|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries
CRONOS.
281
   |
Posted - 2013.06.03 16:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
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? |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries
CRONOS.
283
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:05:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jason Pearson wrote:
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.
Well if you think about the price, I don't think there's a huge difference between a tanker and an infantry on a PC match, because let's face it, infantry dies A LOT more. That combined with the price of the clones and the additional expenses of the dead infantry add up real quickly. Should the prices be adjusted? You'd know that better than I do, man, but I don't think there's a huge difference at the end of the day
Other than the price and based on your description on why people bring tanks in, it seems to me like tanks are working as intended. It's strong enough to cause damage and therefor strong to enough to require a hard counter on the battlefield. That's not something we can say about many of the other roles we have in Dust. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries
CRONOS.
283
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Cpt Merdock wrote:for anti tank? Well..if the other team didnt use tanks then you wouldnt need them, but they do. You kinda just proved his point there.
So let me get this right.... You're saying that tanks are useless other than as ANTI tanks, right? Well if the enemy tanks is useless why would you need to counter it? |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries
CRONOS.
283
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
ladwar wrote:Ric Barlom wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:
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.
Well if you think about the price, I don't think there's a huge difference between a tanker and an infantry on a PC match, because let's face it, infantry dies A LOT more. That combined with the price of the clones and the additional expenses of the dead infantry add up real quickly. Should the prices be adjusted? You'd know that better than I do, man, but I don't think there's a huge difference at the end of the day Other than the price and based on your description on why people bring tanks in, it seems to me like tanks are working as intended. It's strong enough to cause damage and therefor strong to enough to require a hard counter on the battlefield. That's not something we can say about many of the other roles we have in Dust. my HAV for PC cost ~800k I on a bad match I might lose 2-3mil. the most infantry loses is a mil and a half.
Well in a bad match I lose about 10 infantry suits. You're right: It's about 1,5 million in total. But now go ahead and add up the cost for those extra 7 clones that I used and it's a total different ballgame. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries
CRONOS.
283
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:Ric Barlom wrote:Cpt Merdock wrote:for anti tank? Well..if the other team didnt use tanks then you wouldnt need them, but they do. You kinda just proved his point there. So let me get this right.... You're saying that tanks are useless other than as ANTI tanks, right? Well if the enemy tanks is useless why would you need to counter it? Because they can do annoying things. Not game-changing, but annoying.
Well annoying enough for all major corps to bring in a tank regularly in a PC match. Do you think that any ONE player should be able to bring in something "game changing" because he happens to play a role that is supposed to bring in something game changing to a match?
What I've gathered so far is that tanks can do a lot of damage if let alone. They are a big distraction and annoyance. The best most effective way to suppress the enemy. AND they are also best at taking out other tanks and installations. Seems to me like they are working as intended.
What else would you have tanks do effectively? |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries
CRONOS.
283
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:The overall problem with tanks is that tanks is they don't feel tanky enough
Well let me just put it out there for you guys that there has never been in human history a battlefield situation where a "tanky tank" is utilised effectively in a role where the tank charges the enemy, soaking up anti vehicle fire while mowing down people. It just doesn't work like that. AV stands for anti vehicle and that's what AV weapons do: They destroy vehicles, armored or not armored.
Now I understand it's a video game and when people think about "tanks" they think about something that can take a lot of damage and that's all well and dandy. Just note that the "tanky" tank variant isn't in the game at the moment but it's coming at some point down the line. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries
CRONOS.
284
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
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. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries
CRONOS.
284
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
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. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries
CRONOS.
285
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:Ric Barlom wrote:Iron Wolf Saber wrote:The overall problem with tanks is that tanks is they don't feel tanky enough Well let me just put it out there for you guys that there has never been in human history a battlefield situation where a "tanky tank" is utilised effectively in a role where the tank charges the enemy, soaking up anti vehicle fire while mowing down people. It just doesn't work like that. AV stands for anti vehicle and that's what AV weapons do: They destroy vehicles, armored or not armored. Now I understand it's a video game, man, and when people think about "tanks" they think about something that can take a lot of damage and that's all well and dandy. Just note that the "tanky" tank variant isn't in the game at the moment but it's coming at some point down the line. Let me tell you about the time that 500$ rocket almost made the tank extinct.
Go ahead, bro. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries
CRONOS.
290
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:12:00 -
[10] - Quote
Djheffer wrote:Ric Barlom wrote:Jason Pearson wrote:
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.
Well if you think about the price, I don't think there's a huge difference between a tanker and an infantry on a PC match, because let's face it, infantry dies A LOT more. That combined with the price of the clones and the additional expenses of the dead infantry add up real quickly. Should the prices be adjusted? You'd know that better than I do, man, but I don't think there's a huge difference at the end of the day. A cheap tank is only 800k, my nice tank costs 2.4 mil. How many of your best suits does it take to compete with losing a nice tank? .... or two 8( Also, you mentioned the clone cost, but if that was really an issue I would think snipers would be dominating PC.
No, I didn't make the cost to be a huge issue. I just answered the cost argument, man. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|