|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
91
   |
Posted - 2013.09.25 14:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
chase rowland wrote:yet, not a single AV guy on here posted a good reason why they should be able to solo a tank. they just repeat over and over "i should solo a tank". and when i demand evidence from them, it takes them a hour to bring me a military link that clearly states tanks dominated AV. can anyone give me a reason? im still trying to understand. and dont say tanks are limited to only one person. you can use them too.
Chase, Dunk., et all...
I have spec'd into AVs quite seriously. I don't drive tanks but I routinely volunteer to be a dedicated gunner & ground support for them. I also happen to have more RW experience with this than probably 99.5% of the folks playing the game.
My opinion, for what that's worth, is that vehicles vs AV equipment is actually fairly balanced (some exceptions to this at the proto level) and the ultimate leveler is the skill of the tanker vs the skill or numbers of the opposing team.
A decent tanker with some dedicated infantry support (even if it's just two guys that gun in turrets and dismount to disrupt AV or swarm on other tanks) is extremely difficult to stop with out a large portion of the opposing team stopping everything they are doing and focusing on the tank team. Solo tanking can be tough since you lose situational awareness. You dominate what you see in front of you but what you don't see is the swarms coming from your 6 or the AV grenades coming from your flanks.
Chase - as to your direct question above. It should be possible (notice i didn't say easy) for a single focused player that has spent the appropriate time, SP, and ISK to solo kill a tank. If the player is approaching the tank using cover, blindspots, ect. and can take advantage of the equipment and weapons with their optimal ranges and engagement angles there is no reason that it shouldn't be possible. The single biggest threat to a modern MBT is a motivated and undetected guy or two with a high end anit-tank missle. Once the element of surprise has ended and the AV guy or team hasn't killed the tank then the tank will know where you are and it's a whole different story.
Tanks, high end fighting vehicles, helos (read: dropships) that cost exhorbitant amounts of money are routinely heavily damaged or destroyed in modern war (Iraq & Afghanistan). Quick note...the "80 tanks" destroyed weren't the only tanks destroyed. That's just the number sent back to the States; the number of vehicles taking major damage that rendered them combat ineffective for periods of time but were reparied in theater is much higher. |
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
91
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 14:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vell0cet wrote: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? You're calculating this wrong. It should be balanced around the total amount of ISK in destroyed dropsuits/vehicles by tanks vs. total cost of tanks destroyed. I highly suspect tanks deal out more pain than what they cost. It's the ISK efficiency that should be important not the price of the counter. You have to remember that AV have to run a gauntlet of vehicles and infantry (especially enemy snipers) that mow down AV like its nothing. The only thing AV is good at is taking out vehicles, except you think instead of paper killing rock, it should be a stack of paper to kill a rock with rocks and scissors shredding paper like Enron. Vehicles should be balanced around teamwork. CCP needs to fix vehicle remote repairing, so that tankers are going to want a remote-repping LLAV or dropship with them when they charge into the fray. I have no sympathy for players who want to deal millions of ISK in losses to the enemy solo, but expect to either not pay much for the privilege, or expect to be so indestructible that they can regularly do this solo AND TURN A PROFIT. That's crazy. If tanks need a buff (and I'm not convinced they do) then it should be a buff to supporting abilities of the tanks. A defender light missile turret might be cool to fit onto LLAV's for example with fitting requirements that make it difficult/impossible to fit on a tank or dropship. Give players WPs for taking out enemy swarms. Or there could be a wide energy beam that does no damage, but will cause missiles to prematurely detonate when they enter the beam's path. I also want to see vehicle capacitors implemented. This will give skilled tankers/pilots more flexibility and opportunity to weigh their module activation choices. It also might help bring in EVE pilots to DUST.
+1 ...spot on assesment and recommendations. |
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
92
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 15:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
I guess i don't understand why people think the AV vs Tank question is about fairness. Not throwing rocks at anyone i just don't understand it.
1. High end vehicles are expensive and have incredible potential on the battlefield- as they should be.
2. The counter weapon for infantry is cheaper but puts the infantry at high risk and requires they exclusively focus on the vehicle target- as they should be.
3. The tactic to negate both the tank and the AV guy/gal is teamwork - as it should be.
4. A driving force in Dust is game mechanics that encourage teamwork.
If I'm looking at the this wrong let me know, seriously.
I guess I come down in the camp that you certainly shouldn't be able to OHK a tank but you should be able to solo kill one with some effort.
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
94
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 16:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
chase rowland wrote:Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:chase rowland wrote:yet, not a single AV guy on here posted a good reason why they should be able to solo a tank. they just repeat over and over "i should solo a tank". and when i demand evidence from them, it takes them a hour to bring me a military link that clearly states tanks dominated AV. can anyone give me a reason? im still trying to understand. and dont say tanks are limited to only one person. you can use them too. Chase, Dunk., et all... I have spec'd into AVs quite seriously. I don't drive tanks but I routinely volunteer to be a dedicated gunner & ground support for them. I also happen to have more RW experience with this than probably 99.5% of the folks playing the game. My opinion, for what that's worth, is that vehicles vs AV equipment is actually fairly balanced (some exceptions to this at the proto level) and the ultimate leveler is the skill of the tanker vs the skill or numbers of the opposing team. A decent tanker with some dedicated infantry support (even if it's just two guys that gun in turrets and dismount to disrupt AV or swarm on other tanks) is extremely difficult to stop with out a large portion of the opposing team stopping everything they are doing and focusing on the tank team. Solo tanking can be tough since you lose situational awareness. You dominate what you see in front of you but what you don't see is the swarms coming from your 6 or the AV grenades coming from your flanks. Chase - as to your direct question above. It should be possible (notice i didn't say easy) for a single focused player that has spent the appropriate time, SP, and ISK to solo kill a tank. If the player is approaching the tank using cover, blindspots, ect. and can take advantage of the equipment and weapons with their optimal ranges and engagement angles there is no reason that it shouldn't be possible. The single biggest threat to a modern MBT is a motivated and undetected guy or two with a high end anit-tank missle. Once the element of surprise has ended and the AV guy or team hasn't killed the tank then the tank will know where you are and it's a whole different story. (quick edit...you might not be seeing how many times that would-be AV guy dies to get the single tank kill) Tanks, high end fighting vehicles, helos (read: dropships) that cost exhorbitant amounts of money are routinely heavily damaged or destroyed in modern war (Iraq & Afghanistan). Quick note...the "80 tanks" destroyed weren't the only tanks destroyed. That's just the number sent back to the States; the number of vehicles taking major damage that rendered them combat ineffective for periods of time but were reparied in theater is much higher. to your last statement, all other tanks took minor damage as said in the hyperlink. reasons were not included. also may i ask, what real life experience do you have as a tanker? mind you tanks are very different from being part of a assault team so if thats what you meant by experience, then i shall discard that.
16+ years Light and Heavy Cavalry, Long Range Reconnaissance & Surveillance, and other activites not apporpriate to mention. 49 mo's combat time, still on active duty. |
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
94
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 16:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:I guess i don't understand why people think the AV vs Tank question is about fairness. Not throwing rocks at anyone i just don't understand it.
1. High end vehicles are expensive and have incredible potential on the battlefield- as they should be.
2. The counter weapon for infantry is cheaper but puts the infantry at high risk and requires they exclusively focus on the vehicle target- as they should be.
3. The tactic to negate both the tank and the AV guy/gal is teamwork - as it should be.
4. A driving force in Dust is game mechanics that encourage teamwork.
If I'm looking at the this wrong let me know, seriously.
I guess I come down in the camp that you certainly shouldn't be able to OHK a tank but you should be able to solo kill one with some effort.
The problem is there's a HUGE SP gap from being an expensive pinata waiting to break, and a well fit tank. Tankers see the solution to this in the form of massive buffs. Massive buffs would make tankers starting out more viable, but makes a well fitted tank into a mechanical god. Tankers either refuse to see the consequences of buffing tanks, or are simply ignoring it to make their weapon of choice stronger. I've also noticed people assuming because its a tank, that it can "tank" damage as if this were an MMORPG. Clearly that's the logic of a fool.
Duran - thanks.
You point about the upfront cost helped a great deal. High initial entry for viabilty but to give scale up attributres it would create very significant 2nd order effects in game balance. My initial reaction is to give them the buff but limit the number HAVs that can be called in...not a good or "fair" solution either. |
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
94
|
Posted - 2013.09.25 16:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
chase rowland wrote:
16+ years Light and Heavy Cavalry, Long Range Reconnaissance & Surveillance, and other activites not apporpriate to mention. 49 mo's combat time, still on active duty.
nice. mind sharing some stories later? would be interesting.[/quote]
I don't mind coversation, however, I generally don't go into any significant level of detail with anyone unless I know them in RL or have verified some things about them. Honestly, not trying to be an a$$...it's just prudent. I actually indicated more about my profession than I normally do in the response post.
Offer...I would be up for squading with you and Dunk (or anyone else with an interest from this post) and we can demonstrate our points and perhaps show each other a different perspective of the discussion with hands on application. |
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
105
|
Posted - 2013.09.26 22:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
Chase, Dunk...
Sorry I missed you guys online last night...doing work for Corp.
That said, great game playing against you Chase. Once I saw you on the red board I had to give you some Scram and 'Nade waffles. You served a some back to me as well - good times.
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
113
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 02:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
chase rowland wrote:Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:Chase, Dunk...
Sorry I missed you guys online last night...doing work for Corp.
That said, great game playing against you Chase. Once I saw you on the red board I had to give you some Scram and 'Nade waffles. You served a some back to me as well - good times.
lol i didnt realize but yea i remember. i was running solo assault with a starter fit and basic AR. i minght have swiched weapons though becouse i got every weapon unlocked in the game  . you had a damn good squad man. send me a ingame message if you wanna play together dude. i just remember i couldnt find anyone in the match and then BAM i run into a squad of redberrys lol. most kills i got that day was right after that match and i went 34/12 with my starter fit (cheap bastard i know).
Absolutely. |
|
|
| |
|