Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
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? |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1571
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 16:51:00 -
[2] - 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. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries CRONOS.
283
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:05:00 -
[3] - 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. |
Cpt Merdock
Ninth Legion Freelance
6
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
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. |
Knight SoIaire
Better Hide R Die D.E.F.I.A.N.C.E
708
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:08:00 -
[5] - Quote
They're a big distraction.
If an enemy has to take out AV to deal with an enemy tank, thats one less anti-infantry player my teammates have to deal with.
Plus, a Rail tank is the best counter for tanks, 2 Shots from a Compressed Particle and they're dead (Shield tanks anyway) |
S0LlD SNAKE
PLAYSTATION4
93
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
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 |
Sinboto Simmons
SVER True Blood Unclaimed.
203
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
Common sense doesn't belong in video games get out before you break reality!!!
for your question it's the most effective way to suppress hostiles and blow things up should they be used in tandem with infantry. |
gbghg
L.O.T.I.S. RISE of LEGION
1989
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
As a rule L.OT.I.S. runs at least one tank in every PC battle, the reason is it can check pretty much any enemy vehicles, it can neutralize installations, and it forces several members of the enemy team to switch to AV fits, reducing how effective they are overall at fighting infantry.
We also tend to run 1 dropship as well for a quick push at the beginning, plus ADS also force the enemy to run AV and they can be a decent annoyance to tanks. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
576
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
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 and mine are cheap for PC matches if I used the enforcer HAV just 10x the price. the most infantry loses is a mil and a half. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries CRONOS.
283
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:22:00 -
[10] - 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 -
[11] - 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. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1855
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
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. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
4848
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
The overall problem with tanks is that tanks is they don't feel tanky enough, I seen a few tanks (militia or standard) die near instantly.
However I am really afraid to see the return of the 'immortal' tank. Making them too tanky can create a situation where you cannot damage them sufficiently even with an AV team to overcome their ability to repair.
Hell there was once upon a time a tank that after eating prototype forge gun shots was still out regenerating shields faster than the guys can recharge to shoot it. They also all mountain camped those times too and made it nearly unfeasible to kill any of them. But that was way back when. Lets talk about now.
As for tank roles they're good for infantry suppression/squad support, structure destruction and anti-vehicle or LAV deterrent as far as I can see on the field atm. I don't see any other good roles for it.
and yes I need you guys to talk to me because I am pretty sure that one pitched idea from CCP about a module with 5 minute cooldown was totally not cool on any level regardless of what *NDA* does. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries CRONOS.
283
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:31:00 -
[14] - 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? |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1855
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:32:00 -
[15] - Quote
Iron Wolf Saber wrote:The overall problem with tanks is that tanks is they don't feel tanky enough, I seen a few tanks (militia or standard) die near instantly.
However I am really afraid to see the return of the 'immortal' tank. Making them too tanky can create a situation where you cannot damage them sufficiently even with an AV team to overcome their ability to repair.
Hell there was once upon a time a tank that after eating prototype forge gun shots was still out regenerating shields faster than the guys can recharge to shoot it. They also all mountain camped those times too and made it nearly unfeasible to kill any of them. But that was way back when. Lets talk about now.
As for tank roles they're good for infantry suppression/squad support, structure destruction and anti-vehicle or LAV deterrent as far as I can see on the field atm. I don't see any other good roles for it.
and yes I need you guys to talk to me because I am pretty sure that one pitched idea from CCP about a module with 5 minute cooldown was totally not cool on any level regardless of what *NDA* does.
Actually that module would be totally okay. I'd just recall it and get a new one, ignoring the limitation. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects Negative-Feedback
1855
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ric Barlom wrote: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?
Honestly, that is more about habits die hard, and with the new system people can't run a vehicle AND a dropsuit. It has more to do with players making themselves useful than tanks doing anything important as a function of their abilities. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries CRONOS.
283
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:37:00 -
[17] - 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. |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1571
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:48:00 -
[18] - 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. |
Krythor Motrec
Queen ind.
9
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:51:00 -
[19] - Quote
I run tanks. It does not bother me if they get blasted. Hell even today Infantry can take out a tank with one shot when equiped irl. Tanks are fine in Dust. |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1571
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:55:00 -
[20] - 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. |
|
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries CRONOS.
284
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 17:56:00 -
[21] - 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. |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1571
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:03:00 -
[22] - 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. |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries CRONOS.
284
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:12:00 -
[23] - 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. |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1571
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:24:00 -
[24] - 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. |
Iron Wolf Saber
Den of Swords
4848
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:38:00 -
[25] - Quote
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. |
ladwar
Dead Six Initiative Lokun Listamenn
576
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:46:00 -
[26] - 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. is that in 1884 money or current? because if that's current I have some rockets to buy |
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries CRONOS.
285
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:47:00 -
[27] - 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. |
Whallace
DIOS EX. Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 18:55:00 -
[28] - Quote
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 |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1571
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 19:13:00 -
[29] - 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.) |
Djheffer
O.Q.R.D.
16
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 19:23:00 -
[30] - Quote
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. |
|
Ric Barlom
Seraphim Auxiliaries CRONOS.
290
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:12:00 -
[31] - 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. |
Jammer Jalapeno
BIG BAD W0LVES Eternal Syndicate
7
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:19:00 -
[32] - Quote
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. |
Jason Pearson
Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS.
1575
|
Posted - 2013.06.03 21:36:00 -
[33] - 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. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |