|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2493
   |
Posted - 2013.12.12 10:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
Otherwise they wouldn't cost so much. No, you are not entitled to be able to fight back 1v1. That would make the entire risk vs reward of using a tank pointless.
Is the only true counter to a tank another tank? Yes. It is. And thats exactly how it should be. At least until other big vehicles come into play.
New Eden is a place dominated by large, powerful vehicles. It always has been. Anti-vehicle stuff is merely there to annoy them and force them to retreat. Don't like it? Too bad. Tooooo bad.
Sincerely,
A FORGE GUNNER who actually appreciates fun gameplay when he notices it. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2495
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 11:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
crazy space 1 wrote:They cost less than my dropsuit...
Then your tank sucks. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2496
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 11:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
GET ATMESON wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Otherwise they wouldn't cost so much. No, you are not entitled to be able to fight back 1v1. That would make the entire risk vs reward of using a tank pointless. The problem isn't the tank being OP. The problem is you being overly entitled.
Is the only true counter to a tank another tank? Yes. It is. And thats exactly how it should be. At least until other big vehicles come into play.
New Eden is a place dominated by large, powerful vehicles. It always has been. Anti-vehicle stuff is merely there to annoy them and force them to retreat. Don't like it? Too bad. Tooooo bad.
Sincerely,
A FORGE GUNNER who actually appreciates fun gameplay when he notices it. Tanks prices are way cheaper.....
Still meant to wreck you. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2496
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 11:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
BL4CKST4R wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:Otherwise they wouldn't cost so much. No, you are not entitled to be able to fight back 1v1. That would make the entire risk vs reward of using a tank pointless. The problem isn't the tank being OP. The problem is you being overly entitled.
Is the only true counter to a tank another tank? Yes. It is. And thats exactly how it should be. At least until other big vehicles come into play.
New Eden is a place dominated by large, powerful vehicles. It always has been. Anti-vehicle stuff is merely there to annoy them and force them to retreat. Don't like it? Too bad. Tooooo bad.
Sincerely,
A FORGE GUNNER who actually appreciates fun gameplay when he notices it. Repeat this when we get the PVE and we have ground to air/space installations one shotting EVE ships.
Considering I'm in the EVE ship, I don't think this bothers me as much as you think it does. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2496
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 11:52:00 -
[5] - Quote
No, its meant to repel them.
Tanks are supposed to be able to withstand the punishment to a degree. Hence the term tank.
If they could not perform their job, nobody would invest in the damn things.
And no, they are not balanced. They are better. Thats entirely the point.
If you want them to be more expensive, im sure that can be arranged. But they are performing at exactly the level they should. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2496
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 11:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Chunky Munkey wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:No, its meant to repel them.
Tanks are supposed to be able to withstand the punishment to a degree. Hence the term tank.
If they could not perform their job, nobody would invest in the damn things.
And no, they are not balanced. They are better. Thats entirely the point. I guess they were fine before then.
No, they were too slow and too difficult to keep alive. They needed sustained defensive capability and now they have that.
They are also fun as hell to use now. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2498
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 18:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
Korvin Lomont wrote:Himiko Kuronaga wrote:No, its meant to repel them.
Tanks are supposed to be able to withstand the punishment to a degree. Hence the term tank.
If they could not perform their job, nobody would invest in the damn things.
And no, they are not balanced. They are better. Thats entirely the point.
If you want them to be more expensive, im sure that can be arranged. But they are performing at exactly the level they should. +ähm no AV is not meant to let the tank go and come back fully repaired its meant to be able to destroy tanks. Whats the point if only repell the tank for 20sec from the battlefield?
Do you have any idea whatsoever how long 20 seconds is in a competitive match? 20 seconds is an eternity of free damage you are putting on the enemy MCC.
Use AV weaponry on actual tanks in real life and you will come to understand how entirely worthless they actually are. They are an annoyance meant to deter state-of-the-art tanks, not kill them. Choppers and LAV's are about the only things that truly get destroyed by AV.
Tanks are killed by tanks. The only reason games work differently is because a lot of people act like children when they arent capable of dealing with every single potential threat at the same time. Honestly, the REAL tank counter right now are assault dropships. Tanks cant do much of anything about those. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2500
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 18:23:00 -
[8] - Quote
My advanced loadout comes out at 38k.
The super cheap ass version comes out to 28k.
a militia tank is a little around 50k.
So according to my budget, a tank is more expensive. |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2500
|
Posted - 2013.12.12 18:35:00 -
[9] - Quote
So now we're linking wikipedia to make an argument? You're lucky I'm not your professor. You would have been ejected from almost any class at a respectable college for that.
But since we're playing the wikipedia game...
Quote:The M60A1 tanks of the U.S. Marines saw action during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, opposing Iraqi armor which included the T-54/T-59, T-55, T-62, Type 69, and T-72. The M60A1s were fitted with add-on explosive reactive armor (ERA) packages and supported the drive into Kuwait City where they were involved in a two day tank battle at the Kuwait airport with the loss of only one vehicle and no crew. They saw service with the United States Marine Corps, and the Saudi Arabian Army.
Quote:When the Abrams entered service in the 1980s, they operated alongside M60A3 within the United States military, and with other NATO tanks in numerous Cold War exercises. These exercises usually took place in Western Europe, especially West Germany, but also in some other countries like South Korea. During such training exercises, Abrams' crews honed their skills for use against Soviet soldiers, equipment and vehicles. However, by 1991 the USSR had collapsed and the Abrams had not been in any combat.
The Abrams remained untested in combat until the Gulf War in 1991. A total of 1,848 M1A1s were deployed to Saudi Arabia. The M1A1 was superior to Iraq's Soviet-era T-55 and T-62 tanks, as well as Iraqi assembled Russian T-72s, and locally produced copies (Asad Babil tank). The T-72s like most Soviet export designs lacked night vision systems and then-modern rangefinders, though they did have some night fighting tanks with older active infrared systems or floodlightsGÇöjust not the latest starlight scopes and passive infrared scopes as on the Abrams. Only 23 M1A1s were taken out of service in the Gulf[52] and one of these losses resulted in crew deaths from Iraqi fire. Some others took minor combat damage, with little effect on their operational readiness. Very few Abrams tanks were hit by enemy fire, and there was only one fatality, along with a handful of wounded as a result.
Yea, so much for the effectiveness of the mighty RPG. Strange that so few tanks took any real damage, considering how favored the RPG is... |
Himiko Kuronaga
Fatal Absolution
2509
|
Posted - 2013.12.13 08:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
The US military does not like our armor to get chinked. Scratches the paint job and annoys us.
If the RPG threat was truly high to tanks, there would be some evidence of it in actual combat huh?
The javelin works on the tanks of other nations because... uh.... who have we been fighting for the last thirty years? Not exactly the space-age enemy we were preparing for. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|