DUST Search - anti-vehicle and tankers alike, let me enlighten you

All Channels

General Discussions

anti-vehicle and tankers alike, let me enlighten you

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 122	Posted - 2013.09.23 18:41:00 - [1] - Quote CCP needs to not Buff or Nerf anything and some how make a game mode that forces Tanks and Infantry to work together. I have no idea what this mode would be. Maybe a capture the flag esq type game where a team has to hack a yellow tank then return it safely to their red line or something. The gunner issue aside (feels to me that the gunner issue was the original issue, but after reading the forums over the past few days there is definitely a bunch of separate issues) the flaw in almost everybodys reasoning, from tankers to infantry, is that while people acknowledge team work is something required for infantry working with infantry, almost no one wants to acknowledge team work is a necessity between infantry and tanks. AVers should pretty much be able to dominate a lone tank that doesn't have infantry support. Maybe, and I say MAYBE 2 AVers should be required to take down a decent, lone tank. I'll say that a rough ballpark of 1-3 AVers should always defeat a lone tank, no problem (due more in part to tactics, less in part to damage). And there is one thing Tankers are forgetting/won't acknowledge. That AV dude trying to take you out? His choice of AV nades puts him/her at a massive disadvantage to me, an Assault with real nades. I don't need or want to be in your tank, but if Tankers would let me, I could protect them from AV. But they don't let me/want me to. I have seen and met a lot of REAL LIFE Military/Ex Military people here in Dust. I would like to see someone who has had REAL LIFE experience with Tanks and Tank tactics/strategy get on here and talk some sense into Dust Tankers. They would tell you that if you try and do anything with out infantry support, you are a moron and deserve the death that is coming your way. Of course, no one on here would listen to said person, so I guess that's a moot point. In real life the 4 supposed best Main Battle Tanks (M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, Challenger 2, and AMX-56 Leclerc) cost easily into the millions of dollars to build (I wanna say the M1 Abrams is around like 54 million per tank, but i'm pulling that from memory and could be incorrect) and take massive amounts of training to make the CREW proficient. The RPG has been the same forever, takes almost no training to use proficiently, and is basically just a tube and an exploding shell with an impact fuse. Just a guess but I would say construction of 1 RPG tube and 1 round is well under 1000 dollars, probably closer to 100 dollars. I understand we are playing a futuristic videogame with made up weapons and technology, but if we aren't going to follow reality in any way shape or form, then everybody (tankers included) better put on their big boy pants and get ready for MAVs, Fighters, Heavy Aircraft, and those Mechs that have been rumored to be a possibility way down the road. Because if a Tank should be able to solo with no support, then so should everything else. And if they aren't, then everyone needs to get ready for Tanker QQing multiplied by 4. EDIT: I'm not against Tank buffs. I'm against Tank buffs when considering the Tank a lone unit that doesn't work with support. I would not be against a buff that takes into consideration the fact a Tank needs to work with support forces.
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 122	Posted - 2013.09.23 18:55:00 - [2] - Quote If I have a decent amount of SP into AV nades and I engage a tank in a city setting where I have boxes and stuff to hide behind and or enough cover to sneak up behind a tank, then yea, I should be able to solo a tank. The tank had no business being alone in that setting, and doesn't need a buff because of the results. Tankers can solo all they want in Pubs, and they don't dominate. Yet most Tanker QQing seems to be in relation to Pubs, so I am naturally confused.
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 19:27:00 - [3] - Quote chase rowland wrote: Dunk Mujunk wrote: If I have a decent amount of SP into AV nades and I engage a tank in a city setting where I have boxes and stuff to hide behind and or enough cover to sneak up behind a tank, then yea, I should be able to solo a tank. The tank had no business being alone in that setting, and doesn't need a buff because of the results. Tankers can solo all they want in Pubs, and they don't dominate. Yet most Tanker QQing seems to be in relation to Pubs, so I am naturally confused. ok since you seem to want to be able to 1v1 a 2 mill tank, how about we make av 2 mill? different form of balance and you can still 1v1 tanks, yet you get as broke as us in the process. in the war against iraq, we sent in around 250 tanks, about 230 came back fine. so dont even get started about real life becouse if we made it like real life, then tanks would just dominate. cod isnt like real life my friend, you severely underestimate tanks. so explain to me why you think its possible to solo tanks irl? Because you're looking at large scale tank vs tank in an open desert. Take a look at what happened when our forces moved into the cities. And you thinking i'm a CoD player is laughable, as i'm trying to champion teamwork. Yet you wanna run solo in your tank. By yourself. With no one on your extra turrets. And no Infantry support. Any more questions?
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 19:30:00 - [4] - Quote Oh hey, look at this interesting little tid bit- http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm You're talking about the Battle of 73 Easting Chase. Which was in 1991. EDIT: Not sure why I wasted my time posting this link as i'm sure no one will read it. Oh well. Back to the fruitless argument!!!
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 19:41:00 - [5] - Quote Congratulations, you found a paragraph that you could pull out of context and try and use for your argument. I guess that means you win right? What about this paragraph- In the all-out battles of the 1991 Gulf War, only 18 Abrams tanks were lost and no soldiers in them killed. But since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, with tanks in daily combat against the unexpectedly fierce insurgency, the Army says 80 of the 69-ton behemoths have been damaged so badly they had to be shipped back to the United States. Did you miss that one? Or are you going to say they were just damaged and shipped home, not destroyed, so that some how validates your argument? What about this paragraph- Because it was designed to fight other tanks, the Abrams' heavy armor is up front. In Iraq's cities, however, insurgents sneak up from behind, fire from rooftops above and set off mines below. Holy **** that sounds like Dust!!!
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 19:42:00 - [6] - Quote chase rowland wrote: quick edit: about 80 tanks were so badly damaged that they had to be shipped back. youve done my work for me. thank you ignorent aver HA! I'm freakin psychic!!!!
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 19:51:00 - [7] - Quote Operative 1171 Aajli wrote: Tanks in this game get defense modules, are corralled into a tiny little bowl of land and played by players who would like to have some fun. Calling down a tank and having to roll around more methodically isn't tha same as just popping another respawn and running into bullets again and again. Tanks should not die outright to one guy when they've timed their modules to activate and have specced up into a better tank and mods. One AV guy should be able to run them off so as to make them not be as big of a threat to infantry. That is all that is needed for balance. The better specced that one guy's AV skill is, the quicker that tank needs to book it out. If you wnt to kill a tank you should either have to organize, chase the tank down or be smart and wait where the tank will patrol out while mods are on cooldown and vulnerable. I agree with you 100%, especially the last part. But it has to go both ways. I simply cannot accept any Tank arguments when Tanks flat out refuse to work with anyone else. A Tank with 2-4 (good) infantry supporting it on foot should be nearly unstoppable. A lone tank should be at the mercy of whatever AV is focused on it (to an extent of course).
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 19:53:00 - [8] - Quote ABadMutha13 wrote: I know and those pesky insurgents have bad hit boxes just like Dust! What about those soldiers that get shot but if they wait a few moments they feel better? Nub...... What about those Tanks that can heal themselves as well, and have unlimited ammo? Communist......
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 19:56:00 - [9] - Quote chase rowland wrote: true but based on real facts from the military, tanks clearly dominate avers. your lucky i gave you so much slack in my first post. instead you got aggressive so i bring facts to case. so, any more points i must clarify? you forget out of 1100 tanks 80 were destroyed. go figure. Based on real facts from the military. That sounds official. You mind sharing the source of these real facts? I never got aggressive, and you don't need to cut me any slack. And yeah, you need to clarify all your points because the one you made in your last sentence says that 80 of the most advanced tanks on planet earth were taken out by RPGs and roadside bombs. Soooo......
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 20:05:00 - [10] - Quote So this is from your first post to me, before I said anything to you- chase rowland wrote: cod isnt like real life my friend, you severely underestimate tanks. And this is from your second post to me- chase rowland wrote: quick edit: about 80 tanks were so badly damaged that they had to be shipped back. youve done my work for me. thank you ignorent aver Let me know where I got aggressive with you, then we can hug it out, and move back to the actual discussion that was going on before you wanted to start trolling me. So keep cutting me slack, or not. I would suggest you be careful what you say since you keep shooting yourself in the foot. My IQ was in the 140s last I was checked, not sure what that has to do with anything. Anyway, let me post this so I can see what else you are saying.

Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 20:09:00 - [11] - Quote chase rowland wrote: plus they never said anything about rpgs. First Paragraph of said article- WASHINGTON GÇö The U.S. military's Abrams tank, designed during the Cold War to withstand the fiercest blows from the best Soviet tanks, is getting knocked out at surprising rates by the low-tech bombs and rocket-propelled grenades of Iraqi insurgents. Oh man, Chase, you gotta be getting full. You have eaten a hell of a lot of your words over the past 30 minutes or so.
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 20:21:00 - [12] - Quote chase rowland wrote: if there is one thing i hate more than cod its a unconstructive post and ive yet to see one like the one im about to reveal. the wars between avers and tankers needs to stop. I didn't realize you were the OP Chase. I'll give it to you, you started off strong, and got my attention. If I had thought this was another run of the mill tanker QQ thread I would have moved on. Things were polite and constructive in the beginning, but at some point it took a turn for the worst. chase rowland wrote: others feel free to leave comments and thoughts about this but please, dont act like a 8 year old and argue. this game needs balance, not brainless chimps throwing **** at eachother. and im a aver too so dont even try to critisize me. This is the unfortunate (yet hilarious) part of your OP. You became what you did not want on your thread. Based on the first and last sentence of your OP, I would say you were expecting a fight from the beginning and let your emotions get the better of you. I'm not out to argue or make anyone look like a fool, I just want to have a discussion. Sure, discussions can get heated, but when you blow your top and start asking people what their IQ is, you lose all credibility for any argument you had. Just an observation. P.S. I rarely run AV and average maybe 1 vehicle kills every 10 days ;-)
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 20:29:00 - [13] - Quote I understand. The general point I was, and always have tried to make is that tanks and infantry need to cooperate and work together. I did bring real world examples in simply to support my argument, and when my real world examples were attacked I defended them. The discussion did get derailed and it didn't have anything to do with Dust there for a minute, but if I use an example and my example is questioned, I will back up my example. A difference of opinion is another thing completely. While I may disagree with opinions different than my own, I respect the fact that they are opinions, not facts (mine included).
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 123	Posted - 2013.09.23 20:31:00 - [14] - Quote For clarification, I brought up real life. I'm in no way a tanker. I'm in no way an AVer. I am a pure Assault. I could run AV, but I don't. Me being AV is an assumption made by others on this thread. Just as the comment that i'm a CoD player is an assumption (and laughable as i'm pretty sure I hate CoD more than most lol).
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 124	Posted - 2013.09.23 21:04:00 - [15] - Quote Some very constructive and valid points here (Operative 1171 Aajli you have my full attention and respect). I don't know much about tanks or AV. I don't know what the solution is to fix them. But I do know that you cannot consider the tank a lone unit when balancing it. You have to consider the tank a smaller piece of a larger puzzle, and this is the way everything in the game, from dropsuits to dropships, needs to be balanced. No, I don't think any infantry should be able to solo anything. But if the proper tactics weren't used to counter it, then the tactics were a majority of the problem, not OP or UP. If they did buff tanks to solo right now, what happens when we have mechs and assault bombers? Are we just going to boost the tank up even more so they still don't need any support? At some point tanks and infantry need to work as a team. That has been my overall point, and the only one I really care about, since the day I started posting on tank/infantry threads.
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 131	Posted - 2013.09.24 21:06:00 - [16] - Quote chase rowland wrote: it should yet it doesnt. i was placing a counter to all those who think they should solo a tank, yet are saddly somehow unable given the current circumstances. and if one man can control a tank with a controller, why cant one do that in the army? oh wait, they do.... So, my real life examples (with links to prove facts) are no good, then you attempt to make a point using Real Life examples, but get the Real Life facts wrong. Lol. Yea, you are right. It does take 1 man to control a tank. Well, to drive it. You need at least 2 more guys to run a real tank (tanks require 3-5 men to run, some of the newer tanks incorporate an auto load system which helps to cut down on the previous standard of 5 men). The idea of having Dust tanks REQUIRE more than 1 man to operate has already been brought up, and quickly and fervently shot down by tankers. I understand that, you bought the tank, you run the tank. Dust isn't a simulation, and that's fine. There was a big to do about one of the paragraphs from my link, the one about only 80 tanks have been DISABLED. Oh yea, I saw that before I posted it. Unfortunately that one paragraph was considered my argument, and all my points were ignored. A tank that can't fight is a dead tank. Whether it is sent back across the ocean to be repaired and or rebuilt, or whether it is blown up on the spot, the tank is out of the fight. It is no longer a threat. Sooooo in Real Life, just as in Dust, a solo AV can remove a tank from a battle. Whether it has a blown engine, busted tread, or whatever, that tank has become a non factor. How about we make it so that your tanks don't necessarily explode, maybe the tread just gets screwed up and the transmission gets jacked up. You then have to pay ISK to send your tank back to base, pay ISK to have it repaired, then pay ISK to ship it back to your hanger. And of course this isn't an overnight thing. Moving a tank through the distances of Dust is a tricky affair that could take weeks/months. Lol, I can see people absolutely losing their **** reading the above paragraph. Calm down, calm down. I am in no way serious about that. If my posted article was my argument, and not supporting info for my ACTUAL argument, then I would have recommended the above paragraph, but I know that is insanity. Why should 1 man be able to solo a tank? Because a man is FAR more maneuverable than a tank, and if a man can sneak up behind a tank, put 2 AV nades on it and fire a swarm volley or 2, that tank screwed up and should die. Having guys in your turrets may help, but having a cadre of foot soldiers makes 1-3 AVs nearly a non issue. Why should tanks not be able to be soloed by AV? The only answer I've seen for that question is "because it's a tank". I respectfully ask for clarification on that point. Chase, I've been following your more level headed posts, and you and I seem to agree on more things than we disagree on. You run with guys in your turrets, and it sounds like you try and run with infantry support when you can. If all tankers did this, I would have no problems with buffs to tanks or nerfs to AV. But most don't operate this way, they operate alone. And I cannot endorse any buffs/nerfs when they are applied to the idea of a tank running solo. I'll end with this single statement- Teamwork teamwork teamwork teamwork teamwork teamwork teamwork. If everyone applied each of those 7 things to their gameplay, Dust would be a much better place for all. My point, Chase, is a point that you not only seem to
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 136	Posted - 2013.09.25 20:57:00 - [17] - Quote chase rowland wrote: 1. it really is hard to take AV seriously when they can already 1 shot a tank if they sneak behind them, and yet AVers ask for buffs..... just really? 2. as said in above comments, there is a link "provided by an AVer" that proves tank superiority over AV. 3. its not like COD where you rpg 1 shot a tank. 4. when you 1 shot a 2 mill tank. you think thats not OP? 5. you arent using reason, your constantly discarding everything i represent and shoot the same thing at me over and over 6. i should not be 1 shotted. keep using your crutch. 7. all other tanks took minor damage as said in the hyperlink. reasons were not included. 1-2. I'm sorry you're all hot under the collar Chase, but if you really want to keep arguing with me, you are going to have to actually read my posts at some point, lest you continue to make yourself look foolish. I am not an AVer, and I have to go back and read the whole thread but i'm pretty sure no one has called for AV buffs. 3. I didn't know they had tanks in CoD multiplayer. Is that true? 4. A very genral statement. Needs refinement to answer properly. Could be yes, could be no. Not a straightforward black and white situation. 5. That **** is annoying as hell isn't it Chase? The only thing I've got from you so far is you don't ever want to see a tank soloed by anyone or anything no matter what. That, and you keep misreading an article that was not used as a point, but a supporting argument. But keep feeding the fire, you tried to reference the article and got it wrong again, but I will get to that.... 6. Lol, that's the only point I've been able to discern from your entire thread 7. Plenty of reasons were included Chase, but you have to read the whole article- From the 1st paragraph (I've already had to repost this part Chase, you should have read this part already)- The U.S. military's Abrams tank, designed during the Cold War to withstand the fiercest blows from the best Soviet tanks, is getting knocked out at surprising rates by the low-tech bombs and rocket-propelled grenades of Iraqi insurgents. From the 3rd paragraph- At least five soldiers have been killed inside the tanks when they hit roadside bombs From the 9th paragraph- A favorite tactic: detonating a roadside bomb in hopes of blowing the tread off the tank. The insurgents follow with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and gunfire aimed at the less-armored areas, especially the vulnerable rear engine compartment. whew Anyway, Chase I would suggest you not be so hostile. While it may not be fun reading the posts of someone you disagree with, it is a requirement if you want to have a discussion, not a heated argument. I'm sure I have missed a few points you have tried to make, but I have done my best to read your (and everyone elses) posts and consider them. The fact that you still refer to me as "the AVer" shows you are just posting to post, and the moment you take a good verbal shot you want to switch over to some fantasy world where you are always right no matter what and other peoples opinions don't exist. I try to be fair and open to new ideas, and if I don't agree I refrain from calling people "CoD fans", or "ignorant AVers". I'm sure I have made myself look like an @ss to plenty of people in this thread, and I do regret that. I must admit you have me pretty frustrated as well Chase. But oh well, water under the bridge. I am happy to see people posting that at the very least understand the points i'm trying to make (Jaysyn, Monkey, thanks for restating and clarifying some of my points). I could care less if people listen to me, all I want is communal acknowledgment of valid points that need to be considered before any action is taken. Whether those points are accepted coming from my mouth or someone elses makes no difference. And Jaysyn I just want to say thank you for your service and sacrifice. I'd love to squad with you, my weekday schedule is a little funky with school and work, but i'm usually on for a little bit around 11:00pm-2:00pm ish, Eastern Standard. I'll hit you up next time i'm on (should be around tonight for a bit). And Chase I would like to squad with you as well. You run a tank, let me run as your infantry support. I don't need to be in a turret (and prefer not to be). We could set this thread aside, run a few matches, and see what we see. Maybe it turns out a little infantry support makes all the difference for you. Maybe it turns out tanks are too weak and AV is to strong. I would imaging it would be somewhere in the middle. The best way to show off our points to each other is to squad up.
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 137	Posted - 2013.09.25 23:01:00 - [18] - Quote jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: "His choice of AV nades puts him/her at a massive disadvantage to me, an Assault with real nades" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA wow, no it does not. sacrificing 2 grenades no one needs and you probably wont kill with anyway kid, 1hk lai dais are OP, 9700 dmg for one grenade. "a lone tank should be dominated by av" ** no, not with modules, kid, this isn't call of doody when every kill takes 0.6 seconds, tanks are not paper..... First off, I genuinely thank you for the "kid" part. It's like getting carded for cigarettes. I'll take the compliment, even in this setting. Nades may not make a difference either way for you when your using them, but when I kill someone with them, they make a difference for me. And if I kill you with one, they just made a difference for both of us (of course, i'm sure you have never been killed with a grenade). And if AV goes to attack a tank and finds out it has infantry support guess what? It is then AV with a main weapon and a sidearm vs Infantry support with a main weapon, sidearm, AND 2-3 nades. That is a classical example of "disadvantage", and yes, depending on the players, it can be huge. Especially when the first grenade out is cooked properly and explodes on the back of an AV players head. If AV gets to a tank (tower forges non withstanding), it's more often than not the Infantry Support who is to blame. If AV gets to a tank that has chosen not to run with Infantry Support, then the tank **ed up. It sucks to see so many children/disgruntled adults who are apparently so bad at CoD they feel they have to get on the Dust forums and accuse other people of playing CoD to mask their own short comings at playing it. But you are here in Dust now, so it's ok, you can let go of your shame and start fresh! Every day is a new day, and today could be your day! Now go out there and be somebody!! On a side note; CoD has Tanks in multiplayer? I've only seen my friend play a handful of times, and I've never seen a tank before.
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 137	Posted - 2013.09.25 23:12:00 - [19] - Quote THUNDER HOURSE wrote: Let me ask this say my squad ask for tank support and I go to the outskirts where it should be safe and bring tank out and are going to them to take the objective that were are trying to hold but while im on the way there sits an single comando and he goes to his swarm and is at a very good distance from he lock on and blows me up with one shoot. This is where I dont agree that one person should be able to take an tank out. I can understand that THUNDER. Taken at face value, that **** sucks, I know it does. Is it right..............I don't know. If the AV guy is fully proto'd out into his weapon of choice, and the tank is of lower quality and the tanker isn't speced very far into anything, then I would lean towards that being ok. But if it's just an average AV vs an average tank, no, it should not be that simple. While I believe in the general possibility of AV soloing a tank, I have never once said it should be easy. It should be something you have to work for. I've seen posts suggesting ways to make AV more of a role you would have to spec into, and while I am currently neutral on this concept, the ideas in general make some decent points, on both sides of the fence. Another thing that has been brought up before is the lack of Proto tanks. It seems to me this is a pretty big piece of the puzzle, and one that may be required before serious balance talks can commence. I could be wrong though. What are the feelings on Dusts lack of Proto tanks in regards to the tank balance issue? Something to be considered or a non issue?
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 137	Posted - 2013.09.25 23:38:00 - [20] - Quote I don't know whether the Swarms are armor or shield, but I could get behind a range nerf to the Swarms in some manner or another, at least just for tanks. This would definitely effect AV vs Dropships as well, so that factor would need to be considered. But who knows, maybe that would be something that could improve the lives of Dropship pilots (who have it just as bad if not worse than tanks atm it seems). Although most decent Dropship pilots seem to be able to shake Swarms pretty easily with enough time to speed up and or out climb them. Generally speaking though, yeah I could probably agree with a Swarm range nerf in some form. Would really like for vehicles to get some counter measure type mods also. An idea brought up by many that makes way too much sense to not already be a part of the game.

Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 141	Posted - 2013.09.26 00:21:00 - [21] - Quote What if they were to give the chaff and flares to Dropships, and give tanks (or LAVs) modules that would themselves nerf Swarms to an extent? Say an Electronic Disruptor or something. It would (obviously) get stronger as it was leveled up, and it would jam the signal in a Swarm Launcher, forcing the Swarm user to move in dangerously close to be able to attack. In a proto Swarm vs Proto Module situation, it would be a wash and whatever the decided middle of the medium range is, that would be the farthest the Proto Swarm could engage the Proto Modulated Vehicle. Possibly make it an AOE mod, so you could run it on an LLAV and provide "cover" for any vehicles within a tight area. Maybe even slap it on a Dropship, and maybe the Dropships become relevant as close in air support. It could indirectly nerf a Swarm in both range and lock on dynamics, all in one shot. Contrary to popular belief (apparently), I am not an AV player, so I don't know how any of them feel about this. I think a direct nerf to lock on capability would get them riled up, but you are right, the modules may do that as well.
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 142	Posted - 2013.09.26 00:38:00 - [22] - Quote Oh for sure. Soloing a tank should always require some work/skill. I could see a militia tank popping after 1 hit from a proto swarm, but that's about it. On the CPU/PG topic, I don't really have enough knowledge on that to comment either way.
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 145	Posted - 2013.09.26 01:46:00 - [23] - Quote jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: cod is ******* stupid, it's so boring.... Then why bring it up?
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 145	Posted - 2013.09.26 01:49:00 - [24] - Quote jerrmy12 kahoalii wrote: you have got to be ***** serious, or trolling. 1 person, easily destroy a TANK??? then whats the point of a TANK? 1v1 blaster, this isn't ***** COD kid, whoever shoots first, cod is that way>>>>>>>>>>>> you mad that you can't solo a tank so you think you need to destroy a 500k tank in 1 hit? --_-- I think this guys blood pressure is up a bit to high.

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.