| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Thor Thunder Fist
Better Hide R Die
79
   |
Posted - 2012.09.12 01:25:00 -
[91] - Quote
Goric Rumis wrote:Thor Thunder Fist wrote:Skihids wrote: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?
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) So what you're saying is...it's like a super dropsuit, but better? That doesn't sound like a refutation.
no I'm saying it's not a suit..... |
Sparten 269
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 03:52:00 -
[92] - Quote
Wolf Ritter vonKaldari wrote:Thor Thunder Fist wrote: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 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.
Oh yeah, forgot we were talking about old and modern tanks not futuristic supertanks!
|
STB Vermaak Doe
558
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 04:04:00 -
[93] - Quote
Sparten 269 wrote:Wolf Ritter vonKaldari wrote:Thor Thunder Fist wrote: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 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. Oh yeah, forgot we were talking about old and modern tanks not futuristic supertanks!
And like he said, with futuristic tanks comes futuristic weapons that currently don't do **** |
Encharrion
L.O.T.I.S.
Legacy Rising
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 04:58:00 -
[94] - Quote
The map in the OP is wrong.
It isn't
100% - ( (resist 1) + (resist 2)(0.87) + (resist 3)(0.57) + (resist 4)(0.28) + (damage control unit) ) = damage taken
It actually is
(100%) (100% - resist 1) (100% - (resist 2) (0.87) ) (100% - (resist 3) (0.57) ) (100% - (resist 4) (0.28) ) (100% - damage control unit) = damage taken
Essentially, if my resists are set up to reduce my damage by 25%, so that if I would take 4 points of damage I would instead take 3, and then I add a damage control unit that reduces damage by 14%, It does NOT remove 14% of the first 4 points of damage, it cuts the 3 points of damage by 14%. Resists are added sequentially, NOT simultaneously. |
RedBleach
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 08:19:00 -
[95] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Why do people want to change the dynamics so a tank is destroyed faster but still destroys everything very quickly while it is alive? Wouldn't it be more interesting for the tanker and the infantry if the battles lasted longer and gave room for more tactics by balancing the turrets and terrain instead?
TLDR tanks don't necessarily need to die more. They need to be more fun to play against.
That is the best point I've heard yet. UNNERF the suits, Rebuild them, make some shield bubble grenades (one way - to shoot out of), etc. just do something to make it fun.
It is fun to kill a tank, I've done it once on this recent build. it took 9 AV grenades, I was behind a crate, open sky, tank right in front of me and I was standing on a nanohive... it was pandemonium. A one time deal, I'm sure. |
RedBleach
50
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 08:26:00 -
[96] - Quote
Roy Ventus wrote: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 take it that you take down tanks all the time then? |
Laurent Cazaderon
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
1155
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 10:27:00 -
[97] - Quote
Mavado V Noriega wrote:well ive been sayin all along its not all tanks in general that are OP its just the shield tanks
swarms are more readily available and any suit can use em so armor tanks honestly arent a big of a deal
Yes, as shield tanking is way too efficient compared to Armor Tanking. For vehicles OR infantry as a matter of fact.
See the post i started on that. |
Wolf Ritter vonKaldari
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
97
|
Posted - 2012.09.12 17:35:00 -
[98] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Saying you can blow up an Abrams with an RPG-7 is just asinine. A well placed hit will disrupt the treads. That's quite a bit less impressive than actually destroying such a monster..
The instance in 2003 did not cause the tank to throw a track, as I said it was a shot to the rear side of the tank which hit a fuel compartment which proceeded to flood the engine.
Thor Thunder Fist wrote:unless I am mistaken(which I might be I wasn't there) 1 person didn't shoot an RPG at a tank it was a squad of people ambushing said tank. another thing I'm also betting that they didn't shoot their AR's at the tank then wonder why it turned around and killed them -.-
You are mistaken, you're thinking of different incidents (probably one where the open hatch directed fragments into the crew compartment) involving standard PG-7V and PG-7VL warhead which an Abrams can take all day, the incident I'm speaking of involved the use of a much more advanced PG-7VR tandem warhead.
Sparten 269 wrote:Oh yeah, forgot we were talking about old and modern tanks not futuristic supertanks!
Oh yeah, I forgot the denizens of New Eden are blithering ******* retards whose weapons don't utilize the more advance manufacturing processes, chemical and material advances, or handwavium that the tanks do. How silly of me to assume EVE and Dust had a consistent background. I mean it's not as if you could have AT missiles with shield projectors of their own with their shields geometrically orientated specifically to bypass shields and penetrate armor. That'd make too much sense. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |