|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
203
   |
Posted - 2014.01.27 12:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tau Lai wrote:It doesn't make sense you need 3 or 4 people to bring down a tank (one player, >1<) .
1.7 ruined this game.
And that is It.
You need 3-4 people to bring down a tank IRL too. It's not "unbalanced" it makes sense unlike how it was before 1.7.
Also a tank driver can't hack objectives. They can't go everywhere infantry can go, and thus can't engage infantry on equal terms. They can't engage dropships unless the dropship is just lifting off or is being piloted by an idiot.
A decent tank usually costs way more than the dropsuits used by those 3-4 people do.
Etc.
You're not taking the full picture into account. Hence im gonna disregard your thread as nothing but more tank related QQ... |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
203
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 14:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Korvin Lomont wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Tau Lai wrote:It doesn't make sense you need 3 or 4 people to bring down a tank (one player, >1<) .
1.7 ruined this game.
And that is It. You need 3-4 people to bring down a tank IRL too. It's not "unbalanced" it makes sense unlike how it was before 1.7. Also a tank driver can't hack objectives. They can't go everywhere infantry can go, and thus can't engage infantry on equal terms. They can't engage dropships unless the dropship is just lifting off or is being piloted by an idiot. A decent tank usually costs way more than the dropsuits used by those 3-4 people do. Etc. You're not taking the full picture into account. Hence im gonna disregard your thread as nothing but more tank related QQ... AH RL examples how I love them. Just some facts in RL Tanks go easily down to infantry based anti tank weaponry. The tougher ones won't get killed in most situations. But their crew normally dies or the tank is out of combat. And RL tanks are operated by crew of 3 to four men.... 
I've had this debate before, and crushed all examples given. So please, by all means tell me about that pissant javelin anti-tank missile again, and I'll show you real world tanks that laugh at it (and pretty much every other kind of man-portable anti-tank weaponry you try to throw at them).
There seems to be a misguided belief that modern tanks haven't progressed in terms of armour and countermeasures since the beginning of the cold war, and considering how you seem to believe in the effectiveness of man-portable anti-armour systems I can only assume you suffer from the same delusion. |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
206
|
Posted - 2014.01.27 18:31:00 -
[3] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Aikuchi Tomaru wrote:Tau Lai wrote:It doesn't make sense you need 3 or 4 people to bring down a tank (one player, >1<) .
1.7 ruined this game.
And that is It. Does it make sense when one guy is able to bring down a ******* tank? I don't think so. Yes, it does. One Person = One Person.
One person with a piece of significantly more expensive and armored piece of equipment against one person with significantly less expensive piece og equipment.
Not a very good comparison.
Your argument = sh!t |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
206
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 01:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:
One person with a piece of significantly more expensive and armored piece of equipment against one person with significantly less expensive piece og equipment.
Not a very good comparison.
Your argument = sh!t
Best HAV Setup Cost: 800k Best AV Suit Cost: 215k. Keep in mind, the typical AVer will die 3-4+ times while on AV. That's 645-860k. Which is more than 800k. Your in an armored piece of equipment against something designed to demolish armored equipment. Keep that in mind. Your argument (or lack thereof) = Non-existent.
No, that's pretty much an equal amount of isk. So you just shot your own "argument" in the foot.
Also what you neglect to mention is what that said AV:er will be killed by. The tank he tries to engage or some random redberry with an assault rifle. Getting gunned down by infantry doesn't prove that tanks would be overpowered, it only proves that AV-fits aren't versatile.
Also decent AV player doesn't open fire on a tank from a position where the tank can immediately retaliate, which harkens back to another real world example where infantry doing anti-armor duty never deploy any missiles or grenades right smack in the open (like you nooby, complaining AV-players do in the game). They ambush vehicles in a myriad of ways like firing from cover (why do you think they favor "fire and forget"-weapon systems?), hiding in ditches and roadsides before engaging, setting up explosives etc. |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
208
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Patrick57 wrote:Tau Lai wrote:It doesn't make sense you need 3 or 4 people to bring down a tank (one player, >1<) .
1.7 ruined this game.
And that is It. Yes, let's make it where one person can take down even the best tanker in Dust without even trying, see how many people leave the game. It's fun to destroy tanks, you just have to (and this may be a new concept to you) try. Has anybody ever said that they want to destroy tanks without effort? I think people confuse the term "solo" with "easy." Why exactly should a tanker be able to survive the best AV without trying again? Because that's what 1.7 is. Yes, dumping 600+ ISK per match is really fun.
Because the tanker paid more isk for his tank and invested more skillpoints in it to be as effective as he is with it than your typical AV:er did for his proto forge gun.
/thread |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
208
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 02:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:No, that's pretty much an equal amount of isk. So you just shot your own "argument" in the foot.
Also what you neglect to mention is what that said AV:er will be killed by. The tank he tries to engage or some random redberry with an assault rifle. Getting gunned down by infantry doesn't prove that tanks would be overpowered, it only proves that AV-fits aren't versatile.
Also decent AV player doesn't open fire on a tank from a position where the tank can immediately retaliate, which harkens back to another real world example where infantry doing anti-armor duty never deploy any missiles or grenades right smack in the open (like you nooby, complaining AV-players do in the game). They ambush vehicles in a myriad of ways like firing from cover (why do you think they favor "fire and forget"-weapon systems?), hiding in ditches and roadsides before engaging, setting up explosives etc. Back for more eh? Leonid Tybalt wrote:
One person with a piece of significantly more expensive and armored piece of equipment against one person with significantly less expensive piece og of equipment.
Your argument was that the AV equipment was "significantly less expensive", which it isn't (in fact, AV actually costs more than the HAV). This negates your argument and makes it non-existent. There is no foot of mine being shot, as it is your argument that is incorrect, not mine. I'll give you about 1 ISK for attempting though. You clearly don't AV, so I'll spell out the obvious fact that most of your deaths will come from a vehicle, not infantry. Along with this, I'm not using the fact that AV dies frequently as an argument for tanks being OP. I'm using it as an argument against your deluded thought that makes you believe that AVing is "significantly cheaper" than tanking. Quit shooting your foot, It already has enough bullet wounds as it is. Considering how AV weapons can't fire without stepping out of cover, your argument about "never open firing on a vehicle where it can retaliate" is incorrect. Along with this, a vehicle with a good pilot is never in a spot where it can't retaliate back . Though you don't seem to realize this, so I guess it's safe to assume that you are a bad vehicle pilot. What a real-life military favors is irrelevant. A real-life military would "favor" weapons that either 1HK vehicles, or destroy the entire crew inside. A real life military would "favor" Uprising 1.6 AV weaponry. Let's not go there. You rely on 10k eHP to be competitive. Calling me nooby is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Wow, the amount of bullshit coming out of you is staggering.
There's no sense in debating the issue with you any further. Your reality is vastly seperate from the one the rest of us inhabits.
You'll desperstely remain butthurt regardless. So im just gonna take some extra satisfaction in rolling around in my tank (which im gonna do more often thanks to you), knowing that my behaviour scares whiney noobs like you away from the game entirely. :)
|
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
215
|
Posted - 2014.01.28 10:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
PADDEHATPIGEN wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Tau Lai wrote:It doesn't make sense you need 3 or 4 people to bring down a tank (one player, >1<) .
1.7 ruined this game.
And that is It. You need 3-4 people to bring down a tank IRL too. It's not "unbalanced" it makes sense unlike how it was before 1.7. Also a tank driver can't hack objectives. They can't go everywhere infantry can go, and thus can't engage infantry on equal terms. They can't engage dropships unless the dropship is just lifting off or is being piloted by an idiot. A decent tank usually costs way more than the dropsuits used by those 3-4 people do. Etc. You're not taking the full picture into account. Hence im gonna disregard your thread as nothing but more tank related QQ... Your an idiot. My madrugar cost 109.395 ISK. To build and it is way OP. My av suit cost 117.930 ISK. To build and i can't kill a militia tank whit it solo, so please shot the fu.k up. IDIOT. EDIT: btw. I am fully trained to lvl 5 pro 5 in all the weapons i use. I'm starting to have the same problem with dropships, yestoday I fired my swarms 12 times in a row at a dropship, 3 shots and reload 4 times while standing right below it, and when i had no more ammo the dropship was at FULL HP. That dropship simply tanked 12 shots from proto swarm with pro lvl 5 and that is just SO WRONG.
Haha, you use a 100k madrugar, calls it OP and then call ME and idiot? Oh the irony!
Trust me, your maddy is hardly OP. If you and I went head to head, your marry would get crushed like a tin can. 
|
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
221
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 01:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Nothing Certain wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Atiim wrote:Patrick57 wrote:Tau Lai wrote:It doesn't make sense you need 3 or 4 people to bring down a tank (one player, >1<) .
1.7 ruined this game.
And that is It. Yes, let's make it where one person can take down even the best tanker in Dust without even trying, see how many people leave the game. It's fun to destroy tanks, you just have to (and this may be a new concept to you) try. Has anybody ever said that they want to destroy tanks without effort? I think people confuse the term "solo" with "easy." Why exactly should a tanker be able to survive the best AV without trying again? Because that's what 1.7 is. Yes, dumping 600+ ISK per match is really fun. Because the tanker paid more isk for his tank and invested more skillpoints in it to be as effective as he is with it than your typical AV:er did for his proto forge gun. /thread The idea that ISK is what should be balanced is not based on sound reasoning. If I spent 10 times you did for your tank, should I have a weapon that makes me nearly invulnerable to your tank, and everything else, and capable of OH tank kills? How about 20 times? A hundred times? That should give me something totally invulnerable to everything and capable of killing everything, because I paid lots of ISK. I could buy just one of these juggernauts and never worry about dying and no one could defeat me.
Quite simply: yes.
The economy that this game is based on is the in-game currency (isk) and skillpoints.
More skillpoints and more isk spent should directly translate into more effectiveness.
The developers would never release any kind of equipment that could make you completely invulnerable (it would **** up the in-game economy, because the only way to put appropriate value to something that makes you invulnerable would be to price it infinite amount of isk).
But the rule of thumb should always be: more expensive = more effective.
Otherwise, what the hell are we paying for? Cute looking packaging? |
Leonid Tybalt
Dark Knightz Corp.
221
|
Posted - 2014.01.30 01:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
PADDEHATPIGEN wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:PADDEHATPIGEN wrote:Leonid Tybalt wrote:Tau Lai wrote:It doesn't make sense you need 3 or 4 people to bring down a tank (one player, >1<) .
1.7 ruined this game.
And that is It. You need 3-4 people to bring down a tank IRL too. It's not "unbalanced" it makes sense unlike how it was before 1.7. Also a tank driver can't hack objectives. They can't go everywhere infantry can go, and thus can't engage infantry on equal terms. They can't engage dropships unless the dropship is just lifting off or is being piloted by an idiot. A decent tank usually costs way more than the dropsuits used by those 3-4 people do. Etc. You're not taking the full picture into account. Hence im gonna disregard your thread as nothing but more tank related QQ... Your an idiot. My madrugar cost 109.395 ISK. To build and it is way OP. My av suit cost 117.930 ISK. To build and i can't kill a militia tank whit it solo, so please shot the fu.k up. IDIOT. EDIT: btw. I am fully trained to lvl 5 pro 5 in all the weapons i use. I'm starting to have the same problem with dropships, yestoday I fired my swarms 12 times in a row at a dropship, 3 shots and reload 4 times while standing right below it, and when i had no more ammo the dropship was at FULL HP. That dropship simply tanked 12 shots from proto swarm with pro lvl 5 and that is just SO WRONG. Haha, you use a 100k madrugar, calls it OP and then call ME and idiot? Oh the irony! Trust me, your maddy is hardly OP. If you and I went head to head, your marry would get crushed like a tin can. Yes but that is almost the ONLY way you can kill me and that's kind of the point. Try to use swarms/av nades to kill me and you find out that it's NOT easy. We are talking about tanks vs suits NOT tanks vs tanks. I will gladly repeat myself YOUR AN IDIOT.
Your mom didn't think I was an idiot last night.
Her nickname for me was more like: "Oooh! Harder daddy! Harder!"  |
|
|
| |
|