DUST Search - Tanks are not OP

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.

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


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Philipp Achtel Immobile Infantry 26	Posted - 2013.03.31 00:35:00 - [1] - Quote Sev Alcatraz wrote: I'm maxed shield tanked, I have a 8k sagaris, it's sad when militia swarms send you running...5.6 million sp into Hav means nothing now =\ Edit: if you didn't know tanks had there passive resistant nerf Down to less them 8% Can someone dig up that quote by the devs along the lines of, "We don't want equipment to determine encounters. A skilled player with good gear should beat a skilled player with bad gear, but an unskilled player with good gear should not beat a skilled player with bad gear." The balancing in the game is all about diminishing returns. A militia swarm does 80% of the damange of an advanced swarm by design. You should never be able to say, "Oh, he's just running militia equipment. Nothing to worry about." That would be poor balance. SoTa PoP wrote: Was there a point to this post besides some biased sentiment that your own roll is fine ? AV nades either need there own skill progression with higher SP cost or reduced homing. It's not balanced. 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?
Philipp Achtel Immobile Infantry 28	Posted - 2013.03.31 02:11:00 - [2] - Quote 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.
Philipp Achtel Immobile Infantry 31	Posted - 2013.03.31 12:04:00 - [3] - Quote Otavio Martins wrote: My tank got 1392 shields and 9925 armor and freaking infantry can still destroy it. Quoted to reinforce that tank drivers will never be happy until they are invincible. Actually, not just "unhappy". They will never stop whining and QQing until they are invincible. These are the kind of people the anti-AV squad are fighting for. Is this the "balance" you're looking for?
Philipp Achtel Immobile Infantry 32	Posted - 2013.03.31 19:53:00 - [4] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: Let me translate then. AV nades are a secondary weapon that can be used as a main weapon against very large and expensive toys. This takes away from the necessity or even value of the Forge or Swarm. I.E. could just make it a must that all members need EX-08 AV nades in CB - effectively stopping any tank push with our strong gun game to support it. And it would cost our members next to nothing to set it up ISK and SP wise. That stuff about throwing is mostly untrue - but the homing - even reduced - has made sure my accuracy on throw is almost 100%. When games get larger with more people AV nades are going to show increase effectiveness as more people are able to throw in unison. The only balance to this so far is AV nades suck vs shield. And AV grenades are useless against anything but vehicles. And they take PG and CPU that could be used to fit better modules. And you have to be close enough to throw a grenade near the target. AV grenades are not a substitute for swarms or forge guns. They are a backup primarily useful against LAVs. If you get a squad who are all holding AV grenades within throwing range of a tank, and if that tank is unescorted by infantry, and if the tank has no line of retreat, then you will destroy the tank. This does happen, but eight times out of ten, it's because the tank driver put himself in a vulnerable position or the squad decided to suicide bum rush the tank and managed to get behind it without being noticed. This AV homing vs. not homing argument is a distraction. The tank drivers who want AV nerfed want to be able to waltz around the battlefield with no threats whatsoever because they've convinced themselves that their 2,000,000 ISK tank shouldn't be destroyed by anything other than another 2,000,000 ISK tank. That isn't the way things work in real life, and it's not the way things work here. If you can't deal with that, then the solution is to stop using tanks, not appeal for rule changes in your favor.
Philipp Achtel Immobile Infantry 32	Posted - 2013.03.31 20:08:00 - [5] - Quote SoTa PoP wrote: I am not a tanker. I'm a Heavy. And AV nades carried by all members in a squad is indeed a replacement for main AV weapons. I was using the hypothetical "you". I know you don't run tanks, but you're defending their terrible arguments, and I'm not quire sure why. Anyway, I'm sure you're right. Now that AV grenades exist, I'm sure you've never brought out your forge gun to fire on any enemy vehicle from range. Why would you when you can just walk right up to a Sagaris and take it out with a few AV grenades risk free?
Philipp Achtel Immobile Infantry 32	Posted - 2013.03.31 20:16:00 - [6] - Quote Mavado V Noriega wrote: Ppl complain and QQ about tanks sitting in the redzone yet u want to take away their defensive abilities more and wonder WHY alot of tankers sit in the gayest spots far away then QQ about it. When tanks were actually tanks and could take some hits u never had all this gay hill campin an **** u had ppl moving and supporting infantry but god forbid 1 guy cant solo a tank and cries about it enough to get it where we at today then they complain when they get sniped from the redline from a tank they now have no chance to reach so yea GG community. The only one appealing for rules changes in this thread is you and your cohort. You're the one who wants to take away your adversary's abilities to keep you in check. And not just small damage value tweaks, you want to completely redesign the way two of the three primary anti-vehicle weapons work.
Philipp Achtel Immobile Infantry 32	Posted - 2013.03.31 20:37:00 - [7] - Quote BOZ MR wrote: Do you run tanks ? No. Than stop writing non-sense comments. Yes, clearly only the tank runners are allowed to make nonsense comments in this thread. I think that sums up this thread for me. I've made my points and we're just running in circles.