limit the tiger and tiger 2

[guncrasher]

Again, I've never said anything even remotely close to this. You're trying to portray me as this fanatical tank fan, who thinks its only fair if I have a field day, and thats not at all what I'm about.


Theres a world of difference between being being allowed to sit on concrete, and destroying aircraft with impunity. If you want to say that WIRBS have to go, say, 1000yds from base before landing, else they get no perks, I would be fine with that. Why? Because wirblewinds can actually defend themselves from aircraft, which is something the Tiger I and II cannot do.

You have yet to say how its fair to REQUIRE the two highest value targets to go far off base regardless of situation, or else lose perk points. Again, its the EXACT EQUIVELANT of REQUIRING 262's an 163's to go out and furball (and by this, I mean actually get in there and mix it up).

Sorry, but if theres even 1 bomb-carrying aircraft overhead, then the requirment to go off-base is monsterously unfair. What you're asking is for the Tiger II to drive out to where a death is almost guaranteed.



I don't care if HTC doesn't like personal attacks, but right now, you're all being a pack of bloody idiots! You're looking at the solution to one problem in isolation, and then trying to apply it to EVERY situation.

well if you think about it the 262 and 163 must put themselves in situations where they can lose all the perks when attacking aircraft.  it's not like they can just type .ef and be out of danger if it takes some damage like the tiger2 sitting on concrete has.

and nobody is asking for a tiger2 to go out where a death is almost guaranteed.  but we are asking that if they want to get kills to have some risk involved instead of just sitting in concrete on the base.  imagine the advantage a 262 or a 163 would have if it could shoot at any plane from 3 or 4k out and get kills?  even a b29 with a zillion defensive guns and ammo runs the risk of getting shot down and it is perked similar to the tiger2 and even more when you take 3.

now nobody is asking for the tiger 2 to lose all perks by sitting on concrete but if it doesnt spawn somewhere then it should have some risk or losing perks even if it is 5 just for sitting on concrete when it can end at the slightest sign of danger.  which is something a perked airplane cannot do unless it wants to get kills.


semp

[talos]

I love my Tiger IIs, Tiger Is and they are both very dangerous but there true potential only comes out if you use them right and camping doesn't get you very far. As anyone who has played an FPS in the past knows, when you camp you become a target. now that being said i don't agree that camping on concrete just so you can tower out to save you perks from a lucky bomb isn't all that realistic and kinda leaves a funny taste in your mouth.


Now i don't think a perk penalty is the way to go because it would potentially hurt defenders. Maybe the way to go would be to impose a short timer between when you hit end sortie and when you get to the tower, maybe 5, 10 or even 15 seconds. that way tanks cant just tower out when they hear bombs dropping

(Edit:  this would only apply to GVs)

[VonMessa]

[talos]

         

[Butcher]

Sorry, but if theres even 1 bomb-carrying aircraft overhead, then the requirment to go off-base is monsterously unfair. What you're asking is for the Tiger II to drive out to where a death is almost guaranteed.

I don't care if HTC doesn't like personal attacks, but right now, you're all being a pack of bloody idiots! You're looking at the solution to one problem in isolation, and then trying to apply it to EVERY situation.

You don't even play the game let alone played when the Tiger 2 came out, you haven't faced a Tiger 2 sitting on concrete blasting tanks 3k away and lands when you ping them once or twice or when someone drops a bomb bails.
Again where is the experience in dealing with it? you don't have any. On a certain map like V41 (next to A40) is a Vehicle base where ground vehicles spawn from the Port P39 - while back I upped a Tiger 2 and without having to leave concrete
I was able to blast tanks at 4k away, they had to drive around the ocean and had VERY few cover spots to hide out.

I rarely take up a Tiger 2 because Its not only timid to do this, but if you look at certain players its evident they exploit this more often then none.

[MAINER]

The thing is that GV's cannot defend THESELVES from aircraft. They HAVE to rely on flackers, and on other aircraft. And even then, if someone spots them and decides to make a bomb run, they are helpless.

What if a small darbar suddenly apears? Sorry, but untill those arses go land, I'm not going to up more than a panther. If you want to pay me back that 5-10% of my Tiger II's perk price for landing, then I'd be fine. What if I up a Tiger II, and spend my time fighting attackers that are almost on base. Am I supposed to drive 2000yds round trip just so I can land without loosing perks?


The perk price of GV's are not affected by their vulnerability to aircraft, just as an aircraft's perk price is not affected by its vulnrability to AA fire from the ground. Aircraft have more of an impact on GV's than GV's do on aircraft.

The biggest issue is that even  150mm armor of a Tiger II doesn't give it any more protection against aircraft, while the 500mph speed of a 262 DOES make it harder for GV's to kill, simply because its harder to hit. In addition to this, aircraft can be given guaranteed protection from ground fire simply by climbing. However from the instant he spawns up, a GV is guaranteed to be under the threat of air attack untill the instant he lands.

So in addition to the GV drivers being under CONSTANT threat, you want to penalize perk tank drivers for being cautious? The only way that could even possibly work is if perk tank drivers broke even when bombed within 1000yds of the base, regardless of circumstances. They don't gain anything, and they don't lose anything.

well said.

[SmokinLoon]

What about having a perk cost regardless of landing successfully or not?

That would cool the "squatters" (Tiger II concrete magnets) a bit.  It would change the dynamics quite a bit if the cost of SPAWNING of King Tiger was 40, regardless of getting kills or being killed.  Same goes for a perk cost of 12 in a Tiger, and 8 in a Panther.  I'd keep the same scores for the T34/85, M4/76, and M18. 

[VonMessa]

What about having a perk cost regardless of landing successfully or not?

That would cool the "squatters" (Tiger II concrete magnets) a bit.  It would change the dynamics quite a bit if the cost of SPAWNING of King Tiger was 40, regardless of getting kills or being killed.  Same goes for a perk cost of 12 in a Tiger, and 8 in a Panther.  I'd keep the same scores for the T34/85, M4/76, and M18. 

http://www.crackcocainerecovery.com/

[Karnak]

Again, I've never said anything even remotely close to this. You're trying to portray me as this fanatical tank fan, who thinks its only fair if I have a field day, and thats not at all what I'm about.

You are fanatical about it.  Your claim that if there is any aircraft carrying a single bomb the Tiger II is as good as dead if it leaves the concrete is at least as absurd as my claim that you want GVs to be able to kill aircraft at will.  My claim that you want GVs to be immune to aircraft is certainly not far off the mark.

[Babalonian]

This can be extended to aircraft vs. vehicles too.

First - Nobody attempts to bomb a GV just sitting on the pavement, motionless (like the ideal sitting duck it is) in this game, twice.

Second - Nobody will try strafing a single or even a gaggle of whirbles sitting on the pavement defending the base. - And the really SAD part about this one is - IT'S NOT that a single or couple enemy aircraft don't mind hedging the bet against any risk of being shot down when attmepting to outwit and knock out a flaker's teeth, it's that they don't like doing it when in less than 10-seconds after investing their effort, *insert loud toilet flush*.

I understand a range-check can be exploited/abused, but could we add something like the the current damage/kill-tracking variable introduced with aircraft not that long ago, in addition to a range check.  Where if someone lands on pavement within a short distance of their opponent (range-check), and combat damage has been inflicted upon them (similar to how double-fatal HOs work in the air, if no gun damage was caused and you then travel beyond the minimum range then no kill is awarded), then the single player that inflicted the most damage get the kills (and those with less but contributing damage get an assist).

This would still allow those GVs wanting to successfuly land before getting litteraly "tagged" by something they had no intention of dealing with, while penalising those GVs just sitting on the pavement waiting to land the second things turn from an ideal "target rich environment" to "I am the target for the environment".  And of cource, the GVs looking to instantly repair or rearm, because we all know the whopping 10-seconds to up an M3 and kick out supplys (once again, only in comparison to an attacking AC who paitently waited and watched for an ideal opportunity to strike) is a game-play killing inconvenience.

[Tank-Ace]

You don't even play the game let alone played when the Tiger 2 came out, you haven't faced a Tiger 2 sitting on concrete blasting tanks 3k away and lands when you ping them once or twice or when someone drops a bomb bails.
Again where is the experience in dealing with it? you don't have any. On a certain map like V41 (next to A40) is a Vehicle base where ground vehicles spawn from the Port P39 - while back I upped a Tiger 2 and without having to leave concrete
I was able to blast tanks at 4k away, they had to drive around the ocean and had VERY few cover spots to hide out.

I rarely take up a Tiger 2 because Its not only timid to do this, but if you look at certain players its evident they exploit this more often then none.

I have kills in the Tiger II dummy. You just assume that because I don't currently have an account, that I wasn't in for the Tiger II. Granted I haven't played the M18, the Panzer IV F, or the new P-40's, but I was in for the Tiger II.

When I (correctly) accused Krusty of having almost no recent expierience with GV's, I went back and checked his scores. I checked each month, and all tours for most months, to make sure I was right. But the point is that I checked, and that I was right. If you want to say I have no grounds to talk on th M18, then go for it. I would agree with you, since I haven't played it. If you want to say I have no grounds to talk on the Panzer IV F, well maybe. Its still a panzer, and probably still plays in the same basic style as the Panzer IV H.

But no, you're too damn lazy to go check and see if I played in the tour when the Tiger II was released. You know the month, you don't even have to check ALL the months, just one. And theres only one arena where I could have played the Tiger II. Thats not just laziness, thats stupidity.


Oh, and BTW, when I took out a Tiger II during that tour, not once was I on the concrete. I was out brawling with it, and using it to smash in their flanks.

You are fanatical about it.  Your claim that if there is any aircraft carrying a single bomb the Tiger II is as good as dead if it leaves the concrete is at least as absurd as my claim that you want GVs to be able to kill aircraft at will.  My claim that you want GVs to be immune to aircraft is certainly not far off the mark.

Never once did I say that a single plane with a bomb is certian death for the Tiger II, you're putting words in my mouth. I said that planes are more dangerous to GV's than GV's are to planes, which is true. The two aren't even close. Granted the wirbys have high kill numbers, but from what I observed when playing, it was mostly because people were flying stupid, not because Wirblewinds were some great scourge on aircraft.


I actually feel the reduced icon range would be enough (and from what I've heard, it has been). But when idiots start going on about how we need to be harsher on GV's, thats when I get steamed. And yet with NO evidence to support your claim, you go and accuse me of wanting imunity to aircraft. I'm actually a bit supprised, normally you're more intellegent than that.


Babalonian, the issue is that it penalizes everyone unfairly whenever the VH is down. And its not at all uncommon for VH's to be down when under attack; if anything its the norm.

[oakranger]

Tank-ace, i am lost.  What is it that you want or trying to do here? 

[Tank-Ace]

Really, I'm just defending the GV'ers right now. I guess what I'm trying to do is baby sit you lot and make sure you don't go and screw up the GV system.

[guncrasher]

for those who are thinking about defenseless gv's being bombed to death all day long.  should go back and look at the stats.  majority of deaths are from other gv's.  and if you start deducting kills that you know are proxies (fi-156 has over 200 kills on tanks including 2 tiger and 6 panthers oh and a 262 kill too) then you will start thinking different.  and perhaps you should also notice that tanks have a lot of kills on planes and those dont include the werbie or m16 types.

but when you look at the stats of those are are true gv'ers  you will notice that most hardly use tiger to get the hundreds of kills that some people get with tiger 2 by sitting safely at a base.



semp

[Tank-Ace]

Planes have a relativly small percentage of GV kills because of concrete sitting, and because tanks can kill eachother faster.


Thats like saying that fewer people (by percentage) in Afrika die of cancer than compared to people in the US. Yeah, at initial glance, it might apear as if fewer Afrikans have cancer, but whats really going on is that fewer people in Afrika live long enough to be slowly killed by cancer, and are killed by a multitude of other issues.