Teamwork kills everything possible in this fuckin game. The issue is : Why should one playstyle require teamwork when the other doesn't?

That's the entire problem. One option can kill everything in the damn game, while the direct counter is only that, a direct counter. And this direct counter isn't even efficient at countering the entire purpose of their play style.

Currently there are two roles in the game. Vehicle suppression and infantry suppression. Acting like hacking objectives isn't the role of a tanker is obscenely ridiculous. An infantry that decides to hack a point has just as much possiblity to fail as someone who leaves their HAV to hack the same objective. It's your own choice whether or not to decide which is more important, ISK through kills, or capping objectives for the win.

Now you may claim "but that infantry guy has skillpoints put into being adept at killing infantry, so he is better able to hack objectives.".... Wrong.

You decided to skill into vehicles who's sole purpose is to kill other infantry and vehicles. You already know there is no other role in the game beyond that. You know this. It's impossible to not know this, because the only thing you can do in this game is kill others, and hack objectives. You are choosing to play as a killer. Just like infantry choose to skill into either killing infantry, or killing vehicles (and we all know how ******* balanced AV currently is, which again, leads to the disparity of roles). You can choose to be adept at killing infantry, just as infantry can choose to become adept at running an HAV.

An HAV is able to kill everything the game. That is a fact. They are literally able to kill every possible thing in the game, with every single type of turret with relative efficiency compared to the other weapons in the game (i must admit that the missile turrets are in a decent place with infantry concerns. A 0.3 - 0.5 reduction in splash range would, IMO, completely balance missile turrets with the rest of the game however), also with more ease then any other weapon in the game. Stating otherwise is a lie. You know exactly how easy it is to dominate with a vehicle. Because you dominate, and complain that dying lost you 500k isk. For shame that you actually die in a game designed around everyone dying for eternity.

Infantry simply don't have this luxury. In order to excel in one area, they gimp themselves in another. HAV's aren't given this ultimatum. Anything they choose can kill infantry as easily as vehicles. They aren't only the jack of all trades, they are jack that has mastered all trades, and only for 200k-300k more then their direct counterpart. If i remember correctly, the community frowned upon a specific playstyle that could not only counter all other playstyles, but excel at them all (Cal Logi). They frowned upon a weapon that was able to destroy infantry pretty easily, as well as vehicles (Forge gun).

Why should HAV's get special treatment?

I don't get special treatment. I use a tank designed to be operated by 3 people.

I don't get special treatment. I use a tank designed to be operated by 3 people.

I don't quite know what to say to that.

I mean, if you are saying you add turrets to your HAV so you can easily stack assist WP for people who dont even have to attack the same target to recieve those WP, while at the same time being able to increase your DPS due to your main turret being able to kill everything in the game on its own, and your small turrets being able to kill the majority of targets in the game at the same time....

I suppose that's fair.

Edit - Couldn't help to prolong my sleep deprivation to comment. Jesus True...many people claim you make logical posts. I suppose it's subjective to your favorite hobby.

So you think because I am a tanker and I put small turrets on my HAV it's entirely self centred and motivated..... as if mate. I could fit a significantly better tank, reps, hardeners, better modules all around better survivability.

You are also assuming I care about WP....that's a fallacy, no Tanker cares about WP, WP mean nothing to us.

I am struggling to understand your argument.

As I see it you are critiquing those who fit HAV for themselves, single seat HAV that can achieve great survivability and fire power.......and saying that it should require team work to achieve that kind of level of power..... then you are critiquing me who makes Tank fits that require multiple people to be at top effectiveness.

How could we humble tankers ever please such a mind that wants neither option available to tankers?

I don't quite know what to say to that.

I mean, if you are saying you add turrets to your HAV so you can easily stack assist WP for people who dont even have to attack the same target to recieve those WP, while at the same time being able to increase your DPS due to your main turret being able to kill everything in the game on its own, and your small turrets being able to kill the majority of targets in the game at the same time....

I suppose that's fair.

Edit - Couldn't help to prolong my sleep deprivation to comment. Jesus True...many people claim you make logical posts. I suppose it's subjective to your favorite hobby.

Also, how is that WP gain you are receiving from damaging vehicles doing for your 3 manned HAV?

Is it a coincidence that you are 3 manning HAV's after the fact that WP are now received for damaging vehicles? That must be a shitload of assist WP for them simply being in the same tank. Good for you for "playing fair"

No, I think True is saying that he makes his tanks designed for team-play, which I think is a rarity and admirable.

I also think that everyone could agree that small vehicle turrets are and should be powerful against infantry because that is what they are designed for. They are also less efficient versus vehicles.

See this is probably the largest problem I have, well other than no amarrian vehicles and standard swarms being crap. Tanks (specifically blaster tanks) get the luxury of weapons that are 100% efficient versus ALL things. Infantry have to decide if they want anti-infantry capabilities or anti vehicle capabilities.

Infantry are immune to nothing (save for swarms), tanks are immune to many things.

To me that is an imbalance. I just think that large turrets should be ~20% efficient versus ground troops. It is easily justifiable and explainable, and it would stop the vehicle QQ in an instant.

You are struggling to understand my argument?

Let me put it in layman's terms : You are a much stronger asset on the field then any infantry could hope to achieve. You are able to counter everything by simply existing, yet are immune to most weapons by simply existing. The only weapons in the game are either **** poor against you unless they are attacking mutliple amounts (infantry) or solo'd by a single enemy HAV (rail tanks, or even high SP totting blasters).

We all know you are aware of the disparity. Stop trying to act like an HAV isn't the best asset on the field, period, regardless of circumstance.

I don't get special treatment. I use a tank designed to be operated by 3 people.

I also feel inclined to disagree because its

A.) Not tenable to play HAV all the time, on some maps you can become worse than useless so other roles are required.
B.) EVERY suit type and role is a slayer since they all kill things
C.) You opinion is heavily biased one way..... seems like you don't even try to approach this from the point of view of a tanker...

However I realise this is a legitimate issue of imbalances.

I am a Tank........ and you compare me to infantrymen...... tanks are naturally designed to slay infantry.......if not by using its single main cannon to destroy entrenched enemy positions then with one of several smaller hull mounted machineguns.

If I were able to counter everything then I would win every game. I can counted most things. Infantry Mobs, LAV, the occasional low flying dropship. But I too have plenty of counters. Despite what people say AV mobs....sorry I mean smart AV are my hard counters. Missile and Rail HAV are my hard counters.

That's however doesn't mean I cannot beat them myself, it simply requires more effort on my part, and effort I am wholly willing to put into my game to develop the associated strategies and skills related to taking down those threats. Hence why I developed the 3 man HAV. A typical blaster never had the fire power to take down its Rail and Missile counters easily..... but 3 guns do/did.

I don't think you understand the premise of tanks..... impervious to small arms fire.....

As for your last point..... I have never stated I wanted HAV to be some invincible shell, impervious to all harm. I want to feel vulnerable. Without vulnerability their is no enjoyment of HAV, no reason to strive to do better than I did before, or not to lose my Tank. Without my vulnerability there is no balance and other players cannot fully get out of the game what they have put into it.

However there is a difference between what I would do to balance the game, and what you might do to buff AV or nerf HAV.

I firmly believe that we cannot achieve a meaningful vehicle balance if we are not prepared to put the time and testing into the opposing roles to determine where all fault lie and where changes might be made. However this cannot be done in earnest until all basic AV weaponry is implanted into the game as well as a full racial vehicle line up.

Trying to balance AV vs Vehicle on what we have now will only provide us with half the necessary data that we need.

You are preaching from a podium in this thread either your frustrations of your bigotry against a specific aspect of this community as though you were some appointed judge.

You are making assumptions based about my mindset as a tanker, and in many cases the wider community. As a tanker I can say that I most certainly am not out to ruin anyone's game, I am not desiring to pad a non existent KDR, WP, or E-peen.

I see little point in discussing this futher with you as you seem to have no desire to discuss and suggest, only instead a desire to make assumptions and statements of your own opinion as though there were fact.

Why in god's name do you even comment?

You just said that HAV's are only good on some maps, then said all type of suits are killers...which is true, which includes yours (your "suit" is obviously an HAV shell).

then claim my view isn't from a tanker? are you serious? i'm using MLT tanks. The lowest possible form of tanks you can use. Unless you are claiming that putting SP into tanks makes absolutely no difference between MLT hull / MLT mods opposed to an HAV that has all proto mods...you have no leg to stand on.

Are you seriously acting like you can compare a dropsuit and an HAV on equal terms in the current iteration?

You are struggling to understand my argument?

Let me put it in layman's terms : You are a much stronger asset on the field then any infantry could hope to achieve. You are able to counter everything by simply existing, yet are immune to most weapons by simply existing. The only weapons in the game are either **** poor against you unless they are attacking mutliple amounts (infantry) or solo'd by a single enemy HAV (rail tanks, or even high SP totting blasters).

We all know you are aware of the disparity. Stop trying to act like an HAV isn't the best asset on the field, period, regardless of circumstance.

I'm not trying to compare them they are completely different from one another.

Teamwork kills everything possible in this fuckin game. The issue is : Why should one playstyle require teamwork when the other doesn't?

That's the entire problem. One option can kill everything in the damn game, while the direct counter is only that, a direct counter. And this direct counter isn't even efficient at countering the entire purpose of their play style.

Currently there are two roles in the game. Vehicle suppression and infantry suppression. Acting like hacking objectives isn't the role of a tanker is obscenely ridiculous. An infantry that decides to hack a point has just as much possiblity to fail as someone who leaves their HAV to hack the same objective. It's your own choice whether or not to decide which is more important, ISK through kills, or capping objectives for the win.

Now you may claim "but that infantry guy has skillpoints put into being adept at killing infantry, so he is better able to hack objectives.".... Wrong.

You decided to skill into vehicles who's sole purpose is to kill other infantry and vehicles. You already know there is no other role in the game beyond that. You know this. It's impossible to not know this, because the only thing you can do in this game is kill others, and hack objectives. You are choosing to play as a killer. Just like infantry choose to skill into either killing infantry, or killing vehicles (and we all know how ******* balanced AV currently is, which again, leads to the disparity of roles). You can choose to be adept at killing infantry, just as infantry can choose to become adept at running an HAV.

An HAV is able to kill everything the game. That is a fact. They are literally able to kill every possible thing in the game, with every single type of turret with relative efficiency compared to the other weapons in the game (i must admit that the missile turrets are in a decent place with infantry concerns. A 0.3 - 0.5 reduction in splash range would, IMO, completely balance missile turrets with the rest of the game however), also with more ease then any other weapon in the game. Stating otherwise is a lie. You know exactly how easy it is to dominate with a vehicle. Because you dominate, and complain that dying lost you 500k isk. For shame that you actually die in a game designed around everyone dying for eternity.

Infantry simply don't have this luxury. In order to excel in one area, they gimp themselves in another. HAV's aren't given this ultimatum. Anything they choose can kill infantry as easily as vehicles. They aren't only the jack of all trades, they are jack that has mastered all trades, and only for 200k-300k more then their direct counterpart. If i remember correctly, the community frowned upon a specific playstyle that could not only counter all other playstyles, but excel at them all (Cal Logi). They frowned upon a weapon that was able to destroy infantry pretty easily, as well as vehicles (Forge gun).

Why should HAV's get special treatment?

You sound like you've never used a tank in this game other than maybe a redline rail. Maybe make a second account with tanks and see just how hard it is, most of us vehicle specialists are also invested in one infantry role too just so were not completely useless when we can't bring out a tank or dropship.

If you've ever tried to solo tank with no squad to support you, you'd know that it's insanwly difficult and almost impossible to do and be profitable.

I'm sorry I have to disagree with everything you've said. The tankers job is to support infantry not kill infantry the problem is that avast majority of players are not interested in using AV or cooperating together. Everyone wants a high KDR and lots of Isk. Tankers that try to play a supportive role get annihilated by Av and other tanks. Fitting a 3 man tank compromises the integrity of the hull of your tank. Not only are you more vulnerable to the enemy but the cost of running tanks of this nature are far more expensive than running a tank with one main weapon.

When going into a pub with a 3 man tank setup prepare to have no blueberries get into your tank this frustration has caused tankers to just remain as a 1 man unit. Prior to 1.6 it was pretty common to see tanks with blue berries inside because turrets were not removable unfortunately once inside the crew would sit in the tanks doing nothing and collecting WPs. Well that had to be addressed and CCP allowed turrets to be removed. This removal gave tankers a very significant advantage it has truly became a thorn in everyone's side.

Tankers who want to be apart of the team get destroyed by Av and solo tankers (assuming team friendly tankers have no crew). Tanks with full turrets are superior to solo tanks the problem is its just too expensive other players could care less about riding along in your tank. Infantry are the sole reason for all of the AV/Tank balance the only players who are getting special treatment are infantry because they are the ones coming on the forums complaining and suggesting how to make tanks easier for them to solo.

The only solution to the Av/Tank balance is for infantry to take in interest in tanking. For instance go ahead and level up your small turret skills make yourself useful if you see a tanker on your team struggling to take out other tanks send him a message. Hey I have such and such skills do you want to try going into this together. Take your Av weapons with you and when the opportunity strikes make you move hop out of the turret seat and assist your fellow tanker. Making Av weapons solo friendly is a bad idea things were that way in the past and it did not work.

Look you believe HAV are wholly unbalanced units piloted only by the selfish and mean spirited out to destroy this community and personally "get you"..... I believe that that is not the case, that while vehicle vs AV is unbalanced it is not the same game breaking degree that you seem to think it is.

As I have said before HAV are very useful on certain maps and in certain circumstances, in some games they become the focal point and having such units on your side to counter and make use of is a must. But equally so on others they become relatively pointless, especially inside compounds or across uneven terrain.

Believe what you will Duran about vehicles, about my opinions, etc. I just want to reach a place where HAV have a proper place on the field, where using one requires the skills it used to without being wholly unbalanced by AV as it used to be.

I don't have the time to be straw manned by you into an argument that will not help either side achieve a balance.

I'm not even going to bother here Duran, you're an argumentative biggot with an axe to grind just looking for a fight because you apparently hate vehicles and want them removed from the game. There is no intelligent discussion or exchange of information going to happen here, you apparently just want to butch and have some people stroke you to your self-righteous ranting and ridiculing of people who want to have fun in a different way than you.

It's okay to not like things, but you don't need to be a jerk about the things you don't like. We play vehicles because we like the playstyle, not because we've got a grudge against infantry.

HAV's are a SUPPORT role?

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

Sorry that you are unwilling to listen but yes tanks are far better at supporting than killing. Tanks clear large areas for infantry to move in the also destroy installations transport and supply chains of the enemy team. Tanks are designed to breach strongholds they also have an effect on the mentality of the enemy infantry which can be used as a tactical advantage for the allied team.

Sorry that you are unwilling to listen but yes tanks are far better at supporting than killing. Tanks clear large areas for infantry to move in the also destroy installations transport and supply chains of the enemy team. Tanks are designed to breach strongholds they also have an effect on the mentality of the enemy infantry which can be used as a tactical advantage for the allied team.

And how do those tanks clear the areas?

By asking nicely?

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.

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

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

I prefer my tear-battleship, it doesn't overflow too quickly as I have tear storage level 5 with a tear hub installed

1 - I claimed no such thing. Please link me to any post where I've said such. I've only said there is an imbalance between vehicles and infantry AV.

2 - I did not claim infantry are ineffective against HAV's. I claimed they are inferior to other HAV's period. Whats the point in skilling into a play style that cannot perform its playstyle with as much efficiency as its brother? (HAV AV).

3 - I claimed HAV's have the super killing power in most situations. their only downfall is they can't enter cities. Until cities are the majority of the maps played, i consider that an advantage to the HAV's.

4 - I've already stated i have around 100 free Sicas. I've made nothing but profit from a week of using them as a primary AV, since it's FAR better then my ishukone FG with prof 5. It was easy. I could kill infantry and vehicles without even trying. I can only imagine what i can do with an HAV that has skills put towards increasing it's effectiveness.

Performing your tests due to your ignorance does nothing for me.

Your last paragraph is laughable.

4 - I've already stated i have around 100 free Sicas. I've made nothing but profit from a week of using them as a primary AV, since it's FAR better then my ishukone FG with prof 5. It was easy. I could kill infantry and vehicles without even trying. I can only imagine what i can do with an HAV that has skills put towards increasing it's effectiveness.

because people are self serving that is why. no one wants to be killed so everyone does everything to avoid it. Tankers dont care about balance, never have never will.

You sound like you've never used a tank in this game other than maybe a redline rail. Maybe make a second account with tanks and see just how hard it is, most of us vehicle specialists are also invested in one infantry role too just so were not completely useless when we can't bring out a tank or dropship.

If you've ever tried to solo tank with no squad to support you, you'd know that it's insanwly difficult and almost impossible to do and be profitable.

Ok, let's say that I don't care about balance, can I have the ability to hack stuff, get into tight spaces, shoot anything around me, turn around in split second, deploy equipment and hiding from my enemies and a lot of other stuff while I'm in my tank? Meanwhile I'll just settle for the unmatched killing power in open spaces and nothing else.

1) If the enemy team brings skilled AV players against a tank, and the tank isn't supported by good infantry, the AV players will, at worst, push the tank away from combat, and potentially have the chance to kill it.

2) Tanks require teamwork, because without being SUPPORTED BY INFANTRY, a tank is extremely vulnerable.

So you think because I am a tanker and I put small turrets on my HAV it's entirely self centred and motivated..... as if mate. I could fit a significantly better tank, reps, hardeners, better modules all around better survivability.

You are also assuming I care about WP....that's a fallacy, no Tanker cares about WP, WP mean nothing to us.

I am struggling to understand your argument.

As I see it you are critiquing those who fit HAV for themselves, single seat HAV that can achieve great survivability and fire power.......and saying that it should require team work to achieve that kind of level of power..... then you are critiquing me who makes Tank fits that require multiple people to be at top effectiveness.

How could we humble tankers ever please such a mind that wants neither option available to tankers?

So you aren't even comparing?

What are you trying to say then.

HAV's are balanced?

Infantry is balanced?

HAV's vs infantry is balanced?

You just spouted a load of bullshit.

act like im a child and try to explain to me how you think AV / HAV's are currently balanced.

Ok, let's say that I don't care about balance, can I have the ability to hack stuff, get into tight spaces, shoot anything around me, turn around in split second, deploy equipment and hiding from my enemies and a lot of other stuff while I'm in my tank? Meanwhile I'll just settle for the unmatched killing power in open spaces and nothing else.

I've been using HAVs well before Uprsing 1.7, and your statement is bull$#!t.

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.

He didn't claim they were balanced, only that you had different expectations about what the capabilities of a tank are and should be and different ideas about how and when to achieve balance.

In my view, if tanks can kill infantry then they need to be balanced against infantry, and vehicle balance has to come from that base. Currently tanks have 300-500% advantage over infantry in speed, HP, repping, firepower. You can't create balance with this type of discrepancy.

because people are self serving that is why. no one wants to be killed so everyone does everything to avoid it. Tankers dont care about balance, never have never will.

It's a FRACKING TANK!!!! It's SUPPOSED to be faster and stronger, with better repping and firepower.

Man up, QQ Less, HTFU, whatever your choice of terms are. It's a tank. A TANK!

This is what really bugs me. People really think this is a valid game balance argument.

Hmmm generally speak its an argument as to what the unit is....or what defines it.


I cannot say that it should be simply better but it should embody is 3 core tenets of tank design.

Armour, Mobility, and Fire Power.

A modern tank IS impervious to small arms fire....as it should be, being part of the units general function. An armoured artillery platform from which gunners may fire without having to worry about enemy riflemen.

An armoured vehicle is mobile, depending on design philosophy this is subjective.

An armoured vehicle is designed to have the fire-power of a small platoon of infantrymen.

Admittedly it takes a crew to pilot a tank...but in a game we cannot enforce this kind of style on a vehicle without reducing it to absolute ineffectiveness and dependency on a specific few players we trust. Thats not enjoyable gameplay.

Instead what I see as one of many possible solutions to this is to reduce the anti infantry effectiveness of HAV turrets and make them all primarily geared to AV roles, still capable of skill shotting infantry, but primarily less AI effective.

The real problem is blasters AND railguns are easy to take out infantry. It's pointless to say otherwise, for anyone can hop in a MLT sica and go positive in a game. It would honestly be fine if blasters were the only infantry weakness. But the fact that a railgun can EASILY take out infantry, a blaster can take out both infantry and vehicles easily with little skill and preperation, and while missiles aren't exactly ideal for infantry deaths...they can still kill infantry MUCH easier then any other weapon designed for AV/AP purposes.

**** is ridiculous.

This is what really bugs me. People really think this is a valid game balance argument.

False, the railgun does not "easily" take out infantry. I consider myself decent at the art of killing infantry with my railgun, but in all honesty, it can be nearly impossible to shoot a target that just slightly moves from side to side, with a little jumping in between.

Most of my kills come from people who either stop moving as I'm lining them up, or people that simply sit in one place. Yeah stand there like a dumbass and get shot, no sympathy from me.

It is VERY rare for me to go 20+ and 0 in a match with rails. The average number is between 5 and 7 a match. Excluding tank kills.

just like those negroes never cared about work and never will, right?

or how about those jews?

Stop whining.

Scout C-1
Nerd swarm launcher
Advanced AV grenades
F/45
Cloak
Toxin SMG


This fit can solo most tanks you encounter.
1) Activate cloak
2) slap 3 f/45s on
3) detonate f/45s with AV grenades
4) fire swarms as tank tries to run away.

Provided the tank doesn't have hardeners on, it WILL be dead by the first swarm volley at the latest.

Scout suit is best AV suit by far.

I see your alliance takes just about any guy with a IQ below 80. Tanks are not a race and its entirely possible for any group of like minded individuals to be self serving. And apparently really really dumb in your case.

All this needless bickering. Swarms suck.. Plain and simple. Tanks are OK, maybe a bit too fast.

Admittedly it takes a crew to pilot a tank...but in a game we cannot enforce this kind of style on a vehicle without reducing it to absolute ineffectiveness and dependency on a specific few players we trust. Thats not enjoyable gameplay.