Which is why I liked the last build alot, tanks didnt murder everything quickly HAV pilots acutally had to upgrade thier guns.

This isn't true at all. Tanks were way more powerful last build by pure math. Just proving it's not the numbers that are causing the most problems.

Why? The dropship is the equivalent of a transport helicopter with two door gunners, not the Dust analogue of an attack helicopter.

As I see it, the tank is currently missing its natural peditor, the gunship. Modern tanks fear the A-10 which can cut them in half with depleted uranium slugs from its Gatling gun. Then there are precision bombers who scream in before a tank can find cover and drop guided munitions that can take them out in one punch. DUST has no equivalent, and without a natural preditor this beast multiplies until it consumes all its food source.

I am hoping to see one of these natural preditors introduced in the next build. Then (if the gunship doesn't just replace the tank as a good for everything role), we will see a balance.

Are you stupid? The tank stops moving and he can survive long enough to still get out of there and boost the shields back to normal just by going to the edge of the map simply because he's got a faster top speed than the freaggin Scout suits

Tanks are expensive. Even with militia builds there expensive. Some people dont have the money to buy tanks to counter tanks. When the only counter to tanks is tanks, theres no reason to skill anything else.

As I have always said you dont have to nerf tanks to balance them. Just make War points match dependent.

You start with 0 war points then you gain them for preforming tasks during the match. This causes the match to escalate instead of having it start with 5 tanks and one team getting steam rolled.

I like to cite Tribes Ascend as an example. You Earn the ability to deploy tanks shrikes, supply depots and orbital strikes and air strikes. You dont start the match with them you earn them.

I say just make them slower in both speed and weapon turning. That OR bring out some specific AV grenades that don't do damage but rather cut down the speed or cut out barriers. Seriously. Just make these grenades fairly expensive, so that Mercs can't just throw them like hot potatoes, and I believe that's all we need.

I'd be fine with a turret damage reduction across the board(again) but with an HP increase there have been several times today where militia swarms have gotten through my shields when there were 3 people shooting at me(which is appropriate because 3 people fit in a tank) tanks are fine maybe they reach there top speed too quickly but there HP isn't the problem maybe the regen is but not the hp I often go around 20-0 in a round with my tank and range from 30-80k sp depending on how many RDV's I kill in said round. pretty much suck it up tanks were worse last build.

your reading 'dropship' too literally; read Skihids' post for essentially what was meant:

Yes, you can carry a couple team mates around and hand them assists, but you don't require them. Each of them can call in their own and run along with you, or pick up a gun and kill the AV guy before he can get close to you.

Right now a tank is the equivalent of a super duper heavy proto suit that one man can strap on. It has superior armor, shields, rep, mobility, CPU, PG, and weapon slots than any other suit you could possibly build. It is faster than a scout, has more HP than a dozen heavies, more rep, and a gun that's over a magnitude better than anything a heavy can carry, and it never runs out of ammunition. Other than not being able to hack, having a large hitbox, and being swarm lockable, there is no downside.

I'm still waiting for a tanker to debate this point with me.

and just think about what your saying for a minute if there was an uber downside that would let an infantry men kill a tank why would tanks have been invented?

In World War I the German Empire developed the Patrone SmK Kurz 7.92mm for the Gewehr 98 which could penetrate up to 12-13mm of armor at 100m, the British Mk I-Mk III tanks had 12mm of armor. In June 1917 the UK came out with the Mk IV which rendered it useless by using a better steel but still keeping 12mm thickness, the Germans responded a year later with the Mauser 1918 and it's 13.2mm Tank und Flieger which could penetrate 22mm of the higher grade steel at 91m and 19mm at 500m.

In WW2 the very first of the Panzerfaust, Faustpatrone, could penetrate up to 140mm of RHA and was available in 1942. The earliest US and Soviet tanks to be able to laugh off a direct hit to the front glacis plate (the most heavily armored part) were the M60 Patton that was made in 1960 and the T-64 in '63. The Germans also had by 1944 the Panzerfaust 60, which could penetrate up to 220mm of armor. The Soviets being ahead of us in armor schemes up until recently were able to beat it with the T-64, we didn't have one until 1979 when we made the Abrams.

And it has been this way ever since, offensive abilities always outpace defensive ones. So, yes, whilst the tank has been the fear of the infantryman, that is only because it is impractical for a sufficient number of troops to be equipped with the latest of anti-tank weaponry, the ones that were equipped with the latest in anti-tank weapons, however, were capable of destroying tanks with hilarious ease such that even an RPG-7 with a PG-7VT tandem warhead was capable of crippling the most heavily armored tank in the world with a single shot as was such when in 2003 Iraqi insurgents knocked out an Abrams by hitting it in a left-side rear panel and a man portable Metis-M ATGM can penetrate the armor of an Abrams from any angle.

lack of mobility is a downside there are a lot of spots tanks can't go. well shouldn't I know it's fun taking a joyride down the side of a mountain. and just think about what your saying for a minute if there was an uber downside that would let an infantry men kill a tank why would tanks have been invented? arn't tanks supost to dominate infantry? maybe the heavy needs something like in Valkyria Chronicles where Lancers(AV Units) had explosive resistant armor(some weird thing that lets you survive multiple tank shells to the face) I donno I don't think there is much trouble from what I gathered on this thread 11 shots from a forge gun kills a tank sounds like a lot but when you have 3 guys thats around 4 shots each think the charge up is 3 sec each shot so in 12 sec the tank goes from full hp to empty.

I already acknowledged that this super duper Titan suit is too large to go everywhere, but it can go just about everywhere that matters and faster than a scout to boot so that's hardly a limitation that matters.

What I want is either a recognition from a tank driver that he basically has a Titan suit or a convincing refutation.

I haven't gotten either so far, just side tracking. What say you to my question?

I think a lot of this will be fixed when we can create teams instead of 4 man squads and there is a larger form of organization! I know that the TCD would not have issues due to the way we communicate with each other. Right now teaming is gimped in my perspective.

In World War I the German Empire developed the Patrone SmK Kurz 7.92mm for the Gewehr 98 which could penetrate up to 12-13mm of armor at 100m, the British Mk I-Mk III tanks had 12mm of armor. In June 1917 the UK came out with the Mk IV which rendered it useless by using a better steel but still keeping 12mm thickness, the Germans responded a year later with the Mauser 1918 and it's 13.2mm Tank und Flieger which could penetrate 22mm of the higher grade steel at 91m and 19mm at 500m.

In WW2 the very first of the Panzerfaust, Faustpatrone, could penetrate up to 140mm of RHA and was available in 1942. The earliest US and Soviet tanks to be able to laugh off a direct hit to the front glacis plate (the most heavily armored part) were the M60 Patton that was made in 1960 and the T-64 in '63. The Germans also had by 1944 the Panzerfaust 60, which could penetrate up to 220mm of armor. The Soviets being ahead of us in armor schemes up until recently were able to beat it with the T-64, we didn't have one until 1979 when we made the Abrams.

And this has always been the case throughout human history, offensive abilities always outpace defensive ones. So, yes, whilst the tank has been the fear of the infantryman, that is only because it is impractical for a sufficient number of troops to be equipped with the latest of anti-tank weaponry, the ones that were equipped with the latest in anti-tank weapons, however, were capable of destroying tanks with hilarious ease such that even an RPG-7 with a PG-7VT tandem warhead was capable of crippling the most heavily armored tank in the world with a single shot as was such when in 2003 Iraqi insurgents knocked out an Abrams by hitting it in a left-side rear panel and a man portable Metis-M ATGM can penetrate the armor of an Abrams from any angle.

The same thing I always say, the problem is the maps, not the stats. The turrets are a bit too multipurpose, but fundamentally the mobility restrictions (separate from limitations) are not sufficient. Who builds a hyper-expensive space defense facility and then leaves the command console for the gun outside?

I already acknowledged that this super duper Titan suit is too large to go everywhere, but it can go just about everywhere that matters and faster than a scout to boot so that's hardly a limitation that matters.

What I want is either a recognition from a tank driver that he basically has a Titan suit or a convincing refutation.

I haven't gotten either so far, just side tracking. What say you to my question?

So you agree that it's a one man Titan and believe that the only limitation that power needs is but more map restrictio?

How much of the map should it have access to?

well then let me have a crack at refuting it.

1. it's not upright it's laying down
2. it's on wheels
3. 3 people can fit in the tank
4. lets see you outrun a tank going at 1/2 speed to (compensate for you not running as fast as a scout suit)(yes the acceleration is a little too high right now but not the speed)