DUST Search - TANK combat.

All Channels

General Discussions

TANK combat.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Spkr4theDead Red Star. EoN. 1387	Posted - 2013.12.01 20:16:00 - [61] - Quote CYRAX SERVIUS wrote: Took out two maddys this morning, yummy. Were they poorly fit and in a static position with no modules running? Teamwork for thee, but no teamwork for me, such is the motto of the anti vehicle infantry.
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 255	Posted - 2013.12.01 20:16:00 - [62] - Quote KalOfTheRathi wrote: The most consistent QQ Kitten burst of pure emotion from tankers is ISK. As in a 1.4M ISK tank should not be taken out by a 147K ISK something that is not a tank. Which is utter bullshit. I have trouble with kids of a certain age, teen to early adult in many cases. The word 'entitled' comes up repeatedly. They believe because they were born without enough cash in their butt to live comfortably for the rest of their lives without doing anything at all then life sucks and is unfair. Hugely unfair. Somehow these ISK tankers seem to ring like the same set of whine chimes. Rap them once and its is all about ISK, my ISK, my ISK reverberating in the distance. So why is that different from the QQ Tankers? It ain't little tanker babes. You spent a chunk of change. You got popped. HTFU. Remember that? Well you better. Because it is the motto of CCP/Mothership and it ain't changing. If you cannot afford to lose it, don't bring it out. But, we will enjoy your QQ our little Tanker Kittens. Once 1.7 hammers the truth of fragile tanks down your throats and the very limited modules will mean you spend all your time behind the red line, just remember. Please come to the forums so we can read your QQ. The rest of us need a laugh. Don't forget to post how much the tank you lost cost in ISK or AUR. Expensive QQ are the bestest. Welcome to DUST * Although the Toxins have never done any latent damage like documented. Which is fine, none of the documentation was ever right and CCP/Shanghai has never cared. Nor will they, I expect. Truth and honorable actions, not being a New Eden sort of thing. So I should just abandon tanks then. Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........ Tanker/Logi Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1496	Posted - 2013.12.01 23:06:00 - [63] - Quote If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Shokhann Echo Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 89	Posted - 2013.12.01 23:19:00 - [64] - Quote Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. you will notice that only like 3% of us support being the only counter to ourselves.... but seriously... I didn't expect this to escalate this slowly, I thought the shitstorm would start on the 1st page Void Echo's Alt Back-up Profile Back on main 12-20-2013
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1497	Posted - 2013.12.01 23:28:00 - [65] - Quote Shokhann Echo wrote: Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. you will notice that only like 3% of us support being the only counter to ourselves.... but seriously... I didn't expect this to escalate this slowly, I thought the shitstorm would start on the 1st page (Please tell me, must you use so many line spaces?) And you also can't be the best counter to yourselves as well. So yeah that encompasses about the other 97% of HAV Pilots. If HAVs are the best counter to themselves, then make infantry the best counter to themselves. You can however, be an *equal* counter to AV. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
CharCharOdell 1710	Posted - 2013.12.02 03:59:00 - [66] - Quote Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. well this isnt CoD either and we cant be turning into light weapon 514. And yes, tanks HAVE to be anti everything. The balance on it is that we get maybe 30 seconds MAX to engage an enemy before we pop like glass to one guy with a forge gun or swarm launcher. Gùñ-é-º+¼+ò+¦GÖÑ+ú+ú+¡ GÖÑ'Ðe+ü+üGùÑ Gùú -ä>-üð+++Ç++§<-¡<-¡ Gùó Speaker of the Mangrove / King of QQ / Co-Founder of the Learning Coalition
SGT NOVA STAR Ahrendee Mercenaries 124	Posted - 2013.12.02 04:58:00 - [67] - Quote SILVERBACK 02 wrote: the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK do you agree? personally i agree.. i think tanks should be a dominating presence on the battlefield as is such the case in real life. air strikes from fast air seem to be the only counter.. iv seen CHALLENGER 2 battle tanks shrug off rpg-7s and anti tank mines. Sure why not, makes sense. I'm just waiting for ccp to say "here's are changes, deal with it and shut up." Been hunting Graboids in my Kubera since 2012
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1101	Posted - 2013.12.02 06:28:00 - [68] - Quote CharCharOdell wrote: Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. well this isnt CoD either and we cant be turning into light weapon 514. And yes, tanks HAVE to be anti everything. The balance on it is that we get maybe 30 seconds MAX to engage an enemy before we pop like glass to one guy with a forge gun or swarm launcher. You don't HAVE to be anti everything. You don't HAVE to be no counter As I have said before, in this game there can be no top of the food chain, that's escalation. ESCALATION IS BAD The pen is mightier than the sword The gun is mightier than both Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Shokhann Echo Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 90	Posted - 2013.12.02 06:32:00 - [69] - Quote Atiim wrote: Shokhann Echo wrote: Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. you will notice that only like 3% of us support being the only counter to ourselves.... but seriously... I didn't expect this to escalate this slowly, I thought the shitstorm would start on the 1st page (Please tell me, must you use so many line spaces?) And you also can't be the best counter to yourselves as well. So yeah that encompasses about the other 97% of HAV Pilots. If HAVs are the best counter to themselves, then make infantry the best counter to themselves. You can however, be an *equal* counter to AV. if both tanks and av are equal against tanks, then why skill into tanks when av can do the job just as good at a much, much cheaper price? by making infantry equally effective against vehicles as tanks are, your basically making this call of duty 514 because everyone will go towards the infantry side because its cheaper, and far more efficient. the only way to balance it out truly is to make vehicles the best counter to itself, but have av as an alternative that's not as powerful but is still effective. enemy vehicles get suppressed by friendly tankers, friendly infantry is free to hack objectives and get the small ground work done. the tanks do the enemy suppression and destruction and infantry still get their jobs done. with av on the field, there is no reason to bring in vehicles because mainly... well... vehicles are ****. Void Echo's Alt Back-up Profile Back on main 12-20-2013
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1101	Posted - 2013.12.02 06:58:00 - [70] - Quote Shokhann Echo wrote: Atiim wrote: Shokhann Echo wrote: Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. you will notice that only like 3% of us support being the only counter to ourselves.... but seriously... I didn't expect this to escalate this slowly, I thought the shitstorm would start on the 1st page (Please tell me, must you use so many line spaces?) And you also can't be the best counter to yourselves as well. So yeah that encompasses about the other 97% of HAV Pilots. If HAVs are the best counter to themselves, then make infantry the best counter to themselves. You can however, be an *equal* counter to AV. if both tanks and av are equal against tanks, then why skill into tanks when av can do the job just as good at a much, much cheaper price? by making infantry equally effective against vehicles as tanks are, your basically making this call of duty 514 because everyone will go towards the infantry side because its cheaper, and far more efficient. the only way to balance it out truly is to make vehicles the best counter to itself, but have av as an alternative that's not as powerful but is still effective. enemy vehicles get suppressed by friendly tankers, friendly infantry is free to hack objectives and get the small ground work done. the tanks do the enemy suppression and destruction and infantry still get their jobs done. with av on the field, there is no reason to bring in vehicles because mainly... well... vehicles are ***. AV == Tanks != Infantry == Tanks 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? The pen is mightier than the sword* The gun is mightier than both Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1

Lorhak Gannarsein 645	Posted - 2013.12.02 07:57:00 - [71] - 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.
Monkey MAC Lost Millennium 1101	Posted - 2013.12.02 09:08:00 - [72] - Quote Yes this really what infantry want, the main problem comes from the fact that we are tackling the issue from an infantry perspective, therin tankers can't see things from our view. Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: >>>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. A HAV will be far superior at assaulting a position, but not by itself. If the tank is solo assaulting an entrenched position it shouldn't really fair any better. Lorhak Gannarsein wrote: 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. This seems perfectly fair to me, it still requires a co-operative effort, means we aren't DEPENDENT upon tanks, and makes for much fairer play, in all honesty I just wish all tankers would see it this way. The pen is mightier than the sword The gun is mightier than both Monkey Mac - Forum Warrior of the Trees Lvl.1
Alpha 443-6732 239	Posted - 2013.12.03 00:18:00 - [73] - Quote Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. Prime example of a strawman argument right here (No one actually wants their tank to be the end all be all weapon). All we want is a tank mounted gun to do more damage than a hand cannon, simple as that. Tanks will be awkward to play after 1.7, because engagements may not always line up in phase with your CD timers. When infantry get webifiers (which will be soon), you infantry will easily be able to ambush tanks, because they would be immobile AND huge targets for your weapons to hit. AV =/= Completely dominate and render vehicles useless. AV = Counterpart of vehicles that combats vehicles.
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 259	Posted - 2013.12.03 00:20:00 - [74] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. Prime example of a strawman argument right here (No one actually wants their tank to be the end all be all weapon). All we want is a tank mounted gun to do more damage than a hand cannon, simple as that. Tanks will be awkward to play after 1.7, because engagements may not always line up in phase with your CD timers. When infantry get webifiers (which will be soon), you infantry will easily be able to ambush tanks, because they would be immobile AND huge targets for your weapons to hit. IKR I can kill a tank faster by spamming Nuclear baseballs than with my 1 mil ISK proto turret. Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........ Tanker/Logi Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1540	Posted - 2013.12.03 02:13:00 - [75] - Quote Spkr4theDead wrote: CYRAX SERVIUS wrote: Took out two maddys this morning, yummy. Were they poorly fit and in a static position with no modules running? Probably both My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
True Adamance Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4495	Posted - 2013.12.03 02:17:00 - [76] - Quote Atiim wrote: Spkr4theDead wrote: CYRAX SERVIUS wrote: Took out two maddys this morning, yummy. Were they poorly fit and in a static position with no modules running? Probably both I'm bored of this, lets talk about weapons of mass Dakka and Explodeyness that could wreck dirty regular infantry and Assault dropships. No one likes them right? "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1540	Posted - 2013.12.03 02:26:00 - [77] - Quote Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. Prime example of a strawman argument right here (No one actually wants their tank to be the end all be all weapon). All we want is a tank mounted gun to do more damage than a hand cannon, simple as that. Tanks will be awkward to play after 1.7, because engagements may not always line up in phase with your CD timers. When infantry get webifiers (which will be soon), you infantry will easily be able to ambush tanks, because they would be immobile AND huge targets for your weapons to hit. So tell me then if tanks are the only counter to tanks, how will they not become the "end all things" weapon? Oh wait that's right tankers have never said that they want/should be the best counter to themselves. I'm just putting words in people's mouths Oh wait, it was the first sentence of the OP SILVERBACK 02 wrote: the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK do you agree? snip Also, why should you be more effective than a class designed to be your weakness? That's playing a DC Universe title and QQIng about how effective Kryptonite is against Superman or Superwoman character. AV = HAV. That's called balance. AV > HAV or HAV < AV is not balance. That's stupidity. On another note, if you could link to a thread where a CCP DEV has confirmed that we will be reviving webifiers, that would be appreciated. (And no, SoonGäó does not count as a confirmation) My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Darken-Sol BIG BAD W0LVES 684	Posted - 2013.12.03 02:30:00 - [78] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Railgun Incubus I went there ha ha
Scheneighnay McBob Bojo's School of the Trades 3267	Posted - 2013.12.03 02:32:00 - [79] - Quote DUST Fiend wrote: Railgun Incubus I went there Small railgun buff coming with the vehicle rebalance. I'll be hunting from the skies with my proto rail while everyone is trying out their new stuff We used to have a time machine
True Adamance Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4497	Posted - 2013.12.03 02:33:00 - [80] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. Prime example of a strawman argument right here (No one actually wants their tank to be the end all be all weapon). All we want is a tank mounted gun to do more damage than a hand cannon, simple as that. Tanks will be awkward to play after 1.7, because engagements may not always line up in phase with your CD timers. When infantry get webifiers (which will be soon), you infantry will easily be able to ambush tanks, because they would be immobile AND huge targets for your weapons to hit. So tell me then if tanks are the only counter to tanks, how will they not become the "end all things" weapon? Oh wait that's right tankers have never said that they want/should be the best counter to themselves. I'm just putting words in people's mouths Oh wait, it was the first sentence of the OP SILVERBACK 02 wrote: the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK do you agree? snip Also, why should you be more effective than a class designed to be your weakness? That's playing a DC Universe title and QQIng about how effective Kryptonite is against Superman or Superwoman character. AV = HAV. That's called balance. AV > HAV or HAV < AV is not balance. That's stupidity. On another note, if you could link to a thread where a CCP DEV has confirmed that we will be reviving webifiers, that would be appreciated. (And no, SoonGäó does not count as a confirmation) Can we not just agree to removed the LARGE ******* BLASTER that's what you hate about HAV not the other turrets. "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"

Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1542	Posted - 2013.12.03 02:54:00 - [81] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Can we not just agree to removed the LARGE ******* BLASTER that's what you hate about HAV not the other turrets. I think the Large Blaster turret could use some adjusting, but removal? That sounds a bit extreme. What would we replace it with? That's like removing SLs from the game. And I don't hate anything about HAVs. It's the 99.999999% of the HAV pilot community that I have a problem with. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Patrick57 Fatal Absolution 1872	Posted - 2013.12.03 02:58:00 - [82] - Quote SILVERBACK 02 wrote: the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK do you agree? personally i agree.. i think tanks should be a dominating presence on the battlefield as is such the case in real life. air strikes from fast air seem to be the only counter.. iv seen CHALLENGER 2 battle tanks shrug off rpg-7s and anti tank mines. If only Tanks could take out other tanks then this game would just be easy mode. Even 1 ok squad could dominate a match if they have a decent tanker. When I'm depressed, I cut myself......A BIG SLICE OF CHOCOLATE CAKE!
True Adamance Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4499	Posted - 2013.12.03 03:00:00 - [83] - Quote Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can we not just agree to removed the LARGE ******* BLASTER that's what you hate about HAV not the other turrets. I think the Large Blaster turret could use some adjusting, but removal? That sounds a bit extreme. What would we replace it with? That's like removing SLs from the game. And I don't hate anything about HAVs. It's the 99.999999% of the HAV pilot community that I have a problem with. Large Plasma Launcher Direct fire, AoE weapon with moderate RoF, PLASMA cannon damage/ or less, with 1.5-3 M AOE, 8 round capacity. Basically an AoE battle cannon more suited for vehicular combat and representing a tanks fire power, with a skill shot capacity to kill infantry but not be spray and pray. "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2469	Posted - 2013.12.03 03:36:00 - [84] - Quote Why are we still having this argument? The matter has already been settled. Vehicles will be ++ber powerful, slaughtering infantry and shrugging off AV as if it were foam darts. For a short period. Then they will be fragile eggs that can be cracked by a couple swarm flights or FG rounds. Tanks > Everything then Tanks < Almost anything Everybody gets what they want. Tankers can be invincible for a short time and infantry can crack them open like soft shelled crabs if they overstay their welcome.
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1545	Posted - 2013.12.03 03:38:00 - [85] - Quote Skihids wrote: Why are we still having this argument? The matter has already been settled. Vehicles will be ++ber powerful, slaughtering infantry and shrugging off AV as if it were foam darts. For a short period. Then they will be fragile eggs that can be cracked by a couple swarm flights or FG rounds. Tanks > Everything then Tanks < Almost anything Everybody gets what they want. Tankers can be invincible for a short time and infantry can crack them open like soft shelled crabs if they overstay their welcome. Were having this argument because they still want AV removed from the game and to make HAVs the only counter to HAVs. If pilots weren't so arrogant, idiotic, and selfish, I wouldn't be here right now. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1545	Posted - 2013.12.03 03:39:00 - [86] - Quote True Adamance wrote: Atiim wrote: True Adamance wrote: Can we not just agree to removed the LARGE ******* BLASTER that's what you hate about HAV not the other turrets. I think the Large Blaster turret could use some adjusting, but removal? That sounds a bit extreme. What would we replace it with? That's like removing SLs from the game. And I don't hate anything about HAVs. It's the 99.999999% of the HAV pilot community that I have a problem with. Large Plasma Launcher Direct fire, AoE weapon with moderate RoF, PLASMA cannon damage/ or less, with 1.5-3 M AOE, 8 round capacity. Basically an AoE battle cannon more suited for vehicular combat and representing a tanks fire power, with a skill shot capacity to kill infantry but not be spray and pray. Seems good. But I doubt you'd get pilots to agree. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
True Adamance Amarr Templars Amarr Empire 4500	Posted - 2013.12.03 03:44:00 - [87] - Quote Atiim wrote: Skihids wrote: Why are we still having this argument? The matter has already been settled. Vehicles will be ++ber powerful, slaughtering infantry and shrugging off AV as if it were foam darts. For a short period. Then they will be fragile eggs that can be cracked by a couple swarm flights or FG rounds. Tanks > Everything then Tanks < Almost anything Everybody gets what they want. Tankers can be invincible for a short time and infantry can crack them open like soft shelled crabs if they overstay their welcome. Were having this argument because they still want AV removed from the game and to make HAVs the only counter to HAVs. If pilots weren't so arrogant, idiotic, and selfish, I wouldn't be here right now. Face palm.... HAVer want HAV to do what tank are supposed to do, counter armoured threats....they want HAV to be the best at it which we should be given all of your weapons are small counter parts to our own.... As for those dude who say we should maul infantry I disagree. Tanks take out armoured and entrenched threats with high explosive or armour penetrating rounds... we don't do infantry from our main guns, we need gunners for that. AV should be in the game, but it should not be able to deny entire play styles their chosen play style with invulnerability. Invisibility sure does help you all out. I however dislike the anti infantry Large Blaster I think it is stupid and boring....I'll still use it though since its the AR or tank turrets. "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"
Zero Harpuia Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 1297	Posted - 2013.12.03 05:26:00 - [88] - Quote Son-Of A-Gun wrote: SILVERBACK 02 wrote: the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK do you agree? personally i agree.. i think tanks should be a dominating presence on the battlefield as is such the case in real life. air strikes from fast air seem to be the only counter.. iv seen CHALLENGER 2 battle tanks shrug off rpg-7s and anti tank mines. A two man javelin tank buster team will put any tank down. If the rest of the world had tech like the javelin, I'm sure you would quickly start to see American tank being mounted with computer controled mini guns, like the anti-air guns on most navel ships, the sea wiz. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0Dh6qJ3RE&feature=youtube_gdata_player Sunnovabitch just pisses ammunition away doesn't it? Also, forget two man team, someone just posted a link of a single Javelin getting a K-Kill on a main battle tank. There wasn't much of anything left after it hit. The HAV pundits can scream all they like, but AV will forever be the main threat to V, as it should be. They trade immunity to small arms for vulnerability to AV weapons, and they are One-Man crews. Fair is fair guys. Shields as Weapons
Alpha 443-6732 239	Posted - 2013.12.03 22:41:00 - [89] - Quote Atiim wrote: Alpha 443-6732 wrote: Atiim wrote: If you LOLTank Brigadiers want to be the only viable counter to yourselves, then fine. But you can't be effective at killing infantry then. 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. Prime example of a strawman argument right here (No one actually wants their tank to be the end all be all weapon). All we want is a tank mounted gun to do more damage than a hand cannon, simple as that. Tanks will be awkward to play after 1.7, because engagements may not always line up in phase with your CD timers. When infantry get webifiers (which will be soon), you infantry will easily be able to ambush tanks, because they would be immobile AND huge targets for your weapons to hit. So tell me then if tanks are the only counter to tanks, how will they not become the "end all things" weapon? Oh wait that's right tankers have never said that they want/should be the best counter to themselves. I'm just putting words in people's mouths Oh wait, it was the first sentence of the OP SILVERBACK 02 wrote: the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK do you agree? snip Also, why should you be more effective than a class designed to be your weakness? That's playing a DC Universe title and QQIng about how effective Kryptonite is against Superman or Superwoman character. AV = HAV. That's called balance. AV > HAV or HAV < AV is not balance. That's stupidity. On another note, if you could link to a thread where a CCP DEV has confirmed that we will be reviving webifiers, that would be appreciated. (And no, SoonGäó does not count as a confirmation) Stop referring to the OP, it's pretty clear that he's a potato. Also, there is no point to even using combat vehicles if infantry have the best infantry killing weapons AND the best AV weapons. Once again, STOP LOOKING AT BALANCE PURELY FROM AN OFFENSE/DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE. STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS THAT ALL OF US ONLY WANT TANKS TO COUNTER TANKS. THINGS CAN COUNTER THEMSELVES AND STILL NOT BE OP. A tank is a support class, but it's support in the same way a real life HMG is a support weapon. On an unrelated note, I'm betting that tanks in real life have a longer TTK even WITH the single man Javelin units, because of the trophy system, the fact that vehicle mounted weapons actually do their job (forcing the infantrymen to hid a distance and actually use TACTICS) and the fact that the weapons actually take time to be set up. AV =/= Completely dominate and render vehicles useless. AV = Counterpart of vehicles that combats vehicles.
Jadd Hatchen Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 109	Posted - 2013.12.03 22:47:00 - [90] - Quote SILVERBACK 02 wrote: the only thing that should be able to take out a tank is... ANOTHER TANK do you agree? personally i agree.. i think tanks should be a dominating presence on the battlefield as is such the case in real life. air strikes from fast air seem to be the only counter.. iv seen CHALLENGER 2 battle tanks shrug off rpg-7s and anti tank mines. Hell no! Even in real life tanks don't move unsupported. Hell a few guys guys in a jeeps with anti-tank weapons can slow a tank advance to a crawl if they use hit and run tactics properly. Unsupported anything should die. Think of it as an overly complicated version of rock, paper, scissors, if you have to, but the end result is if you have all three, then you are better prepared to counter all three. If you are missing one or two (tank only = rock because rock always wins right?) then you will fail. That's why a solo player should loose to a squad or team working together.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.