DUST Search - Tanks are not OP

SoTa PoP wrote:

Philipp Achtel wrote:

SoTa PoP wrote:

Philipp Achtel wrote:

I would think a more experienced player would have more perspective than this, but I suppose not. Where exactly should the balance be, do you figure? Exactly how much SP should it cost to "balance" AV grenades against tanks? When will the balancing be enough?

The answer is there is no exact amount, and it will never be enough. Tank drivers will always whine about AV grenades because that's something that works. They will continue to whine as long as AV grenades are at all effective.

How about instead of going on and on about nerf this nerf that, you adapt to the tools you have and the tools your enemy has?

? What? Who says I have problems killing or being a tanker? I've stated several times how it's unbalanced - it's up to you to read. A dumb version would be : Too little SP cost and ISK cost for the hefty effect it has on the largest SP/ISK toys in the game. My perspective is a heavy - the player base who hates the tankers the most. It's almost there - fact that it takes 2 people at least to take down a decent tanker is proof that there's balance.

Do you understand what the word "exactly" means? I hope you do. The point you're completely ignoring, and I guess I have to say again word for word, "The answer is there is no exact amount, and it will never be enough. Tank drivers will always whine about AV grenades because that's something that works. They will continue to whine as long as AV grenades are at all effective."

Sev Alcatraz wrote:

I want you to run head on to a c-2 leopard and throw a Grenade at it, tell me how it goes

A fuking grenade should do the damage it does to a TANK a 1/4 lb object vs a 120,000 lb tank
I see no balance

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to make a comparison to real life, as if "balance" between weapon systems is something that exists anywhere other than a video game.

But fine, I'll bite. Have you ever heard of a land mine? Have you ever heard of an improvised explosive device? Light, cheap weapons destroy big, heavy expensive weapons all the time. Your argument is that a grenade should not be able to destroy a tank because it weighs less? What?

SoTaPoP, here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and the caliber of minds with which you're choosing to align yourself.

lmao. Real life doesn't imply to this game, indeed. He should of said, however, that explosives aimed at taking out tanks do so by aiming at certan parts of the tanks - depending on the type. Most would have weakness below there tracks - mine takes care of mobility and makes a tank worthless, while a nade would be tossed as closely underneath the tracks as possible so the explosionwould be greater against the armor and floor, creating greater pressure to tear through tracks and other weak points.. we have nothing like that in dust, instead we have the RPG element of dmg vs consequence. And it's by that idea I call AV nades imbalance. the consequence compared to effect doesn't match up like most other gears do.

I could supply one side of a CB with the best AV nades in the game by myself if they could use it - a single tank would probably cost more then that entire expense. My side wouldn't even need to grind very much to be able to use the nade - maybe a singe day. Tankers on the other hand spend months gathering the SP to be effective.

And thanks for your compliment btw


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 2254	Posted - 2013.03.31 04:31:00 - [1] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: Philipp Achtel wrote: SoTa PoP wrote: Philipp Achtel wrote: I would think a more experienced player would have more perspective than this, but I suppose not. Where exactly should the balance be, do you figure? Exactly how much SP should it cost to "balance" AV grenades against tanks? When will the balancing be enough? The answer is there is no exact amount, and it will never be enough. Tank drivers will always whine about AV grenades because that's something that works. They will continue to whine as long as AV grenades are at all effective. How about instead of going on and on about nerf this nerf that, you adapt to the tools you have and the tools your enemy has? ? What? Who says I have problems killing or being a tanker? I've stated several times how it's unbalanced - it's up to you to read. A dumb version would be : Too little SP cost and ISK cost for the hefty effect it has on the largest SP/ISK toys in the game. My perspective is a heavy - the player base who hates the tankers the most. It's almost there - fact that it takes 2 people at least to take down a decent tanker is proof that there's balance. Do you understand what the word "exactly" means? I hope you do. The point you're completely ignoring, and I guess I have to say again word for word, "The answer is there is no exact amount, and it will never be enough. Tank drivers will always whine about AV grenades because that's something that works. They will continue to whine as long as AV grenades are at all effective." Sev Alcatraz wrote: I want you to run head on to a c-2 leopard and throw a Grenade at it, tell me how it goes A fuking grenade should do the damage it does to a TANK a 1/4 lb object vs a 120,000 lb tank I see no balance I was wondering how long it would take for someone to make a comparison to real life, as if "balance" between weapon systems is something that exists anywhere other than a video game. But fine, I'll bite. Have you ever heard of a land mine? Have you ever heard of an improvised explosive device? Light, cheap weapons destroy big, heavy expensive weapons all the time. Your argument is that a grenade should not be able to destroy a tank because it weighs less? SoTaPoP, here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about and the caliber of minds with which you're choosing to align yourself. lmao. Real life doesn't imply to this game, indeed. He should of said, however, that explosives aimed at taking out tanks do so by aiming at certan parts of the tanks - depending on the type. Most would have weakness below there tracks - mine takes care of mobility and makes a tank worthless, while a nade would be tossed as closely underneath the tracks as possible so the explosionwould be greater against the armor and floor, creating greater pressure to tear through tracks and other weak points.. we have nothing like that in dust, instead we have the RPG element of dmg vs consequence. And it's by that idea I call AV nades imbalance. the consequence compared to effect doesn't match up like most other gears do. I could supply one side of a CB with the best AV nades in the game by myself if they could use it - a single tank would probably cost more then that entire expense. My side wouldn't even need to grind very much to be able to use the nade - maybe a singe day. Tankers on the other hand spend months gathering the SP to be effective. And thanks for your compliment btw So there's no consequence when you bring AV nades? Tell me again how effective your AV Grenades are against infantry... EDIT: Also, OP is complaining that a tank fitted specifcially to DEAL damage, not to survive it, is functioning in exactly the manner it was designed - it's a "glass cannon" fitting, it's going to react like it's made of glass. When someone hits it, you're going to shatter.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 2313	Posted - 2013.04.01 10:50:00 - [2] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: If you cannot hit a HAV which is a ******* massive target without needing help from a gimmick mechanic then go biomass yourself now If you can consistently land a slow-moving projectile with a variable parabolic trajectory directly on a target moving more than double the speed of the best speed-tanked Prototype Scout, you have my permission to come here and try to biomass me.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 2313	Posted - 2013.04.01 11:22:00 - [3] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: I will never agree with the mechanism It makes it far too easy to cause damage to tanks with little risk I have infantry hiding somewhere where i cannot hit in a million years and they just spam them from cover and it looks like the nades are nowhere near my tank then it seeks and hits me The seeking distance is huge it seems It doesn't feel NEARLY as huge from the perspective of the guy throwing it, although I actually agree that the activation range is wider than I think it should be. But scaling the tracking down is a good idea, removing it completely is a terrible one.
Garrett Blacknova Codex Troopers 2321	Posted - 2013.04.01 18:25:00 - [4] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Laheon wrote: It's really not - only a couple of metres. And that's why you have infantry support. Tanks aren't meant to lone wolf it. Infantry supports the tanks, and tanks support the infantry. Your infantry should have run in and either flushed them out or taken them out. Couple of metres lolno More like 10m AV nades are so easy to use and quick aswell, infantry can be sent in but if that tank is ther just keep lobbing nades because it will die at the rate you can spam them Feels like 10m when you're in the tank. Feels like 2m when you're on foot. I'm pretty sure it's somewhere in between the two, but like I said, I agree the tracking radius is too large. It's a mecahnic that needs WORK, not total abandonment. If they adjust the tracking range, then it'll shift away from being a "fire and forget" weapon and closer to being skill-based. But my earlier comment still stands in defense of having some measure of tracking. You're trying to land a small, relatively slow-moving projectile DIRECTLY onto a target that's moving at least twice the speed of the fastest possible speed-tanked Proto Scout. That's going to make AV Grenades unusable.