not true yes they may have gotten more kills but thats because people can keep running suits, suits are a dime a dozen, AV has on more then one build removed tank from play altogether because they wreaked such a heavy isk loss on the pilots, and while doing this they also made AV useless to skill into because why bother if a tank popped up it would be insta killed by any AV that was fielded.

I would be happy if AV was simply brought back to being as effective as it used to be. I would love to see the FG get a range boost myself.

People are blindly calling for a nerf on tanks in general, when in fact, it is this very specific sort of tank (blasters) that is causing all the trouble. The blaster turret is problematic.

It is entirely too effective.

Specialized suits are not a dime a dozen. In fact there are dropsuits that cost more than tanks.
In fact my fully outfitted soma costs less than just my proto heavy suit with nothing on my heavy suit.

Last time I checked the rail gun is quite deadly against infantry...at least equally effectice like the forge vs infantry so whats your point?

The current level of tank sustainability is, in my opinion, perfectly fine. You can now fit your tank to be a fragile, but powerful glass cannon or a highly defense-oriented mobile fortress designed to resist damage and keep you alive. A lot of players prefer the latter, giving rise to what infantry have termed unkillable tanks.

Whatever, it's a tank. If its owner has maximized the survivability of his rig and spent his SP appropriately, then who are you to complain? If we want the maximum defense possible, then your complaints about us being hard to kill mean we've done our job correctly.

Besides, Missile tanks are not going to rack up any obscene body counts. So what do you care if you can't swarm it to death?

And Rail tanks aren't going to rack up any obscene body counts either. So what do you care if you can't swarm it to death?

Also, Blaster tanks aren't going to...oh uh. Um...uh...

Yeah, about those Blaster tanks.

CCP, even with a lowly militia turret, blaster tanks are effective against infantry to the point of being a broken mechanic. Blaster tanks are average against other tanks but OBSCENELY POWERFUL against infantry. They stand no chance. It isn't fair in the slightest, and it isn't fun. If the driver sees you, you are dead, and that is that.

I hold no grudges against a rail gun or missile tank that kills me when I play infantry. That is proof of skill in the case of the rail gunner, and luck in the case of the missile tank. But Blasters are a different story entirely. By combining a tank's high defense with the most unbeatable infantry slayer in the game, it feels like nothing less than a cheap exploit, and it really needs to be looked at.

People are blindly calling for a nerf on tanks in general, when in fact, it is this very specific sort of tank (blasters) that is causing all the trouble. The blaster turret is problematic.

It is entirely too effective.

That's normal dude.


Rail Gun = Anti-vehicule turret.
Missiles : Balanced.
Blasters : Anti-Infantry turret.
Blaster is way less effective against vehicules.
That's why tankers complain against Rail gun turrets : Because they destroy their tnaks fast.
As intended.


Tanks are working fine just reduce the speed.
And maybe add a little more cooldown to hardeners.

oh please if you can't hit infantry with rail guns, you should stop tanking, I can't remember the last time I couldn't kill infantry in 3 shots with a ******* MLT rail.

The current level of tank sustainability is, in my opinion, perfectly fine. You can now fit your tank to be a fragile, but powerful glass cannon or a highly defense-oriented mobile fortress designed to resist damage and keep you alive. A lot of players prefer the latter, giving rise to what infantry have termed unkillable tanks.

Whatever, it's a tank. If its owner has maximized the survivability of his rig and spent his SP appropriately, then who are you to complain? If we want the maximum defense possible, then your complaints about us being hard to kill mean we've done our job correctly.

Besides, Missile tanks are not going to rack up any obscene body counts. So what do you care if you can't swarm it to death?

And Rail tanks aren't going to rack up any obscene body counts either. So what do you care if you can't swarm it to death?

Also, Blaster tanks aren't going to...oh uh. Um...uh...

Yeah, about those Blaster tanks.

CCP, even with a lowly militia turret, blaster tanks are effective against infantry to the point of being a broken mechanic. Blaster tanks are average against other tanks but OBSCENELY POWERFUL against infantry. They stand no chance. It isn't fair in the slightest, and it isn't fun. If the driver sees you, you are dead, and that is that.

I hold no grudges against a rail gun or missile tank that kills me when I play infantry. That is proof of skill in the case of the rail gunner, and luck in the case of the missile tank. But Blasters are a different story entirely. By combining a tank's high defense with the most unbeatable infantry slayer in the game, it feels like nothing less than a cheap exploit, and it really needs to be looked at.

People are blindly calling for a nerf on tanks in general, when in fact, it is this very specific sort of tank (blasters) that is causing all the trouble. The blaster turret is problematic.

It is entirely too effective.

Its a blaster turret. Its supposed to be extremely powerful against infantry. Learn the lore before you talk trash. The blaster turret is an anti infantry turret. Did you even check before you posted this?

This thread needs to stay up

1) No one is denying that its meant to be anti-infantry, but there is a difference between being effective against infantry and just being plain insanely overpowered. Your logic is as ridiculous as justifying a hypothetical AV weapon that 1-hit-kills every single vehicle by saying "its supposed to be extremely powerful against vehicles".
2) Blasters and their lore originate from EVE Online, a game without any infantry; just spaceships. To say lore necessitates blasters be anti-infantry false. The lore of blasters is that they're particles contained in an electromagnetic field, and fired with magnetic propulsion.
3) Balance is far more important than lore. Only an idiot would put lore before enjoyable gameplay.

No one is trying to say blasters should not be effective against infantry, but right now they're too effective. Hitscan (no bullet travel time, hits as soon as you fire), high rate of fire, huge magazine, high damage. I'm really wondering if you're a troll or something.

AV can go back ( range not damage wise ) but NO and I mean NO range buff to the FG . I remember when I was assaulted by a FGner before and was getting away and that person still killed me from 300 meters away . NO lie that .. on some maps , is half the map away . It should not have that great of range to hit opponents from half the map away with the same strength as if it was 50 or 100 meters away . If it get's a range increase , the further the range , the greater the drop off . It should not hit with the same power and intensity .

Okay....going to add my little bit to the conversation in saying that you can get a tank now for under 100k that will easily dominant on the battlefield against infantry, the shield recharger is I belive now 900 hps per pulse, including the ability to get a dampener to damage, I have literally thrown all three advanced AV gernades into a tanks face, for the tank without going into glow or afterburner, simply roll away faster then missiles could chase it and be able to hit it and recover a shield that was down to 25% damage to full within 10 seconds, this was a milita tank. When I have gone up against anything better then a milita tank my AV is completely useless, I have no reasonable way to damage a tank, tanks can drive over proxy mines faster then the proxy mines can go off.

In nearly all matches one team will usually call down 3-4 tanks, no matter what the other team does, they will typically never kill even 1 of these tanks, unless they got lucky enough to have their own tanks down soon enough, so that the enemy tanks don't literally roll from across the map and kill the tank before it can drop. Dropships are unable to do the job intended for them as well if the enemy team has the tanks deployed especially if it is the rail gun tanks.

Clearly without a doubt CCP screwed up and listened to all the people bitching about how tanks are "to slow" how they couldn't turn fast enough, now I will admit they did have some survivability problems when in close quarters and a few AV gernades could ruin their day. However, this is way more ridiculous, a proto anti tank weapon aka swarm launcher, can not even effectively take out a tank now even when fully unloading the gun on one tank that is a milita tank, because the tank can move to fast and dodge to easily the rather lack luster swarm missiles AI. So in short a gun that costs more then the tank it is trying to kill, with the singular purpose of being able to kill vehicles can no longer do its job. In fact it has gotten so bad, that I only will see 1 swarm launcher infantry per match, till they realize, that they can't hurt the milita tank with the swarm launcher.

In all wars historically Infantry have been able to effectively destroy, disable, or sabotage a tank and its crew from the conception of tanks infantry have been an issue for tanks. Yes tanks can mow them down and run them over, however, tanks have also been very vunerable to them and have needed to use infantry and other vehicles and scouting techniques in order for themselves to be effective and not be destroyed or disabled. I truly do hope that 1.8 will put the equation back to how it should be, with infantry able to effectively harrass tanks.

ummmmm... blasters kill people its what they are good at to say that they kill peolle too well is dumb, just as dumb as the infantry that shoots at a blaster tank with his anti infantry ar. how about this if you dont have weapons to fight a blaster tank avoid the freakin tank do your best to avoid it and run, cause the blaster is looking for kills and he will get them if you dont pay attention to him. to say that blasters are too effective at what they are intended for is ridiculous its suppost to kill people and thats exactly what it does.