Takahiro Kashuken wrote:Way too long with alot of gibberish
Speed is fine - Get a LAV instead
Hardeners are fine, you miss out on fitting other things
Rails are supposed to be high alpha long range
Missiles are fine, they are also high alpha and do well against vehicles
Blasters are fine, mostly AI anyways because the other 2 turrets are crap
Infantry are idiots, they expect to stand at the same point and kill tank after tank, if you want to kill a tank chase it ffs, if it moves use a damn lav, if its shield dont use swarms when its shiny etc etc etc
All your examples are bias, tanks battles do not consist of both tanks meeting somwhere and then both activating everything at the same time so you only do 50% dmg to them
The battles are tactics, you hit them when there hardeners are down, or bait them into your optimal, what happens if you miss a shot, what happens if its double tanked, what happens if you need to reload etc etc etc
Taka man, you are completely missing the point.
From a balance perspective:
Why is speed fine?
How are hardeners fine, and what is it that I miss out on. Hardeners are arguably the most important thing you can fit, you don't miss out on anything, hardeners are where it's at. I have yet to get to the modules yet, later today I will. The point though is that a extender and a hardener should benfit you somewhat equally. Extenders are useless for gunnlogis and for a maddie, I think they are better off with a hardener and healz. And I demonstrated, how a Sp invested tanker can mitigate nearly all of their down time cycling hardeners.
WHY are rails supposed to have high alpha and high range. How do these compare in relation to other turrets, ups and downs.
Missiles are fine, how? How are they "fine". They are very situational, where a rail works at all ranges.
Blasters are fine? How so. How is it fine, that a tank immune to most AV and small arms fire, uses a turret that is designed for killing infantry. Enjoy your I win button while you can, it WILL be going away.
Way to generalize all of AV into one category, idiots. I can clearly see, that you do not AV. And I can tell you didn't read my post fully. The point I made is that if tanks want infantry interaction limited towards them, then tanks need limited interaction with infantry. Infantry provide "SUPPORT" against tanks, same as tanks provide "SUPPORT" to infantry. And no, support does not mean outright killing, but driving back.
I chose of course to use a situation, in which both tanks stood on equal ground tactically speaking. In equal engagements, neither tank should hold an outright advantage over another. That is why I choose that, tactics are another thing altogether, where you try to steal the advantage from the other. Because the train of thought should be, a head on engagement can go both ways, so what tactic can I use to skew things in my favor.
You make statements, but you have no logical reasoning behind it. You simply "Expect" things to be this way because now things are working in your favor. There are real issues, and simply brushing them aside, blaming it on infantry, is well, STUPID.