Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ADAM-OF-EVE
Svartur Bjorn Neo Terra Empire
313
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:25:00 -
[31] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:So what because some people don't drive tanks we should have no say in their development, despite the fact its a part of the game that affects everyone?
While I agree the view of some non tankers is a bit irrational, you cant expect to sit by and allow you to overpower tanks, becausethat iis the view of some tankers.
Its about a little give and take!! Some? A bit irrational? A grenade that does ~2000 damage to armor isn't enough! A tracking AV weapon that does > 2000 damage per volley isn't enough! It's not enough to merely suppress a tank and make it go away! How is that just a bit irrational? when a rail turret kills all with 1 shot, when a blaster turret kills a player in 1-2 hits. yet you in your tank can and do often survive 4 or 5 hits before blowing. its only when people are tired of your stomping that they turn to av and its never a single av player its always more. and you say we have no right to say what happens with tanks. What good is a tank if it doesn't do a lot of damage? You have a hull with no better than an Exile rifle. Is that what you want? They're called tanks for a reason. They take a lot of damage, and they have a really big gun. Shall we talk about the disparity between large railgun turrets and forge guns? You decide
and they also have a crew, a driver who drives the vehicle, a gunner who controls the gun, and a commander who directs both crew members |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
825
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:27:00 -
[32] - Quote
JL3Eleven wrote:It seems the "tankers" want to go back to the supertanker days during closed beta. Sorry tanks have always been vulnerable to a single person with a RPG. LIke always. If they were that vulnerable, we wouldn't be using them in the Middle East.
Why are you so afraid of tanks? You're given incredibly effective and easy to use tools to take care of them, yet you still complain and seem scared. Why are you scared? |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
825
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:28:00 -
[33] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:So what because some people don't drive tanks we should have no say in their development, despite the fact its a part of the game that affects everyone?
While I agree the view of some non tankers is a bit irrational, you cant expect to sit by and allow you to overpower tanks, becausethat iis the view of some tankers.
Its about a little give and take!! Some? A bit irrational? A grenade that does ~2000 damage to armor isn't enough! A tracking AV weapon that does > 2000 damage per volley isn't enough! It's not enough to merely suppress a tank and make it go away! How is that just a bit irrational? when a rail turret kills all with 1 shot, when a blaster turret kills a player in 1-2 hits. yet you in your tank can and do often survive 4 or 5 hits before blowing. its only when people are tired of your stomping that they turn to av and its never a single av player its always more. and you say we have no right to say what happens with tanks. What good is a tank if it doesn't do a lot of damage? You have a hull with no better than an Exile rifle. Is that what you want? They're called tanks for a reason. They take a lot of damage, and they have a really big gun. Shall we talk about the disparity between large railgun turrets and forge guns? You decide and they also have a crew, a driver who drives the vehicle, a gunner who controls the gun, and a commander who directs both crew members This isn't World of Tanks, and from what I've gathered from other people telling me about the game, it's still the one player controlling the whole tank, not a couple people operating it cooperatively. So any point you were trying to make is still moot, because, well, it's a game. |
Crash Monster
Snipers Anonymous
1352
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:29:00 -
[34] - Quote
On the no reward concept... perhaps there could be some small reward per 1000 hitpoints of damage to enemy vehicles. To avoid farming perhaps to some max per player causing damage to any particular vehicle instance (not flat per vehicle instance across all players).
I see this a much better way to reward non-terminal effort against tanks than to decide that tanks should be fluffy because there is no reward without a kill. |
JL3Eleven
PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies
856
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:32:00 -
[35] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:JL3Eleven wrote:It seems the "tankers" want to go back to the supertanker days during closed beta. Sorry tanks have always been vulnerable to a single person with a RPG. LIke always. If they were that vulnerable, we wouldn't be using them in the Middle East. Why are you so afraid of tanks? You're given incredibly effective and easy to use tools to take care of them, yet you still complain and seem scared. Why are you scared?
You do realize we have "Up armored" our tanks right? Guess not.
P.S. Sooo not fraid. Proto nades and swarms .
So do you want to go back to the supertanker days? Seems so. |
Master Jaraiya
Ultramarine Corp
879
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:33:00 -
[36] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote: What good is a tank if it doesn't do a lot of damage? You have a hull with no better than an Exile rifle. Is that what you want? They're called tanks for a reason. They take a lot of damage, and they have a really big gun.
Shall we talk about the disparity between large railgun turrets and forge guns? You decide
You seem to be a bit temperamental about this whole subject.
I could take what you just said about tanks and apply it to Heavies. Actually, I can't because Heavies can't really even take a lot more damage than a Med. Class Suit. We have a the HMG, which is actually worse than an Exile.
They're called heavies for a reason.
What disparity between the Large Railgun and the FG?
Assault FG - 2 Second Charge Time
Rail Turret - .08 Second charge time.
Assault FG - 4 Shots per clip, 4 reloads max.
Rail Turret - infinite
Assault FG - Carried by very slow, very large, easy to hit target with HP comparable to suits smaller than it's class. Can be killed by 95% of the players on the field in less than 2 seconds even Militia noobs.
Rail Turret - Carried by a TANK! Thousands of HP, requires multiple, fully dedicated AVers working in coordination to even suppress for a momentary respite.
So, yea, lets talk about that disparity. |
ADAM-OF-EVE
Svartur Bjorn Neo Terra Empire
313
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:35:00 -
[37] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote: This isn't World of Tanks, and from what I've gathered from other people telling me about the game, it's still the one player controlling the whole tank, not a couple people operating it cooperatively. So any point you were trying to make is still moot, because, well, it's a game.
if thats the case then your points are moot also. why would this being a game make your points valid and everyone elses moot
|
Keri Starlight
Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
358
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:38:00 -
[38] - Quote
Master Jaraiya wrote: the field in less than 2 seconds even Militia noobs.
a TANK requires multiple, fully dedicated AVers working in coordination to even suppress for a momentary respite.
If this were true it would be perfectly balanced. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
826
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:39:00 -
[39] - Quote
JL3Eleven wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:JL3Eleven wrote:It seems the "tankers" want to go back to the supertanker days during closed beta. Sorry tanks have always been vulnerable to a single person with a RPG. LIke always. If they were that vulnerable, we wouldn't be using them in the Middle East. Why are you so afraid of tanks? You're given incredibly effective and easy to use tools to take care of them, yet you still complain and seem scared. Why are you scared? You do realize we have "Up armored" our tanks right? Guess not. P.S. Sooo not fraid. Proto nades and swarms . So do you want to go back to the supertanker days? Seems so. Please, assume I'm an idiot and know nothing about American firepower. The same concept carries through to Dust.
PRO crutches are what they are.
I don't remember "supertanker" days. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
826
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:40:00 -
[40] - Quote
Master Jaraiya wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: What good is a tank if it doesn't do a lot of damage? You have a hull with no better than an Exile rifle. Is that what you want? They're called tanks for a reason. They take a lot of damage, and they have a really big gun.
Shall we talk about the disparity between large railgun turrets and forge guns? You decide
You seem to be a bit temperamental about this whole subject. I could take what you just said about tanks and apply it to Heavies. Actually, I can't because Heavies can't really even take a lot more damage than a Med. Class Suit. We have a the HMG, which is actually worse than an Exile. They're called heavies for a reason. What disparity between the Large Railgun and the FG? Assault FG - 2 Second Charge Time Rail Turret - .08 Second charge time. Assault FG - 4 Shots per clip, 4 reloads max. Rail Turret - infinite Assault FG - Carried by very slow, very large, easy to hit target with HP comparable to suits smaller than it's class. Can be killed by 95% of the players on the field in less than 2 seconds even Militia noobs. Rail Turret - Carried by a TANK! Thousands of HP, requires multiple, fully dedicated AVers working in coordination to even suppress for a momentary respite. So, yea, lets talk about that disparity. You conveniently left out damage done, and the fact that you could put on damage mods without sacrificing much defense. |
|
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
826
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:41:00 -
[41] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: This isn't World of Tanks, and from what I've gathered from other people telling me about the game, it's still the one player controlling the whole tank, not a couple people operating it cooperatively. So any point you were trying to make is still moot, because, well, it's a game.
if thats the case then your points are moot also. why would this being a game make your points valid and everyone elses moot Because your ideas are to destroy tanking as we know it. Hell, you're the first one to put up a petition to remove tanks from the game. If that's not biased towards one radical view, I don't know what is. |
JL3Eleven
PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies
856
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:44:00 -
[42] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:JL3Eleven wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:JL3Eleven wrote:It seems the "tankers" want to go back to the supertanker days during closed beta. Sorry tanks have always been vulnerable to a single person with a RPG. LIke always. If they were that vulnerable, we wouldn't be using them in the Middle East. Why are you so afraid of tanks? You're given incredibly effective and easy to use tools to take care of them, yet you still complain and seem scared. Why are you scared? You do realize we have "Up armored" our tanks right? Guess not. P.S. Sooo not fraid. Proto nades and swarms . So do you want to go back to the supertanker days? Seems so. Please, assume I'm an idiot and know nothing about American firepower. The same concept carries through to Dust. PRO crutches are what they are. I don't remember "supertanker" days.
Okkk. Sooo. The reason we are having this discussion right now is because in the Beta at some points tanks were almost invincible and caused many QQ's. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
826
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:47:00 -
[43] - Quote
JL3Eleven wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:JL3Eleven wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:JL3Eleven wrote:It seems the "tankers" want to go back to the supertanker days during closed beta. Sorry tanks have always been vulnerable to a single person with a RPG. LIke always. If they were that vulnerable, we wouldn't be using them in the Middle East. Why are you so afraid of tanks? You're given incredibly effective and easy to use tools to take care of them, yet you still complain and seem scared. Why are you scared? You do realize we have "Up armored" our tanks right? Guess not. P.S. Sooo not fraid. Proto nades and swarms . So do you want to go back to the supertanker days? Seems so. Please, assume I'm an idiot and know nothing about American firepower. The same concept carries through to Dust. PRO crutches are what they are. I don't remember "supertanker" days. Okkk. Sooo. The reason we are having this discussion right now is because in the Beta at some points tanks were almost invincible and caused many QQ's. So we're still at this point, because even after so many consecutive nerfs to tanks, and so many parallel buffs to AV, infantry still think tanks are overpowered? From a point over a year ago, to now? All of that considered, tanks are still overpowered?
Got it |
Crash Monster
Snipers Anonymous
1353
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:53:00 -
[44] - Quote
Maybe we should just keep vehicles out of the battle academy so nobody develops scars and begs for nerfs on a daily basis for the rest of their career? |
Surt gods end
Demon Ronin
1076
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:54:00 -
[45] - Quote
Hey everyone it's me Surt Gods End. A FPS Player. (That's right, I don't touch that mmo rubbish. Nor did I migrate from DCUO nor eve)
Just wanted to add to OP list of facts.
FACT 1- Takes one cool dude in RL to take out tank.
FACT 2- Takes one cool dude in a FPS video game to take out tank.
FACT 3- Dust is a lobby FPS.
FACT 4- HAV plays SUPPORT ROLES IN MOST FPS GAMES.
FACT 5- If the price for tanks and DS are lowered, less QQ will be had from pilots. and more HAV and DS will be seen on the field.
FACT 6- Tankers will die more with FACT 5. But lowered price should negate that. What's that? you don't think you should die more than 2 a match? Well... Harden The **** Up.
|
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
613
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:54:00 -
[46] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:So what because some people don't drive tanks we should have no say in their development, despite the fact its a part of the game that affects everyone?
While I agree the view of some non tankers is a bit irrational, you cant expect to sit by and allow you to overpower tanks, becausethat iis the view of some tankers.
Its about a little give and take!! Some? A bit irrational? A grenade that does ~2000 damage to armor isn't enough! A tracking AV weapon that does > 2000 damage per volley isn't enough! It's not enough to merely suppress a tank and make it go away! How is that just a bit irrational? You are starting to sound irrational yourself. Calm down, there are many reasons people want to kill tanks. 1) WP : No kill no points, there is no reward for "suppresing" a tank 2) "Suppresion" : Getting a tank to run only achieves a momentary respite, we wouldn't mind if "suppresing" a tank kept him suppresed 3) Power: The power per person in a tank is out of kilter, 1 man is pretty much as powerful as a tank with 3, this is wrong 4) Whining: when tankers whine about how weak their tanks are we get annoyed because of the power curve!! If we were to have the current system and released proto hulls it would be the end of infantry, period!! Tanks are called tanks for a reason. Massive suppression, massive firepower, and enough HP to take some damage before needing to run away. So it's all about the WP? For merely suppressing a tank, there's no reward? Maybe you should petition CCP to put in Battlefield-like rewards.
An Anti-Tank weaponry is called Anti-Tank because it stops tanks! You can't have your cake and eat it, spike!
Everything needs a counter, you are beginning to sound a bit greedy! |
JL3Eleven
PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies
856
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:55:00 -
[47] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote: So we're still at this point, because even after so many consecutive nerfs to tanks, and so many parallel buffs to AV, infantry still think tanks are overpowered? From a point over a year ago, to now? All of that considered, tanks are still overpowered?
Got it
Don't hate the player hate the game. I'm just telling you like it is. Don't think it's fair? lol ask the dropship pilots. They suffered the same thing. |
JL3Eleven
PFB Pink Fluffy Bunnies
856
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:56:00 -
[48] - Quote
Surt gods end wrote:Hey everyone it's me Surt Gods End. A FPS Player. (That's right, I don't touch that mmo rubbish. Nor did I migrate from DCUO nor eve)
Just wanted to add to OP list of facts.
FACT 1- Takes one cool dude in RL to take out tank.
FACT 2- Takes one cool dude in a FPS video game to take out tank.
FACT 3- Dust is a lobby FPS.
FACT 4- HAV plays SUPPORT ROLES IN MOST FPS GAMES.
FACT 5- If the price for tanks and DS are lowered, less QQ will be had from pilots. and more HAV and DS will be seen on the field.
FACT 6- Tankers will die more with FACT 5. But lowered price should negate that. What's that? you don't think you should die more than 2 a match? Well... Harden The **** Up.
|
Ryme Intrinseca
Seraphim Auxiliaries
32
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:58:00 -
[49] - Quote
This thread is amazing! Apparently you have to be a dedicated tanker in order to have an opinion on tanks. Does that mean you have to be a dedicated AVer in order to have an opinion on AV?
This is my favourite bit though:
Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:Amen brotha!
It's like I've said in other threads; killing a tank shouldn't be the deciding factor with solo proto AVers. They seem to want to be able to kill the tank or it's unacceptable.
Removing the tank from the fight should be the goal of proto AV abilities. When the tank is scared off and has to recoup it is a non-issue.
A tanker shouldn't have to deal with either alive or dead. I want to enjoy a tank in a match. My tank should be able to stay alive if I plan ahead for my mods. Your only worry as infantry is that the tank is in the fight. If my tank is out of the fight repping and cooling down then we both win. I can continue to use the thing I trained in and enjoy the game. You get to not worry about my tank for awhile. Brilliant! To be fair, we should also make it so infantry cannot be killed by tank fire. To paraphrase, '[i]f my infantry is out of the fight repping and cooling down then we both win'.
Do you even consistency, bro? |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
826
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 17:59:00 -
[50] - Quote
Surt gods end wrote:FACT 3- Dust is a lobby FPS. This was a lobby shooter.FACT 5- If the price for tanks and DS are lowered, less QQ will be had from pilots. and more HAV and DS will be seen on the field. That's like dumbing down enemy AI in Last of Us because the friendly AI is so bad that it keeps getting you found out. So what did the dev do? Make it so that when you're taking cover behind something, and your friendly AI is standing up, the enemy AI doesn't know where you are. It doesn't fix any problems at all, just more easily showcases bad design. Anything else? |
|
Crash Monster
Snipers Anonymous
1354
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:00:00 -
[51] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:Brilliant! To be fair, we should also make it so infantry cannot be killed by tank fire. To paraphrase, '[i]f my infantry is out of the fight repping and cooling down then we both win'.
Do you even consistency, bro?
Pfft. Don't be such a challenged individual. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
826
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:01:00 -
[52] - Quote
Ryme Intrinseca wrote:This thread is amazing! Apparently you have to be a dedicated tanker in order to have an opinion on tanks. Does that mean you have to be a dedicated AVer in order to have an opinion on AV? This is my favourite bit though: Operative 1171 Aajli wrote:Amen brotha!
It's like I've said in other threads; killing a tank shouldn't be the deciding factor with solo proto AVers. They seem to want to be able to kill the tank or it's unacceptable.
Removing the tank from the fight should be the goal of proto AV abilities. When the tank is scared off and has to recoup it is a non-issue.
A tanker shouldn't have to deal with either alive or dead. I want to enjoy a tank in a match. My tank should be able to stay alive if I plan ahead for my mods. Your only worry as infantry is that the tank is in the fight. If my tank is out of the fight repping and cooling down then we both win. I can continue to use the thing I trained in and enjoy the game. You get to not worry about my tank for awhile. Brilliant! To be fair, we should also make it so infantry cannot be killed by tank fire. To paraphrase, '[i]f my infantry is out of the fight repping and cooling down then we both win'. Do you even consistency, bro? Have you read any of the threads made by people that don't tank? That would be like us telling you how your dropsuits, weapons and equipment work. "It takes too long for me to kill you with my STD blaster, therefore your HP should be lowered, or extenders should be lowered." It just doesn't work that way. You're not going to be using a tank when the vehicle balance pass comes, so why do you care? |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
826
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:03:00 -
[53] - Quote
JL3Eleven wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: So we're still at this point, because even after so many consecutive nerfs to tanks, and so many parallel buffs to AV, infantry still think tanks are overpowered? From a point over a year ago, to now? All of that considered, tanks are still overpowered?
Got it
Don't hate the player hate the game. I'm just telling you like it is. Don't think it's fair? lol ask the dropship pilots. They suffered the same thing. It's entirely hating the player, because they're the cause of so many consecutive nerfs to vehicles and buffs to AV. Nobody could team up to take out a tank, because that's not fair, so I want to be able to solo intelligent people in the best fit tanks with my STD gear. That's what happened, and it's still happening. I know people like you won't be happy until tanks are removed, so you could have Call of Duty: Space Edition. |
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
826
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:04:00 -
[54] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:So what because some people don't drive tanks we should have no say in their development, despite the fact its a part of the game that affects everyone?
While I agree the view of some non tankers is a bit irrational, you cant expect to sit by and allow you to overpower tanks, becausethat iis the view of some tankers.
Its about a little give and take!! Some? A bit irrational? A grenade that does ~2000 damage to armor isn't enough! A tracking AV weapon that does > 2000 damage per volley isn't enough! It's not enough to merely suppress a tank and make it go away! How is that just a bit irrational? You are starting to sound irrational yourself. Calm down, there are many reasons people want to kill tanks. 1) WP : No kill no points, there is no reward for "suppresing" a tank 2) "Suppresion" : Getting a tank to run only achieves a momentary respite, we wouldn't mind if "suppresing" a tank kept him suppresed 3) Power: The power per person in a tank is out of kilter, 1 man is pretty much as powerful as a tank with 3, this is wrong 4) Whining: when tankers whine about how weak their tanks are we get annoyed because of the power curve!! If we were to have the current system and released proto hulls it would be the end of infantry, period!! Tanks are called tanks for a reason. Massive suppression, massive firepower, and enough HP to take some damage before needing to run away. So it's all about the WP? For merely suppressing a tank, there's no reward? Maybe you should petition CCP to put in Battlefield-like rewards. An Anti-Tank weaponry is called Anti-Tank because it stops tanks! You can't have your cake and eat it, spike! Everything needs a counter, you are beginning to sound a bit greedy! You think it should destroy a tank with one hit. At least, that's what you sound like. |
ADAM-OF-EVE
Svartur Bjorn Neo Terra Empire
313
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:08:00 -
[55] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote: You think it should destroy a tank with one hit. At least, that's what you sound like.
and you think a tank should kill all and survive every game. thats what you sound like
|
Rei Shepard
Spectre II
617
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:09:00 -
[56] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:You don't blabla. blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla Remember that.
Fixed it for you! |
TcuBe3
Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION
168
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:10:00 -
[57] - Quote
This thread is a waste of data.
|
Monkey MAC
killer taxi company General Tso's Alliance
613
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:13:00 -
[58] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote:Monkey MAC wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: Some? A bit irrational?
A grenade that does ~2000 damage to armor isn't enough! A tracking AV weapon that does > 2000 damage per volley isn't enough! It's not enough to merely suppress a tank and make it go away! How is that just a bit irrational?
You are starting to sound irrational yourself. Calm down, there are many reasons people want to kill tanks. 1) WP : No kill no points, there is no reward for "suppresing" a tank 2) "Suppresion" : Getting a tank to run only achieves a momentary respite, we wouldn't mind if "suppresing" a tank kept him suppresed 3) Power: The power per person in a tank is out of kilter, 1 man is pretty much as powerful as a tank with 3, this is wrong 4) Whining: when tankers whine about how weak their tanks are we get annoyed because of the power curve!! If we were to have the current system and released proto hulls it would be the end of infantry, period!! Tanks are called tanks for a reason. Massive suppression, massive firepower, and enough HP to take some damage before needing to run away. So it's all about the WP? For merely suppressing a tank, there's no reward? Maybe you should petition CCP to put in Battlefield-like rewards. An Anti-Tank weaponry is called Anti-Tank because it stops tanks! You can't have your cake and eat it, spike! Everything needs a counter, you are beginning to sound a bit greedy! You think it should destroy a tank with one hit. At least, that's what you sound like.
Don't put words in my mouth please! You said you want a tank to be a "tank", if that were the case then I would expect anti-tank weaponry to be "anti-tank"
You need to think about how your idea of a tank will shape the battlefield, because it sounds like you want an unbeatable trump card!!
|
Spkr4theDead
International-Fleet
826
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:14:00 -
[59] - Quote
ADAM-OF-EVE wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: You think it should destroy a tank with one hit. At least, that's what you sound like.
and you think a tank should kill all and survive every game. thats what you sound like =/=
Is it wrong saying it should require teamwork to take down a tank? Or have another tank available that could take advantage of a weakness? Yeah, I laugh when I see enforcers on the field, but when I see them using a turret they get their bonus too, I worry a bit. Falchion with XT-201 accelerated? I'll keep it back with a railgun. Vayu with scattered ion cannon? Same thing, railgun.
Christ, you put up a petition to have tanks removed! You're as biased as they get. |
Master Jaraiya
Ultramarine Corp
882
|
Posted - 2013.09.22 18:15:00 -
[60] - Quote
Spkr4theDead wrote:Master Jaraiya wrote:Spkr4theDead wrote: What good is a tank if it doesn't do a lot of damage? You have a hull with no better than an Exile rifle. Is that what you want? They're called tanks for a reason. They take a lot of damage, and they have a really big gun.
Shall we talk about the disparity between large railgun turrets and forge guns? You decide
You seem to be a bit temperamental about this whole subject. I could take what you just said about tanks and apply it to Heavies. Actually, I can't because Heavies can't really even take a lot more damage than a Med. Class Suit. We have a the HMG, which is actually worse than an Exile. They're called heavies for a reason. What disparity between the Large Railgun and the FG? Assault FG - 2 Second Charge Time Rail Turret - .08 Second charge time. Assault FG - 4 Shots per clip, 4 reloads max. Rail Turret - infinite Assault FG - Carried by very slow, very large, easy to hit target with HP comparable to suits smaller than it's class. Can be killed by 95% of the players on the field in less than 2 seconds even Militia noobs. Rail Turret - Carried by a TANK! Thousands of HP, requires multiple, fully dedicated AVers working in coordination to even suppress for a momentary respite. So, yea, lets talk about that disparity. You conveniently left out damage done, and the fact that you could put on damage mods without sacrificing much defense.
Ishukone AFG Meta 8 Base DPS 756
80GJ Regulated Particle Cannon Meta 8 Base DPS 799 (Damage/Fire interval)
Soooo like I said, lets talk about that disparity...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |