| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Burger Helper
84
   |
Posted - 2012.09.01 20:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
what they do not realize is three things
1) the distribution of tank pilots is not uniform, often times a group of people in similar time zones, and thus often similar corps, will all do similar things, like tanks. this results in games where six people on one side have tank skills, and the other side has maybe two
2) if one team gets a tank on the field, they have a huge advantage, because they can shoot down enemy rdvs bringing in tanks and kill or severely damage them with almost no effort. one tank on a team also subtly encourages others on that same team to bring in their tanks. two tanks on one means that the one enemy tank always always dies. this causes a cascade effect, leading to one team having four tanks and the other not being able to call any in
3) AV has to contend with both the enemy tank, and enemy infantry. since everyone is too broke to spec into prototype av weapons, they are forced to work in large groups of standards av, which is almost impossible to sustain against more than one tank, again because of enemy infantry tearing the AV up. the meme act of putting on an av fit means you're horribly horribly gimped against enemy infantry by default. again this causes a cascade
tl;dr
-not everyone is a tank pilot, one team always has more than the other
-tanks can easily dispatch enemy tanks being called in, hard to reverse tank dominance
-AV has an extremely hard time against tanks because of enemy infantry, and being broke |
Burger Helper
84
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 00:30:00 -
[2] - Quote
i expected more flaming, really |
Darky SI
232
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 00:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Burger Helper wrote:i expected more flaming, really
flaming for what! he is just explaining what CCP having in mind for the current event but knowing this community you might be right. |
Fivetimes Infinity
Immobile Infantry
1086
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 01:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
I am guessing they did think of these things and don't mind much if teams lose due to insufficient tanks. Actual corps in the future will make sure they have enough tanks. The pre-made corps right now which do not have enough tanks to be competitive simply get to demonstrate the degree to which you get stomped by not having enough armor.
But the issue of tanks being able to simply roll around and not worry much about infantry is a legit one. While I don't know about AV infantry being able to duke it out with tanks, I do believe infantry need something to enable them to "tackle" enemy tanks and prevent them from being able to move. I don't like the idea of one or two guys with swarm launchers downing a multi-million ISK tank, but tanks do need to be encouraged to move with infantry screening them. It is a bit lame the way it works now, but I'd still prefer it if infantry were not the main threat. I like tank vs. tank warfare. |
Cyn Bruin
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 02:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
How about this...
If they "intended" to test Tank v. Tank warfare, how about do it on some other weekend than Corp. v. Corp?
If they "intended" to test Tank v. Tank warfare, how about let the beta communtiy know so it can be prepared?
Communication is best.
|
Avenger 245
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
477
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 02:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
I've suggest they redo the instabattle so it sees what a person most used kill method is and use that to build balwnced teams this way both teams will have w high chance to have well balanced teams. This would mean there would be a much higher chance to have a tank on both teams. |
undeadsoldier92
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 02:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tank combat will always be lopsided in this game... Even when the full client drops. Everyone has to remember that when Player run corps start in this game every game will be decided by who has better armor and who has better pilots. AV is extremely UP when it comes to tanks, like burger mentioned AV personel have to worry about inf and other vehicles taking them down since they will most likely be high priority targets....... If you want to get rid of tanks spend the SP and the ISKso you can build an AV dropsuite and learn the five rules of dodge ball. |
Cyn Bruin
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 02:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
undeadsoldier92 wrote:Tank combat will always be lopsided in this game... If you want to get rid of tanks spend the SP and the ISKso you can build an AV dropsuite and learn the five rules of dodge ball.
Disagree.
Tank combat was decent before the AV nerf. Our squad would seek out enemy to tanks in order to engage them. If you don't have AV they are a game changer. But after the patch, even if you have proto-AV doesnt matter.
The SP/ ISK has been spent, proto-suits (they dropped the hp of them too) and proto weapons dont matter anymore with tanks. A decent Gunloggi or higher can ignore it.
Before nerf... Tank drivers had to be smart with their tanks. They couldnt steamroll into an objective and expect to own it. Now they can again.
Hopefully like CCP stated on IRC, it's temporary.
|
Clone Number 1
Royal Uhlans
Amarr Empire
77
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 02:51:00 -
[9] - Quote
I have a teir 2 suit and proto forge with heavy damage mods I can do some damage but I roll with three sometime four other Ave and we still have a beast of a time taking out tanks. Usually infantry takes us out or the tank and we use a pretty decent lava to bemobile. Not impossible but need another squad so eight people to tank out one tank and half the match to chase him down |
undeadsoldier92
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 03:01:00 -
[10] - Quote
Cyn Bruin wrote:undeadsoldier92 wrote:Tank combat will always be lopsided in this game... If you want to get rid of tanks spend the SP and the ISKso you can build an AV dropsuite and learn the five rules of dodge ball. Disagree. Tank combat was decent before the AV nerf. Our squad would seek out enemy to tanks in order to engage them. If you don't have AV they are a game changer. But after the patch, even if you have proto-AV doesnt matter. The SP/ ISK has been spent, proto-suits (they dropped the hp of them too) and proto weapons dont matter anymore with tanks. A decent Gunloggi or higher can ignore it. Before nerf... Tank drivers had to be smart with their tanks. They couldnt steamroll into an objective and expect to own it. Now they can again. Hopefully like CCP stated on IRC, it's temporary.
valid point however, i still dont have a prob killing a tank. 3 or 4 tanks? no way.... 1 tank sure. You just need to be smart, and not stand around and wait for inf or the tank to take you out. set a trap, dont shoot from the same spot, and make sure to have a class with AV and a class with flux grenades. Also i have had great success with the remote exp.... and if you still cant take out a tank then maybe you should spend SP and ISK to get your own tank and give them something to think about. |
|
|
The dark cloud
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
1060
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 03:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Testing tank warfare? lol the tank with the better fit allmost wins every time. And a tank driver who knows what he is doing doesnt put a large missile turret on top. He goes for railguns cause they do more damage by far and are better for tank vs tank fights. |
Bogart Meecheegun
Doomheim
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 03:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
To be honest, the biggest problem in my mind is the total lack of distinction between AA and AV. That, combined with level design that strongly favors vehicles (there are very few enterable buildings at all, and almost none with any tactically useful features) This means tanks are king, and neither dropships or AV focused infantry can realistically challenge them. Tanks need to cost about twice their current rate and vehicle modules need to be much more expensive. If your tank gets popped, boo hoo, grunt it out for a couple matches. As someone experimenting with dropships I can say I have about zero pity for tankers and their "woes". |
Timothy Reaper
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
321
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 04:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
I was in a corp. battle where the enemy called in multiple tanks (not militia, they spent some money) and our team called in one. And we sent them home crying. Why? Almost the whole team had microphones. Teamwork, people.
TRUST IN RUST |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
583
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 07:15:00 -
[14] - Quote
Last Corp vs Corp battle I was in, enemy brought in 5 tanks throughout the entire match, we brought in none. At the end we had won and they lost 5 tanks.
I don't really see how this is unbalanced. |
Encharrion
L.O.T.I.S.
Legacy Rising
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 08:30:00 -
[15] - Quote
Personally I think it should be that if you fit your tank with anti-personnel weapons, you should be weak to other tanks, and if you fit your tank with anti-vehicle weapons, you're weak to av personnel. This way, AI tank beats infantry, AT tank beats other tanks, and AV infantry beat AT tanks. As it is now, I don't think that the turrets are weak enough in one area or the other. |
Dakir Osaka
Red and Silver Hand
Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 08:47:00 -
[16] - Quote
Love how people are fabricating storys about team X loosing 5 tanks to a team Y who had 0 tanks, in the hope CCP believe they dont need balancing.
I think a limit is definatley needed because if you dont put a limit on them, when Dust finally goes live soon or later alot of players will be pretty well off and it will end up being 12 tanks versus 12 tanks. Everything else in between will have been forgotten (Lavs, Dropships etc) because tanks are effective against everything with very little to threaten them and everyone will spec for them
Do you really want Dust turning into some sort of glorified world of tanks fps? |
Timothy Reaper
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
321
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 16:08:00 -
[17] - Quote
Dakir Osaka wrote:Love how people are fabricating storys about team X loosing 5 tanks to a team Y who had 0 tanks, in the hope CCP believe they dont need balancing.
I think a limit is definatley needed because if you dont put a limit on them, when Dust finally goes live soon or later alot of players will be pretty well off and it will end up being 12 tanks versus 12 tanks. Everything else in between will have been forgotten (Lavs, Dropships etc) because tanks are effective against everything with very little to threaten them and everyone will spec for them
Do you really want Dust turning into some sort of glorified world of tanks fps?
CCP can probably check the records and see who is telling the truth and who's making up stories. Last Tronhadar corp. battle, US server, began a little after 20:00 CDT. |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
583
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 17:14:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dakir Osaka wrote:Love how people are fabricating storys about team X loosing 5 tanks to a team Y who had 0 tanks, in the hope CCP believe they dont need balancing.
I'm terribly sorry you lack the skill necessary to kill said tanks, I'm sure if you were able to, you would know that killing them really isn't all that difficult. However, what would I have to gain by lying? Having CCP nerf tanks even more would just mean even more easy kills for me. However since we're supposed to be testing and giving feedback, I'll be honest and say that current tanks are far from invincible if you have some skill at killing them and a little coordination with your teammates. With the addition of grouping and AV grenades, there is really no excuse to be complaining about vehicles. |
fenrir storm
Tronhadar Free Guard
Minmatar Republic
314
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 17:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
Cyn Bruin wrote:
How about this...
If they "intended" to test Tank v. Tank warfare, how about do it on some other weekend than Corp. v. Corp?
If they "intended" to test Tank v. Tank warfare, how about let the beta communtiy know so it can be prepared?
Communication is best.
you sir win todays prize for most sensible post have a like  |
J'Jor Da'Wg
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
648
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 18:12:00 -
[20] - Quote
Stupid AV nerf is stupid. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |