It's just such an amazing argument.
Imagine if there was a suit for 2m and I could go 60/0 while sneezing on some players.
Just imagine the uproar.

Damn. You must have never went against proto forge guns and AV grenades.

Missing the point.
I'm not saying tanks are capable of doing that now.
I'm saying they should never be able to, no matter how expensive your toy is.

We shouldn't lose 2m isk because some dickbag with inviso-swarms or the non-rendering forge gunner looked at us for 5 seconds. make that crap cost more, and remove the militia forge, replace it with a militia HMG.

We shouldn't lose 2m isk because some dickbag with inviso-swarms or the non-rendering forge gunner looked at us for 5 seconds. make that crap cost more, and remove the militia forge, replace it with a militia HMG.

If you are taken down by militia forge guns you deserve to lose 2m.

I'm not being killed by them. But they are enough to force a retreat. My 2m isk 8m SP "toy" as you call it is being invalidated by something that requires 0 ******* SP, AND LESS THAN 2000 ISK. The dev who thought these were a good idea needs to be kicked in the balls by a Glaswegian soccer player.

Even infantry players want that bullshit cannon gone.

Good, it makes you retreat so you can't kill everyone freely in a pub match.
It takes proto gear to actually destroy you.

Militia assault rifles can still melt proto suits, get over it.

[

I'm not being killed by them. But they are enough to force a retreat. My 2m isk 8m SP "toy" as you call it is being invalidated by something that requires 0 ******* SP, AND LESS THAN 2000 ISK. The dev who thought these were a good idea needs to be kicked in the balls by a Glaswegian soccer player.

Even infantry players want that bullshit cannon gone.

If you are taken down by militia forge guns you deserve to lose 2m.

and you think that's right?

COD is that way =============>

and you think that's right?

COD is that way =============>

So you think you shouldn't retreat at all and should be able to just sit there and butcher infantry all day?
Your proportional cost argument is completely invalid - a militia assault rifle is perfectly capable of driving off or killing a prototype suit.

If you are taken down by militia assault riffles you deserve to lose 100k.

It's just such an amazing argument.
Imagine if there was a suit for 2m and I could go 60/0 while sneezing on some players.
Just imagine the uproar.

Edit:
I'm not saying tanks are capable of doing that now.
I'm saying they should never be able to, no matter how expensive your toy is.

I'm not being killed by them. But they are enough to force a retreat. My 2m isk 8m SP "toy" as you call it is being invalidated by something that requires 0 ******* SP, AND LESS THAN 2000 ISK. The dev who thought these were a good idea needs to be kicked in the balls by a Glaswegian soccer player.

Even infantry players want that bullshit cannon gone.

Teamwork is hard yo.

Ima disagree on this one mr Cat.

AVer take for granted how much power they have over tanks.

TANKs need a rebalancing.... but IMO all they need is an increase to movement speed. I find it hard to imagine a futuristic tank that cannot stop, turn, manoeuvre effectively through rough terrain.

It's just such an amazing argument.
Imagine if there was a suit for 2m and I could go 60/0 while sneezing on some players.
Just imagine the uproar.

Edit:
I'm not saying tanks are capable of doing that now.
I'm saying they should never be able to, no matter how expensive your toy is.

And you think it's wrong that you're not invincible?

Except it doesn't exist and probably well never exist.
Except is doesn't exist and never well.
As it stands HAVs cost much more than any suit fitting. This combined with the AV that's become incredibly powerful causes HAVs to be an unviable career for each battle.
I think most of us well agree that we worry more about being able effectively go into a career without the constant loss of ISK than KDR.
Also no tanker wants to go 60 - 0. We aren't idiots that have no concept of overpowered. There are no OP vehicles (minus LLAV) in the game. The only OP things that exist and that are complained about are infantry based weaponry. We have to deal with the constant infantry only OP gear. So yeah we well complain about OP things.
Complaining is to often put with QQ or cry baby. Complain: To make a formal accusation.
ISK lost combined with the current state of AV is something to complain about

Good, it makes you retreat so you can't kill everyone freely in a pub match.
It takes proto gear to actually destroy you.

Militia assault rifles can still melt proto suits, get over it.

The problem is when tankers say "Oh but militia stuff shouldn't be able to drive me away!".
So what are newberries going to do?
Hit you with rocks?
"Or it should take 4 people to take me down!"
So basically pub matches will be a nightmare, and PC matches will be tank514?

I am not saying tanks are fine.
I'm saying that if CCP listened to people like Charlotte, the game will be back to Tank514 like in the E3 build.

I am not saying tanks are fine.
I'm saying that if CCP listened to people like Charlotte, the game will be back to Tank514 like in the E3 build.

The problem is when tankers say "Oh but militia stuff shouldn't be able to drive me away!".
So what are newberries going to do?
Hit you with rocks?
"Or it should take 4 people to take me down!"
So basically pub matches will be a nightmare, and PC matches will be tank514?

Perhaps. I would love to see faster moving tanks (and I hate to say it) like in Battlefield. Tank combat in that game looks epic.

and you keep claiming we want god mode when every time weve had this specific argument we give you proof that we don't and all we want is actual balance.

It's just such an amazing argument.
Imagine if there was a suit for 2m and I could go 60/0 while sneezing on some players.
Just imagine the uproar.

Edit:
I'm not saying tanks are capable of doing that now.
I'm saying they should never be able to, no matter how expensive your toy is.

If you are taken down by militia forge guns you deserve to lose 2m.

Where is this proof you speak of?
You just stated that you thought it was wrong that low-level anti-vehicle weapons should be able to even drive you off. If you can't be driven off or destroyed, what can they do to protect themselves against you? Nothing, and that would be a problem.

I don't disagree that tanks need some rebalancing. I do, however, disagree very strongly with the idea that AV should be so ineffective against tanks.

only militia AV weaponry should be ineffective, it requires no SP to get and very little ISK to buy.. all other AV should be deterrent and any Proto AV should be able to one shot Standard and militia tanks, but 2 shot advanced tanks and 3 shot prototype tanks, only then would it be equal..

militia AV is severely broken, if you want to kill vehicles, SKILL UP INTO AV, THATS WHAT AV IS FOR (ANTI-VEHICLE)

and your fine with it being AR514... of course you are..

it makes no logical sense for the biggest piece of equipment that's player operated to be the same as a dropsuit which is less that 1/5 its size.

chromosome was the closest weve ever gotten to balance (I think we can all agree on that) and CCP threw it all away because infantry could one shot everything with their ARs

It's just such an amazing argument.
Imagine if there was a suit for 2m and I could go 60/0 while sneezing on some players.
Just imagine the uproar.

Edit:
I'm not saying tanks are capable of doing that now.
I'm saying they should never be able to, no matter how expensive your toy is.

Funny, the MD is actually more common in PC battles than an AR.

Oh and the Assault scrambler rifle is practically the same as the AR.
AR514 my ass.

if you want to fight vehicles, skill into AV, that's what its for, if you don't want to do that, not our problem.


I have respect for those that kill me if they are skilled into AV.

again COD is that way ==============>

that's PC, im talking about pub matches which is the same as what you were talking about earlier, funny how you just switch argument subjects when it suits your view point... we stick to our arguments to the details, we don't change anything.. you do.


also

Assault Rifle- : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use ..

If a full team of AV went against a full team of HAVs who do you think would win?
It only takes 2 in a team to completely shut down the map on vehicles.

Infantry kills infantry.

AV kills vehicles.

Tanks kill infantry and vehicles.

It's easy to be smug when you are the rock and the scissors.

A team full of general death machines vs. a team full of the one thing that is designed to take out those death machines? Who do you think should win this?

its not being smug, its being logical, smug is just plain ignorance

it should be an even match, determined by skill. but in reality, the invisoswarms and hadokens will kill every tank before they can leave the redline.

Aha... You do realise if one of those tankers steps out of his vehicle in a militia assault suit, he can probably solo the whole team of AV?

You are saying that a squad of tanks should be balanced against a squad of AV... While the squad of tanks wracks havoc against infantry and other vehicles alike, and the AV does **** all despite fighting the tanks? In what universe is that reasonable game design.

I do want tanks to be able to partake in a battle constructively, ideally without being popped out of nowhere with no chance of reacting to the situation. But some of the arguments that are being raised in favour of simply buffing tanks are just hair-raisingly strange.

Infantry kills infantry.

AV kills vehicles.

Tanks kill infantry and vehicles.

It's easy to be smug when you are the rock and the scissors.

right, because the AV can't do the militia switch at all, which they probably will as you only really need an AV squad to lock down an entire team's vehicle call downs.

Yes, but that wasn't the question. Should 1 AV win against 5 tanks? That's a more interesting question than "should an entire team of AV win against an entire team of tanks"? The answer to the latter question is an obvious yes.

Sure tanks should not be a pay ISK to win mechanic for sure, but tank drivers should be able to play a whole match without losing their tank in 2s.

Regardless of the arguments, something needs to change or tanks will never be a presence on the battlefield.

I think the problem mostly lies in the fact that AVers can kill tanks from absurd distances... I hate to say it but swarms and FGs should probably receive a significant range nerf so that AV requires closer quarters and HAVs can be better at their force multiplier role.

I also wouldn't oppose bring the current tanks down drastically in price and calling them MAVs and introducing an HAV that requires 2-3 people to operate it, and they can then be a true force to be reckoned with.

No.......The range on Forge Guns and Swarms is already short. What is it for both of them, 400 meters right? That's not a lot. I've seen all vehicles escape that range many times. Absolutely NO nerf is needed, none. Forge Guns are fine.

I'm not being killed by them. But they are enough to force a retreat. .

It's just such an amazing argument.
Imagine if there was a suit for 2m and I could go 60/0 while sneezing on some players.
Just imagine the uproar.

Edit:
I'm not saying tanks are capable of doing that now.
I'm saying they should never be able to, no matter how expensive your toy is.

Isn't that what they are supposed to do?

It's just such an amazing argument.
Imagine if there was a suit for 2m and I could go 60/0 while sneezing on some players.
Just imagine the uproar.

Edit:
I'm not saying tanks are capable of doing that now.
I'm saying they should never be able to, no matter how expensive your toy is.

A LLAV could do it so why not a tank:P

i read this forum in amusing irony.

The Over post thinks tanks are too powerful but ive read posts from people speced in AV saying a topical encounter with an HAV is like a game of waka-mole or slaughtering a turtle ( dropships are like pinatas).

I also laugh at the rise of nerf forge gun posts, because when forges where only killing HAVs and dropships ( LAVs sometimes) nobody but vehicles had a problem. But when someone got good at sniping witih it the nerfs start pouring in. It's almost a shame the people crying nerf forge guns can't see the hell they're bring to thier door.

it's ironic the God Tanks era ( along with other points in history ) in Dust probably taught the vets more about teamwork and strategy then anything the academy can teach newberries. Ask me they should play the biassed skirmish 1.0, be forced to fight the old OP heavies of the e3 bukid ,and find out by themselves that HAVs have a soft rear ( check effectiveness rating will looking at an HAV's rear).

WHO. Who is is going 60 and 0? I'm not even going to entertain the possibility that this is the truth unless I start seeing some names here. How about instead of these unfounded generalizations, we start providing some evidence? All I play is pub. Whenever I'm the recipient of a stomping, as I frequently am, I have never seen the winning side have a tanker at these preposterous levels of dominance that are so frequently claimed. If I see a tanker go 20-1 (which I rarely do), I'm super impressed.

ive seen many times tankers go 20+/0 , wich i dont mind , they tanks after all

i hate them tough when they camp up in mountains in their red zone becoming snipers with 7k armor against vehicules and instalations and everything else

if you want to fight vehicles, skill into AV, that's what its for, if you don't want to do that, not our problem.


I have respect for those that kill me if they are skilled into AV.

again COD is that way ==============>

So, MLT which is less than 2k isk and 0 SP should completely invalidate 2m isk and 8m SP. something literally anyone can make a suit for, for basically free(mlt heavy, mlt forge) can force something that requires 8m just to be useable without dying in the first 10 seconds(now it takes almost 15!)

But tanks are expensive, reduce the cost and you're welcome to blow me up, if I can actually have enough money at the end of the game to buy another.

Good god you people are ignorant....

READ
THE
FITH AND SIXTH LINE


I CLEARLY STATE THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION RIGHT NOW, BUT IF PEOPLE LIKE CHARLOTTE GOT WHAT THEY WANTED, THIS WILL BE THE SITUATION.


For fucks sake where is your reading comprehension?

in CoD , Go

Ima disagree on this one mr Cat.

AVer take for granted how much power they have over tanks.

TANKs need a rebalancing.... but IMO all they need is an increase to movement speed. I find it hard to imagine a futuristic tank that cannot stop, turn, manoeuvre effectively through rough terrain.

Now we've come full circle, remember the thread title: "I just LOVE the argument that tanks are expensive".

This is why these discussions will always run in circles without leading to any kind of resolve. Before we talk about what's the best balance, we really all need to agree on whether it is okay for something to be really powerful but expensive, so that you have to grind a few matches before you can afford it again (or find another source of revenue).

Unsurprisingly I'm with the OP on the matter. I believe that no matter how expensive and powerful a tank is, it needs to have a good chance of being destroyed for the game to play out well. This means it's not going to be profitable by itself, and that this kind of power requires a bit of sacrifice in terms of ISK.

Also consider this: What's the point of making ISK in Dust, if not to occasionally afford gear that is powerful but not profitable? What _else_ would you do with all that ISK?

A tank would have to be pretty weak for it to be cheap enough to be able to buy a new one in every pub match. We could have a tank variant like that, but that would really deflate the fear-factor of seeing a tank on the battlefield. It makes more sense to me for this to be another category of vehicle, and we kind of already have that in the LAV.

Sure tanks should not be a pay ISK to win mechanic for sure, but tank drivers should be able to play a whole match without losing their tank in 2s.

Regardless of the arguments, something needs to change or tanks will never be a presence on the battlefield.

I think the problem mostly lies in the fact that AVers can kill tanks from absurd distances... I hate to say it but swarms and FGs should probably receive a significant range nerf so that AV requires closer quarters and HAVs can be better at their force multiplier role.

I also wouldn't oppose bring the current tanks down drastically in price and calling them MAVs and introducing an HAV that requires 2-3 people to operate it, and they can then be a true force to be reckoned with.

So you think you shouldn't retreat at all and should be able to just sit there and butcher infantry all day?
Your proportional cost argument is completely invalid - a militia assault rifle is perfectly capable of driving off or killing a prototype suit.

Can militia suits sit in areas where the proto suits cannot fight back? No.
Is the prototype suit 20x larger and easier to hit than the militia? No.
Can militia suits out DPS prototypes? No
All of these are yes however with AV and Tanks...

Oh wait! Lets introduce a heat seeking flaylock that does 400 damage per hit, and can only lock onto infantry! Then the small suits can experience the equality of tanking!

Good, it makes you retreat so you can't kill everyone freely in a pub match.
It takes proto gear to actually destroy you.

Militia assault rifles can still melt proto suits, get over it.