DUST Search - To non-pilots making tank threads

All Channels

General Discussions

To non-pilots making tank threads

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 158	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:09:00 - [121] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: . So no, that video is highly suspect. Youll grasp at any straw you can wont you Want me to post a deluge of videos or do you want to save me the time and just search "RPG vs tank" in youtube Ehh? Commenting that a military propaganda video looks funny is now taboo for you? Interesting.
Spkr4theDead International-Fleet 831	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:09:00 - [122] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Crash Monster wrote: Rei Shepard wrote: AV is like Anti Vehicle, its the counter to your vehicle, if we need 2-3 guys to counter your tank they guns would need to be renamed to SV (Supressing Vehicle), AV is designed to blow you up. Learn to live with it. One guy running around with a hand portable weapon should not be able to single handedly take out a tank. I dont think this guy got your memo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pwmdAjePLY LOL You cannot be serious. The cameraman stayed behind the wall. There's characteristic smoke trailing RPGs. Everybody knows that. Then, in the next edited shot of the tank being destroyed (it's edited because it's 2 different cameras, and therefore suspect), there's no smoke trail. Plus, it's a Russian tank, not American or British. Like the AK-47, they mass produce things to send them off for other peoples' wars. So no, that video is highly suspect. Youll grasp at any straw you can wont you Want me to post a deluge of videos or do you want to save me the time and just search "RPG vs tank" in youtube Please, post more links to videos.
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 1950	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:22:00 - [123] - Quote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHL7jET8Gc Since someone mentioned posting video of people actually dying Im trying to limit it to test videos for now but theres a deluge of stuff from syria as Im sure you understand Inb4 "herp derp thats not an rpg" You are right, its a step up and more akin to what the game is actually giving us
Ryme Intrinseca Seraphim Auxiliaries 34	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:22:00 - [124] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: 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? Once again an infantry, non-tanker seeing it from a one sided perspective. The above makes sense and actually is the direction CCP is moving according to the dev post. My tank being temporarily powerful is NOT a burden to you. Likewise, you not being able to take it out at your early convenience is NOT a burden. A tank is not like infantry and should not have to deal with multiple deaths and recalls just to get two shots in. I challenge you to show me the dev post quote that says that the limit of AV ambition should be to force a tank to temporarily retreat. Don't worry, I'm not expecting you to meet the challenge. What I am expecting is more double standards and ad hominems.
Rei Shepard Spectre II 617	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:26:00 - [125] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHL7jET8Gc Since someone mentioned posting video of people actually dying Im trying to limit it to test videos for now but theres a deluge of stuff from syria as Im sure you understand Inb4 "herp derp thats not an rpg" You are right, its a step up and more akin to what the game is actually giving us Hey look, we arent even 4000 years in the future and already blowing up tanks like no tommorow, theres nothing even left of this thing and it can be used while sitting behind a cozy wall. I think ill grab one of those for my equipment slot, thx.
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 1950	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:27:00 - [126] - Quote Rei Shepard wrote: Delta 749 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHL7jET8Gc Since someone mentioned posting video of people actually dying Im trying to limit it to test videos for now but theres a deluge of stuff from syria as Im sure you understand Inb4 "herp derp thats not an rpg" You are right, its a step up and more akin to what the game is actually giving us Hey look, we arent even 4000 years in the future and already blowing up tanks like no tommorow, theres nothing even left of this thing and it can be used while sitting behind a cozy wall. I think ill grab one of those for my equipment slot, thx. Indeed, its even single man portable
Void Echo Morsus Mihi Aperuitque Imperium 1491	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:34:00 - [127] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i made no mention in any of my posts that a single person should be able to take out a tank let alone with an AR. i also have never made any points to make tanks weaker. i also made no mention that tanks should be one shot by av. dead wrong, your posts on making tanks require a driver and separate gunner make tanks extremely weak. you cannot way that youv never said anything on making us weak when you say that we should require a random bluetard to operate our personal investments and effectively kill tanking altogether.
medomai grey WarRavens League of Infamy 161	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:34:00 - [128] - Quote Another neophyte tanker QQ thread... Good thing noob tanker tears aren't real or they would have caused apocalyptic flooding.
Void Echo Morsus Mihi Aperuitque Imperium 1491	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:38:00 - [129] - Quote *sigh..... spkr wtf have you done.......... when it comes to responding to posts, you shouldn't stop to infantry's level and try to insult them at every turn, keep your tanker pride and give your feedback accordingly... infantry think that every thread asking for a buff to something they don't use is automatically QQ no matter what evidence we always give. you really made a mess of your won thread lol.
Void Echo Morsus Mihi Aperuitque Imperium 1491	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:39:00 - [130] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Another neophyte tanker QQ thread... Good thing noob tanker tears aren't real or they would have caused apocalyptic flooding. its nothing compared to infantry QQ when everything they don't use gets a mysterious even playing field against you.... lol

Surt gods end Demon Ronin 1077	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:40:00 - [131] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Another neophyte tanker QQ thread... Good thing noob tanker tears aren't real or they would have caused apocalyptic flooding. LOL
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 1953	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:40:00 - [132] - Quote Void Echo wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i made no mention in any of my posts that a single person should be able to take out a tank let alone with an AR. i also have never made any points to make tanks weaker. i also made no mention that tanks should be one shot by av. dead wrong, your posts on making tanks require a driver and separate gunner make tanks extremely weak. you cannot way that youv never said anything on making us weak when you say that we should require a random bluetard to operate our personal investments and effectively kill tanking altogether. The argument can be made that having one person able to focus solely on mobility and one focus solely on destroying the enemy is much more effective than having one person worrying about both As for bad teammates that stuff happens to everyone, squad up and dont call in your stuff as soon as you spawn with the group, take a few steps off to the side and get your stuff set up
ADAM-OF-EVE Svartur Bjorn Neo Terra Empire 318	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:41:00 - [133] - Quote Void Echo wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i made no mention in any of my posts that a single person should be able to take out a tank let alone with an AR. i also have never made any points to make tanks weaker. i also made no mention that tanks should be one shot by av. dead wrong, your posts on making tanks require a driver and separate gunner make tanks extremely weak. you cannot way that youv never said anything on making us weak when you say that we should require a random bluetard to operate our personal investments and effectively kill tanking altogether. no. you assume that. that was a basic idea with no numbers. it also stated increasing ehp which is a buff and requiring 3 crew which imo is also a buff as you can see more and kill more. the mechanics behind the idea were flawed some but the idea was to emphasise the need for crew in order to justify its combat effectiveness. also that has nothing to do with this post at least i am putting a little more thought into the problem even if it is drastic and completely different that what everyone is used to. ideas evolve into something that works or they die through constructive criticism. in a tankers eyes if its not a buff to tanks and a nerf to av then its bad for tanking. also when something is in an idea stage then nothing that is currently in use has any relevance on it.
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 115	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:41:00 - [134] - Quote I know this is a crazy theory that no one ever wants to accept, but if tanks and infantry would WORK TOGETHER AS 1 ELEMENT things would be much better for everyone, tanks especially. You don't want anyone in your tank, I know. I've heard that **** 76 trillion times now. Fine. Not sure why you have extra turrets in your tanks, but whatever. How about we all start WORKING TOGETHER, you know, the way it's suppose to be? Infantry units are suppose to support armor units because in any setting other than a gigantic wide open field the best way to kill a tank is infantry. Look at Americas most recent incursion into Iraq. Yeah, the US wiped the actual Iraqi army off the map almost immediately. Then what happened? We started sending our forces into the cities where, even with substantial infantry support, our tanks were getting knocked out by at times single RPGs. How much does an M-1 Abrams Main Battle Tank cost? How much training is required to operate it? And how much does an RPG cost? How much training is required to operate it? In any situation other than wide open large number tank vs tank battles the most efficient and lowest risk way to eliminate a tank is with infantry. So why even bring a tank you ask? Lets say you have squad A vs squad B. For the sake of the argument lets assume tankers and infantry cooperate, work together, and protect each other. Squad A brings a tank. Squad B doesn't. Squad A wins engagement, plain and simple. Squad B would have to bring in a tank to compete. If squad Bs tank just rushed straight in (pushing 3 foot soldiers on his bumper the whole way) without trying to work with his/her infantry support, he/she would be killed and squad A would take the battle. And this is my problem with calls for tank buffs. I'm not saying no to tank buffs, i'm saying you cannot buff tanks according to how they operate as a lone unit. You have to buff tanks according to how they operate as a part of a team. If I see a tanker in a match running over his foot soldiers (when there is no threat to the tank), not hanging out to support pushes or support the complete neutralization of objectives, blowing up supply depots needlessly (some depots do need to go down, but not all of them), and not letting his/her infantry support them, then I see the same tanker QQing on the forums and calling for buffs, i'm gonna say kiss my lilly white @ss. What happens on these same forums when an infantry player QQs about losing his/her proto stuff in a solo pub match? The community rips him/her a new butthole, collects the tears, has a good laugh, and moves on. Would you take me seriously if I said Assault players need a buff because we are easily killed when we are on our own with no support? No, you wouldn't, and that's why I pay little to no mind to 99% of what most tankers say. I feel for tankers, I really do. Your chosen profession is an expensive one, and the main reason most tankers have such sh!tty attitudes on the forums is due to mistreatment by infantry players. It sucks, I know. But it is what it is, you just gotta role with the punches. I know you can't control blue dots, but you either have to learn to deal with them, or only run in squads (where blue dots can still be a problem, I know). Because door locks, while a great idea and something that needs to be implemented, are not the solution to your problems Tankers. Sure, they are a solution to A problem, but no matter what they do to tanks, a lone tanker will ALWAYS be bested by a Tanker working with his/her infantry. And a lone tanker will ALMOST NEVER have the upper hand when engaging infantry with any amount of AV.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 159	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:47:00 - [135] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: I have a question, if one person with an AR can simply shoot a tank to destroy it... What's the purpose of even having a tank? According to you "this is acceptable balance". You keep complaining to make tanks weaker , yet you never once ever explained how a tank should be operated? Cowering from 300+ meters away because encountering any AV means instant destruction?(this example is made using your models not the current ingame settings) If tanks were weakened to the point that a single AV player could blow it up before it gets close enough to engage... What's the purpose of a tank? It has to be able to take a beating of some kind as it approaches because it can't hide anywhere and everywhere like infantry can. Tanks cannot hide period! It's literally impossible to loose track of a tank because they can be seen from the areal map. Basically tanks exchange all the defensive benefits that infantry have for a bit of armor and firepower. So if a tank can't have that what is it supposed to do? where did i mention that. i made no mention in any of my posts that a single person should be able to take out a tank let alone with an AR. i also have never made any points to make tanks weaker. i also made no mention that tanks should be one shot by av. That first "AR" was my spell check messing up"AV". You stated in the post I quoted earlier that a tank shouldn't need a team to take it down (aka 2 or more players clearly indicating a solo job) You also never answered how tanks should operate. Instead you tried to skip the answer by making accusations. Many others may be easily distracted but I'm asking for explanations.
Void Echo Morsus Mihi Aperuitque Imperium 1492	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:51:00 - [136] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Void Echo wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: i made no mention in any of my posts that a single person should be able to take out a tank let alone with an AR. i also have never made any points to make tanks weaker. i also made no mention that tanks should be one shot by av. dead wrong, your posts on making tanks require a driver and separate gunner make tanks extremely weak. you cannot way that youv never said anything on making us weak when you say that we should require a random bluetard to operate our personal investments and effectively kill tanking altogether. no. you assume that. that was a basic idea with no numbers. it also stated increasing ehp which is a buff and requiring 3 crew which imo is also a buff as you can see more and kill more. the mechanics behind the idea were flawed some but the idea was to emphasise the need for crew in order to justify its combat effectiveness. also that has nothing to do with this post at least i am putting a little more thought into the problem even if it is drastic and completely different that what everyone is used to. ideas evolve into something that works or they die through constructive criticism. in a tankers eyes if its not a buff to tanks and a nerf to av then its bad for tanking. also when something is in an idea stage then nothing that is currently in use has any relevance on it. actually its based on fact guy... none of us would continue tanking or even log back on this game if our personal investments would require another person to operate. you would effectively kill tanking altogether and for you not to see that, you truly are ignorant. none of us skilled into tanks just to have someone else drive us straight into the enemy and get us both killed in an instant, nor did we skill into tanks for someone else to operate the main cannon and shoot at random **** completely ignoring the AV threat that they allowed to get too close resulting in the tanks destruction. 90% on infantry in this game does not care about tanks on their team, they believe we are invincible which is a flat out lie, I know this because as soon as I take a hit, they jump out of my tank and look back to see if im still alive, they jump back in and continue to AFK. I don't know about my brothers in tanks but I sure as hell refuse to work with most infantry I meet purely because they are 100% incompetent. let alone would I let them drive me around or operate my main cannon.
Toby Flenderson research lab The Superpowers 47	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:58:00 - [137] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: You don't tank. You don't have the experience we have. It's actually quite easy to destroy us, if you know how to do it, and considering the complaints on here about tanks, only a sad few actually know how to destroy us. If it takes a tanker to write out how to destroy us, you're doing it wrong now, you did it wrong before, and you'll probably continue to do it wrong until you reach that eureka moment, when you and 2 people beside you destroy a tank in 3 seconds. Until then, you'll vainly try to solo the best tankers in the game. I love how the entire post is you complaining that tanks are so underpowered and that no one who doesn't tank could understand but then you go and basically say that if you don't tank you don't know how easy it is to kill them. I don't tank but I'm allowed to have opinions on that game mechanic because tanks kill me all the time. You're simply ridiculous if you think that just because someone doesn't run the fit you have then they are not entitled to an opinion about it. I don't run Caldari Logi or mass drivers but I'm allowed to have an opinion on them because they affect my games directly, just like tanks. I don't need to ride in a tank to understand balancing tanks/AV because I have months experience battling with tanks. It doesn't matter what side of the fight you're on and you should know that considering you're making opinions about proto AV weapons. I respect your opinion about AV just as you should respect my opinion about tanking. People need to stop treating tanks as invincible vessels used to walk across the field murdering everyone. They're just another kind of "dropsuit" or fitting as far as I'm concerned and they have advantages and disadvantages just like infantry. The only real difference is that with big reward comes big risk and from what I've seen on the forums, people in tanks are slow to accept responsibility for this. Long story short, stop hiding behind the argument that only tankers can have an opinion about tanks and open your mind to 2-sided discussion like the rest of us. Otherwise it's just you trying to rally up a club of QQers that are all either ill-equipt to argue against AV or not able to come up with anything better than "you don't tank".
ADAM-OF-EVE Svartur Bjorn Neo Terra Empire 318	Posted - 2013.09.22 20:59:00 - [138] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: I have a question, if one person with an AR can simply shoot a tank to destroy it... What's the purpose of even having a tank? According to you "this is acceptable balance". You keep complaining to make tanks weaker , yet you never once ever explained how a tank should be operated? Cowering from 300+ meters away because encountering any AV means instant destruction?(this example is made using your models not the current ingame settings) If tanks were weakened to the point that a single AV player could blow it up before it gets close enough to engage... What's the purpose of a tank? It has to be able to take a beating of some kind as it approaches because it can't hide anywhere and everywhere like infantry can. Tanks cannot hide period! It's literally impossible to loose track of a tank because they can be seen from the areal map. Basically tanks exchange all the defensive benefits that infantry have for a bit of armor and firepower. So if a tank can't have that what is it supposed to do? where did i mention that. i made no mention in any of my posts that a single person should be able to take out a tank let alone with an AR. i also have never made any points to make tanks weaker. i also made no mention that tanks should be one shot by av. That first "AR" was my spell check messing up"AV". You stated in the post I quoted earlier that a tank shouldn't need a team to take it down (aka 2 or more players clearly indicating a solo job) You also never answered how tanks should operate. Instead you tried to skip the answer by making accusations. Many others may be easily distracted but I'm asking for explanations. you missed the point of the quote. the point i was making was if a tank can solo and it takes more players to take them out then that is not balanced. 3 av taking on 1 tank with a full crew would be balanced but tankers wont allow crew in their vehicles or allow balance to compensate for not having crew.
Void Echo Morsus Mihi Aperuitque Imperium 1492	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:02:00 - [139] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: I have a question, if one person with an AR can simply shoot a tank to destroy it... What's the purpose of even having a tank? According to you "this is acceptable balance". You keep complaining to make tanks weaker , yet you never once ever explained how a tank should be operated? Cowering from 300+ meters away because encountering any AV means instant destruction?(this example is made using your models not the current ingame settings) If tanks were weakened to the point that a single AV player could blow it up before it gets close enough to engage... What's the purpose of a tank? It has to be able to take a beating of some kind as it approaches because it can't hide anywhere and everywhere like infantry can. Tanks cannot hide period! It's literally impossible to loose track of a tank because they can be seen from the areal map. Basically tanks exchange all the defensive benefits that infantry have for a bit of armor and firepower. So if a tank can't have that what is it supposed to do? where did i mention that. i made no mention in any of my posts that a single person should be able to take out a tank let alone with an AR. i also have never made any points to make tanks weaker. i also made no mention that tanks should be one shot by av. That first "AR" was my spell check messing up"AV". You stated in the post I quoted earlier that a tank shouldn't need a team to take it down (aka 2 or more players clearly indicating a solo job) You also never answered how tanks should operate. Instead you tried to skip the answer by making accusations. Many others may be easily distracted but I'm asking for explanations. you missed the point of the quote. the point i was making was if a tank can solo and it takes more players to take them out then that is not balanced. 3 av taking on 1 tank with a full crew would be balanced but tankers wont allow crew in their vehicles or allow balance to compensate for not having crew. well this is the 1st game in history for the console that allows players to take control of machines that normally AI programs would have, so yeah, shouldn't be soloed by anything under proto AV or another tank. we are NOT AI, we are players like you.
SgtDoughnut M.E.R.C. Elite League of Infamy 144	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:02:00 - [140] - Quote God tankers are so bitchy its funny. Here's the thing yes a tank should be this massive asset on the field for the team, not for 1 guy. Tankers want their cake and to eat it too. They want to be this massive influence on the field SOLO. One guy should not be able to wipe out everyone around him uncontested just because he spent more isk than the next guy. This just leads to everyone running tanks because its the only viable thing. If you want to run a tank solo it has to be only slightly stronger than a solo merc, and I say slightly stronger due to the fact they cost so much. If you want a true tank, a killing machine on the level of the M1 abrams you are going to have to multicrew your tank. This means driver only drives, gunner only shoots, and support gunners only run support guns. The more complex and team based a tank is the more powerful it can be due to the fact it requires more people to be effective. So by that meaning if you want to run a solo tank expect it to be paper thin, if you want a strong tank expect to have to run a crew of people. This is balance and this is fair.

Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 1954	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:05:00 - [141] - Quote Void Echo wrote: well this is the 1st game in history for the console that allows players to take control of machines that normally AI programs would have, so yeah, shouldn't be soloed by anything under proto AV or another tank. we are NOT AI, we are players like you. What the hell are you talking about? Dust is definitely not the first console game that lets players control a tank while infantry runs around and fights
DJINN Marauder Ancient Exiles 1405	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:09:00 - [142] - Quote The tankers have the logi lav drivers to blame for us infantry getting proto av nades and swarms/forge....
Spkr4theDead International-Fleet 834	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:10:00 - [143] - Quote Rei Shepard wrote: Delta 749 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHL7jET8Gc Since someone mentioned posting video of people actually dying Im trying to limit it to test videos for now but theres a deluge of stuff from syria as Im sure you understand Inb4 "herp derp thats not an rpg" You are right, its a step up and more akin to what the game is actually giving us Hey look, we arent even 4000 years in the future and already blowing up tanks like no tommorow, theres nothing even left of this thing and it can be used while sitting behind a cozy wall. I think ill grab one of those for my equipment slot, thx. We're uh.................................................................................................................. At least 20,000 years into the future from what I've been told by EVE players.
ADAM-OF-EVE Svartur Bjorn Neo Terra Empire 319	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:13:00 - [144] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: Rei Shepard wrote: Delta 749 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHL7jET8Gc Since someone mentioned posting video of people actually dying Im trying to limit it to test videos for now but theres a deluge of stuff from syria as Im sure you understand Inb4 "herp derp thats not an rpg" You are right, its a step up and more akin to what the game is actually giving us Hey look, we arent even 4000 years in the future and already blowing up tanks like no tommorow, theres nothing even left of this thing and it can be used while sitting behind a cozy wall. I think ill grab one of those for my equipment slot, thx. We're uh.................................................................................................................. At least 20,000 years into the future from what I've been told by EVE players. he is talking about today not 20k years into the future
Cosgar ParagonX 5376	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:16:00 - [145] - Quote Infantry making tank topics is like Ronde Barber trying to do color commentary for a football game.
ADAM-OF-EVE Svartur Bjorn Neo Terra Empire 319	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:18:00 - [146] - Quote if infantry are not allow to comment on how tanks should be then what gives a tanker the right to tell us how av should be
Void Echo Morsus Mihi Aperuitque Imperium 1493	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:21:00 - [147] - Quote SgtDoughnut wrote: God tankers are so bitchy its funny. Here's the thing yes a tank should be this massive asset on the field for the team, not for 1 guy. Tankers want their cake and to eat it too. They want to be this massive influence on the field SOLO. One guy should not be able to wipe out everyone around him uncontested just because he spent more isk than the next guy. This just leads to everyone running tanks because its the only viable thing. If you want to run a tank solo it has to be only slightly stronger than a solo merc, and I say slightly stronger due to the fact they cost so much. If you want a true tank, a killing machine on the level of the M1 abrams you are going to have to multicrew your tank. This means driver only drives, gunner only shoots, and support gunners only run support guns. The more complex and team based a tank is the more powerful it can be due to the fact it requires more people to be effective. So by that meaning if you want to run a solo tank expect it to be paper thin, if you want a strong tank expect to have to run a crew of people. This is balance and this is fair. translation: dust tanks are meant to be **** and strong tanks will not exist.
Void Echo Morsus Mihi Aperuitque Imperium 1493	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:22:00 - [148] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Void Echo wrote: well this is the 1st game in history for the console that allows players to take control of machines that normally AI programs would have, so yeah, shouldn't be soloed by anything under proto AV or another tank. we are NOT AI, we are players like you. What the hell are you talking about? Dust is definitely not the first console game that lets players control a tank while infantry runs around and fights please enlighten me on what game allows you to put personal investment in anything besides infantry.
ADAM-OF-EVE Svartur Bjorn Neo Terra Empire 321	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:23:00 - [149] - Quote Void Echo wrote: SgtDoughnut wrote: God tankers are so bitchy its funny. Here's the thing yes a tank should be this massive asset on the field for the team, not for 1 guy. Tankers want their cake and to eat it too. They want to be this massive influence on the field SOLO. One guy should not be able to wipe out everyone around him uncontested just because he spent more isk than the next guy. This just leads to everyone running tanks because its the only viable thing. If you want to run a tank solo it has to be only slightly stronger than a solo merc, and I say slightly stronger due to the fact they cost so much. If you want a true tank, a killing machine on the level of the M1 abrams you are going to have to multicrew your tank. This means driver only drives, gunner only shoots, and support gunners only run support guns. The more complex and team based a tank is the more powerful it can be due to the fact it requires more people to be effective. So by that meaning if you want to run a solo tank expect it to be paper thin, if you want a strong tank expect to have to run a crew of people. This is balance and this is fair. translation: dust tanks are meant to be ** and strong tanks will not exist. my translation : solo tanks are meant to be ** and tanks with a crew should be awesome
Void Echo Morsus Mihi Aperuitque Imperium 1493	Posted - 2013.09.22 21:27:00 - [150] - Quote ADAM-OF-EVE wrote: Void Echo wrote: SgtDoughnut wrote: God tankers are so bitchy its funny. Here's the thing yes a tank should be this massive asset on the field for the team, not for 1 guy. Tankers want their cake and to eat it too. They want to be this massive influence on the field SOLO. One guy should not be able to wipe out everyone around him uncontested just because he spent more isk than the next guy. This just leads to everyone running tanks because its the only viable thing. If you want to run a tank solo it has to be only slightly stronger than a solo merc, and I say slightly stronger due to the fact they cost so much. If you want a true tank, a killing machine on the level of the M1 abrams you are going to have to multicrew your tank. This means driver only drives, gunner only shoots, and support gunners only run support guns. The more complex and team based a tank is the more powerful it can be due to the fact it requires more people to be effective. So by that meaning if you want to run a solo tank expect it to be paper thin, if you want a strong tank expect to have to run a crew of people. This is balance and this is fair. translation: dust tanks are meant to be ** and strong tanks will not exist. my translation : solo tanks are meant to be ** and tanks with a crew should be awesome lol, no



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.