Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
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*
|
Flix Keptick
Red Star. EoN.
802
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 15:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
Because people assume that all tanks must die at exactly the same time... |
Vulpes Dolosus
Neanderthal Nation Public Disorder.
146
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 15:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
There is no logic other than 1st grade arithmetic and sub-ameba reasoning. |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
360
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 15:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
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?"
|
Lorhak Gannarsein
Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION
484
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 16:02:00 -
[5] - 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. |
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
360
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 16:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: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.
You are acting like these aren't possibilities.
Lets say 3 AVers are chasing around one good tank for 5 minutes. Now we can argue left and right on those 3 AVers not having any skill and thats why they can't take down a tank...but lets not sidetrack ourselves on useless banter. 3 AVers are unable to kill a single tank for 5 minutes. That means for 5 minutes, its effectively been a team of 13vs15.
Lets add more hypothetical **** to this mess.
Those 3 AV are chasing a single tank for 5 minutes, and the enemy team calls out another tank. Now that 2nd tank either has free reign over the battlefield, or more people have to switch to AV to counter the new tank, or help the 3 possibly incompetent AV take out the one tank, which still leaves a problem on the battlefield during that time frame.
Or lets use your example.
One side calls out 5 tanks, and theres only 3 AVer's on the other side. You have 5 tanks absolutely dominating the entire play field against weak Anti Infantry, while the other side waits for those 3 AV to take out all the tanks. If all the tanks were spread out around the battlefield, it could take upwards of 5-10 minutes to take em all out with sheer travel time being the biggest factor. And again, thats not even considering the fact that the rest of your entire team, as well as the tanks, are firing upon the AVers trying to run around and kill the tanks. By the time they DO destroy all the tanks, they could have already easily lost the entire match by being 30% behind on MCC destruction.
Edit - Having 3 people to take out 1 person, can in multiple situations, unbalance an entire game. (accidentally hit post before finishing) |
Takahiro Kashuken
Red Star. EoN.
1512
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 16:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
Atiim is a bad player tho |
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
1207
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 16:54:00 -
[8] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: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. You are acting like these aren't possibilities. Lets say 3 AVers are chasing around one good tank for 5 minutes. Now we can argue left and right on those 3 AVers not having any skill and thats why they can't take down a tank...but lets not sidetrack ourselves on useless banter. 3 AVers are unable to kill a single tank for 5 minutes. That means for 5 minutes, its effectively been a team of 13vs15. Lets add more hypothetical **** to this mess. Those 3 AV are chasing a single tank for 5 minutes, and the enemy team calls out another tank. Now that 2nd tank either has free reign over the battlefield, or more people have to switch to AV to counter the new tank, or help the 3 possibly incompetent AV take out the one tank, which still leaves a problem on the battlefield during that time frame. Or lets use your example. One side calls out 5 tanks, and theres only 3 AVer's on the other side. You have 5 tanks absolutely dominating the entire play field against weak Anti Infantry, while the other side waits for those 3 AV to take out all the tanks. If all the tanks were spread out around the battlefield, it could take upwards of 5-10 minutes to take em all out with sheer travel time being the biggest factor. And again, thats not even considering the fact that the rest of your entire team, as well as the tanks, are firing upon the AVers trying to run around and kill the tanks. By the time they DO destroy all the tanks, they could have already easily lost the entire match by being 30% behind on MCC destruction. Edit - Having 3 people to take out 1 person, can in multiple situations, unbalance an entire game. (accidentally hit post before finishing)
Also anti infantry players can also carry tge cruch knows as packed av nades. Thysly enabeling them to take on said tank as well as other infantry. If 6 anti ifantry merca have packed av nades then any tank that gets near them is dead and they didnt have to sacrifice anti infantry ability. Most good av players I know use their sidearm usually an ishicone assult smg as a primary antiinfantry wepon and swich wepon to swarms when tackling a tank. Any av player who tryes to taeget a tank right infront of reds deserves to die. Tactical thinking is the key.
|
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
361
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 17:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:
Also anti infantry players can also carry tge cruch knows as packed av nades. Thysly enabeling them to take on said tank as well as other infantry. If 6 anti ifantry merca have packed av nades then any tank that gets near them is dead and they didnt have to sacrifice anti infantry ability. Most good av players I know use their sidearm usually an ishicone assult smg as a primary antiinfantry wepon and swich wepon to swarms when tackling a tank. Any av player who tryes to taeget a tank right infront of reds deserves to die. Tactical thinking is the key.
Yes, and tanks can have their anti infantry team picking off AV. Or 3 people with AV nades can rush a tank with LAV's and let em loose. Or the AV's with the SMG's can get picked off by AR's and snipers. Or a dropship carrying AVers and anti-infantry can throw them down directly on top of a tank. Or you can just orbital both AVers and Tankers and make it all moot point.
Discussing counters and tactics was never a part of this thread, since it's just an endless loop of "who could have done what and when".
It was a discussion on the ramifications of it taking 3 AVers to take on a single HAV.
Thanks for your input on an entirely different topic though.
|
pegasis prime
BIG BAD W0LVES
1207
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 17:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:pegasis prime wrote:
Also anti infantry players can also carry tge cruch knows as packed av nades. Thysly enabeling them to take on said tank as well as other infantry. If 6 anti ifantry merca have packed av nades then any tank that gets near them is dead and they didnt have to sacrifice anti infantry ability. Most good av players I know use their sidearm usually an ishicone assult smg as a primary antiinfantry wepon and swich wepon to swarms when tackling a tank. Any av player who tryes to taeget a tank right infront of reds deserves to die. Tactical thinking is the key.
Yes, and tanks can have their anti infantry team picking off AV. Or 3 people with AV nades can rush a tank with LAV's and let em loose. Or the AV's with the SMG's can get picked off by AR's and snipers. Or a dropship carrying AVers and anti-infantry can throw them down directly on top of a tank. Or you can just orbital both AVers and Tankers and make it all moot point. Discussing counters and tactics was never a part of this thread, since it's just an endless loop of "who could have done what and when". It was a discussion on the ramifications of it taking 3 AVers to take on a single HAV. Thanks for your input on an entirely different topic though.
Just another public servise from pegasis prime. Your welcom |
|
Duran Lex
Amarr Templars Amarr Empire
361
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 17:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Duran Lex wrote:pegasis prime wrote:
Also anti infantry players can also carry tge cruch knows as packed av nades. Thysly enabeling them to take on said tank as well as other infantry. If 6 anti ifantry merca have packed av nades then any tank that gets near them is dead and they didnt have to sacrifice anti infantry ability. Most good av players I know use their sidearm usually an ishicone assult smg as a primary antiinfantry wepon and swich wepon to swarms when tackling a tank. Any av player who tryes to taeget a tank right infront of reds deserves to die. Tactical thinking is the key.
Yes, and tanks can have their anti infantry team picking off AV. Or 3 people with AV nades can rush a tank with LAV's and let em loose. Or the AV's with the SMG's can get picked off by AR's and snipers. Or a dropship carrying AVers and anti-infantry can throw them down directly on top of a tank. Or you can just orbital both AVers and Tankers and make it all moot point. Discussing counters and tactics was never a part of this thread, since it's just an endless loop of "who could have done what and when". It was a discussion on the ramifications of it taking 3 AVers to take on a single HAV. Thanks for your input on an entirely different topic though. Just another public servise from pegasis prime. Your welcom
Sure, why not. |
Lorhak Gannarsein
Molon Labe. RISE of LEGION
484
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:23:00 -
[12] - 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. |
Meeko Fent
expert intervention Caldari State
1284
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:24:00 -
[13] - Quote
I feel 3 AVers is overkill.
2 should be needed to kill a decently fit HAV.
If they suck at fitting, then one should kill a tank.
/end off topic
Phhfffff, tacos are good, but chicken and cheese quesadilla are boss. |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
357
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:26:00 -
[14] - 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?"
This is actually what I said in the quote as well. He just ripped out the parts that he didn't want to hear.
And thanks for explaining it for him, I don't feel like typing another response for biased tankers to try to come up with reasons why they should be god on the battlefield
+1 |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
357
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:28:00 -
[15] - Quote
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: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. Ok, so when I kill you in my Madrugar I'll ask If I was just a liability.
And yeah if those enemy tanks are killing everyone and everything then yeah, we would need people to switch to AV. |
Mortedeamor
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL The Ascendancy
536
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:30:00 -
[16] - Quote
people are crying because av coordination is coming back screw them the depth that will be added to dust with vehicle av balance is gunna be amazing and no it wont take 15 people to deal with 5 tanks it will take 2-3
2-3 skilled av users will be all that is needed to efficiently deal with av....1 could deal with 1 tank alone if skilled and better than the tank in dust
i will still be solo stomping tanks i am no scrub |
CharCharOdell
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
1286
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:31:00 -
[17] - Quote
Do math with new av and hav state then come back.
In short, tanks with hardeners on will be IMPOSSIBLE to kill with even 3 proto AV guys...but gardeners off, one guy with adv AV cansolo a tank in a couple seconds. The difference is about 12,000 EHP on armor tanks and 22,000 ehp on shield tanks to 6000 and 4000, respectively, using completely nuetral damage types as a baseline |
Mortedeamor
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL The Ascendancy
536
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:32:00 -
[18] - Quote
we will hit those tanks make them burn they're hardeners and then ambush them while they are weak |
Mortedeamor
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL The Ascendancy
536
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:33:00 -
[19] - Quote
people need to stop crying because av is going to require skill again learn to be a ninja and move on |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
358
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:33:00 -
[20] - Quote
Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Atiim is a bad player tho Coming from a person who I've yet to see in a match, that's a real insult
|
|
CharCharOdell
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
1286
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:35:00 -
[21] - Quote
Duran Lex wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: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 t o me. You are acting like these aren't possibilities. Lets say 3 AVers are chasing around one good tank for 5 minutes. Now we can argue left and right on those 3 AVers not having any skill and thats why they can't take down a tank...but lets not sidetrack ourselves on useless banter. 3 AVers are unable to kill a single tank for 5 minutes. That means for 5 minutes, its effectively been a team of 13vs15. Lets add more hypothetical **** to this mess. Those 3 AV are chasing a single tank for 5 minutes, and the enemy team calls out another tank. Now that 2nd tank either has free reign over the battlefield, or more people have to switch to AV to counter the new tank, or help the 3 possibly incompetent AV take out the one tank, which still leaves a problem on the battlefield during that time frame. Or lets use your example. One side calls out 5 tanks, and theres only 3 AVer's on the other side. You have 5 tanks absolutely dominating the entire play field against weak Anti Infantry, while the other side waits for those 3 AV to take out all the tanks. If all the tanks were spread out around the battlefield, it could take upwards of 5-10 minutes to take em all out with sheer travel time being the biggest factor. And again, thats not even considering the fact that the rest of your entire team, as well as the tanks, are firing upon the AVers trying to run around and kill the tanks. By the time they DO destroy all the tanks, they could have already easily lost the entire match by being 30% behind on MCC destruction. Edit - Having 3 people to take out 1 person, can in multiple situations, unbalance an entire game. (accidentally hit post before finishing)
Wouldn't happen in PC. Tanks are being balances for PC not pubs. If u don't like it, make friends with tankers. |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
358
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:36:00 -
[22] - Quote
Mortedeamor wrote:we will hit those tanks make them burn they're hardeners and then ambush them while they are weak Assuming you don't get gunned down first
Do you think that carrying a Swarm Launcher or Forge Gun makes you invincible? |
CharCharOdell
Shining Flame Amarr Empire
1286
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:37:00 -
[23] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:we will hit those tanks make them burn they're hardeners and then ambush them while they are weak Assuming you don't get gunned down first Do you think that carrying a Swarm Launcher or Forge Gun makes you invincible?
Well Mort is smart so she'll be rolling with some rifle carrying nerfs to fend off infantry. Wow. Teamwork still kills tanks |
8213
Grade No.2
502
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:38:00 -
[24] - Quote
HAV users would disagree.
But eventually DUST will turn into TANK 514... and you'll see 16 HAVs going against 16 other HAVs....
A team with 6 HAVs on it will win, unless the shotgun riders completely ignore objectives. Eventually everyone is going to start using HAVs and only HAVs because to many HAVs are being deployed in the game...
Maybe limit the amount of HAVs? Say, you can't call your HAV if your team already has 4 on the ground? |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
358
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:42:00 -
[25] - Quote
pegasis prime wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: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. You are acting like these aren't possibilities. Lets say 3 AVers are chasing around one good tank for 5 minutes. Now we can argue left and right on those 3 AVers not having any skill and thats why they can't take down a tank...but lets not sidetrack ourselves on useless banter. 3 AVers are unable to kill a single tank for 5 minutes. That means for 5 minutes, its effectively been a team of 13vs15. Lets add more hypothetical **** to this mess. Those 3 AV are chasing a single tank for 5 minutes, and the enemy team calls out another tank. Now that 2nd tank either has free reign over the battlefield, or more people have to switch to AV to counter the new tank, or help the 3 possibly incompetent AV take out the one tank, which still leaves a problem on the battlefield during that time frame. Or lets use your example. One side calls out 5 tanks, and theres only 3 AVer's on the other side. You have 5 tanks absolutely dominating the entire play field against weak Anti Infantry, while the other side waits for those 3 AV to take out all the tanks. If all the tanks were spread out around the battlefield, it could take upwards of 5-10 minutes to take em all out with sheer travel time being the biggest factor. And again, thats not even considering the fact that the rest of your entire team, as well as the tanks, are firing upon the AVers trying to run around and kill the tanks. By the time they DO destroy all the tanks, they could have already easily lost the entire match by being 30% behind on MCC destruction. Edit - Having 3 people to take out 1 person, can in multiple situations, unbalance an entire game. (accidentally hit post before finishing) Also anti infantry players can also carry tge cruch knows as packed av nades. Thysly enabeling them to take on said tank as well as other infantry. If 6 anti ifantry merca have packed av nades then any tank that gets near them is dead and they didnt have to sacrifice anti infantry ability. Most good av players I know use their sidearm usually an ishicone assult smg as a primary antiinfantry wepon and swich wepon to swarms when tackling a tank. Any av player who tryes to taeget a tank right infront of reds deserves to die. Tactical thinking is the key. Packed AV Grenades require you to get close enough to take out a tank, and a smart tanker wouldn't allow that to happen.
Yep because my Wirykomi Swarm launcher and complex damage mods definitely leaves lots of CPU/PG for an Ishukone SMG, and everyone has proto SMGs and SMGs can definitely take on entire crowds of people while a tank is firing at the same time?
So wait we shouldn't expose allow ourselves to be exposed while running AV? What then should I go try using my Swarm Launcher from the redline. LOLNO! The swarms would just crash into a wall if I tried that. |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
358
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:46:00 -
[26] - Quote
CharCharOdell wrote:Atiim wrote:Mortedeamor wrote:we will hit those tanks make them burn they're hardeners and then ambush them while they are weak Assuming you don't get gunned down first Do you think that carrying a Swarm Launcher or Forge Gun makes you invincible? Well Mort is smart so she'll be rolling with some rifle carrying nerfs to fend off infantry. Wow. Teamwork still kills tanks Yep
3 AV vs Tank and 15-16 Infantry
My infantry will always protect us no matter what the situation is and we will always be able to have everyone fire thier AV before being gunned down by people smart enough to go after the AV first, or do you expect us to have a row of 13 guys with a Boundless HMG to cover us while the tank just sits there waiting to be AV'd? After all, the tank will just stand perfectly still and not be doing anything while we fire our Swarms and FGs at it?
Solid logic dude, solid logic.
|
CLONE117
Planetary Response Organization Test Friends Please Ignore
434
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:47:00 -
[27] - Quote
ive been in a match with a cluster of 6 havs at an objective before.
the sad thing is i only got the kill assist on all of them with my assault forge gun.
my proto swarm using squad member did the finishing blows on all of em..
so my guess is they weren't coordinated.
but still ironic. ud think those freshly spawned 6k armor maddies would have lasted longer.
|
Mortedeamor
WASTELAND JUNK REMOVAL The Ascendancy
538
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:48:00 -
[28] - Quote
takahiro is a skilled player ive seen him before if you havnt its probably because you dont play enough or at the wrong times **** happens |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
358
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:51:00 -
[29] - Quote
CharCharOdell wrote:Duran Lex wrote:Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: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 t o me. You are acting like these aren't possibilities. Lets say 3 AVers are chasing around one good tank for 5 minutes. Now we can argue left and right on those 3 AVers not having any skill and thats why they can't take down a tank...but lets not sidetrack ourselves on useless banter. 3 AVers are unable to kill a single tank for 5 minutes. That means for 5 minutes, its effectively been a team of 13vs15. Lets add more hypothetical **** to this mess. Those 3 AV are chasing a single tank for 5 minutes, and the enemy team calls out another tank. Now that 2nd tank either has free reign over the battlefield, or more people have to switch to AV to counter the new tank, or help the 3 possibly incompetent AV take out the one tank, which still leaves a problem on the battlefield during that time frame. Or lets use your example. One side calls out 5 tanks, and theres only 3 AVer's on the other side. You have 5 tanks absolutely dominating the entire play field against weak Anti Infantry, while the other side waits for those 3 AV to take out all the tanks. If all the tanks were spread out around the battlefield, it could take upwards of 5-10 minutes to take em all out with sheer travel time being the biggest factor. And again, thats not even considering the fact that the rest of your entire team, as well as the tanks, are firing upon the AVers trying to run around and kill the tanks. By the time they DO destroy all the tanks, they could have already easily lost the entire match by being 30% behind on MCC destruction. Edit - Having 3 people to take out 1 person, can in multiple situations, unbalance an entire game. (accidentally hit post before finishing) Wouldn't happen in PC. Tanks are being balances for PC not pubs. If u don't like it, make friends with tankers. That's like me saying AV is being balance for PC, not pubs. If u don't like it, make friends with AV.
This is everyone's game, not just PC players. If you don't like it the just go back to COD. |
Atiim
Living Like Larry Schwag
358
|
Posted - 2013.10.25 18:53:00 -
[30] - Quote
Mortedeamor wrote:takahiro is a skilled player ive seen him before if you havnt its probably because you dont play enough or at the wrong times **** happens Timezone difference maybe? Battle server and/or region?
If he needs to QQ about AV being able to kill him while he is out in the open and exposed, then he is by no means a good tanker.
If he feels the need to bring out his most expensive tanks and have the most expensive modules possible, the by no means is he a good tanker.
Maybe I should call him Tanker's Lukeboy |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |