They have to keep their(inconsequential) KDR up. There are matches when my team has taken a beating and we end up losing due to, lack of organization on our teams part/better organization on the other teams part, weak starting position, or out played. However, when pride causes a group of players to exploit a mechanic of the game and remove the joy of playing, well that's just poor sportsmanship all around.

I don't think the large turrets should be very effective against infantry, I have said this on numerous occasions. If they would take this crutch away from players, I guarantee you would see significantly less tanks on the battlefield.

I have used blasters in the past, and after every match, I have not felt like i was playing fairly. I know, I know....this is war....blah blah blah. It is war, but it's also a game, and while everyone wants to win, it's how you win that shows what type of a person you are.

That's why I don't use blasters any more....they are way to overpowered against infantry....increase the scatter on them so that if they are shooting at infantry, the chances of them hitting the merc are reduced significantly....

@ Dalton Smithe

Agreed on some points, but I think it important to differentiate between effective and overly effective. Pre-Alpha, Blaster HAVs were overly effective in Ambush. My understanding is that Alpha both "increased blaster scatter" and provided infantry better means of self-defense.

Perhaps its too early to tell, but do you think Blaster HAVs still overly effective in Ambush?

Everyone thinks they were supposed to be anti infantry, because that is what everyone uses them for.....they are a LARGE turret, that means the tracking should be sub par, and the scatter on them should be significant. It's a crutch, and no, I won't use a large blaster any more.... It's using a virtually unstoppable piece of hardware against an opponent who really can't counter it, unless they make themselves useless in standard combat.

A fix could be to increase the CPU/PG on it, so that infantry would be a viable threat in smaller numbers. As it sits, a blaster tank with 3 reps could tank the damage. So, you make it so they can only fit maybe one rep and a plate, with nothing else if they want to use a blaster.

The rail tank however, is a tank hunter, so no change is needed there.....

Haha bs I use all tanks and I'm a slayer, slayer first tank to take there's out.. Blaster are not anti vehicle so just quit. If rails are fine then blasters need a huge buff against tanks. As a rail tanker it is very OP there's not a single fit I can't 2 shot. But yeah that's fine. Let's try to balance not break it.

That's good to hear.

To clarify, when you say Blaster HAVs are "very easy to deal with" are you referring to vehicle-based counters or infantry-based counters? I should've been more specific in my question; let me explain ...

Prior to Alpha, I recall numerous Ambush matches wherein there was very little infantry could do to prevent being steamrolled by two Blaster Tanks "farming" in tandem. My understanding was that changes in Alpha aimed to address this type of Vehicle vs Infantry problem.

Are you guys saying Alpha changes gave infantry tools by which to repel such steamrolling / farming?
Or are you saying Alpha changes created / widened imbalance between Rail Tanks and Blaster Tanks?