Ladies and gents, the shining example of what is wrong with people in this game, right here in a single post for everyones viewing displeasure. Stop trying to make this armor vs infantry vs air. It's a combined arms game. Start thinking like that.
Infantry: Armor can farm us, nerf it! Armor: Infantry can farm us, nerf them! Or how about you work together towards the common objective like this game is meant to be played. As it stands, outfit play involves 99% infantry because air/armor are utterly outmatched and almost useless in helping the team take objectives. It's almost always more benefitial for the armor users to run infantry instead and have to be a coward in the middle of a field somewhere hiding behind hills to avoid being OBLITERATED by the enemy. You're literally not helping at all. You can accuse armor of just 'farming infantry and getting 30+ KDR' all you want, but it doesn't take away from the UNDENIABLE FACT that those idiots don't help their cause at all. They are REQUIRED to be in a low-intensity conflict zone to avoid being VAPORIZED by the enemy instantly. This needs to change, and one of the first ways, is to make it harder for infantry to just demolish tanks (nerf C4 so armor can actually assist in objective taking instead of hide from the inevitable drop pod suicide C4'ers) We can talk about ways to dissuade armor farming infantry like lowering score per hour for kills on infantry (as kills have nothing to do with skill at all in this game, score per hour is a much better indicator) by lowering the per kill score and increasing the per kill score for armor kills etc.
Well done and the one other person who wasn't able to work out how what you just said doesn't make any sense. If the overall statistics show a tiny fraction of tank kills, in fact the smallest percent of tanks kills are by C4 and then someone posts up their own stats showing half their kills are by C4, what does that say? It says a) that it is anecdotal evidence and doesn't match up with the overall statistics and b) they suck - they continually get killed by C4 whereas the rest of us don't meaning they can't learn what they are doing wrong and overcome it. So how exactly have I shot myself in the foot again?
1. I will never agree that flying up to a distracted tank and C4ing it takes more skill than keeping a defensively weak MBT like the Prowler , which has no real special defensive active/passive abilities to keep it alive like the Magrider or Vanguard, alive in a large platoons verse platoons battle. 2. I would be willing to give it a 5-10% penalty against AP rounds, or have it not cover the back of the MBT to keep that area weak. There's no way small arms fire should ever damage a tank since that's completely ludicrous and goes against being in a tank all together. Personally I think MBT's should have Composite Armor/ Blockade Armor like the Harasser or Sunderer. Those abilities protect against C4 and are balanced, and have no weakness other than your giving up the abilities to use something else valuable. But hey it's an important first step that you are willing to compromise.
If you can't see the similarities between the arguments these two sets of players are making you need to seriously hone your reading comprehension skills. Both C4 and ESF's have/had Instagib mechanics once they got into position to Instagib, and both cost 200 resources. The difference is that ESF's did get nerfed against MBT's and C4/ MBT's fate is yet to be determined. The example was meant to show case two different types of players with numerous advantages over a MBT, yet both felt entitled to Instagib something that cost more then they did. By the shortness and little strength in your posts to counter mine I think it is you who is grasping at straws.
Armor controls open fields, infantry controls bases. Thats how it works in real life, and that's how it should work in game. In PS1, you had to abandon your tank in the courtyard of bases, because the objectives were all inside. Players had to fight their way to bases with tanks. I see two problems here. 1. Tanks get killed too fast at long range by infantry. I think C4 should remain as it is, because it punishes tanks getting too close to bases or buildings. But tanks can easily get taken out way too fast in open field battles - where tanks are meant to shine - by infantry. Infantry have way too many AV weapons. Dumbfires are fine, but when we have lockons that can target at 500m, tank snipers (lancer), wire guided placeable turrets (AV Turret), using tanks in open field battles between bases is impossible. 2. It's too easy to assault bases. First of all, base design sucks but thats not really what I want to get into right now. What I mean, is that it's way too easy to start an assault. You don't need an open field tank battle, when you can just roll an AMS right up to C point and bam, attack started. No tank battles, it's now an infantry fight. The combined arms aspect needs a redesign. Infantry AV options have too long of a range, and do too much damage (would damage dropoff help)? Right now, this game is Infantryside 2, which really sucks, and this is coming from a dedicated infantry player.
Another weak diatribe, enough of the straw-manning. If you've genuinely snuck up on a tank what does it matter if you have to place it on the rear? It's clear you hate tanks and like infantry, that's ok, but at least do us all the courtesy of just coming out with that point of view instead of masquerading as someone whose even handed.
Oh look some people have been killing infantry with a tank, we better remove the tank cannon and replace it with a rubber banana instead, what a fatuous statement!
If you're playing a tank day in day out and those people are complaining about it and their deaths are born out in their stats then chances are that there might be an issue. Saying well statically overall C4 doesn't account for that many kills is a nonsense argument as you don't run around day in day out throwing C4 over every person you meet, you use it when the opportunity presents itself.
ha six hit? lmao whats makes you think that a spungee human, alian or communist should be able to survive six hits from a tank round thats just plane stupid thinking lol pretty funny thought .
Nothing I've said has implied this is not a combined arms game. The "shining example" for what's wrong with people in this game is the person who is too lazy or inept (or lack fundamental knowledge, which I've posted a substantial thread to educate those people) to utilize the tools that are easily at his disposal to reduce threats to him and increase his effectiveness in defeating the enemy. Cute jab at me, though.
Okay, let's put some ideas out there: Some of you think tanks are "power-ups". They are not. They are a permanent playstyle choice. There are a LOT of people who have dumped almost every cert into their tanks with the expectation of being able to use it for a high percentage of the time. With Drifters getting more popular, there are fewer and fewer places that are safe from suicide-bombing LAs from above. Max Drifters last 30 seconds, and that means 30 seconds of free flight after jumping off a roof, out of aircraft, etc. Many of you are saying tanks have every advantage over infantry. They do not. Categories are: Ammo - Where does it resupply? Cover - Where can it hide? Visibility - How far away can its enemies see it? Health/Armor - How many hits can it take? Speed - How fast does it move, both in battle and from place to place? Firepower - How much damage can it dish out? Cost - What does dying DO to this unit? Tanks: Ammo - look for a Sundy or a tower! Cover - not really cover for the tank, it's cover for the LA that wants to C4 him. Visibility - 1000m or more. Health/Armor - immune to small-arms, resistant to most damage types Speed - faster than infantry, but limited by terrain more Firepower - powerful gun, slow reloads Cost - 450 resources and a variable-length cooldown out the window. Total: -3 Infantry: Ammo - Half the troops on the field can supply it free of charge. Cover - See that pebble? You can hide behind it. Visibility - Depends on size of fight, typically from 50m-300m. Health/Armor - Dies is 7-8 bullets or one heavy round. Squishy would be an understatement. Speed - Might move more slowly, but isn't limited by terrain like the tank is Firepower - pretty damn strong, even if we're not talking consumables. Several AV options on par with tanks' main guns in DPS. Cost - Zero. Zip. Zilch. Wait ten seconds and you're back in action. Total: 3 Green is worth 1, yellow is worth 0, Red is worth -1 So tell me again that tanks are just better in every way?
You know what, no. Blow it out your #ss. It's a different playstyle for sure, but to say your way of playing needs more skill is just pure and utter arrogance and I will not take anything you type on these forums seriously ever again. PS: I play every class in this game and occasionally drive all the vehicles, I main HA or Vanguard. The only thing I truly suck at is flying an ESF but I'm a decent Lib pilot.
Just confirmed this Nugget: C4 detonated up to 3.5 meters from the tank will still result in 2 bricks killing a Magrider. Any of you C4 lovers care to comment on the fact that you don't even need to hit the bloody tank to kill it? Just to put that into context that's more than this distance from the tank:
The argument can be made that the sneaky part is the skill, but he can most certainly not claim that the aiming or firing or it requires any skill not when you can still kill it 3.5 meters from the target.
I wasn't disagreeing with the fact that LAs need skill to successfully C4 or kill people. His statement clearly said this; "What I play requires more skill than what you play because I think so". There are skill ceilings for everything in this game, LA has it's own stuff to worry about, while the vehicles need to worry about every and all AV things out there, which are out in abundance.
I'm uploading a video now to prove it, but I used a Vanguard as my guinea pig. They have the strongest armor in the game, after all, and the Mag has some hit detection issues.
Infantry has no advantage over tanks - tanks are stronger, faster, and have far more tools at their disposal, not to mention mechanized resources are nowhere near as valuable as infanrty resources. Your so-called points hardly require more than a sentence or two to refute.
