I'm going to answer your stupid question with the same stupid question.

How does infantry clear areas?

I wasn't the one that said HAV's are a support role.

In the essence of your stupidity, and the fact i was able to read it before i closed my webpage,I'll send you my ISK this weekend.

You earned it.

I'm going to answer your stupid question with the same stupid question.

How does infantry clear areas?

HAV's are a SUPPORT role?

Hahahahaha. I'll go to sleep on that one.

You said tanks weren't a support role I'm claiming that they are a support role and are far better at supporting the team rather than just killing infantry which you are to ignorant to comprehend.

You believe killing infantry and vehicles = support.

I believe killing infantry and vehicles means killing infantry and vehicles.

You can think what you want, but in the end you are only killing infantry and vehicles, and that's your only role.

I can't fix stupid. But sure, I'll give my money to the mentally challenged. They deserve "support".

I guess it would be hard for you to educate yourself obviously you have given your teachers a hard time.

1. Limit the number of tanks on the battlefield. If you wanted to be an ******* about it you can require pilots and a partner. Pilots drive tanks aren't the ones actually shootings he main turret, i know its a video game and this would cause outrage but there has to be some sort of comparison. If you required 2 people in a tank, it would encourage more teamwork. This would **** **** up.

2. Driver of tank or DS should require a pilot suit of equivalent level of vehicle. Have the suit equal type of tank used, tankers spend more SP (get small tank to stats). Add more SP to a tank build, delays inevitable but that's okay.

3. Vehicles cost should not be equal to a high end suit, the cost should be equivalent to the #'s it takes to destroy it. So if tanks want to be 250-350k then it takes 2 players to take it out. If it is 500-600k then it would require 4. So have equal cost to man power. A tank = infantry cost. Tanks are what 3-8 million and take 3-5 billion to develop. Infantry take about 1m for an elite troop. And it's not like a well placed 25k RPG can't take a vehicle down. So price adjustment need to match cost of taking it down.

4. As for infantry, providing incentives for Commandos to take out Tanks/DS by providing extra WP for damage and kills would be a start. Providing assault class with +1 extra nade could mean ability to equip AV nades; this could also be the case if they are given cost reduction to nades, which means carrying Proto AV nades more likely. It's up to the team, or your squad, to take care of the biggest threats, so don't blame others.

4 b) Some do not have the option, or luxury to take on vehicles and not gimp themselves... Except commandos!!! I guess you figured it out. 2 light weapons, increased damage, ability to equip aV without handicapping themselves.. Win win win.

5. Tanks who take on high damage should be penalized (ie burning should handicap movement + turret rotation). If you want to add a critical point where passive reps won't work, sure. Require pilots to have to take safety, jump out and use a rep tool wouldn't be horrible and would end the constant pressure they can dish out.

To additional comments:
- Tankers are suppose to support infantry, but don't. They should but it's simply not required, call in 6 tanks and rush enemy is how you win the majority of the matches. Sorry, its true and shouldn't be a viable tactic.

- AV cannot do enough damage, and often get spawn trapped or just overwhelmed by the high volume of tanks.
Players get very good bonuses in a tank, and tanks should have to cater an extra slot. You can go watch the passive reps videos if you don't believe me.


I'm not gonna pretend i am right, I'm not a tanker. I do have difficulty taking them down, however. Take it with a grain of salt is all I'm saying. Tanks should be the dominant force on a battlefield but should not be so difficult to take out, nor should them be able to use the tactics they are using now. Mass tank, race to enemy without support, own all.

All of this would change if infantry where to recognize that playing a supportive role alongside your allied tankers would make it very hard for tanks squads to spam.

Your teachers should have informed you of apostrophes.

Perhaps hypocrisy is the newest "cool" for children.

Yes, it should absolutely take 3 or more AV to kill my tank.

No, my main turret should not be controlled by a second player.

No, I should not be able to kill infantry easily with my main turret.

Large turrets need to be a primarily AV weapon, and not effective at killing infantry. Small turret need to be lethal against infantry, and not very effective against vehicles. This means that a tank wishing to kill infantry should fit small turrets and find gunners to man them. In this way, you can have 3 people to kill a tank, and need 2-3 people to kill infantry effectively.

Once again your insults fall on deaf ears and prove my point even further you've run out of anything constructive to say and rely on insults. Please continue to mock yourself.

I'm not gonna lie, i only read the second paragraph.

If you weren't designed to be able to kill both infantry and vehicles with ultimate ease, why is it you can kill both vehicles and infantry with ultimate ease? You can counter everytthing int he ******* game, and you do.

Pray ******* tell me a circumstance that an HAV would fail against an infantry in terms of killing others (you already claim you have zero ability to hack an objective, so thats moot point). Tell me a situation where an infantry person can earn more kills than an HAV.

Again, hypocrisy must be the newest "cool".

Your very odd opinions clearly state that you have never actually used a tank. You believe that tanks are invincible vs everything else on the field... So therefore you must now validate your beliefs.

Test 1: You claim tanks are practically invincible.
Run a tank around shooting at the enemy for a bit, then sit your tank in the middle of an open field. Just sit there for about 2 minutes. Does your tank blow up? Most likely a forge gunner will have equipped gear and shot it to pieces before the timer runs out, or a bomber will have slapped remotes onto the back while you're not looking.

Test 2: You claim that infantry are ineffective vs tanks.
Meander in a closed node for a 5 minutes that is not occupied by allied forces. You are not allowed to retreat.
More than likely you will suddenly explode and all the infantry will be mysteriously out of your line of sight (except the deaf and blind ones, but they're just fodder for any kind of weapon anyway)

Test 3: You claim that tanks have superior killing power in all situations.
Follow a dropsuit inside a building. Go ahead. Just go in that door with your tank.
Then drive your tank up a staricase to shoot from the second floor.
Alright now, drive in quick circles around a crate while firing from behind a crate on one side, and then the other within 10 seconds.

Test 4: Tanks are easy to use at all times.
Make a tank, and skill into it for 2 weeks. Use ONLY tanks unless you run out of money because of negative returns.


Perform Test 1-3 at least 40 times each, Preferably while doing Test 4.


----You will get no respect from the community that has honestly played both sides of the field until you prove that you have committed yourself to playing both sides of the field. ----

I run tanks about 20% of the time, explosives another 20% and I do frontline sniping the other 60% (That means I'm on the field not in a redzone unless I get pushed back by team positioning.)


Infantry can use almost the whole environment as a defensive option, and tanks are limited to only large buildings to hide behind. Infantry can escape from tank fire at all times if they are aware, because the tank announces it's position 24/7 when in operation.
Tanks cannot predict infantry AV fire until after they have been hit.

Yes, it is very hilarious I've explained to you why things are the way they are and you refused to believe me. Then you turned to your insult tactic and haven't said anything relevant since. Your believe is that because tanks can kill infantry then they aren't there as support only offense. That's your only reason why and despite what you're told you won't let that opinion go.

Loving the show guys keep it up.

*munches popcorn and hands True and Collins a can well deserved beer.

* Takes the beer.....mmmmm wait what is this? Budwieser? Hmmmmmm chugs beer down.

And its hilarious that I've expressed my own opinions, yet you continue to claim your opinion is the only correct one.

What adds to the humor is you acting like you haven't insulted anyone, and believe your opinion is actually fact.

Now I'm positive that hypocrisy must be the newest "cool".

I believe that my opinion is stronger than yours because I'm a tanker I've been tanking for a very long time and I believe I have more experience in the area than you. I also believe my opinion is stronger than yours because my views aren't bias and if you were to counter me with something solid then I would seriously take it into consideration. No one likes to be told they are wrong but when you don't want to sit back and discuss things properly then you look like an ass.

No one likes to be told they are a hypocrite either.

Clearly.

Yup, the irony here is that you're still doing the same thing. The joke is on you because you are the frustrated one and your attempts to upset me have failed.

While you are poking around this thread True.

What's more bad ass to you EVE wise :

A glorious Amarr laser gunboat, or a laser ship using drones?

I came back to EVE and noticed all the awesome drones and relevant skills they added.

Yet i can't decide on what battleship to use....they all seem so....bad ass.

I like fire power....so the gun boats.

Coercer, Maller, Apoc or Abaddon....etc.