DUST Search - Common sense question about the tank situation

Ric Barlom wrote:

Jason Pearson wrote:

Ric Barlom wrote:

Jason Pearson wrote:

Tanks need to be able to fit Standard Modules without needing PG/CPU modules.

Once that's done, we need Advanced and Prototype Tanks, as well as Advanced and Prototype Enforcer, Marauder and Covert Ops tanks.

Agreed.

Then there is your answer, that is the only true problem with tanks, against the same level of AV we're able to fight fine, a Standard has a chance to take out a standard fitted tank fine, two standard AVers will win against the Tank 9/10.

I actually told Nova Knife that this was the problem, iirc he said my suggestion was stupid as that wouldn't fix the problem. Because the tanker doesn't have a clue what's wrong with Tanks of course.

Well even though we have pro to infantry AV weapons, a lot of people in this thread still say that tanks is a better better AV than the proto infantry weapons so what you say here is just the partial truth.

But yeah, I do agree that we should be getting the stuff you mentioned. We already know that we will be getting more tanks in the future so that's just a matter of patience though. The PG/CPU issue is a legitimate issue.


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 1571	Posted - 2013.06.03 16:51:00 - [1] - Quote Ric Barlom wrote: You know, guys, first of all let me put it out there that I'm no tanker, I've never played a tank and I probably never will. But there's one thing that I've been wondering for a day or two now, guys. And I'm talking about the tanking situation and the big whining about tanks in general that's been going on around here on Dust 514 forums for quite some time now, man. You see, guys, they say that tanks are weak. They say that tanks are useless. They say tanks should be buffed. Well let me ask the whole community a common sense question here, because quite honestly I can't figure it out myself. And note that this is not an attack against anyone or a trolling thread. Just an honest question. If tanks are indeed so crappy, guys, then why does almost every big corp run tanks in PC matches regularly? Tanks are weak, but as ranged killers, they don't fair so bad. It's like equipping a Militia Suit with a Duvolle tac really, strong enough but will die fast. The issue is price is far more than it should be for such an expensive glass cannon. The reason you see tanks in CBs is simple. Unchecked, a Tank can cause damage, especially when players don't run AV. We bring an additional tanker to counter the enemy tank and to run around being an issue if there is no other tank. Tanks in a CB are usually for Anti Tank though.
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 1571	Posted - 2013.06.03 17:48:00 - [2] - Quote Teams will usually have one tanker each, two if they're confident in their Infantry's ability. If one tank, he will either run Blaster or Rail, usually rail as he is needed for AV, especially in the opening minutes where the enemy may deploy enemy dropships to get to vantage points. If there is no other enemy vehicles, he will either stay with a rail, sniping at a distance (Though good luck with that, the new range for everyone means sniping with a railgun is just bad, as the draw distance on the Infantry is tiny for Tanks.) or he will recall and use a blaster. Now in a competitive environment such as PC, only a few will carry AV grenades or have anyone with AV that's focusing on capturing a point as they prefer to use infantry killers such as Assault Rifles and Locus Grenades, that's when a tank is in it's element, it has nobody to oppose it, that's when they become most deadly. But that would be the same as equipping all your players with Swarm Launchers against a single person with an Assault Rifle. Tanks make good defense vehicles, despite being classified as Heavy Assault Vehicles, they're better suited with a long range blaster (Stabilized) and sitting on a friendly open point. But once again, once AV is used, the vehicle will die or retreat to the redline. Usually this strategy is used when there is no enemy tanks on the field but only a couple of points are in the open. The reason Tankers complain is up against any type of AV, the standard tank will die, and standard is all we have. Militia, we can try to outtank, Standard being the same but more ammo is, again, balanced against Tanks, but once an enemy team deploys Advanced, Prototype or even Officer AV weapons, we die very quickly. As for losses, My Railgun tank costs 1.3million ISK, depending on the match, I usually kill 1-3 Tanks per my Tank, depending on the Corp, and we usually keep bringing tanks in the maintain vehicle superiority, that can be a cost of 1.3mil to 13million per match.
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 1571	Posted - 2013.06.03 17:55:00 - [3] - Quote Tanks need to be able to fit Standard Modules without needing PG/CPU modules. Once that's done, we need Advanced and Prototype Tanks, as well as Advanced and Prototype Enforcer, Marauder and Covert Ops tanks.
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 1571	Posted - 2013.06.03 18:03:00 - [4] - Quote Ric Barlom wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Tanks need to be able to fit Standard Modules without needing PG/CPU modules. Once that's done, we need Advanced and Prototype Tanks, as well as Advanced and Prototype Enforcer, Marauder and Covert Ops tanks. Agreed. Then there is your answer, that is the only true problem with tanks, against the same level of AV we're able to fight fine, a Standard has a chance to take out a standard fitted tank fine, two standard AVers will win against the Tank 9/10. I actually told Nova Knife that this was the problem, iirc he said my suggestion was stupid as that wouldn't fix the problem. Because the tanker doesn't have a clue what's wrong with Tanks of course.
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 1571	Posted - 2013.06.03 18:24:00 - [5] - Quote Ric Barlom wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Ric Barlom wrote: Jason Pearson wrote: Tanks need to be able to fit Standard Modules without needing PG/CPU modules. Once that's done, we need Advanced and Prototype Tanks, as well as Advanced and Prototype Enforcer, Marauder and Covert Ops tanks. Agreed. Then there is your answer, that is the only true problem with tanks, against the same level of AV we're able to fight fine, a Standard has a chance to take out a standard fitted tank fine, two standard AVers will win against the Tank 9/10. I actually told Nova Knife that this was the problem, iirc he said my suggestion was stupid as that wouldn't fix the problem. Because the tanker doesn't have a clue what's wrong with Tanks of course. Well even though we have pro to infantry AV weapons, a lot of people in this thread still say that tanks is a better better AV than the proto infantry weapons so what you say here is just the partial truth. But yeah, I do agree that we should be getting the stuff you mentioned. We already know that we will be getting more tanks in the future so that's just a matter of patience though. The PG/CPU issue is a legitimate issue. Partial truth? Nay, the truth is the Prototype/Officer Forge Guns are just as good, if not better, than the prototype railguns. The Proto swarm launchers are amazing against Armor vehicles, more damage per volley than a prototype missile launcher. The Plasma Cannon is ridiculously UP, I laugh at it whenever I see it. AV Grenades do more damage/DPS than any other on the field, ridiculously strong, needs to be balanced. Overall, yes the tanks fair better at Tank killing, but we must remember, we're using prototype weapons against a standard vehicle, ofcourse they're going to rip apart other tanks. I want nothing more than vehicles to be balanced but I've mostly stopped playing PC battles due to my inability to contribute other than sitting on a mountain sniping other tanks, it's not fun. Currently speccin into forge guns.
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 1571	Posted - 2013.06.03 19:13:00 - [6] - Quote Whallace wrote: I agree that we need advanced and prototype tanks to be on par with AV. however, I don't think the price of tanks can be ignored. if a standard tank costs 500-700k, how much will a prototype cost? 20M? tanks being squishy are fine, just don't make playing them cause a dedicated tanker to go negative Isk. -whallace A smart option would to be keep tanks at the current price, reduce the standard specialization to just double of the current standard, something like Standard = 200k Enforcer/Marauder = 400k Advanced = 400k Enforcer/Marauder = 800k Prototype = 800k Enforcer/Marauder = 1.6mil Something along those lines. (This is just hull alone, so a Prototype Marauder would cost 2.6mil for just the hull and turret.)
Jason Pearson Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 1575	Posted - 2013.06.03 21:36:00 - [7] - Quote Jammer Jalapeno wrote: S0LlD SNAKE wrote: what i hate about tanks is that they camp in the red zone on a hill and i cant go there to destroy it if i fire swarms he gets one round but the second time he hides behind the hill and i cant do sht about it My squad never has this problem, we will catch you! As for the tanks it all depends on your team, if you have no infantry support your screwed. Your two gunners make the difference as well. Not really. I despise gunners in my tank, and actively run away from them. They would be more useful guarding the flanks of my tank with their ARs rather than sitting inside my missile turret giving away my position all the time. "OH LOOK THE SKY" BOOM BOOM BOOM, BOOM BOOM BOOM Shush, I'm trying to sneak up on that enemy tank, if he hears us he's going to kill us all "lolol who cares, it's not like you own the vehicle or anything" (Actual mail when I mailed someone and told them to get out of my tank, how can it be yours if they just spawn on the ground?) I mean, people actually shoot at my tank with their AR, thinking I'd stop for them, lol, no.