And so the HAV players and infantry players continue to hate each other, and the nerf brigades rage on...

What do tanks and aim assist have to do with each other? Well nothing, actually. HAV players didn't benefit from aim assist at all, and now that AA has been effectively nerfed into oblivion, it's doubtful it'll ever become a factor. So where then do complaints against Tanks and complaints against AA intersect? Well, duh: Hypocritical infantry players.

Chief Tanking Complaint by pilots:"It's ridiculous that my HAV costs so much money but it can be taken down by one player using such a cheap set-up. It's completely unfair."

Infantry counterargument: "So you think you deserve to survive just because you spent a lot of isk on your tank? HTFU. Why do you deploy vehicles in public matches anyway? You bring it on yourselves."

And so it goes. Tankers felt effectively gimped by the game's economy working against them, effectively requiring perfect play every single time they deployed their vehicles, otherwise, no matter how many kills they managed to scrape together in however many games, one loss effectively put them in the red. Infantry didn't care.

And then...Aim Assist happened. And ohhh such a harvest of tears and anger, it brought. Why did it inspire such wrath? Funnily enough, economics.

Chief Infantry complaint against Aim Assist "It's ridiculous that my Proto-level equipment costs so much money, but it can be taken down by players using a cheap set-up. It's completely unfair."

Chief counterargument by bemused Tankers enjoying the show: "Really, you don't say? You think you deserve better results just because you spent a bunch of money? Why are you bringing proto-equipment into a public match anyway? You're bringing it on yourselves. HTFU."

Good times if you like situational irony, wouldn't you say?

Before AA they was all shouting "HTFU" or "Adapt or Die" well alot of them didn't adapt :D

What do tanks and aim assist have to do with each other? Well nothing, actually. HAV players didn't benefit from aim assist at all, and now that AA has been effectively nerfed into oblivion, it's doubtful it'll ever become a factor. So where then do complaints against Tanks and complaints against AA intersect? Well, duh: Hypocritical infantry players.

Chief Tanking Complaint by pilots:"It's ridiculous that my HAV costs so much money but it can be taken down by one player using such a cheap set-up. It's completely unfair."

Infantry counterargument: "So you think you deserve to survive just because you spent a lot of isk on your tank? HTFU. Why do you deploy vehicles in public matches anyway? You bring it on yourselves."

And so it goes. Tankers felt effectively gimped by the game's economy working against them, effectively requiring perfect play every single time they deployed their vehicles, otherwise, no matter how many kills they managed to scrape together in however many games, one loss effectively put them in the red. Infantry didn't care.

And then...Aim Assist happened. And ohhh such a harvest of tears and anger, it brought. Why did it inspire such wrath? Funnily enough, economics.

Chief Infantry complaint against Aim Assist "It's ridiculous that my Proto-level equipment costs so much money, but it can be taken down by players using a cheap set-up. It's completely unfair."

Chief counterargument by bemused Tankers enjoying the show: "Really, you don't say? You think you deserve better results just because you spent a bunch of money? Why are you bringing proto-equipment into a public match anyway? You're bringing it on yourselves. HTFU."

Good times if you like situational irony, wouldn't you say?

That people think they are a class, ala rogue or cleric, but here a 'tanker' is the issue. No, you're just infantry. You can call a tank.

Calling a tank is like a trump card.

But people want it to be 'their class' - ie, a given right.

Which is cool - my class is 'orbital bombarder' - so I should, like, just get...

Tanks turn the tide of a battle, changing the result of the match in many cases.

You don't want to win the match? Or think the asset risk/benefit ratio isn't good enough? Then don't summon your trump card!

"But it's not - it's me! Me! Like being a warrior in world of warcraft is me! That's how it should work!"

That people think they are a class, ala rogue or cleric, but here a 'tanker' is the issue. No, you're just infantry. You can call a tank.

Calling a tank is like a trump card.

But people want it to be 'their class' - ie, a given right.

Which is cool - my class is 'orbital bombarder' - so I should, like, just get...

Tanks turn the tide of a battle, changing the result of the match in many cases.

You don't want to win the match? Or think the asset risk/benefit ratio isn't good enough? Then don't summon your trump card!

"But it's not - it's me! Me! Like being a warrior in world of warcraft is me! That's how it should work!"

You also forgot to mention most folks grievance came becaus AA lokced on and required no skill . But these folks who were arguing against AA also argude that swarms were ok and so were av nades (both lock on and require no skill) possibly a bit of hypocrisy in there too.