ever wondered why the Minotaur need cannon turrets? For to at least a little to resist melee and don`t suicide. Why did the author do Falcon maneuverable? Because otherwise he would never flew beyond 2 metres because in him flies a lot of lasers and avril from afar! Even in Phoenix there is a small attacking sphere for melee fight, this makes it just the ultimate weapon against any aircraft (but little effective against ground targets)!!!

the most sensible idea is to increase the recovery time. For example, for 30 seconds, you can change a lot in the game if there is no intervention dangerous equipment or weapons.

---if anyone is interested in my personal experience --- when I'm with a Falcon destroyed, 30 seconds my team often lost several nodes and after this we have to attack them again and again. Not difficult to calculate with a calculator that 2 minutes (+destroyd Falcon 2-3 once), the enemy had attacked the base.
>>>therefore, I support the idea of increasing the recovery time for each of the most dangerous machinery.

[EmanReleipS]

Hm...I don't really want to get too deeply involved into this discussion....just two points, really.

Fors - please stay respectful and polite when presenting your arguments. Insulting other people's intelligence will most likely not help to convince them.

You are saying that your team loses if the falcon is destroyed? In that case, I think that the balance of the vehicles on the map is bad. Winning should depend on teamplay, on several kinds of vehicles & players on foot working together. If winning solely depends on ONE vehicle that only ONE player can drive, it's not a good teamplay map and not suitable for ONS. Because ONS is about more than one player.

[fors]

Hm...I don't really want to get too deeply involved into this discussion....just two points, really.

Fors - please stay respectful and polite when presenting your arguments. Insulting other people's intelligence will most likely not help to convince them.

You are saying that your team loses if the falcon is destroyed? In that case, I think that the balance of the vehicles on the map is bad. Winning should depend on teamplay, on several kinds of vehicles & players on foot working together. If winning solely depends on ONE vehicle that only ONE player can drive, it's not a good teamplay map and not suitable for ONS. Because ONS is about more than one player.

of course ONS is a team game. but what can you do if your team is losing relatively abilities? here only the most skilled players can change the game, otherwise it is impossible. besides, I specifically wrote "my experience" -->this does not mean that in the every game 1 machine does all the work.
of course there is some truth - 1 machine can change the game, but only in case if it will destroy 10 persons per 1 minute, and it can not every:)

you do not understand me. I'm not dissing and I said it long time ago. it was just lyrical question you take it too close to your heart)

[EmanReleipS]

but what can you do if your team is losing relatively abilities? here only the most skilled players can change the game, otherwise it is impossible.

True. Powerful vehicles like the Falcon are useful in such situations. But I think they should just be only that - help. Not the main power in a game that needs to be around the entire time or everything will fall apart.

besides, I specifically wrote "my experience" -->this does not mean that in the every game 1 machine does all the work.

Of course you're right.

you do not understand me. I'm not dissing and I said it long time ago. it was just lyrical question you take it too close to your heart)

Not at all. I'm very, very hard to insult. I just wanted to remind you to phrase your sentences more carefully.

[fors]

carefully.

ah carefully... =\ Eman sorry I teach English only with translator, try as I can but if this was so important I will try to translate more accurately!

[Kenny--OMG!!]

Although I too use the Falcon a good deal when it's available (preferably attacking other vehicles and nodes rather than players on foot), I agree that it is one vehicle that has made a pact with the devil. I wouldn't mind seeing it down-powered or even removed altogether.

As I see it, the problem isn't its spawn time. Not even its ridiculously (as percieved) over-powered guns. The problem is its speed. Because of its insane speed, no vehicle gun or handheld gun has a fair chance against it. Even the Avril - the gun designed and guarantied to allways home in ANY ocupied vehicle while in visual range - loses its target on the Falcon if it's not just the right amount away so that the distance canceles out the angular speed around the player. As long as it stays away from the ground or walls where it might get caught into the blast radius of a Mino or a Dragon bomb, constant evasive manouvers ensure its survival very much past a fair point.

I don't get frustrated when a (much) more skilled player dances around me like crazy and I can't hit him or he headshoots me from far away; kudos on the finger work and aim! It's for me to get better at playing. Or avoid him. But having a type of vehicle that's almost imposible to bring down or run away from unless you're in the same type of vehicle spells imbalance for me.

So yeah. Take its speed down to reasonable levels. And the Wasp's too!

Note: The Cicada & the likes have almost the same vertical speed/accelaration to the Falcon and Wasp, but you can take them on with fair chances because their horizontal speed and angular speed when circling a player on foot are reasonable. Take example!