DUST Search - Regarding Tanks

Komodo Jones wrote:

Shijima Kuraimaru wrote:

The thing is that rock doesn't want to be beaten.

Rock = Vehicles (especially the HAV)
Scissors = infantry (anti-personnel)
Paper = Infantry (Anti-Vehicle)

But now the HAV rock has been given a sixty inch (152cm) fan to keep paper off of it.
The DS rock has been able to fly away from paper for a while now and was relatively recently given the ability to shoot back. It's fine where it is though AV getting shorter and shorter range and lowered damage is taking a DS more and more of a challenge. (Futile with swarms at the moment.)
The LAV rock is fine where it is.

The situation has evolved to the point where now, in general and assuming experienced pilots that know what they're doing...

HAV rock beats everything, DS rock can avoid everything but HAV rock.
Scissors beat other scissors, paper, and rarely rock. (As expected)
Paper rarely beats anything. (Except LAV rock)

So the Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect of the game is pretty much dead at the moment.

I just gotta say I think that game is just silly, how the hell does paper win against a rock? It's a piece of paper lol.

They should really go with more of a hammer and spear approach, infantry is the spear and vehicles are the hammer, they're big, clunky and can do alot of brute force damage, infantry is small and precise and can do alot of damage to a single point, vehicles just don't have a single point to attack, forcing infantry to be more like a hammer which can't really be done with nerfed AV.

I'm basically rerouting everyone on this post to my other one about tread HP and mobility damage as a way to disable vehicles and make them vulnerable, give them a weak spot for infantry to strike. Check it out.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 284	Posted - 2013.12.15 06:55:00 - [1] - Quote Ok I might need to take back some of my previous statements about them, yes they were very fun and at some point nearly invincible and I do think they did a good job with them in terms of vehicle vs vehicle combat, but maybe they need to be taken down a notch. Lemme put it to ya this way, when we're resorting to a suicide LAV for tank killing there's a problem lol. Sure it's cheap and I wouldn't mind even using that in the future because it's just fun but I really don't see that much AV on the field anymore and if there is some there you can just shrug it off. And here's something that alot of people probably haven't considered, what happens when the pilot suit comes out? Now you have a madruger that can repair nearly 300 armor passively (there's something wrong with that too, armor repairs faster than shields and gets more HP?) and can activate a hardener in even less time than the hardener lasts? THAT'S a bit too much. You guys gave vehicles a place on the field, made them a threat and actually kinda scary, damn good job, in the next update or whenever you guys decide to do an infantry overhaul, give us a chance at killing them. Make tanks cheap or make them tough, not both. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Ulysses Knapse duna corp 745	Posted - 2013.12.15 10:05:00 - [2] - Quote CCP messed up. They wanted to make vehicles good for short bursts, but gave them ridiculously high passive repair speeds. Doesn't that seem, oh, I don't know, counterintuitive? Humanity is the personification of change.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 286	Posted - 2013.12.15 17:06:00 - [3] - Quote Great for short bursts of combat for vehicles, but they can just sit there and take infantry damage lol This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 286	Posted - 2013.12.15 17:50:00 - [4] - Quote Ya know what, everyone has been complaining about this whole 1 sided combat thing, basically that infantry can kill any vehicle besides tanks, that basically there should be some checks and balances or "rock-paper-scissor" system involved, think what they don't realize is that it is in here and they just want infantry to be all powerful again. Think about it this way, infantry can kill infantry, they can also kill dropships but tanks are tougher, tanks can kill infantry and other tanks, but dropships are tougher, dropships can kill infantry and tanks (with a little work) but other dropships are a little more difficult, yes that's a bit discontinuous but I think the game is in a good place when if you're faced with a tank, the preferable thing to do is to get another tank or a dropship to kill it. Tanks still need some work because if a prototype forge gun can't kill a militia tank on it's own there's something wrong lol, same goes for small turrets on dropships with a couple of clips you should be able to kill a tank and not have it be this difficult. Getting off topic, the main thing people don't realize is that now if you want to kill a tank or at least get a tank off your back, you need another tank, this is a good thing, this makes sense. you have this big rolling imposing behemoth in the street going unchecked, it's doing alot of damage and you can't kill it, is that CCP's fault? No, that's your fault, get a soma, put a hardener, a railgun, a scanner, and a fuel injector on it, costs like 90k and you can kill that tank or at least drive it off or give it something else to shoot at. Yes if like 3 people have swarm launchers or a couple forge guns you should be able to kill a tank but that's not where the game stands right now and it hopefully will in the future, but for now it's not that hard to just get your own tanks and have infantry and tanks fighting parallel instead of everyone ganging up on infantry and preventing you from doing your job, if they have tanks and you don't you should be at a disadvantage, this makes sense. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Piraten Hovnoret No Tax Scrubs 125	Posted - 2013.12.15 18:01:00 - [5] - Quote lol yeah 3-4 players hunting one tank. Problem is that there is always like 6 tanks on the field now.... That's with your numbers 12-18 infantry needed to take em on. I kind of liked the active-booster-making-tanks-weak-during-cooldown thing... The problem is that they got ****** increase in speed and ****** decrease in cost also, and al av got nerfed to sh-ít on top of that. Yeah tanks was crap in 1,6 but this is just a joke period. 2 wrong don't make 1 right CCP
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 286	Posted - 2013.12.15 18:09:00 - [6] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: lol yeah 3-4 players hunting one tank. Problem is that there is always like 6 tanks on the field now.... That's with your numbers 12-18 infantry needed to take em on. I kind of liked the active-booster-making-tanks-weak-during-cooldown thing... The problem is that they got ****** increase in speed and ****** decrease in cost also, and al av got nerfed to sh-ít on top of that. Yeah tanks was crap in 1,6 but this is just a joke period. 2 wrong don't make 1 right CCP That's why you don't only need infantry, you need tanks, and that makes sense, they got the concept right but there's not too much of a point for infantry to use AV except for support and helping tanks kill other tanks quicker. That's the only thing I have a problem with is that they managed to add another dimension to the combat and make vehicle more usable, but someone who is maxed out in forge guns or swarms should be able to kill a militia tank. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 286	Posted - 2013.12.15 18:17:00 - [7] - Quote Idea for making AV more prevalent without really changing the damage, add tread HP. Hitting the treads with a forge gun should disable it to the point where it can barely move, until it recovers somehow. Proximity mines and AV grenades should only do damage to the treads and not the main hull, swarm launchers can only do damage to the hull, plasma cannons should do direct damage to whatever it hits and splash to the rest, forge guns are just for everything. This way AV is still relatively weak but could easily overwhelm a tanker who gets unlucky. Hell 1 guy with AV grenades and remote explosives could take down a complex tank if he just got within range, tends to even the odds a bit huh? This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 299	Posted - 2013.12.15 18:23:00 - [8] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: Idea for making AV more prevalent without really changing the damage, add tread HP. Hitting the treads with a forge gun should disable it to the point where it can barely move, until it recovers somehow. Proximity mines and AV grenades should only do damage to the treads and not the main hull, swarm launchers can only do damage to the hull, plasma cannons should do direct damage to whatever it hits and splash to the rest, forge guns are just for everything. This way AV is still relatively weak but could easily overwhelm a tanker who gets unlucky. Hell 1 guy with AV grenades and remote explosives could take down a complex tank if he just got within range, tends to even the odds a bit huh? YES.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 287	Posted - 2013.12.15 18:24:00 - [9] - Quote Alena Ventrallis wrote: Komodo Jones wrote: Idea for making AV more prevalent without really changing the damage, add tread HP. Hitting the treads with a forge gun should disable it to the point where it can barely move, until it recovers somehow. Proximity mines and AV grenades should only do damage to the treads and not the main hull, swarm launchers can only do damage to the hull, plasma cannons should do direct damage to whatever it hits and splash to the rest, forge guns are just for everything. This way AV is still relatively weak but could easily overwhelm a tanker who gets unlucky. Hell 1 guy with AV grenades and remote explosives could take down a complex tank if he just got within range, tends to even the odds a bit huh? YES. Yeah I'm gonna make a separate post for that :) This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Piraten Hovnoret No Tax Scrubs 125	Posted - 2013.12.15 18:25:00 - [10] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: Piraten Hovnoret wrote: lol yeah 3-4 players hunting one tank. Problem is that there is always like 6 tanks on the field now.... That's with your numbers 12-18 infantry needed to take em on. I kind of liked the active-booster-making-tanks-weak-during-cooldown thing... The problem is that they got ****** increase in speed and ****** decrease in cost also, and al av got nerfed to sh-ít on top of that. Yeah tanks was crap in 1,6 but this is just a joke period. 2 wrong don't make 1 right CCP That's why you don't only need infantry, you need tanks, and that makes sense, they got the concept right but there's not too much of a point for infantry to use AV except for support and helping tanks kill other tanks quicker. That's the only thing I have a problem with is that they managed to add another dimension to the combat and make vehicle more usable, but someone who is maxed out in forge guns or swarms should be able to kill a militia tank. I understand what you are saying and respecting it, however I TOTALY disagree with you. If the tanks are to be as they are now the cost if running them must increase like 10 times. And the tank should be weak when in cool down, however no it's just runs away like a rabbit on speed. Where is the RISK running a tank? When you are in combat you have crazy almost god mode resistance/rep etc, when you run out you just "fly away" and if you do loose the tank no big deal, cheep as F any way. So 3 guys in proto gear where ONE cost more then your tank is not a issue ? Failure to c al this is just ignorance. Again tanks was crap in 1,6 but this is a bad joke in a try to balance them.

Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 287	Posted - 2013.12.15 18:28:00 - [11] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: Komodo Jones wrote: Piraten Hovnoret wrote: lol yeah 3-4 players hunting one tank. Problem is that there is always like 6 tanks on the field now.... That's with your numbers 12-18 infantry needed to take em on. I kind of liked the active-booster-making-tanks-weak-during-cooldown thing... The problem is that they got ****** increase in speed and ****** decrease in cost also, and al av got nerfed to sh-ít on top of that. Yeah tanks was crap in 1,6 but this is just a joke period. 2 wrong don't make 1 right CCP That's why you don't only need infantry, you need tanks, and that makes sense, they got the concept right but there's not too much of a point for infantry to use AV except for support and helping tanks kill other tanks quicker. That's the only thing I have a problem with is that they managed to add another dimension to the combat and make vehicle more usable, but someone who is maxed out in forge guns or swarms should be able to kill a militia tank. I understand what you are saying and respecting it, however I TOTALY disagree with you. If the tanks are to be as they are now the cost if running them must increase like 10 times. And the tank should be weak when in cool down, however no it's just runs away like a rabbit on speed. Where is the RISK running a tank? When you are in combat you have crazy almost god mode resistance/rep etc, when you run out you just "fly away" and if you do loose the tank no big deal, cheep as F any way. So 3 guys in proto gear where ONE cost more then your tank is not a issue ? Failure to c al this is just ignorance. Again tanks was crap in 1,6 but this is a bad joke in a try to balance them. Yeah basically the only hope of killing a tank is if it gets stuck by running into a rock or getting trapped between walls or something, or that the pilot doesn't know what he's doing, that's definitely a fair argument lol. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Piraten Hovnoret No Tax Scrubs 125	Posted - 2013.12.15 20:28:00 - [12] - Quote I RL a infantry can take out a tank. I know I have done it in RL war.... Even with normal fu+ºking dynamite and a sling shoot. Grrrrrr the RL example is mute I know... Just frustrated lol =ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.15 20:34:00 - [13] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: I RL a infantry can take out a tank. I know I have done it in RL war.... Even with normal fu+ºking dynamite and a sling shoot. Grrrrrr the RL example is mute I know... Just frustrated lol =ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé=ƒÿé Shouldn't be and I agree with u, these are more high tech tanks but there's gotta be some ways to do it. Tanks are cheap enough now for people not to rage when they get killed, now find a way to make them killable, I did put my complete theory on tread HP on a separate post, I think that could work to make infantry a little more feared vs infantry. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Shijima Kuraimaru warravens League of Infamy 431	Posted - 2013.12.15 21:10:00 - [14] - Quote The thing is that rock doesn't want to be beaten. Rock = Vehicles (especially the HAV) Scissors = infantry (anti-personnel) Paper = Infantry (Anti-Vehicle) But now the HAV rock has been given a sixty inch (152cm) fan to keep paper off of it. The DS rock has been able to fly away from paper for a while now and was relatively recently given the ability to shoot back. It's fine where it is though AV getting shorter and shorter range and lowered damage is taking a DS more and more of a challenge. (Futile with swarms at the moment.) The LAV rock is fine where it is. The situation has evolved to the point where now, in general and assuming experienced pilots that know what they're doing... HAV rock beats everything, DS rock can avoid everything but HAV rock. Scissors beat other scissors, paper, and rarely rock. (As expected) Paper rarely beats anything. (Except LAV rock) So the Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect of the game is pretty much dead at the moment. I still can't find tanks on the market. All I see are those HAVs.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.15 21:18:00 - [15] - Quote Shijima Kuraimaru wrote: The thing is that rock doesn't want to be beaten. Rock = Vehicles (especially the HAV) Scissors = infantry (anti-personnel) Paper = Infantry (Anti-Vehicle) But now the HAV rock has been given a sixty inch (152cm) fan to keep paper off of it. The DS rock has been able to fly away from paper for a while now and was relatively recently given the ability to shoot back. It's fine where it is though AV getting shorter and shorter range and lowered damage is taking a DS more and more of a challenge. (Futile with swarms at the moment.) The LAV rock is fine where it is. The situation has evolved to the point where now, in general and assuming experienced pilots that know what they're doing... HAV rock beats everything, DS rock can avoid everything but HAV rock. Scissors beat other scissors, paper, and rarely rock. (As expected) Paper rarely beats anything. (Except LAV rock) So the Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect of the game is pretty much dead at the moment. I just gotta say I think that game is just silly, how the hell does paper win against a rock? It's a piece of paper lol. They should really go with more of a hammer and spear approach, infantry is the spear and vehicles are the hammer, they're big, clunky and can do alot of brute force damage, infantry is small and precise and can do alot of damage to a single point, vehicles just don't have a single point to attack, forcing infantry to be more like a hammer which can't really be done with nerfed AV. I'm basically rerouting everyone on this post to my other one about tread HP and mobility damage as a way to disable vehicles and make them vulnerable, give them a weak spot for infantry to strike. Check it out. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2544	Posted - 2013.12.15 21:26:00 - [16] - Quote I'm hearing three separate problems with tanks: 1) AV is having trouble with tanks 2) Militia tanks can kill fully fitted standard tanks 3) It's easy to field a low ISK zero SP militia tank It seems to me that the last two points can be used to fix the first, at least until CCP gets around to adding eWar, webifiers, portable infantry shield bubbles, etc. No, it's not ideal, but it should do for the moment.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.15 22:09:00 - [17] - Quote 1) Yes. 2) That's not a problem because you can kill a basic suit with a militia suit. 3) That's not a problem because you can kill a basic suit with a militia suit even with no SP. The last 2 are perfectly reasonable and that kind of disproportion is what made using tanks useless unless you were a dedicated tanker in the first place. I'm still sticking with the idea that infantry just don't have a weak spot to hit. It's now about hit points VS damage because unless you say "oh well this gun should do more damage on vehicles but not infantry or vice versa just because" there's no way to balance it by buffing or nerfing HP or buffing or nerfing weapons. If it were just about brute strength and overall HP then tanks would and should always win vs infantry because they have bigger guns and more HP, and that's true because it's what we're seeing now. Buffing AV only makes a person go "well what's the point of using a tank if I can just use this gun?" and that's exactly what we had before 1.7, now we have the exact opposite. Tanks are right where they need to be right now, it's infantry that needs work and needs an edge against tanks. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Shijima Kuraimaru warravens League of Infamy 436	Posted - 2013.12.15 22:25:00 - [18] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: Shijima Kuraimaru wrote: The thing is that rock doesn't want to be beaten. Rock = Vehicles (especially the HAV) Scissors = infantry (anti-personnel) Paper = Infantry (Anti-Vehicle) But now the HAV rock has been given a sixty inch (152cm) fan to keep paper off of it. The DS rock has been able to fly away from paper for a while now and was relatively recently given the ability to shoot back. It's fine where it is though AV getting shorter and shorter range and lowered damage is taking a DS more and more of a challenge. (Futile with swarms at the moment.) The LAV rock is fine where it is. The situation has evolved to the point where now, in general and assuming experienced pilots that know what they're doing... HAV rock beats everything, DS rock can avoid everything but HAV rock. Scissors beat other scissors, paper, and rarely rock. (As expected) Paper rarely beats anything. (Except LAV rock) So the Rock/Paper/Scissors aspect of the game is pretty much dead at the moment. I just gotta say I think that game is just silly, how the hell does paper win against a rock? It's a piece of paper lol. They should really go with more of a hammer and spear approach, infantry is the spear and vehicles are the hammer, they're big, clunky and can do alot of brute force damage, infantry is small and precise and can do alot of damage to a single point, vehicles just don't have a single point to attack, forcing infantry to be more like a hammer which can't really be done with nerfed AV. I'm basically rerouting everyone on this post to my other one about tread HP and mobility damage as a way to disable vehicles and make them vulnerable, give them a weak spot for infantry to strike. Check it out. Read it. Meh... Not impressed. I see you thought it out, but I also don't see it happening. Too many HAV pilots would QQ about being immobilized or having their turret locked by infantry AV. They'd fall back to their argument that AV infantry should not be able to take out their precious HAV, that they pilot alone, without a group of at least three of the most effective infantry AV teaming up to do it. AV would probably get another nerf to make them less effective to appease the HAV pilot idea of "One should be greater than three if the one is me.". I still can't find tanks on the market. All I see are those HAVs.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.15 22:30:00 - [19] - Quote With tanks as cheap as they are right now? Let em cry about it, at that point it's just alphamale douchebags wanting to be invincible and pwn all noobs. At least that way everyone has a fair chance of killing anything so the fight isn't 1 sided and it still allows tanks and other vehicles to not be restricted to people who are rich and don't care about tossing cash away. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Shijima Kuraimaru warravens League of Infamy 436	Posted - 2013.12.15 22:33:00 - [20] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: With tanks as cheap as they are right now? Let em cry about it, at that point it's just alphamale douchebags wanting to be invincible and pwn all noobs. At least that way everyone has a fair chance of killing anything so the fight isn't 1 sided and it still allows tanks and other vehicles to not be restricted to people who are rich and don't care about tossing cash away. Sorry. HAd to edit my response to you. You might want to reread it and edit your response. I still can't find tanks on the market. All I see are those HAVs.

Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.15 22:52:00 - [21] - Quote You can call the game whatever you want so long as it works, it's the same basic concept, expanding and contracting, checks and balances, hard and soft. So what do you propose to fix the tank/infantry relationship? This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 303	Posted - 2013.12.15 23:20:00 - [22] - Quote Limit the number of tanks that can deploy each match. One or two per side. Two at most. A tank should be hard to kill, and decimate infantry. But their shouldn't be 6+ tanks rolling around roflstomping people. With only one tank on the field, they will have to rely on infantry to protect them from AV. HAVs can keep their power that they have now, and AV has the ability to take down the tank (using strategy instead of the old lolswarm spam) and turn the battle in their favor.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.16 00:20:00 - [23] - Quote I don't see why we should restrict the number of tanks of the field just like I don't see a reason for restricting the number of shotgunners, have you seen a squad full of shotgunners? The problem isn't that tanks are powerful, they should be powerful, it's that infantry can't do ****, now that tanks are cheap enough they could suffer to be lost more easily and give infantry a shot. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 305	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:10:00 - [24] - Quote Komodo Jones wrote: I don't see why we should restrict the number of tanks of the field just like I don't see a reason for restricting the number of shotgunners, have you seen a squad full of shotgunners? The problem isn't that tanks are powerful, they should be powerful, it's that infantry can't do ****, now that tanks are cheap enough they could suffer to be lost more easily and give infantry a shot. In that case, why not lift the vehicle restriction entirely? It was put there for a reason. Let's just take it one step further. Shotgunners aren't limited because they only have one area they are good at, which is extremely close CQC. A tank is far more devastating at far greater ranges with far more health. HAVs should not be threatened by light weapons (swarms) save in large numbers (2-4) therefore, let us limit the amount of HAVs deployable, and in that way AV is still useful as a group, and Tankers are still effective at tanking. Unless someone can tell me otherwise, I see no downsides to this.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 290	Posted - 2013.12.16 01:51:00 - [25] - Quote I'm not really that ok with telling people who spec into tanks that they just can't use their vehicle because a couple other people, who might've just called in militia tanks, got there first. that's just a waste and probably just as frustrating as losing an expensive tank. I wouldn't put in a mechanic that restricted people from using assault rifles because there's too many of them on the field. I'd rather find more ways to expand on the game than restrict it. This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Skihids Bullet Cluster Legacy Rising 2545	Posted - 2013.12.16 02:27:00 - [26] - Quote There is a limit to the number of tanks that can be fielded without hurting your team. It's called the cool down and it removes the pilot from the fight for an extended period of time. If the cool down is balanced against the extra damage the tank can do it will render the pilot just as effective as infantry. The idea is that a vehicle is a high alpha attack with a very low RoF. In this case the RoF refers to the number of times it can go into active mode in a match. That is the rational for allowing a solo tank.
Komodo Jones Chaotik Serenity 291	Posted - 2013.12.16 07:03:00 - [27] - Quote Skihids wrote: There is a limit to the number of tanks that can be fielded without hurting your team. It's called the cool down and it removes the pilot from the fight for an extended period of time. If the cool down is balanced against the extra damage the tank can do it will render the pilot just as effective as infantry. The idea is that a vehicle is a high alpha attack with a very low RoF. In this case the RoF refers to the number of times it can go into active mode in a match. That is the rational for allowing a solo tank. That is what they intended, they just gotta get it to work, hardeners don't matter too much when you can repair 300 armor/second This is a signature. You're now reading it. You may now reply to my post.
Nazz'Dragg planetary retaliation organisation 19	Posted - 2013.12.16 08:44:00 - [28] - Quote This is why we need railgun installations with hit points of CRUs. As, while we as infantry can't drive back a tank the installation sure can. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lum_B9Scwo8#t=0m17s I would never of thought about that myself, Thanks.
Alena Ventrallis Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 309	Posted - 2013.12.16 09:43:00 - [29] - Quote Nazz'Dragg wrote: This is why we need railgun installations with hit points of CRUs. As, while we as infantry can't drive back a tank the installation sure can. Then dropships would be unable to fly, since wed get bullseyed by a nigh indestructible turret with unerring accuracy from the redline. IF were going to increase rail turret hp, we need to remove them from the redline and reduce their range significantly. Dropships finally are somewhat viable. Don't **** them over any more than they have been.
Shijima Kuraimaru warravens League of Infamy 437	Posted - 2013.12.16 09:46:00 - [30] - Quote Skihids wrote: There is a limit to the number of tanks that can be fielded without hurting your team. It's called the cool down and it removes the pilot from the fight for an extended period of time. If the cool down is balanced against the extra damage the tank can do it will render the pilot just as effective as infantry. The idea is that a vehicle is a high alpha attack with a very low RoF. In this case the RoF refers to the number of times it can go into active mode in a match. That is the rational for allowing a solo tank. Yeah. Because forty seconds of cool down is a really long time when compared to thirty seconds of super damage resistance. I still can't find tanks on the market. All I see are those HAVs.



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