DUST Search - Tanks are NOT the best at everything

All Channels

General Discussions

Tanks are NOT the best at everything

» 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)
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 2365	Posted - 2013.12.25 06:33:00 - [31] - Quote Spectre-M wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Spectre-M wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: A tank is not nearly as mobile as infantry. And the dodging the blaster by strafing is surprisingly easy. When infantry dives into cover, I'm just gonna stop you there, because that whole first line is a lie. Mobile?!? Easy?!?! Dives?!? You must be on a whole sheet of acid when you're playing. I laughed so hard, thank you. Mobile: ever gotten your tank inside of a bunker? I think not. Easy: if you know what strafing means... Dives: hyperbole for infantry jumping into cover I'm happy to bring hilarity to your life... Lol I can strafe, but strafing tank blaster fire would be dumb. Strafing doesn't work on a rotating enemy. If you haven't pushed L3 to run, you're dead. So you want me to JUMP into cover? That is the opposite of a dive, and places me above cover. I'm so glad I've skilled rail tanks. If I even see one enemy tank, I'm on the highest hill with a dam amped adv rail. Can't wait for proto rails and double complex dam amps. It'll be nearly 2500 damage a shot with both amps activated. "True" tankers are already QQing about rails. I use rails and I don't care about being killed by one, it means the enemy had better positioning. Proto rails are awesome btw. Lack of content makes stuff broken... Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 2365	Posted - 2013.12.25 06:36:00 - [32] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Absoliav wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Absoliav wrote: I disagree with you, four tanks on one team will easily put down any attempt of AV without a tanks to counteract them, which might not even work if one of the tanks have a rail, the rail tank will stop any RDV from making a drop off. My post was aimed at a single tank's situation. Asset spam is an entirely different problem (just like sniper spam, core nade spam, equipment spam, lav spam and so on... Though it is kind of you to point out that you post is set for single tank encounters, you failed to mentioned this in your OP, but now that I'm aware of your viewpoint, I still disagree, a tank is far more durable than a single soldier, a tank is faster than a single soldier, a tanks gun can kill more than a single soldier, a tank can make it's self harder to kill if it is in danger, tanks can heal easily on their own without ever having to stop for a logi. Granted, a highly skilled player can achieve the same results, but almost any player with basic tank skills and common sense can achieve this without much experience tanking, tanks were intended to be a force multiplier, now they are the force and infantry is the multiplier. They can preform all the task of all three dropsuits, the only things they can't do is capture points and res teammates, there is a reason why we are having such a huge influx of tanks, it's cause they have become too easy to use, I don't believe buffing AV or nerfing tanks will solve this problem, the way it stands now, the only true infiriorty tanks suffer from is the inability to call OBs, but that isn't really much of an issue since the pilot can simply exit the vehicle and take a moment to call one. Mlt tanks are the problem, I paid 8 mil sp to use my tanks effectively (only specialized in one turret) while mlt take 0sp to be almost as effrctive I think that it will sort itself out ounce more ppl dedicate themselves as tank destroying tanks like I did. It's a great source of WP and isk and greatly helps my team. As I have written in do many "tanks are OP" topics before. Tanks are not OP ( the rail need some working ) its the cost of them that are OP. have the militia tanks cost 500 000 isk and the spam will end. More powerful gear you bring out the more expensive it should be. My logi ( real logi with dual reps/proto scan/proto everything cost 250 000 isk with 20+ Miljon sp invested into it. My slayer 0sp tank cost 70k now wy the F should I even bother with anything else then bringing out the tank? It's just ignorance if you don't c this or you just want a easy mode game play with low risk high rewards, and that okey just be HONEST about it. I know that mlt tanks are too cheap... I even SPECIFIED that they were a problem (I didn't specify how) My tanks cost 500k, not 67k like that mlt trash. Lack of content makes stuff broken... Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
Absoliav Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 108	Posted - 2013.12.25 06:40:00 - [33] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: They can preform all the task of all three dropsuits, the only things they can't do is capture points and res teammates, there is a reason why we are having such a huge influx of tanks, it's cause they have become too easy to use, I don't believe buffing AV or nerfing tanks will solve this problem, the way it stands now, the only true infiriorty tanks suffer from is the inability to call OBs, but that isn't really much of an issue since the pilot can simply exit the vehicle and take a moment to call one. Mlt tanks are the problem, I paid 8 mil sp to use my tanks effectively (only specialized in one turret) while mlt take 0sp to be almost as effrctive I think that it will sort itself out ounce more ppl dedicate themselves as tank destroying tanks like I did. It's a great source of WP and isk and greatly helps my team.[/quote] The MLTs are only part of the issue at hand, an other part of the issue is the ineffectiveness of infantry AV as a whole. MLTs make skilling into tanks pointless for those who don't take it seriously, which is a similar problem Heavies have with Sentinals and Commandos, but what's worse is that using an MLT can give a player comparable results to using a STD with far fewer requirements, this only devalues tank skilling further. As for AV, it's designed to kill vehicles, which it can, there's no doubting that, but when it comes to tanks it is a different story, LAVs use speed and terrain to keep them alive, so drivers skills play heavily on his survivability, dropships are always in the danger-zone, so the pilot is always stressed, constantly trying to stay alive, having to be aware of their surroundings is key to staying alive from the threat of AV, HAVs have none of these issues with AV. HAVs can counter ever possible AV threat easily so long as the pilot has some knowledge of what to do, if he notice he's being hit with AV, hardeners, if he's low on health, fuel injectors and wait to rep to full health, see a swarm, shoot the launcher, now normally these aren't really a problem alone, but combined they are just plan unbalanced, there is no difference to tank survival tactics, the same methods I've mentioned above will work for any tank fit cause every tank can preforms the same with only minor differences depending on the choice of weapon, this is a clear sign of the ineffectiveness of AV againts HAVs, and again only makes skilling into tanks less appealing for new tankers since four MLT tanks are comparable to four STDs in most scenarios. My opinion on this is simple, tanks should not be this easy to achieve greatness on the battlefield as they are now, it just devalues all the great balance changes that 1.7 gave to the issues we had with vehicles.
Piraten Hovnoret No Tax Scrubs 144	Posted - 2013.12.25 06:54:00 - [34] - Quote And you don't c the problem with your tank only costing 500 000? The numbers should be something like this Militia tanks ( unfitted ) 400 000 Standard ( unfitted ) 800 000 Advanced ( unfitted) 1 600 000 Proto ( unfitted) 3 200 000 On top of that modules should cost a hell of a lot more also Tanks should be powerful as F but expensive as F also
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 2365	Posted - 2013.12.25 07:04:00 - [35] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: And you don't c the problem with your tank only costing 500 000? The numbers should be something like this Militia tanks ( unfitted ) 400 000 Standard ( unfitted ) 800 000 Advanced ( unfitted) 1 600 000 Proto ( unfitted) 3 200 000 On top of that modules should cost a hell of a lot more also Tanks should be powerful as F but expensive as F also With prices like that you would see 0 tanks... Prices might be too low right now but what you are suggesting is absurd Lack of content makes stuff broken... Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
Absoliav Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 108	Posted - 2013.12.25 07:08:00 - [36] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: And you don't c the problem with your tank only costing 500 000? The numbers should be something like this Militia tanks ( unfitted ) 400 000 Standard ( unfitted ) 800 000 Advanced ( unfitted) 1 600 000 Proto ( unfitted) 3 200 000 On top of that modules should cost a hell of a lot more also Tanks should be powerful as F but expensive as F also Your pricing model is too close to what thing we're like in closed beta, the reason the prices are the way they are now is cause, no one could afford to use tanks before, which means the whole idea of having MLT is pointless if no one can afford it, this also bars off tanking from new players who don't have a millionaire corp buddy to fund their tanking hobby. CCP has made it very clear that ISK price is a poor design point for game balance, which is why prices have gone down for everything in Dust compared to older builds, CCP's new design point is focused on SP value for balance results on gear and vehicles, only problem is, SP values have been blurred when it comes to HAVs, MLTs and STDs preformence are far too similar to make a difference, and since we don't have ADVs or PROs, we have no proper balance for AV versus HAVs, which only further devalues SP investment in tanks. Your not going to fix HAVs by making them more expensive, your just going to make tank steamrolling harder to counter by walling off the most effective counter to it, which is of course tanks.
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 2365	Posted - 2013.12.25 07:18:00 - [37] - Quote Absoliav wrote: Piraten Hovnoret wrote: And you don't c the problem with your tank only costing 500 000? The numbers should be something like this Militia tanks ( unfitted ) 400 000 Standard ( unfitted ) 800 000 Advanced ( unfitted) 1 600 000 Proto ( unfitted) 3 200 000 On top of that modules should cost a hell of a lot more also Tanks should be powerful as F but expensive as F also Your pricing model is too close to what thing we're like in closed beta, the reason the prices are the way they are now is cause, no one could afford to use tanks before, which means the whole idea of having MLT is pointless if no one can afford it, this also bars off tanking from new players who don't have a millionaire corp buddy to fund their tanking hobby. CCP has made it very clear that ISK price is a poor design point for game balance, which is why prices have gone down for everything in Dust compared to older builds, CCP's new design point is focused on SP value for balance results on gear and vehicles, only problem is, SP values have been blurred when it comes to HAVs, MLTs and STDs preformence are far too similar to make a difference, and since we don't have ADVs or PROs, we have no proper balance for AV versus HAVs, which only further devalues SP investment in tanks. Your not going to fix HAVs by making them more expensive, your just going to make tank steamrolling harder to counter by walling off the most effective counter to it, which is of course tanks. +1 Lack of content makes stuff broken... Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
Piraten Hovnoret No Tax Scrubs 144	Posted - 2013.12.25 07:41:00 - [38] - Quote Absoliav wrote: Piraten Hovnoret wrote: And you don't c the problem with your tank only costing 500 000? The numbers should be something like this Militia tanks ( unfitted ) 400 000 Standard ( unfitted ) 800 000 Advanced ( unfitted) 1 600 000 Proto ( unfitted) 3 200 000 On top of that modules should cost a hell of a lot more also Tanks should be powerful as F but expensive as F also Your pricing model is too close to what thing we're like in closed beta, the reason the prices are the way they are now is cause, no one could afford to use tanks before, which means the whole idea of having MLT is pointless if no one can afford it, this also bars off tanking from new players who don't have a millionaire corp buddy to fund their tanking hobby. CCP has made it very clear that ISK price is a poor design point for game balance, which is why prices have gone down for everything in Dust compared to older builds, CCP's new design point is focused on SP value for balance results on gear and vehicles, only problem is, SP values have been blurred when it comes to HAVs, MLTs and STDs preformence are far too similar to make a difference, and since we don't have ADVs or PROs, we have no proper balance for AV versus HAVs, which only further devalues SP investment in tanks. Your not going to fix HAVs by making them more expensive, your just going to make tank steamrolling harder to counter by walling off the most effective counter to it, which is of course tanks. I respectfully disagree with CCP and your statement. I don't c the problem with that new players that haven't done some grinding can't play with the biggest guns of the batt. I love the fact that in this game you need to have a social network to be really successful. If it wasn't for this fact this game would be as any other "get everything from the start shooter". As far as "millionaire corp buddy to fund their tanking hobby." Wy can't it be just that? That would actually make sence, make tankes powerful even more then today but to found them on a single player life style should be BLODEY hard. This game needs to move more towards corp oriented game play any way. Sadly al the "fixes" or whatever you want to call it moves the game slowly away from corp orientated game play. Wy can't CCP take that brilliant EVE online vision and implement it in dust? Let dust players (corps) fight over resources on the planets, have mining fields etc to fight over or protect while you are mining it. One more thing so many issues in this game would be solved of they just let us play on the hole god dam maps. If you take a dropship out and fly high you can c that al this maps are sockets next to one and other. I don't care if its not 100% ready for it, just DO IT. This game has the potential to be epic sadly I with great pain in my hart i am starting to loose faith that it will ever become just that.
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 2365	Posted - 2013.12.25 07:44:00 - [39] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: Absoliav wrote: Piraten Hovnoret wrote: And you don't c the problem with your tank only costing 500 000? The numbers should be something like this Militia tanks ( unfitted ) 400 000 Standard ( unfitted ) 800 000 Advanced ( unfitted) 1 600 000 Proto ( unfitted) 3 200 000 On top of that modules should cost a hell of a lot more also Tanks should be powerful as F but expensive as F also Your pricing model is too close to what thing we're like in closed beta, the reason the prices are the way they are now is cause, no one could afford to use tanks before, which means the whole idea of having MLT is pointless if no one can afford it, this also bars off tanking from new players who don't have a millionaire corp buddy to fund their tanking hobby. CCP has made it very clear that ISK price is a poor design point for game balance, which is why prices have gone down for everything in Dust compared to older builds, CCP's new design point is focused on SP value for balance results on gear and vehicles, only problem is, SP values have been blurred when it comes to HAVs, MLTs and STDs preformence are far too similar to make a difference, and since we don't have ADVs or PROs, we have no proper balance for AV versus HAVs, which only further devalues SP investment in tanks. Your not going to fix HAVs by making them more expensive, your just going to make tank steamrolling harder to counter by walling off the most effective counter to it, which is of course tanks. I respectfully disagree with CCP and your statement. I don't c the problem with that new players that haven't done some grinding can't play with the biggest guns of the batt. I love the fact that in this game you need to have a social network to be really successful. If it wasn't for this fact this game would be as any other "get everything from the start shooter". As far as "millionaire corp buddy to fund their tanking hobby." Wy can't it be just that? That would actually make sence, make tankes powerful even more then today but to found them on a single player life style should be BLODEY hard. This game needs to move more towards corp oriented game play any way. Sadly al the "fixes" or whatever you want to call it moves the game slowly away from corp orientated game play. Wy can't CCP take that brilliant EVE online vision and implement it in dust? Let dust players (corps) fight over resources on the planets, have mining fields etc to fight over or protect while you are mining it. One more thing so many issues in this game would be solved of they just let us play on the hole god dam maps. If you take a dropship out and fly high you can c that al this maps are sockets next to one and other. I don't care if its not 100% ready for it, just DO IT. This game has the potential to be epic sadly I with great pain in my hart i am starting to loose faith that it will ever become just that. more expensive but MOAR powerful tanks? Sure, why not! Infantry won't be able to do **** to me and I'll be one of the only tanks on the field Lack of content makes stuff broken... Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
Absoliav Tronhadar Free Guard Minmatar Republic 108	Posted - 2013.12.25 07:56:00 - [40] - Quote Piraten Hovnoret wrote: I respectfully disagree with CCP and your statement. I don't c the problem with that new players that haven't done some grinding can't play with the biggest guns of the batt. I love the fact that in this game you need to have a social network to be really successful. If it wasn't for this fact this game would be as any other "get everything from the start shooter". As far as "millionaire corp buddy to fund their tanking hobby." Wy can't it be just that? That would actually make sence, make tankes powerful even more then today but to found them on a single player life style should be BLODEY hard. This game needs to move more towards corp oriented game play any way. Sadly al the "fixes" or whatever you want to call it moves the game slowly away from corp orientated game play. Wy can't CCP take that brilliant EVE online vision and implement it in dust? Let dust players (corps) fight over resources on the planets, have mining fields etc to fight over or protect while you are mining it. One more thing so many issues in this game would be solved of they just let us play on the hole god dam maps. If you take a dropship out and fly high you can c that al this maps are sockets next to one and other. I don't care if its not 100% ready for it, just DO IT. This game has the potential to be epic sadly I with great pain in my hart i am starting to loose faith that it will ever become just that. I like your vision for this game, I'm sure you'd fit very well in EVE, but sadly the price solution to tanks in Dust will not fix the problems with tanks, in EVE a Titan class ship costs a fortune, but it doesn't take another Titan to kill one, nor does it cost anywhere near as much skill and time to put one down, cause though Titans are great and powerful, they aren't "that" powerful, this is what makes them balanced in a game where players have almost full control of what goes on in the game. Dust isn't at that point where we can have that kind of game structure going on, and we still have a long way to go.

medomai grey WarRavens League of Infamy 389	Posted - 2013.12.25 08:01:00 - [41] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: A tank is not nearly as mobile as infantry. If you honestly believe that infantry are more mobile than tanks, god(s) help you. Because you are beyond the mortal means of help; and you do need help. Flix Keptick wrote: And the dodging the blaster by strafing is surprisingly easy. When infantry dives into cover, I can't follow them with a tank. But if I was on foot I could just follow him into cover to finish the job. No, sorry, but you just have really bad aim. Blatant Dust_514 recruiting in the silliest of places. :P
Dovallis Martan JenusKoll Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 433	Posted - 2013.12.25 08:11:00 - [42] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: A tank is not nearly as mobile as infantry. If you honestly believe that infantry are more mobile than tanks, god(s) help you. Because you are beyond the mortal means of help; and you do need help. Flix Keptick wrote: And the dodging the blaster by strafing is surprisingly easy. When infantry dives into cover, I can't follow them with a tank. But if I was on foot I could just follow him into cover to finish the job. No, sorry, but you just have really bad aim. Speed and mobility are two entirely different things.... Speed is the rate of travel. Mobility is turning and maneuvering. You're trying to tell me that the 10-15 seconds it takes to turn a tank around is shorter than the 1/2 second it takes to turn an infantry unit around? Or the ability to weave in and out, up and down, and across platforms is easier with tanks? Blake Kingston wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Tanks do not win games, infantry does. Yes. The infantry that has a tank on their side. Name one person who cannot call in a tank. Oh wait. They have militia variants so everyone can. Basically you're saying, "The side too lazy to set up a tank looses." If you can read this, it means you are reading. Unless you are skimming
Ephraim Ghanlai BATTLE TAXI INC. 3	Posted - 2013.12.25 09:47:00 - [43] - Quote Tanks, they're just too cheap and too fast. Anyone who has been in a match where the enemy team spawns tank after tank after tank, and no matter how many you destroy they just keep spawning, knows how ridiculous this is. Tanks shouldn't be cheaper than any 3 of my proto weapons. The tactical advantage should be reflected in the price. They should feel the loss of their tank. I feel that tanks ( and dropships ) should be sponsored more by the corporations than the individual mercenary. What mercenary can or should be able to have an almost endless supply of high end battle vehicles? How is it possible that a tank can outrun an lav? This just isn't right. It would be like if i could make my heavy outrun a scout. And not just outrun, but pass him like he's walking. The whole point of the lav is for it to be quickest, most maneuverable vehicle on the ground. Having a tank run you over from behind while you're driving at full speed on smooth flat ground is complete garbage. Other than unlimited ammo and not having enough cpu and pg, what was wrong with 1.6 tanks? I've gone against plenty of really good tankers that had no problem with that build or the one before. The best tanker i played with and against, ishotcha 3, would get 30 kills in most matches and win 4/5 tank vs tank fights. He has stopped playing since this build came out. How can people say a tank isn't a super slayer when they can kill 1/5 of the enemy clone count without losing a tank? Throw in another handful of tanks that are habitually respawned and you start to get a sense of how un-fun the game can become. Since they're as cheap as some proto suits and don't require nearly as much sp to make a decent slaying fit, anyone can become a super slayer. Maybe the name of this game should be fixed too. I recommend ' eve: battle tanks edition ' since a large percentage of matches seem to hinge on who can field the most tanks first and keep them coming.
DUST Fiend OSG Planetary Operations Covert Intervention 9350	Posted - 2013.12.25 09:51:00 - [44] - Quote Experience tells me you're wrong, but I'm too tired of TANK 514 to argue. YouTube Videos Incubus pilot, any ISK donated is used to purchase new ships
lordjanuz Norwegian Dust514 Corporation Top Men. 249	Posted - 2013.12.25 10:58:00 - [45] - Quote Blake Kingston wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Tanks do not win games, infantry does. Yes. The infantry that has a tank on their side. Is that not what its all about.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2037	Posted - 2013.12.25 11:07:00 - [46] - Quote All i need is a small robot arm The small robot arm would go in place of a small turret slot The small robot arm at prototype will be able to pick up infantry and smash them into the ground until they are dead or into a wall But its main use will be for hacking objectives and other installations With the small robot arm i no longer need infantry, i do not have to rely on bluedots and i will be able to drive around and hack things at will Intelligence is OP
Korvin Lomont United Pwnage Service RISE of LEGION 396	Posted - 2013.12.25 11:14:00 - [47] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: I have been noticing a few things lately. First of all, some players (I presume infantry players) have been criticizing the fact that tanks are the best at taking out other vehicles. Seriously, what do you expect? An infantry carried swarm launcher to be more effective at AV than a vehicle mounted 10 ton railgun? A tank is and should be the BEST (but not the only) counter to enemy tanks. Before flaming me for typing this, consider the following: not all tanks are geared towards av. Most tanks encountered on the field actually use blasters (mildly effective vs tanks). This means that only a SPECIFIC TYPE of tank is the best counter for itself. This counters the argument of "a thing shouldn't be it's best counter" because only a specific type of tank excels at the job. Just like med frames excel at killing other infantry if they are fitted for the purpose instead of hacking, support or other non-killing oriented role. The second point: tanks are not super effective vs infantry. This might seem weird at first but tanks are NOT super infantry slayers. They can't get inside bunkers, chase infantry around poles, sneak up on unsuspecting enemies. Blasters are relatively easy to strafe and dodge. The reality is that if you ignore a tank and try to stay out of it's sight, the chances of it killing you are very slim (shooting it with a rifle is a bad idea). Infantry still does most of the job on the battlefield and is better than a tank at killing enemy infantry. One last thing: Ambush is just a clusterf*ck it should have a limit to tanks due to the untactical nature of the gamemode. Tanks is ambush are really effective at scarring infantry into buildings and letting their teams mop them up (due to killing being the goal), explaining why they are so good in ambush. Also, the random spawning crap in ambush just makes tank spam more of a problem than in other gamemodes. Honestly, that mode is just broken right now (too many problems to count) Tanks do not win games, infantry does. Ps: If you are having trouble taking out tanks as infantry, I suggest messaging Ghosts Chances (RE master). The main Problem I have with HAV's is the risk vs reward thing. A HAV Pilot with half a brain don't risk much unless he encounters enemy tanks but can always get a big reward. Also blaster HAV's are pretty effective vs other HAV they just need to get in range. There is realy just one thing a HAV can't really do to win a match and thats hacking objectives, but this canbe easily overcome if you have one additional clone in your tank or if you the HAV pilot jumps out of his tank with a speed hacking suit.
Ephraim Ghanlai BATTLE TAXI INC. 3	Posted - 2013.12.25 11:23:00 - [48] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: Piraten Hovnoret wrote: And you don't c the problem with your tank only costing 500 000? The numbers should be something like this Militia tanks ( unfitted ) 400 000 Standard ( unfitted ) 800 000 Advanced ( unfitted) 1 600 000 Proto ( unfitted) 3 200 000 On top of that modules should cost a hell of a lot more also Tanks should be powerful as F but expensive as F also With prices like that you would see 0 tanks... Prices might be too low right now but what you are suggesting is absurd Tanks should be expensive. You're paying for tactical advantage on the battlefield. Lets get real, mercenaries shouldn't own tanks, or at least not so many, corporations should be paying for your tanks.
Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1006	Posted - 2013.12.25 11:47:00 - [49] - Quote Flix Keptick wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Blaster is better than any anti infantry weapon. Missiles/Rails are better than any AV weapon. So basically, tanks can be fitted to be better than infantry at these jobs. You're forgetting a crucial part: A fuckton of the maps are just open terrain, there is no where to hide, and when there is, you're usually stuck there for the rest of the match unless the tanks decides to give up. A tank is not nearly as mobile as infantry. And the dodging the blaster by strafing is surprisingly easy. When infantry dives into cover, I can't follow them with a tank. But if I was on foot I could just follow him into cover to finish the job. Your second point is from an ambush perspective, which is just full of problems anyway (didn't you read my post completely?). If it's not then I just don't know what to say other than spawn somewhere else Yes, yes,yes!! Theres this magic forcefield in every doorway preventing tanks splash damage from killing infantry. When the infantry is in danger then the infantry just hits the NITRO to go ++1000K/per hour AKA Mach speeds and thus the slow tanks are never able to catch the infantry since they are less mobile. Another TANKER doing damage control?? LOL!! Waits for April then its sell the PS3 off to Hussle-Stop. Hello PS4!! Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 2037	Posted - 2013.12.25 12:04:00 - [50] - Quote Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Blaster is better than any anti infantry weapon. Missiles/Rails are better than any AV weapon. So basically, tanks can be fitted to be better than infantry at these jobs. You're forgetting a crucial part: A fuckton of the maps are just open terrain, there is no where to hide, and when there is, you're usually stuck there for the rest of the match unless the tanks decides to give up. A tank is not nearly as mobile as infantry. And the dodging the blaster by strafing is surprisingly easy. When infantry dives into cover, I can't follow them with a tank. But if I was on foot I could just follow him into cover to finish the job. Your second point is from an ambush perspective, which is just full of problems anyway (didn't you read my post completely?). If it's not then I just don't know what to say other than spawn somewhere else Yes, yes,yes!! Theres this magic forcefield in every doorway preventing tanks splash damage from killing infantry. When the infantry is in danger then the infantry just hits the NITRO to go ++1000K/per hour AKA Mach speeds and thus the slow tanks are never able to catch the infantry since they are less mobile. Another TANKER doing damage control?? LOL!! Waits for April then its sell the PS3 off to Hussle-Stop. Hello PS4!! So now you want a magic forcefield in every door and window because you are too stupid to realise that a tank can shoot through those big gaps with a turret? let alone infantry can shoot through the gaps also but its only OP when a tank does it If you dont want to get shot how about you move dumbass Intelligence is OP

Tech Ohm Eaven L.O.T.I.S. D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E 1006	Posted - 2013.12.25 13:13:00 - [51] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Tech Ohm Eaven wrote: Flix Keptick wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Blaster is better than any anti infantry weapon. Missiles/Rails are better than any AV weapon. So basically, tanks can be fitted to be better than infantry at these jobs. You're forgetting a crucial part: A fuckton of the maps are just open terrain, there is no where to hide, and when there is, you're usually stuck there for the rest of the match unless the tanks decides to give up. A tank is not nearly as mobile as infantry. And the dodging the blaster by strafing is surprisingly easy. When infantry dives into cover, I can't follow them with a tank. But if I was on foot I could just follow him into cover to finish the job. Your second point is from an ambush perspective, which is just full of problems anyway (didn't you read my post completely?). If it's not then I just don't know what to say other than spawn somewhere else Yes, yes,yes!! Theres this magic forcefield in every doorway preventing tanks splash damage from killing infantry. When the infantry is in danger then the infantry just hits the NITRO to go ++1000K/per hour AKA Mach speeds and thus the slow tanks are never able to catch the infantry since they are less mobile. Another TANKER doing damage control?? LOL!! Waits for April then its sell the PS3 off to Hussle-Stop. Hello PS4!! So now you want a magic forcefield in every door and window because you are too stupid to realise that a tank can shoot through those big gaps with a turret? let alone infantry can shoot through the gaps also but its only OP when a tank does it If you dont want to get shot how about you move dumbass Look UP!!! in this SAME post!! READ :A tank is not nearly as mobile as infantry. And the dodging the blaster by strafing is surprisingly easy. When infantry dives into cover, I can't follow them with a tank Please engage brain before posting?? Sarcasm............not to be used on dumbasses. Abandon Ship!, Abandon Ship!! Jumps into escape pod! Selected destination Planet PS4.
medomai grey WarRavens League of Infamy 389	Posted - 2013.12.25 13:32:00 - [52] - Quote Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Speed and mobility are two entirely different things.... Speed is the rate of travel. Mobility is turning and maneuvering. You're trying to tell me that the 10-15 seconds it takes to turn a tank around is shorter than the 1/2 second it takes to turn an infantry unit around? Or the ability to weave in and out, up and down, and across platforms is easier with tanks? According to the Oxford dictionary website, Mobility is "the ability to move or be moved freely and easily". So you're technically correct in your interpretation. However there are many different types of movement. Two of which you already mentioned: rotation and vertical movement. Flix refers to restrictions on tank mobility due to it's size. Now let us consider the movement of getting from point A to point B. Between a tank and a merc on foot, which of the two makes the journey with the least resistance and effort? Ok! So back to the original statement: Flix Keptick wrote: A tank is not nearly as mobile as infantry. And the dodging the blaster by strafing is surprisingly easy. When infantry dives into cover, I can't follow them with a tank. But if I was on foot I could just follow him into cover to finish the job. Flix is arguing that because infantry are more mobile than tanks, tanks fitted with large blaster turrets are not as effective at killing infantry as infantry is at killing infantry. Now assuming that the tank is completely aware of the target infantryman, which of the movements you and I discussed plays a bigger role in whether or not the infantryman survives the blaster tank? Blatant Dust_514 recruiting in the silliest of places. :P
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 2609	Posted - 2013.12.25 14:57:00 - [53] - Quote medomai grey wrote: Dovallis Martan JenusKoll wrote: Speed and mobility are two entirely different things.... Speed is the rate of travel. Mobility is turning and maneuvering. You're trying to tell me that the 10-15 seconds it takes to turn a tank around is shorter than the 1/2 second it takes to turn an infantry unit around? Or the ability to weave in and out, up and down, and across platforms is easier with tanks? According to the Oxford dictionary website, Mobility is "the ability to move or be moved freely and easily". So you're technically correct in your interpretation. However there are many different types of movement. Two of which you already mentioned: rotation and vertical movement. Flix refers to restrictions on tank mobility due to it's size. Now let us consider the movement of getting from point A to point B. Between a tank and a merc on foot, which of the two makes the journey with the least resistance and effort? Ok! So back to the original statement: Flix Keptick wrote: A tank is not nearly as mobile as infantry. And the dodging the blaster by strafing is surprisingly easy. When infantry dives into cover, I can't follow them with a tank. But if I was on foot I could just follow him into cover to finish the job. Flix is arguing that because infantry are more mobile than tanks, tanks fitted with large blaster turrets are not as effective at killing infantry as infantry is at killing infantry. Now assuming that the tank is completely aware of the target infantryman, which of the movements you and I discussed plays a bigger role in whether or not the infantryman survives the blaster tank? Depends if said infantryman is standing beside cover or out in the open like a dumbass... Lack of content makes stuff broken... Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer
Benjamin Ciscko The Generals General Tso's Alliance 710	Posted - 2013.12.25 15:03:00 - [54] - Quote By mobility I believe he means quick turning and strafing, the ability to go through tight spaces, and the ability to enter exit shoot in and out of buildings go to hills to steep to climb. Tanker/Assault Can I have my ADV and PRO tanks now (Honeyed Lamb enroute).
Ghosts Chance Inf4m0us 586	Posted - 2013.12.25 15:10:00 - [55] - Quote wow i got mentioned by name in a thread :P my in game character name is Chances Ghost BTW, for reasons unspecifid i am unable to post ont he forums under that name though. REMOT EXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVES REMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESvREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESvREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESREMOTEXPLOSIVESvREMOTEXPLOSIVES did everyone forget that you can still place them on the ground? i get it, they are sticky now and you can shove em up a tanks ass if they arnt bright enough to see you there.... everyones counter argument is "a good tanker wont let you get that close" guess what.... i can still place them on the ground and gasp wait for the tank to come to meeeee ALWAYS bring a demolitions expert folks, where the ones that like watching things explode and ragdoll out and were always looking for new and interesting ways to do it. meaning we dont give two ***** if your "invincable" im gunna make you explode anyways bring remotes, proxies, plasma cannons, AV nades, and a forge gunner and tanks arnt going to want to come within 200m of your position. (bring swarms for those pesky dropships too)
Flix Keptick Red Star. EoN. 2618	Posted - 2013.12.25 15:15:00 - [56] - Quote Benjamin Ciscko wrote: By mobility I believe he means quick turning and strafing, the ability to go through tight spaces, and the ability to enter exit shoot in and out of buildings go to hills to steep to climb. YEP, that's exactly what I meant. Infantry owns compounds/buildings and tanks own the open fields. Too many open space? Bad map design... The galente compound is an example of excellent map design, I can barely shoot infantry in there. Lack of content makes stuff broken... Tank driver // specialized tank destroyer


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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.