DUST Search - Tanks in real...

All Channels

General Discussions

Tanks in real...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 376	Posted - 2013.12.05 13:17:00 - [1] - Quote Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... *Sagaris lover!!!*
daishi mk03 BLACK-GUARD Die Fremdenlegion 485	Posted - 2013.12.05 13:19:00 - [2] - Quote Quote: HEAT rounds caused a revolution in anti-tank warfare when they were first introduced in the later stages of World War II. A single infantryman could effectively destroy any existing tank with a handheld weapon, thereby dramatically altering the nature of mobile operations. After the war HEAT became almost universal as the primary anti-tank weapon. HEAT rounds of varying effectiveness were produced for almost all weapons from infantry weapons like rifle grenades and the M203 grenade launcher, to larger dedicated anti-tank systems like the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. When combined with the wire-guided missile, infantry weapons were able to operate in the long-range role as well. Anti-tank missiles altered the nature of tank warfare throughout the 1960s and into the 80s, and remain an effective system today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem-charge To know the true path, but yet, to never follow it. That is possibly the gravest sin. The Scriptures,Book of Missions
Son-Of A-Gun 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 514	Posted - 2013.12.05 13:23:00 - [3] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... He's using real would example... Release the hounds! {:)}{3GÇó>
Yoma Carrim Situation Normal all fraked up 60	Posted - 2013.12.05 13:30:00 - [4] - Quote daishi mk03 wrote: Quote: HEAT rounds caused a revolution in anti-tank warfare when they were first introduced in the later stages of World War II. A single infantryman could effectively destroy any existing tank with a handheld weapon, thereby dramatically altering the nature of mobile operations. After the war HEAT became almost universal as the primary anti-tank weapon. HEAT rounds of varying effectiveness were produced for almost all weapons from infantry weapons like rifle grenades and the M203 grenade launcher, to larger dedicated anti-tank systems like the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. When combined with the wire-guided missile, infantry weapons were able to operate in the long-range role as well. Anti-tank missiles altered the nature of tank warfare throughout the 1960s and into the 80s, and remain an effective system today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem-charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) of course this only counts is the tanks have it equipped and I don't think Israel is handing out active defense packets to everyone. That time when you turn a corner and find the entire enemy team.Oh Heck
Son-Of A-Gun 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 514	Posted - 2013.12.05 13:35:00 - [5] - Quote daishi mk03 wrote: Quote: HEAT rounds caused a revolution in anti-tank warfare when they were first introduced in the later stages of World War II. A single infantryman could effectively destroy any existing tank with a handheld weapon, thereby dramatically altering the nature of mobile operations. After the war HEAT became almost universal as the primary anti-tank weapon. HEAT rounds of varying effectiveness were produced for almost all weapons from infantry weapons like rifle grenades and the M203 grenade launcher, to larger dedicated anti-tank systems like the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. When combined with the wire-guided missile, infantry weapons were able to operate in the long-range role as well. Anti-tank missiles altered the nature of tank warfare throughout the 1960s and into the 80s, and remain an effective system today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem-charge Are familiar with the sea wiz anti-missile system? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0Dh6qJ3RE&feature=youtube_gdata_player I am quite certain that if America was in combat with enemies capable of manufacturing and deploying the kind of tech you are talking about (such as the javelin) then you would very quickly begin to see miniature version of the sea wiz being mounted to every American tank, if there isn't already a top secret project with tanks that are fitted so. {:)}{3GÇó>
Yoma Carrim Situation Normal all fraked up 60	Posted - 2013.12.05 13:37:00 - [6] - Quote Trophy system its right above you dude That time when you turn a corner and find the entire enemy team.Oh Heck
taxi bastard Minor Trueblood 35	Posted - 2013.12.05 14:04:00 - [7] - Quote lots of anti tank weapons out there old style RPG's may not take out a tank with one shot - the challenger 2 MBT has debatably the best protection out of all current MBT. here is a little extract for you about it in service During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was at the time unprotected by "Dorchester" armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[15] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident. surviving and being operational are 2 different things though. the tanks were disabled so for dust purposes destroyed. the other factor not taken into account was that these are vintage RPG and the Milan anti tank missile is from the 70's vs the latest armour in the best protected tank out there. modern AT missiles would make a lot easier work of the challenger 2. tanks are not immortal, simple things such as an IED can effectively take out a tank for all operational purposes. AT vs tank of the same generation there really is not too much in it. tank should be god mode........if your fighting mercs with rifles. tanks should be vulnerable to mercs with AV and mines. if you think they should be able to stay around while getting attacked by AV then imo your wrong.
Harpyja DUST University Ivy League 871	Posted - 2013.12.05 14:06:00 - [8] - Quote Son-Of A-Gun wrote: daishi mk03 wrote: Quote: HEAT rounds caused a revolution in anti-tank warfare when they were first introduced in the later stages of World War II. A single infantryman could effectively destroy any existing tank with a handheld weapon, thereby dramatically altering the nature of mobile operations. After the war HEAT became almost universal as the primary anti-tank weapon. HEAT rounds of varying effectiveness were produced for almost all weapons from infantry weapons like rifle grenades and the M203 grenade launcher, to larger dedicated anti-tank systems like the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. When combined with the wire-guided missile, infantry weapons were able to operate in the long-range role as well. Anti-tank missiles altered the nature of tank warfare throughout the 1960s and into the 80s, and remain an effective system today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem-charge Are you familiar with the sea wiz anti-missile system? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0Dh6qJ3RE&feature=youtube_gdata_player I am quite certain that if America was in combat with enemies capable of manufacturing and deploying the kind of tech you are talking about (such as the javelin) then you would very quickly begin to see miniature version of the sea wiz being mounted to every American tank, if there isn't already a top secret project with tanks that are fitted so. I'd definitely use up one of my small turret slots for a Phalanx. Near immunity to swarms, hell yeah, let the infantry QQ begin "By His light, and His will" - The Scriptures, Gheinok the First, 12:32
Freshticles DIOS EX. Top Men. 313	Posted - 2013.12.05 14:09:00 - [9] - Quote This real life talk opens me up for some cool ideas. Role for the logi drop ship. If a tank gets its hp reduced to zero, it gets disabled and enters a self destruct. If a logi ship reaches it within one minute and uses a module on it, it can be revived. A vehicle version of the nanotechnology injector, if you will. This will not work if the AV continues to kick it while it's down. Level 9001 Forum Wizard
DeadlyAztec11 2492	Posted - 2013.12.05 14:15:00 - [10] - Quote RPG-7 > Composite Armor > Tandem Warhead > Trophy System > RPG-30 > Trophy System(Trench Coat) > Two Tandem RPG-30 rounds. Madness is the emergency exit. You can just step outside, and close the door on all those dreadful things that happened.

Son-Of A-Gun 3dge of D4rkness SoulWing Alliance 515	Posted - 2013.12.05 14:20:00 - [11] - Quote Freshticles wrote: This real life talk opens me up for some cool ideas. Role for the logi drop ship. If a tank gets its hp reduced to zero, it gets disabled and enters a self destruct. If a logi ship reaches it within one minute and uses a module on it, it can be revived. A vehicle version of the nanotechnology injector, if you will. This will not work if the AV continues to kick it while it's down. This is actually a pretty cool idea. To bad CCP will never read this post, and even if, by some miracle, they did, given their rate of development, it would be put on the back log never to be seen again. {:)}{3GÇó>
ResistanceGTA Valor Tactical Operations Immortal Coalition of New-Eden 59	Posted - 2013.12.05 14:28:00 - [12] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... The bolded part...
Operative 1171 Aajli Bragian Order Amarr Empire 781	Posted - 2013.12.05 15:14:00 - [13] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... The problem is the AV weapons and map sizes. In the real world tanks would think twice about moving into a bowl shaped killbox where they would have to patrol in circles with magical AV weapons to tear them up from rooftops. No tank would roll into this situation unless it is being forced to by a third world idiot regime or has a good chance of utterly demolishing the area via complete bombardment of buildings with no regard for collateral damage. RPGs can one shot a tank. There is footage of it on youtube with a Syrian tank. However, you will notice that there is no follow up shot. If there were to be the guy would take time to reload and aim. He'd need a second guy to carry the warheads and the guy is shown fleeing the scene quickly. Not seen is a repeated volley of self guided missiles with lock on capabilities and NO MAGIC NANOHIVE FOR EXTRA AMMO. Nerf the versatility of AV weapons and increase map sizes and then a tank can be made more vulnerable. As it is, this is a game and people want to have some tank fun so tanks must be allowed to have better survivability in the conditions stated above and lorewise have a reason to roll into said situation. Do your part. Join the revolution. Sabotage FW. Watch DUST burn! DESTROY DUST 2014
daishi mk03 BLACK-GUARD Die Fremdenlegion 486	Posted - 2013.12.05 15:44:00 - [14] - Quote Tanks cost WAY more than the weapons you need to destroy them (just like in Dust) and you can attach as many defense systems as you want, destruction power wins (just like in Dust) It's was, is and will be harder to protect something, than to destroy it. @lol at the IED, challenger blown up by cheap c4, wired by an civilian electrician To know the true path, but yet, to never follow it. That is possibly the gravest sin. The Scriptures,Book of Missions
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 378	Posted - 2013.12.05 17:58:00 - [15] - Quote daishi mk03 wrote: Tanks cost WAY more than the weapons you need to destroy them (just like in Dust) and you can attach as many defense systems as you want, destruction power wins (just like in Dust) It's was, is and will be harder to protect something, than to destroy it. @lol at the IED, challenger blown up by cheap c4, wired by an civilian electrician ok give my turret auto aim and what ever enemy it sees will be killed no matter what from 20000m+ after the main gun reloads, i dont even have to aim turret, it aims its self- you think twice about letting this happen. *Sagaris lover!!!*
Jaysyn Larrisen OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 425	Posted - 2013.12.05 18:40:00 - [16] - Quote I should know better than engaging in this thread but I will anyway. RPG-7's (what most folks identify as RPGs) aren't really designed to take on any thing you would recognize as a tank in modern warfare and it shows when they try. RPGs are fairly effective against light armor and soft skinned vehicles. The RPG has been around since about 1961...things have gotten better. Modern man portable AT systems can one or two shot a top tier MBT. At the very least they will either deliever a firepower kill (main weapon systems down but can still move) or mobility kill (can shoot but not move). I can personally vouch for this one. I've learned a while ago not to translate too much real life mechanics into this game but there are some points to be made in this regard. 1) HAVs should be able to be firepower or mobility killed. 2) A well spec'd AV player with some smart tactics should be able to seriously damage and occaisionally kill a HAV. 3) It's waaaay easier to shoot down aircraft than kill HAVs. I can personally vouch for this as well...have seen it multiple times. Right now the Dropships are getting some major love with the swarm nerf. Not sure how this is going to actually playout.
KING CHECKMATE AMARR IMPERIAL CRUSADERS 2774	Posted - 2013.12.05 19:03:00 - [17] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... Tanks in real- Get owned by 1 JAvelin Missile. enything else? WELCOME! TO ARMORED MED514 : https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1565076#post1565076
Maxximus Meridious The Exemplars Top Men. 0	Posted - 2013.12.05 19:09:00 - [18] - Quote taxi bastard wrote: lots of anti tank weapons out there old style RPG's may not take out a tank with one shot - the challenger 2 MBT has debatably the best protection out of all current MBT. here is a little extract for you about it in service During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was at the time unprotected by "Dorchester" armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[15] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident. surviving and being operational are 2 different things though. the tanks were disabled so for dust purposes destroyed. the other factor not taken into account was that these are vintage RPG and the Milan anti tank missile is from the 70's vs the latest armour in the best protected tank out there. modern AT missiles would make a lot easier work of the challenger 2. tanks are not immortal, simple things such as an IED can effectively take out a tank for all operational purposes. AT vs tank of the same generation there really is not too much in it. tank should be god mode........if your fighting mercs with rifles. tanks should be vulnerable to mercs with AV and mines. if you think they should be able to stay around while getting attacked by AV then imo your wrong. While I understand the point that you are trying to make in regards to this thread, British tanks during the Iraqi conflict had a fewer casualty rate than their Abrams counterparts due in large part of their deployment in only ONE city in the whole of Iraq, whereas Abrams were tasked with patrol and operations in the rest of the countryside. The casualty rate would have been far greater had they moved north to join their armored counterparts in Fallujah/Ramadi/Eastern Baghdad. That said, I would much rather take an RPG shot or two behind the reactive armor of an Abrams, then the more effective shape charge IED, which attacks the underside between the treads, especially since most insurgents have notoriously bad aim...
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 378	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:08:00 - [19] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... Tanks in real- Get owned by 1 JAvelin Missile. Get owned by 1 or 2 mines. anything else? tanks in real snipe from 2-3 miles away having more accuracy than a sniper rifle OHKO anything within 10 m of the shell it landed ( most likely the shell will hit you in the face directly because technology has allowed tanks to have unbelivable accruacy and the turrets auto aim (kind of)) they can see targets in the dark, in bad weather and they can tack them.... so what if it goes down to one javilin (probably not) Tanks have anti missile systems that destroy missiles coming at them and many tracking systems to help figure out from where the missile is coming from before it even hits the vehicle. And from 2 miles away, plenty of time to do this stuff. Do you really want tanks that can OHKO any dropsuit from miles away (practically invisible tank if it came with camo) Do you really want tanks that never miss? exactly... htfu *Sagaris lover!!!*
Cosgar ParagonX 8387	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:12:00 - [20] - Quote Using real life examples to gain leverage in an argument about balancing game mechanics leads to convenient bias. If you want realism, go play Red Orchestra. I tried to put a level into Amarr Commando once, but got a server notification saying "Why?"

Maximus Stryker Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 711	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:17:00 - [21] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... what does this have to do with balance in a videogame? *Faction Channels for FW Staging* PIE Ground Control \| Caldari Hierarchy \| Turalyon \| Chosen Matari
daishi mk03 BLACK-GUARD Die Fremdenlegion 488	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:17:00 - [22] - Quote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZTccFE0y9c Enjoy plenty of destroyed abrams and other stuff with arab music. You're welcome. Edit: Pretty indestructible ... not. To know the true path, but yet, to never follow it. That is possibly the gravest sin. The Scriptures,Book of Missions
Jadd Hatchen Psygod9 D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 159	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:22:00 - [23] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... In real warfare there would be a tank killing aircraft ready to blow it up with a Hellfire or worse. And it only takes one hit from an RPG to cause it to be immobilized. IEDs and other heavy mines also level the playing field.
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 379	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:32:00 - [24] - Quote Maxximus Meridious wrote: taxi bastard wrote: lots of anti tank weapons out there old style RPG's may not take out a tank with one shot - the challenger 2 MBT has debatably the best protection out of all current MBT. here is a little extract for you about it in service During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was at the time unprotected by "Dorchester" armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[15] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident. surviving and being operational are 2 different things though. the tanks were disabled so for dust purposes destroyed. the other factor not taken into account was that these are vintage RPG and the Milan anti tank missile is from the 70's vs the latest armour in the best protected tank out there. modern AT missiles would make a lot easier work of the challenger 2. tanks are not immortal, simple things such as an IED can effectively take out a tank for all operational purposes. AT vs tank of the same generation there really is not too much in it. tank should be god mode........if your fighting mercs with rifles. tanks should be vulnerable to mercs with AV and mines. if you think they should be able to stay around while getting attacked by AV then imo your wrong. While I understand the point that you are trying to make in regards to this thread, British tanks during the Iraqi conflict had a lower casualty rate than their Abrams counterparts due in large part of their deployment in only ONE city in the whole of Iraq, whereas Abrams were tasked with patrol and operations in the rest of the countryside. The casualty rate would have been far greater had they moved north to join their armored counterparts in Fallujah/Ramadi/Eastern Baghdad. That said, I would much rather take an RPG shot or two behind the reactive armor of an Abrams, then the more effective shape charge IED, which attacks the underside between the treads, especially since most insurgents have notoriously bad aim... Also, many modern tanks had ied detection systems and here is a video of what happen when an ied does hit a tank... (good tank) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q6BHfKzH-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVJqBSr_FEs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQQff8TnYiU *Sagaris lover!!!*
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 379	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:33:00 - [25] - Quote Jadd Hatchen wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... In real warfare there would be a tank killing aircraft ready to blow it up with a Hellfire or worse. And it only takes one hit from an RPG to cause it to be immobilized. IEDs and other heavy mines also level the playing field. laser guilded/ infrared missils are easly tanken care of by most tanks... ieds and rpgs dont destroy tanks in 1 hit... maybe the stupid one but not the real underdog tanks... *Sagaris lover!!!*
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 379	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:35:00 - [26] - Quote Maximus Stryker wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... what does this have to do with balance in a videogame? people keep coming to balance threads and keep using real world examples stating that one rpg can take out a tank and if thats what they want the game to be like, let me hit them with a lil bit of reality and how real tankers actually use tanks. *Sagaris lover!!!*
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 379	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:36:00 - [27] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Using real life examples to gain leverage in an argument about balancing game mechanics leads to convenient bias. If you want realism, go play Red Orchestra. read a comment i made to another person on page 2... *Sagaris lover!!!*
Alpha 443-6732 240	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:42:00 - [28] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Using real life examples to gain leverage in an argument about balancing game mechanics leads to convenient bias. If you want realism, go play Red Orchestra. Funny thing is, red orchestra tank warfare is actually more balanced and skill based than what we have here right now... AV =/= Completely dominate and render vehicles useless. AV = Counterpart of vehicles that combats vehicles.
Skihids Unkn0wn Killers Renegade Alliance 2490	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:47:00 - [29] - Quote If we are talking about the real world let's discuss how many HMG rounds it takes to kill an infantry man. Let's talk about doping the wind when you are sniping. Let's deal with the fact that you don't magically heal up after being shot nearly to death. It makes for a pretty dull game. Instead let's let CCP experiment with its "wave" philosophy for vehicle balance and see where that takes us.
KING CHECKMATE AMARR IMPERIAL CRUSADERS 2779	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:50:00 - [30] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: KING CHECKMATE wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... Tanks in real- Get owned by 1 JAvelin Missile. Get owned by 1 or 2 mines. anything else? tanks in real snipe from 2-3 miles away having more accuracy than a sniper rifle OHKO anything within 10 m of the shell it landed ( most likely the shell will hit you in the face directly because technology has allowed tanks to have unbelivable accruacy and the turrets auto aim (kind of)) they can see targets in the dark, in bad weather and they can tack them.... so what if it goes down to one javilin (probably not) Tanks have anti missile systems that destroy missiles coming at them and many tracking systems to help figure out from where the missile is coming from before it even hits the vehicle. And from 2 miles away, plenty of time to do this stuff. Do you really want tanks that can OHKO any dropsuit from miles away (practically invisible tank if it came with camo) Do you really want tanks that never miss? exactly... htfu Im not afraid of all the crap you mentioned up there.BRING IT! but.. You are afraid of my 1HKO Javeline Missile. We have no space for more QQ tankers around here..... WELCOME! TO ARMORED MED514 : https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1565076#post1565076

SoTarian PoParrazi Shining Flame Amarr Empire 419	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:51:00 - [31] - Quote Since we're comparing real life... How many shots do you think it'll take a forge gun to kill a tank in real life? n+ÅS¦¦Gùò GÇ+GÇ+ GùòS¦¦n++ - Let's make a contract!
Kane Fyea 2322	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:52:00 - [32] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... Also there are handheld anti vehicle weapons that can one shot a tank from very far away too (The javelin for one).
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 381	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:54:00 - [33] - Quote Kane Fyea wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... Also there are handheld anti vehicle weapons that can one shot a tank from very far away too (The javelin for one). say who? First of all your going to have to find the tank... second of all your gonna be dead because tanks in real have the worlds most OP aim assist and have very good infantry detecting abilities, also tanks have anti missile mods. *Sagaris lover!!!*
Xocoyol Zaraoul Superior Genetics 1592	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:55:00 - [34] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Using real life examples to gain leverage in an argument about balancing game mechanics leads to convenient bias. If you want realism, go play Red Orchestra. This... So much this. This is EVE FFS, our "space" is more like Jello... Realism is worthless for Game-Balance. Closed Beta Vet Reading the forums detracts from overall enjoyment of the game
Maximus Stryker Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 711	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:55:00 - [35] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: Maximus Stryker wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... what does this have to do with balance in a videogame? people keep coming to balance threads and keep using real world examples stating that one rpg can take out a tank and if thats what they want the game to be like, let me hit them with a lil bit of reality and how real tankers actually use tanks. I think you should simply reply to them the same way I replied to you *Faction Channels for FW Staging* PIE Ground Control \| Caldari Hierarchy \| Turalyon \| Chosen Matari
Atiim Living Like Larry Schwag 1612	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:56:00 - [36] - Quote Because a Sci-Fi FPS "MMO" title should definitely have mechanics similar to real life. While we're at it, why not buff the Range on SLs to 2km, and have them fire 12-18 swarms like a real life re-incarnation would. Why don't we also buff the range on Shotguns to 60m with no falloff damage? My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Kane Fyea 2322	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:56:00 - [37] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: Kane Fyea wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... Also there are handheld anti vehicle weapons that can one shot a tank from very far away too (The javelin for one). say who? First of all your going to have to find the tank... second of all your gonna be dead because tanks in real have the worlds most OP aim assist and have very good infantry detecting abilities, also tanks have anti missile mods. The javelin can OSK a tank from two and a half clicks away lol (Which also locks on the the tank). I'll get you a video demonstration too :). EDIT: Found the video. Here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3iA5KCa16s. The reason tanks are viable now is because no first world country has gone against another yet.
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 381	Posted - 2013.12.05 21:58:00 - [38] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: KING CHECKMATE wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... Tanks in real- Get owned by 1 JAvelin Missile. Get owned by 1 or 2 mines. anything else? tanks in real snipe from 2-3 miles away having more accuracy than a sniper rifle OHKO anything within 10 m of the shell it landed ( most likely the shell will hit you in the face directly because technology has allowed tanks to have unbelivable accruacy and the turrets auto aim (kind of)) they can see targets in the dark, in bad weather and they can tack them.... so what if it goes down to one javilin (probably not) Tanks have anti missile systems that destroy missiles coming at them and many tracking systems to help figure out from where the missile is coming from before it even hits the vehicle. And from 2 miles away, plenty of time to do this stuff. Do you really want tanks that can OHKO any dropsuit from miles away (practically invisible tank if it came with camo) Do you really want tanks that never miss? exactly... htfu Im not afraid of all the crap you mentioned up there.BRING IT! but.. You are afraid of my 1HKO Javeline Missile. We have no space for more QQ tankers around here..... You wont see me, you'll be dead right when you come out of your hole... *Sagaris lover!!!*
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 381	Posted - 2013.12.05 22:00:00 - [39] - Quote Kane Fyea wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Kane Fyea wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... Also there are handheld anti vehicle weapons that can one shot a tank from very far away too (The javelin for one). say who? First of all your going to have to find the tank... second of all your gonna be dead because tanks in real have the worlds most OP aim assist and have very good infantry detecting abilities, also tanks have anti missile mods. The javelin can OSK a tank from two and a half clicks away lol (Which also locks on the the tank). I'll get you a video demonstration too :). EDIT: Found the video. Here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3iA5KCa16s. The reason tanks are viable now is because no first world country has gone against another yet (In recent times). What tank noob tank is that? *Sagaris lover!!!*
Dunk Mujunk RestlessSpirits 365	Posted - 2013.12.05 22:09:00 - [40] - Quote In my opinion the real world example that would best work within Dust would be the fact that out in the open, yes, RL tanks are pretty godly, but in close confines such as a city, and when facing an entrenched and well prepared enemy, they are a liability waiting to pop (generally speaking). Ideally (well, for me anyway), Dust will one day increase player counts and, obviously, introduce all the different vehicles, then tailor the game to the point that being being caught out in the open between 2 sockets would be all but a death sentence for a lone foot soldier. Pushes from socket to socket would require support from armor, and with enough vehicles, as well as with the importance this would place on vehicles, I think a majority of the skirmishes would become vehicle vs vehicle, with the opposing infantry escorts engaging each other as opposed to the vehicles. You would still have infantry based AV, but I feel there would be much less, mainly due to the fact that anything outside CQC areas would be the realm of vehicles. In RL the best AV is a tank, and tanks are made to fight tanks, not infantry, just like infantry is generally made to fight infantry. The middle ground would be an IFV or APC. Making vehicles the best way to counter vehicles I think opens the door for less AV, as well as the ability to specialize AV more. Basically this forces teamwork. Infantry needs vehicle support away from sockets, vehicles need infantry support in sockets. A serious push on a skilled enemy entrenched well into a socket would require an armor column approaching the socket, with infantry dismounting upon arriving at the socket to clear out opposing infantry will vehicles engage opposing vehicles. Just a thought. Im an 80s guy, friendship to me means for 2 bucks id beat you with a pool cue till you got detached retinas. Futurama

Maxximus Meridious The Exemplars Top Men. 0	Posted - 2013.12.05 22:09:00 - [41] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: Maxximus Meridious wrote: taxi bastard wrote: lots of anti tank weapons out there old style RPG's may not take out a tank with one shot - the challenger 2 MBT has debatably the best protection out of all current MBT. here is a little extract for you about it in service During the 2003 invasion of Iraq the Challenger 2 tanks suffered no tank losses to enemy fire, although one was penetrated by an IED. This was at the time unprotected by "Dorchester" armour. The driver was injured. In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[15] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident. surviving and being operational are 2 different things though. the tanks were disabled so for dust purposes destroyed. the other factor not taken into account was that these are vintage RPG and the Milan anti tank missile is from the 70's vs the latest armour in the best protected tank out there. modern AT missiles would make a lot easier work of the challenger 2. tanks are not immortal, simple things such as an IED can effectively take out a tank for all operational purposes. AT vs tank of the same generation there really is not too much in it. tank should be god mode........if your fighting mercs with rifles. tanks should be vulnerable to mercs with AV and mines. if you think they should be able to stay around while getting attacked by AV then imo your wrong. While I understand the point that you are trying to make in regards to this thread, British tanks during the Iraqi conflict had a lower casualty rate than their Abrams counterparts due in large part of their deployment in only ONE city in the whole of Iraq, whereas Abrams were tasked with patrol and operations in the rest of the countryside. The casualty rate would have been far greater had they moved north to join their armored counterparts in Fallujah/Ramadi/Eastern Baghdad. That said, I would much rather take an RPG shot or two behind the reactive armor of an Abrams, then the more effective shape charge IED, which attacks the underside between the treads, especially since most insurgents have notoriously bad aim... Also, many modern tanks had ied detection systems and here is a video of what happen when an ied does hit a tank... (good tank) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q6BHfKzH-Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVJqBSr_FEs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQQff8TnYiU Actually, they are still equipped with countermeasures, among other things. To the poster with the youtube link showing "destroyed" M1A2's- nearly all of those in your link are not destroyed, but merely incapacitated, i.e missing treads. I've never seen a tank roaming around by itself, as they are usually deployed as a platoon or larger element, so there's that. Modern armor is designed with two purposes in mind- mission completion and crew survivability. I would say that based on the damage shown in that video/propaganda clip that most crews walked away alive. In regards to game mechanics, there really isn't much that is realistic to begin with, so applying real world characteristics is futile.
KING CHECKMATE AMARR IMPERIAL CRUSADERS 2785	Posted - 2013.12.05 22:18:00 - [42] - Quote Anmol Singh wrote: You wont see me, you'll be dead right when you come out of your hole... Thats assuming you'll be on a high position, far enough away. sadly, not all maps have Great sniper spots broski WELCOME! TO ARMORED MED514 : https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1565076#post1565076
Anmol Singh The Unholy Legion Of DarkStar DARKSTAR ARMY 381	Posted - 2013.12.05 22:18:00 - [43] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: You wont see me, you'll be dead right when you come out of your hole... Thats assuming you'll be on a high position, far enough away. sadly, not all maps have Great sniper spots broski Disadvantages[edit] The main drawback of the complete system (missile, tube, and CLU) is its 49.2 lb (22.3 kg) total weight. The system is designed to be portable by infantry on foot and weighs more than the original weight specified by the army.[16] Another drawback of the system is the reliance on a thermal view to acquire targets. The thermal views are not able to operate until the refrigeration component has cooled the system. The manufacturer estimates 30 seconds until this is complete, but depending on the ambient temperature, this process may take much longer. Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive. A single Javelin command launch unit costs around $125,000, and each missile costs around $80,000. The operator of the complex has no opportunity to correct the flight of the rocket after launch (when the target heat contrasts poorly with the terrain, the missile can miss). Edit: you want to use javilins against a tank, you gonna have to put down some isk on the table for one ammo and be a heavy at the same time... ultimate AV weapon, but will you survive infantry? You willing to loose lots of isk if you miss and pay lots of isk for this weapon? *Sagaris lover!!!*
Luna Angelo We Who Walk Alone 309	Posted - 2013.12.05 22:33:00 - [44] - Quote Dunk Mujunk wrote: In my opinion the real world example that would best work within Dust would be the fact that out in the open, yes, RL tanks are pretty godly, but in close confines such as a city, and when facing an entrenched and well prepared enemy, they are a liability waiting to pop (generally speaking). Ideally (well, for me anyway), Dust will one day increase player counts and, obviously, introduce all the different vehicles, then tailor the game to the point that being being caught out in the open between 2 sockets would be all but a death sentence for a lone foot soldier. Pushes from socket to socket would require support from armor, and with enough vehicles, as well as with the importance this would place on vehicles, I think a majority of the skirmishes would become vehicle vs vehicle, with the opposing infantry escorts engaging each other as opposed to the vehicles. You would still have infantry based AV, but I feel there would be much less, mainly due to the fact that anything outside CQC areas would be the realm of vehicles. In RL the best AV is a tank, and tanks are made to fight tanks, not infantry, just like infantry is generally made to fight infantry. The middle ground would be an IFV or APC. Making vehicles the best way to counter vehicles I think opens the door for less AV, as well as the ability to specialize AV more. Basically this forces teamwork. Infantry needs vehicle support away from sockets, vehicles need infantry support in sockets. A serious push on a skilled enemy entrenched well into a socket would require an armor column approaching the socket, with infantry dismounting upon arriving at the socket to clear out opposing infantry will vehicles engage opposing vehicles. Just a thought. There is this. I've only ever seen tanks in cities (irl) when they're destroying said city to drive out the last bits of resistance. Mostly, they provide support in the form of missiles hitting targets from a long way off, after infantry lights them up (usually). We already light things up, both with a scanner and to call down OB's. We could use a similar method to the latter for tanks. And AV, too. Names of playstyles
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 277	Posted - 2013.12.05 22:40:00 - [45] - Quote KING CHECKMATE wrote: Anmol Singh wrote: Many peoples counter argument to tank buff is that tanks in real tank one RPG to take down. Im here to enlighten you... Tanks in real- -take multiple hits of RPG's -Can track and hit a moving target from miles away using technology -have infrared cameras and night vision (lightd enemies up like flashlights) (tanks have special armor which makes it hard to lock onto -kill anything within a 10 meter blast radius of its shell -They practically have auto aim -have a 5 man highly trained crew Really HTFU... Do you want to be one hit from an invisible tank miles and miles away? It can hit person from two miles away while moving... Tanks in real- Get owned by 1 JAvelin Missile. Get owned by 1 or 2 mines. anything else? Ever heard of the trophy systems the Israeli's already have a prototype. Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........ Tanker/Logi Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 277	Posted - 2013.12.05 22:46:00 - [46] - Quote daishi mk03 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZTccFE0y9c Enjoy plenty of destroyed abrams and other stuff with arab music. You're welcome. Edit: Pretty indestructible ... not. Lol only 1 Abrams was destroyed by enemy fire the others were either stuck in the mud or hit by friendly fire or not Abram's at all. Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........ Tanker/Logi Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have
Fizzer94 L.O.T.I.S. Public Disorder. 1117	Posted - 2013.12.05 23:09:00 - [47] - Quote Cosgar wrote: Using real life examples to gain leverage in an argument about balancing game mechanics leads to convenient bias. If you want realism, go play Red Orchestra. Or, you know, Arma 2. I can't really think of a more realistic FPS. You typically die in 1 shot unless it hits you in the leg/arm, every weapon has ballistics, traveling takes up most of your time, a single sniper can lock down and entire valley, and engagements usually take place at 300+ meters. That pretty much sums up war IRL. Arma 3 uses fictional vehicles/weapons, so it isn't as authentic, if it did, it would definately be more realistic than #2, IMO. [+ªa¦Ç+¦++-ö-Å94] Level 1 Forum Warrior The Plasma Cannon is not underpowered
Kane Fyea 2323	Posted - 2013.12.05 23:34:00 - [48] - Quote Lets balance this game around real life. I'd love to shoot my shotgun accurately at 40m so go right ahead.
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 381	Posted - 2013.12.05 23:58:00 - [49] - Quote daishi mk03 wrote: Quote: HEAT rounds caused a revolution in anti-tank warfare when they were first introduced in the later stages of World War II. A single infantryman could effectively destroy any existing tank with a handheld weapon, thereby dramatically altering the nature of mobile operations. After the war HEAT became almost universal as the primary anti-tank weapon. HEAT rounds of varying effectiveness were produced for almost all weapons from infantry weapons like rifle grenades and the M203 grenade launcher, to larger dedicated anti-tank systems like the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. When combined with the wire-guided missile, infantry weapons were able to operate in the long-range role as well. Anti-tank missiles altered the nature of tank warfare throughout the 1960s and into the 80s, and remain an effective system today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tandem-charge Then I take it you know about the armor made specifically because of HEAT rounds? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour http://military.discovery.com/tv-shows/combat-tech/videos/combat-tech-the-heat-round.htm daishi mk03 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZTccFE0y9c Enjoy plenty of destroyed abrams and other stuff with arab music. You're welcome. Edit: Pretty indestructible ... not. US Abrams have a detonation system inside of them (not sure about Abrams used by other countries however) that are used when they are abandoned on the field. What you see there are mostly tanks destroyed by this abandonment system, not from external fire. Once the treads are blown out they destroy the interior so that it cannot be used against them. More than half of the tanks in that video were abandoned clearly because they were stuck. Pitfalls or too much sand and dust in the gears grinding them out. Some are the same tank that has been dragged about and re-photo'd for propaganda purposes. :/ Many times the tanks are still operational, but cease functioning because the crew inside is not as... sturdy. Thus the detonation system to clean up. If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
TunRa RETR0 PR0 GAMERS INTERGALACTIC WARPIGS 233	Posted - 2013.12.06 00:04:00 - [50] - Quote Can we just have this in Dust? Is this where I write the signature? No?

True Adamance Fatal Absolution 4566	Posted - 2013.12.06 00:10:00 - [51] - Quote TunRa wrote: Can we just have this in Dust? Very cool if swarmers required a heat signature to lock onto targets. "All things were created by the Divine, and so the glory of our faith is inherent to us all"
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 277	Posted - 2013.12.06 00:21:00 - [52] - Quote TunRa wrote: Can we just have this in Dust? That would be cool if it took up a slot but increased SL lock on times or only let a number of missiles land depending on tier and screwed with AV nade tracking so only direct impacts did damage, less vulnerable to AV more vulnerable to tanks. 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 1623	Posted - 2013.12.06 00:24:00 - [53] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: TunRa wrote: Can we just have this in Dust? That would be cool if it took up a slot but increased SL lock on times or only let a number of missiles land depending on tier and screwed with AV nade tracking so only direct impacts did damage, less vulnerable to AV more vulnerable to tanks. No. AV = HAV. If you want to play Tank 514 then go to World Of Tanks, This game is called DUST 514. It's not called "Lets make HAVs the best niche in the game and the best counter and answer to everything" 514. My Very First Thread About Tanks -HAND
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 277	Posted - 2013.12.06 00:38:00 - [54] - Quote Atiim wrote: Benjamin Ciscko wrote: TunRa wrote: Can we just have this in Dust? That would be cool if it took up a slot but increased SL lock on times or only let a number of missiles land depending on tier and screwed with AV nade tracking so only direct impacts did damage, less vulnerable to AV more vulnerable to tanks. No. AV = HAV. If you want to play Tank 514 then go to World Of Tanks, This game is called DUST 514. It's not called "Lets make HAVs the best niche in the game and the best counter and answer to everything" 514. This module would not affect FG's or PLC's so the tank would be weaker wasting a slot for a hardener or something useful against that kind of AV, and I want to play Balance 514 here I will edit it for you happy. Vehicle rework scheduled for 1.5.... 1.6.... 1.7........ Tanker/Logi Wait until AV feels the pain vehicle users have


Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.