DUST Search - money sunk into invincible logic?

Another Heavy SOB wrote:

I must admit I can kind of see where the sentiment comes from.

I have seen many tankers top 30 kills and No death's, Although admittedly they were smart and there was only a couple guys actually trying to take them down. Yet those same tankers claim their tanks are UP, where considering the same situation with a buffed tank the pilot may have gone 60-0.

Also there's the common tanker excuse of "well my tank costs more" as if it entitles them to an "I win" button. Now I'm not saying all tankers share this attitude but I see it frequently. And to most infantry that creates the perception that most tankers feel they should be able to solo the entire enemy team.

Finally when I see a decent tanker roll on the field causing Hell, and my squad plus another immediately clamoring to take out that tank and spending the next 15 minutes to do so thus losing objectives suggests that tanks are in No way UP, and those claiming they are UP are simply bad or really do expect to be near invincible.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Billi Gene Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 302	Posted - 2013.08.25 10:59:00 - [1] - Quote why do i see all these threads claiming that all tankers want invincibility because their tanks cost so much? Sure i've seen a few threads here and there spouting such crap, and for my part i've voiced my opinion that such logic is so full of fail that it doesnt bear much discussion. And yet every time i come to the forums, there will be a new thread harping on about "all these tankers whining about how they should be invincible because they paid 1 mil for their crutch". please enlighten me, where are all these tanker threads claiming such preposterous things?
Billi Gene Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 302	Posted - 2013.08.25 11:30:00 - [2] - Quote Chances Ghost wrote: the only threads that exsist that suggest tankers want to spend money for invincability are those threads accusing tankers of wanting to spend money for invincability NOOOO!!?.. that is outrageous.. that can't be true? who would do such a thing? why that.. that would be a logical fallacy! oh wait.. this is the internet...
Billi Gene Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 303	Posted - 2013.08.25 12:20:00 - [3] - Quote Another Heavy SOB wrote: I must admit I can kind of see where the sentiment comes from. I have seen many tankers top 30 kills and No death's, Although admittedly they were smart and there was only a couple guys actually trying to take them down. Yet those same tankers claim their tanks are UP, where considering the same situation with a buffed tank the pilot may have gone 60-0. Also there's the common tanker excuse of "well my tank costs more" as if it entitles them to an "I win" button. Now I'm not saying all tankers share this attitude but I see it frequently. And to most infantry that creates the perception that most tankers feel they should be able to solo the entire enemy team. Finally when I see a decent tanker roll on the field causing Hell, and my squad plus another immediately clamoring to take out that tank and spending the next 15 minutes to do so thus losing objectives suggests that tanks are in No way UP, and those claiming they are UP are simply bad or really do expect to be near invincible. I think the isk argument is a silly one as well.. after all a Monet can fetch in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and it can't tank a pocket knife. I really do not like this idea of moaning about a generic portion of the player base "top 30 kills and No death's", when any good player can achieve such stats, and that merely jumping into a tank will not suddenly allow such a performance. My tanker alt sits at around 4mil SP and has once gone 35/x, and that was in a domination with only a single focus point, and only because the pub blueberries rallied and protected my tank, we reversed a loss (i got angry at the LLAV spam and dropped my SR :P). Taking out a "decent tanker" doesn't take much. If two full squads changed to AV gear to take out a tank, then they probably shouldn't be surprised at losing objectives. Mind if i ask why it took 15 minutes to take the tank out? Surely you don't want us to believe you were hitting the tank for 15 minutes with AV weapons? That would be "beyond belief". >.< i don't know how CCP can fix the situation, but i am trying to argue both sides where i feel its necessary. This toon started off as an AV, and i have a mild HAV pilot alt. I want both play styles to be viable. What i don't agree with is the amount of hyperbole and utter outright lies that people are touting as truths in order to satisfy whatever directive drives them to such callous and ultimately childish behaviour, which lessens the breadth of the game, as well as the possible play styles and thus limits player interaction with the game.... maybe some of us should go look at the first games we had with computers... "you can move this paddle up and down the screen and bounce this dot back and forth!!!" "move side to side shooting blobs as they slowly move towards you!!!" immersive interaction is the massive drawcard that games have nowadays. Limiting a games possible breadth because of prejudice should be a cardinal gamer crime, punishable by the removal of ones thumbs :P.
Billi Gene Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 304	Posted - 2013.08.25 12:57:00 - [4] - Quote Seymor Krelborn wrote: I think the problem is team diversity. if you have one side with 2 or 3 tanks (and good pilots) and the other side has nobody with a proto or even ADV AV fit your gonna see a tanker do 30+/0. on the other side if you have a team where most have ADV to proto AV and the other team has 1 or 2 great tankers, your gonna have an angry tanker who just lost a mil or more....all the measures and counter measures are in the game, but without anyone needing to adhere to specific roles, you cant garunty the role you need will be in that match.... yup Quote: its akin to going into a raid in a traditional mmo without a healer or, for that matter.... a tank... make that a pvp match though... where playing a tanker class is fine but not needed. >.< i guess... analogy kinda doesnt make it past there though.... most MMO have a larger range of attack methods, ranges and counters. DUST still has no real CC.
Billi Gene Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 329	Posted - 2013.08.26 00:34:00 - [5] - Quote bravo peeps, name calling at a minimum! actual discussion, even heated discussion is a good thing. So let's recount (without quotes because i just got up ISK management is a vital game strategy, but to be brutally honest, doesn't factor when talking about vastly outmatched tiers-standard vs proto. Many tankers understand that they are piloting standard issue, and though committed to trying to keep their tanks alive for as many matches as possible, also understand the point above. Many AV still feel that tanks, particularly tanks piloted by pilots with very deep tank skill trees are too hard to kill, but in reality, this is much the same as the first Point as well, with the added incentive of increased HAV cost acting upon pilots who understand Point 2 Some people feel that AV is too specialised in its damage spread vs Tank Type. Much of the capabilities embedded into the vehicle core skills and how it relates to tank fits is not understood nor ingrained into Mercs using even Advanced+ AV systems. just as a word of advice to AV, have a look over vehicle skills. You'll notice that with dedication, a Vehicle can have baseline passive 10% resists on both shields and armor. Now go have a look thru the market, market/vehicle modules then look thru shield and armor categories, specifically at hardeners and resistance modules. Shield resists go in high slots, armor into low slots. Vehicles can stack both Passive module and Active module resists. Generally speaking Shield extenders and Armor plates will also be added. The big +resist modules are all Active, this means that they have a cycle ON timer (module active)and a Cycle OFF timer (the cooldown). Knowing that a vehicle has turned its actives on should give pause to AV, particularly Armor Tanks as they can and do stack Active resists, and can cycle between 3 modules to always have only one on cooldown and two active. The above for armor makes sense, shield is a minor buffer for armor, but the balance being that a minor majority of AV does more damage to Armor than Shields. And for tankers: iirc one of the founding tenets of Goonswarm, was that everyone counts: that if you bring enough knives to a gun fight, eventually you can win the fight... even with heavy losses. "do not fly what you cannot afford to lose" imho it should be feasible to take out a tank with any appropriate and concerted effort. Given enough time and numbers, a tank should be able to be killed by a knova knife wielding swarm of scouts. Doing so would take awhile, and I'm sure that given current numbers in matches it isnt Now, but if we see a massive upscaling in numbers..."why not?" ... if the tank can't outrun the scouts, and the scouts can maintain enough dps as a group, why shouldn't the tank fall? Given that is an extreme example, and using militia swarms would hold truer, but then the gist of the scenario would be lost. It is still my opinion and i hope discussion continues to debate and explore, that there is an imbalance between HAV and AV, and as to what this imbalance might be. Could it be as simple as Point 1? Or as I have suspected for some time, the lack of Capacitor and capacitor boosting modules (stamina and biotics for vehicles, as well as methods for screwing with) is resulting in game systems that thru the inability to mesh could be considered broken.