Lorhak Gannarsein
645
   |
Posted - 2013.12.02 07:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Monkey MAC wrote:Fair enough, nice to see someone with logical arguements, in truth it would be better comparing to heavy but I merely wanted to get the point across.
Please be accurate with your points, then; part of the problem we have on these forums as far as the whole vehicle:infantry dynamic is concerned is the rampant exaggeration. It makes it very difficult to actually argue a point when everyone's arguments consist of nothing more than strawmen and ad hominem.
>>>To label a tanks niche as slaughter, is incredibly narrow minded, you are a vehicke, your niche is providin vehicle support. That in the case of a tank is offensively based, quite correctly.
However that does not mean a tank should guarantee taking control of an entrenched position, it doesn't mean the mindless slaughter of hundreds of enemy mercs.
I never said it should. All I said is that there should be no role in the game that is superior at assaulting an entrenched position to an HAV.
>>>What im saying is a tank, without support should have the tactical worth of a dropsuit.
If you are assaulting an entrenched pisition, I would expect a tank to fair no better than an infantry unit.
This is plain wrong; an HAV should be far superior for assaulting an entrenched position. This is because an HAV is utterly incapable of holding a position, except through extermination. Its inability to hack a point makes using an HAV against an objective completely futile.
>>>But unlike infantry, its worth multiples as he gains more support. You might still only use one tank, but the fact you didn't send him in alone means he isn't completly useless. make sense?
A tank is about as useful for capturing a point as a single infantryman; very few mercs are capable of solo-assaulting a point, simply because they can't hack the point before more reds spawn.
Atiim wrote:This isn't World Of Tanks. And we aren't turning this into Tank 514. You can't be the "end all things" class on the battlefield.. Every weapon, suit, role, and class needs to have it's strengths and weaknesses. You cannot be effective at both Anti-Vehicle and Anti-Infantry. Having both leads to an imbalance.
I actually agree; I think that the current Gunnlogi is a good example of this in action; it's very difficult to fit a Gunnlogi to be effective at both AV and AP simultaneously, at least to the extent that the Madrugar is.
Also, could people PLEASE quit with the "World of Tanks" and "Tank514" and "CoD is that way ----->" BS?
AV == Tanks != Infantry == Tanks
Monkey MAC wrote:If tanks are so much better than infantry, why skill into infantry, when the power of tanks is so much better?
If you make tanks the only viable counter to them selves, every match will be filled to the brim with tanks, while some poor blueberry is holed up in a corner somewhere because as soon as he leaves that spot he gets butchered by the 50 bizzilion tanks rolling around.
And what if one side doesn't have a tanker?
No tanker has answered that?
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS ONLY ONE TANK ON THE FIELD?
Lorhak Gannarsein wrote:I think, for that reason, that the primary AV weapon on the field should be a tank, and that infantry AV should be supplemental (significant, but not catastrophic as it currently is). Certainly I don't think that a single AV player should be capable of utterly negating the entire opposing team's effective vehicle usage (assuming the other side is using equivalently tiered gear).
(Emphasis added).
I feel like 2 AV players of equivalent meta level should be capable of eliminating a tank approximately as quickly as a tank could, so that infantry still have a role in AV, in the event that they have no allied tanker, and to allow allied tankers to 'punch above their weight', so to speak.
|