|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company
General Tso's Alliance
324
   |
Posted - 2013.09.09 08:44:00 -
[1] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:.... Does that ever happen?
Oh wait in Dust it does, and it severely damages your shields or armour......
EDIT- In response to the typical "u mad bro" comments I say.... "yes, yes I am".
So when you say 2 foot high fence, do you mean the ones made from highly condensed carbon nano tubes with the equivalent strength of a neuclear blast door??
Cause if remeber correctly, ccp put them in to stop tanks being able to waltz up to the objectjve, blaster the hell out of everyone, cap the point, and leave!! |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company
General Tso's Alliance
324
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 08:47:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Duran Lex wrote:True Adamance wrote:.... Does that ever happen?
Oh wait in Dust it does, and it severely damages your shields or armour......
EDIT- In response to the typical "u mad bro" comments I say.... "yes, yes I am". Obstacles are OP brah. Just be glad they haven't added hovercrafts in the game. That would be one shitfest after another. I just kind of figure with 50000+ years of engineering advancements over us as a people Gallentean Tank designers would have thought about how to navigate small 2 foot high fences that.... were doing the same damn thing 70 years ago.....
Enemy builds tanks
You build tank traps
Enemy builds anti tank trap tanks
You build anti "anti tank trap tank" tank traps!!
Circle of life!! |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company
General Tso's Alliance
325
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 08:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:True Adamance wrote:.... Does that ever happen?
Oh wait in Dust it does, and it severely damages your shields or armour......
EDIT- In response to the typical "u mad bro" comments I say.... "yes, yes I am". So when you say 2 foot high fence, do you mean the ones made from highly condensed carbon nano tubes with the equivalent strength of a neuclear blast door?? Cause if remeber correctly, ccp put them in to stop tanks being able to waltz up to the objectjve, blaster the hell out of everyone, cap the point, and leave!! Compared to a tank moving at 60+ KPH, made if vastly superior combat resistant alloys. How could you ever compare the structural integrity of a small hand rail to the inertia of a ******* tank?
Really easily actually, the rail only needs 4000N tensile strength for about an inch of fence to stop a tank in his tracks!! I mean they do it now with tank traps that aren't even anchored or fixed to the floor, and your in a combat area so I would expect the hand rails to be from vastly superior combat resistant alloys to, you know since they get shot, blown up run into, etc etc |
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company
General Tso's Alliance
325
|
Posted - 2013.09.09 08:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:Duran Lex wrote:True Adamance wrote:Duran Lex wrote:True Adamance wrote:.... Does that ever happen?
Oh wait in Dust it does, and it severely damages your shields or armour......
EDIT- In response to the typical "u mad bro" comments I say.... "yes, yes I am". Obstacles are OP brah. Just be glad they haven't added hovercrafts in the game. That would be one shitfest after another. I just kind of figure with 50000+ years of engineering advancements over us as a people Gallentean Tank designers would have thought about how to navigate small 2 foot high fences that.... were doing the same damn thing 70 years ago..... Perhaps the construction workers of the future are just too damn good at their jobs. Well perhaps but I find it hard to imagine a simple welder on the job who say to himself "damn if this complex gets attacked our guys are going to need all the handrails they can get". That or an Gallentean general saying "Given the superior technological advancements in lamp post construction we will now be replacing the inferior AV grenades with stockpiles of lamp posts. Perhaps if the trials go well we shall even replace the large vehicle turrets with such devastating anti vehicle weaponry."
Despite being on the opposite side to your argument, that still deserves a +1!! |
|
|
| |
|