DUST Search - Remote explosives should be buffed to 3000 damage

Crimson Cerberes wrote:

Leonid Tybalt wrote:

Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:

Leonid Tybalt wrote:

Cat Merc wrote:

Instant fix to tanker problem Twisted

What "tanker problem"?

There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem.

Exactly!

Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Roll

Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry.

At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way.

Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight.

So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense)

Pretty sure this and this works pretty well against tanks, not to mention TOW missiles that are mounted on humvees or kinetic energy penetrators or guided missles or hundreds of other counters.

This is of course neglecting what happened last time there was major tank vs. tank warfare going on (WWII). This system was developed making pretty much any infantry able to OHK any tank of the time period.

Actually in today's warfare, tanks are pretty obsolete, like the battleship. Air based firepower >>>>>>>>>> tanks. Artillery destroys tanks pretty easily too now.

So how about we leave out real world examples? This is a game, and as it is a game reality does not matter.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Leonid Tybalt DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 33	Posted - 2013.12.27 13:50:00 - [1] - Quote Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem.
Leonid Tybalt DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 49	Posted - 2013.12.28 00:22:00 - [2] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry. At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way. Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight. So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense)
Leonid Tybalt DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 49	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:02:00 - [3] - Quote Llast 326 wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry. At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way. Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight. So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense) YeahGÇª at no point in history has a tank driver had a 3rd person view of their tank to see all around them either You know that weakness of tanks not being able to guard their own backGÇª X should not be the only counter to XGÇª and we should not ignore that X can also kill ABCDEGÇª Also how do you feel about Tanks being able to run hardeners in cycle without gap? is that effective game play or broken mechanic? Nope, but you had periscopes and always the option of popping the top hatch and having a look, and said periscopes could be rotated waaay faster than the rotational speed of the tank turrets in dust have. If you think I had a nasty set of eyes at the back of my head in a tank now, then you'd cry of agony if I was locked to a zoomed in scope but had access to an insta-flip periscope. I mean for christ sake, I play a missile tank now and I repeatedly manage to sneak around and behind enemy railtanks (despite their supposed advantage of third person view). If I can pull that off with a big ass tank, then why can't you in a tiny dropsuit? Also, I applaud that mechanic because I happen to know that it takes a lot of skillpoints to be able to perma-harden your tank, and people who make the investment should be rewarded for it. The thing is running dual hardeners isn't as Badass as you seem to think. I used to do it myself with complex hardeners, but found that the slot you lose for an armor or shield extender made the tank more fragile than using only one hardener in a smart way (i.e only activating it when you actually engage the enemy and always pull out when the hardener duration runs out).
Leonid Tybalt DIOS EX. General Tso's Alliance 49	Posted - 2013.12.28 01:26:00 - [4] - Quote Crimson Cerberes wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: Leonid Tybalt wrote: Cat Merc wrote: Instant fix to tanker problem What "tanker problem"? There is no tanker problem. Only a bad infantry player problem. Exactly! Anyone playing infantry is doing it horribly, horribly wrong. If you're not in a tank at this point, you're an idiot. Nope, but you're a bad player when you're not dealing with tanks in an appropriate manner while playing as infantry. At no point in the history of warfare has infantry been considered "effective" at anti-armor. They have had some means to destroy tanks yes, but most of them relied on using the weaknesses of tanks in some way. Only other kinds of artillery/tanks ever had a chance at taking on tanks in a head-on fight. So it is like it is now in dust. Infantry has some means to take down tanks, but other tanks/artillery are still number one when it comes to taking down other tanks. Just like it should be (because anything else would make no sense) Pretty sure this and this works pretty well against tanks, not to mention TOW missiles that are mounted on humvees or kinetic energy penetrators or guided missles or hundreds of other counters. This is of course neglecting what happened last time there was major tank vs. tank warfare going on (WWII). This system was developed making pretty much any infantry able to OHK any tank of the time period. Actually in today's warfare, tanks are pretty obsolete, like the battleship. Air based firepower >>>>>>>>>> tanks. Artillery destroys tanks pretty easily too now. So how about we leave out real world examples? This is a game, and as it is a game reality does not matter. No we won't because what you don't seem to realize is that the man portable weapon systems you mention are only truly effective against WWII-era tanks (i.e waaay inferior and obsolete models). Try using the same weapon systems against fully kitted out modern tanks (like the M1 Abrahams or the Leopard 2) then you're going to see a pretty huge drop off in efficiency (that is if you're even given the chance of deploying your puny man-portable weapons in the first place, since modern tanks tend to spot you with infra-red cameras long before you spot them and kill you before you even thought of unstrapping your glorified bazooka of your preference). Don't believe me? Well then just point your eyes to the tank engagements during the invasion or Iraq. Take a look at the ratio of losses between American modern tanks and the pre-cold war era tanks employed by Saddams cronies. Some of the reports I read listed that it the Iraqis lost 70 of their tanks for every Abrhams that the americans lost. 70:1! You are correct partly in one aspect though about tanks becoming obsolete, but it's not because air artillery can destroy tanks, but more because the enemies of the more modern armies of the world JUST DON'T HAVE any weaponry warranting the use of tanks. In essence deploying tanks in most conflicts that industrialized nations can reasonably expect to find themselves in would be akin to a really costly method of hunting a fly with a rocket launcher. When all you are up against are **** ant rogue states or rebel scum armed with IED's, machetes and/or pirate copies of AK47:s sending in tanks is completely unnecessary since armed and armored Humvees will do just as well but to a fraction the cost in deploying tanks. And yes, this is a game. But a game clearly inspired by the real world in terms of technology. The HAV is obviously just a sci-fi version of a tank. If it's gonna look like a tank and act like a tank, then it should AT LEAST retain the effectiveness of a real tank. Turning a sci-fi tank into something LESS effective than modern tanks of today woulf just look silly...