|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lorhak Gannarsein
Molon Labe.
RISE of LEGION
484
   |
Posted - 2013.10.25 15:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
*NOTE THAT I'M NOT ARGUING FOR OR AGAINST THE ASSERTION THAT IT SHOULD TAKE THREE AV PER TANK*
Atiim wrote:3 AV to kill a tank? ONE TANK?
6 people for 2 Tanks ?
9 people for 3 tanks?
12 people for 4 tanks?
15 people for 5 tanks?
Why do I see this argument so often? It's obviously BS.
When I see an enemy tank on the battlefield (and I happen to be running infantry), I grab my IA forge and screw it over.
When I see two enemy tanks on the battlefield, I grab my IA forge and screw them over. One after another.
Can someone explain to me why exactly it is that if it took three AVers to kill a tank, they're suddenly unable to do jack against the next one, and the rest of the team needs to go AV too?
Where is the logic in this? If there were five tanks on the battlefield, and it took 3 AV per tank, I'd get four guys to switch to AV and faceroll them one by one.
*AGAIN, I REALLY DON'T GIVE A SH*T WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THAT IT SHOULD TAKE THREE AV TO KILL A TANK*
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Molon Labe.
RISE of LEGION
484
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 16:02:00 -
[2] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:You argument can be used against you as well.
Why are you assuming those 3 AVers taking out tanks are completely immune to all anti infantry?
What if all 3 AVer's die by the 15 other anti infantry? or the 12 others? or the 6 others? one 1 other bricked logi ARing all 3 down?
There are multiple instances that can occur on the battlefield, one being multiple AVers dominating all tanks, the other being all the AVers get dominated before they destroy a single tank, or before they destroy all the tanks.
That's not even considering the fact that killing **** doesn't always win the game. Drawing on 3+ people to take out a minimum of one tank could take people away from objectives.
I think the largest argument against such a style of gameplay is "In a game of rock/paper/scissors, why should I have to use 3 sheets of paper to take down 1 rock?"
Great, but I don't actually care about any of that. Use your team which consists of guys with anti-infantry weapons to stop my team which consists of one or more tanks and guys with anti-infantry weapons to stop my guys from killing you or something.
All I'm trying to point out is the complete and utter idiocy of claiming that because it takes three guys to kill one tank, it will for some inexplicable reason take six guys to kill two.
In the end, I'll always be able to solo a tank, whether I do it with a forge gun or a railgun. Doesn't really matter to me. |
Lorhak Gannarsein
Molon Labe.
RISE of LEGION
484
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
I appreciate that taking three people away from the combat for AV is unbalancing - looks to me like tanks are finally given a role in that circumstance!
What I don't appreciate is the idiotic hyperbole.
IN NO WAY WOULD THE PRESENCE OF FIVE TANKS ON THE BATTLEFIELD EVER NECESSITATE 15 OF THE ENEMY TEAM SWITCHING TO EQUIVALENT META AV.
THIS IS MY ONLY POINT.
Also, in a situation where there are five competent tankers on the battlefield, I'd expect that five competent AVers show up to nuke them. I would also expect that they'd have the job done inside a few minutes.
And considering tanks can't hack points, having five tanks on the battlefield is more of a liability than a boon...
But I'm done here; my point was made. |
|
|
| |
|