274 réponses à ce sujet

[Variasaber]

BoomDynamite wrote...

Nice TA buffs though, even though I don't think it needed it.

Agreed; possibly unnecessary, but much appreciated. Maybe TA will get more respect now.

Also, with the base DR boosted, if you spec it for max DR it'll be 50%, so you'd take half damage from all sources.

Time to make an ultra-wall build for the Krogan Sentinel...

[yarpenthemad21]

Variasaber wrote...
Agreed; possibly unnecessary, but much appreciated. Maybe TA will get more respect now.

Also, with the base DR boosted, if you spec it for max DR it'll be 50%, so you'd take half damage from all sources.

Time to make an ultra-wall build for the Krogan Sentinel...

more than half damage.
50% dr = effective 37,5%, because DR "works" on 75% of source damage.

[Drummernate]

Klokos wrote...


 But tigers tanks were overrated **** . Not to mention that todays tank  philosophy is totally different from the german one. MBT have more in common with the T-34 or the sherman than the tigers.

Tiger tanks were overrated?...

Even the Tiger I's were nearly impenetrable from all of the allied tanks until very late in the war! There are documented events where they take almost 100 hits from soviet tanks and all you see is tiny dings in the armor. Their guns could kill a Sherman in one shot from well over 2 miles away!

I do not see how the tanks of today are any different from the German design philosophy...

Over engineered, expensive to produce, and extremely effective in almost every way.

If the designs were akin to the Sherman and T-34 you would have small tanks with less than 100mm of armor and guns that couldn't penetrate a T-62.


(Here is an interesting fact...)

"From a 30 degree angle of attack, the M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun could not
penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within
100 m to achieve a side penetration against the 80 mm upper hull
superstructure."

100m is basically a suicide rush range...

Modifié par Drummernate, 23 mai 2012 - 03:43 .

[Serkevan]

HellishFiend wrote...

Serkevan wrote...

Just to tell you something: Tanks in MMORPG make no sense. "Oh, let's hit the guy here which is just yelling at me while I ignore the OMG THAT HURTS two-hand-spiky-mace-wielding Barbarian."

Play Baldur's Gate. RPG; there are no tanks there. The only thing a warrior can do to protect a mage is to physically bodyblock the enemy.

I think you mean the concept of Tanks in a literal context make no sense. In an MMO gameplay context, they make perfect sense. 

Exactly. And I have no problem with it, I like MMORPGs, but it is an example to tell everyone the discussion is ultimately useless because, after all, it is a game, and the sense it makes, apart from gameplay-wise, is nil. There are no tanks here. If they were to be the archetypical MMORPG tank, they would need a penalty to weapon and power damage built in their tanking skill. And they would make the game totally boring. There are no tanks in ME, folks, there are just die hard soldiers which can take higher punishment.

And in another, but related, topic. Bloodrage in ME3MP means NOTHING. In both ME1 and 2 has been consistently stated that Bloodrage is bad for the Krogan. Wrex says that a raging Krogan is a soon-to-be-dead Krogan, and they must control it, but it comes out when they suffer a lot of pain/damage, not when they b**chslap some husks.

[Mash-X-ToDieSlower]

Can someone tell me why the krogan sentinel's tech armor has such a huge cooldown compared to the human sentinels(for example)?

[Killahead]

Mash-X-ToDieSlower wrote...

Can someone tell me why the krogan sentinel's tech armor has such a huge cooldown compared to the human sentinels(for example)?

Because you're carrying more? Pretty sure the cooldown is the same.

[Serkevan]

Drummernate wrote...

Klokos wrote...


 But tigers tanks were overrated **** . Not to mention that todays tank  philosophy is totally different from the german one. MBT have more in common with the T-34 or the sherman than the tigers.

Tiger tanks were overrated?...

Even the Tiger I's were nearly impenetrable from all of the allied tanks until very late in the war! There are documented events where they take almost 100 hits from soviet tanks and all you see is tiny dings in the armor. Their guns could kill a Sherman in one shot from well over 2 miles away!

I do not see how the tanks of today are any different from the German design philosophy...

Over engineered, expensive to produce, and extremely effective in almost every way.

If the designs were akin to the Sherman and T-34 you would have small tanks with less than 100mm of armor and guns that couldn't penetrate a T-62.

The use of a tank is next to none if it breaks down every 5 kilometers. And by the end of the war the alloys used had lost quality due to welding materials being scarce. The latest Tigers had much less effective armor because they were rushed into battle. In any case, it was said that a whole Sherman platoon (or company, don't remember the exact designation, but I think it was about 10-15 tanks) was needed to take down a Tiger, and most times the Tiger would destroy at least 2 or 3 soviet/US tanks before they even were in firing range. IS's changed things though, but the 105 L/68 of the Tiger II was a nasty thing even for their improved plating.

However, it is true that the MBT concept is, if not close to that of the M4 or T34, it is closer to that of the M26 Pershing and T43 (Medium-weight tanks, well armed, fast moving, and not as heavily armored, while being produced in higher numbers than the ultraheavy tanks the Reich favoured), because the speed of a full-throttle Tiger II was laughable. It couldn't go above 30 km/h because the suspension would break down instantly, annd trying to turn at more than 10 km/h would result in an instant failure of the treads due to the tension.

[Mash-X-ToDieSlower]

Serkevan wrote...

Drummernate wrote...

Klokos wrote...


 But tigers tanks were overrated **** . Not to mention that todays tank  philosophy is totally different from the german one. MBT have more in common with the T-34 or the sherman than the tigers.

Tiger tanks were overrated?...

Even the Tiger I's were nearly impenetrable from all of the allied tanks until very late in the war! There are documented events where they take almost 100 hits from soviet tanks and all you see is tiny dings in the armor. Their guns could kill a Sherman in one shot from well over 2 miles away!

I do not see how the tanks of today are any different from the German design philosophy...

Over engineered, expensive to produce, and extremely effective in almost every way.

If the designs were akin to the Sherman and T-34 you would have small tanks with less than 100mm of armor and guns that couldn't penetrate a T-62.

The use of a tank is next to none if it breaks down every 5 kilometers. And by the end of the war the alloys used had lost quality due to welding materials being scarce. The latest Tigers had much less effective armor because they were rushed into battle. In any case, it was said that a whole Sherman platoon (or company, don't remember the exact designation, but I think it was about 10-15 tanks) was needed to take down a Tiger, and most times the Tiger would destroy at least 2 or 3 soviet/US tanks before they even were in firing range. IS's changed things though, but the 105 L/68 of the Tiger II was a nasty thing even for their improved plating.

However, it is true that the MBT concept is, if not close to that of the M4 or T34, it is closer to that of the M26 Pershing and T43 (Medium-weight tanks, well armed, fast moving, and not as heavily armored, while being produced in higher numbers than the ultraheavy tanks the Reich favoured), because the speed of a full-throttle Tiger II was laughable. It couldn't go above 30 km/h because the suspension would break down instantly, annd trying to turn at more than 10 km/h would result in an instant failure of the treads due to the tension.

Wow. +1 to knowledge

[Serkevan]

Mash-X-ToDieSlower wrote...

Wow. +1 to knowledge

Thanks
I'm afraid it is too much Company of Heroes and World of Tanks on my side lol

[Drummernate]

Serkevan wrote...

The use of a tank is next to none if it breaks down every 5 kilometers. And by the end of the war the alloys used had lost quality due to welding materials being scarce. The latest Tigers had much less effective armor because they were rushed into battle. In any case, it was said that a whole Sherman platoon (or company, don't remember the exact designation, but I think it was about 10-15 tanks) was needed to take down a Tiger, and most times the Tiger would destroy at least 2 or 3 soviet/US tanks before they even were in firing range. IS's changed things though, but the 105 L/68 of the Tiger II was a nasty thing even for their improved plating.

However, it is true that the MBT concept is, if not close to that of the M4 or T34, it is closer to that of the M26 Pershing and T43 (Medium-weight tanks, well armed, fast moving, and not as heavily armored, while being produced in higher numbers than the ultraheavy tanks the Reich favoured), because the speed of a full-throttle Tiger II was laughable. It couldn't go above 30 km/h because the suspension would break down instantly, annd trying to turn at more than 10 km/h would result in an instant failure of the treads due to the tension.

All tanks break down and get stuck though, not just Tigers... Shermans got stuck every other minute becase they could not climb or cross over objects like other, longer, tanks.

Even if a Tiger's tracks were knocked out it could still engage targets.

The only time a tank would break down THAT fast was when they were driving through 2 foot thick mud.

As for being slow, most of Russian heavies were just as slow. Maybe 7kph faster at most. Heavy tanks are not meant to go fast though, they are meant to kill all of the other tanks! Usually being deployed defensively in stationary dug out posistions.

Modifié par Drummernate, 23 mai 2012 - 04:05 .

[Serkevan]

Drummernate wrote...

Serkevan wrote...

The use of a tank is next to none if it breaks down every 5 kilometers. And by the end of the war the alloys used had lost quality due to welding materials being scarce. The latest Tigers had much less effective armor because they were rushed into battle. In any case, it was said that a whole Sherman platoon (or company, don't remember the exact designation, but I think it was about 10-15 tanks) was needed to take down a Tiger, and most times the Tiger would destroy at least 2 or 3 soviet/US tanks before they even were in firing range. IS's changed things though, but the 105 L/68 of the Tiger II was a nasty thing even for their improved plating.

However, it is true that the MBT concept is, if not close to that of the M4 or T34, it is closer to that of the M26 Pershing and T43 (Medium-weight tanks, well armed, fast moving, and not as heavily armored, while being produced in higher numbers than the ultraheavy tanks the Reich favoured), because the speed of a full-throttle Tiger II was laughable. It couldn't go above 30 km/h because the suspension would break down instantly, annd trying to turn at more than 10 km/h would result in an instant failure of the treads due to the tension.

All tanks break down and get stuck though, not just Tigers... Shermans got stuck every other minute becase they could not climb or cross over objects like other, longer, tanks.

Even if a Tiger's tracks were knocked out it could still engage targets.

The only time a tank would break down THAT fast was when they were driving through 2 foot thick mud.

As for being slow, most of Russian heavies were just as slow. Maybe 7kph faster at most. Heavy tanks are not meant to go fast though, they are meant to kill all of the other tanks! Usually being deployed defensively in stationary dug out posistions.

Yes, KVs and ISs were just as slow. Which is why they ceased production, the IS-3 prototypes were already lighter and faster. In any case, the prize for the most faulty tank goes to the Panther. Until they fixed the problems with the torsion bars of the transmission, they were horribly unreliable. I agree with you that they were the best engineered, by far. The 88 L/71 was the best tank gun in WWII, by a long shot (lol, incredibly bad unintended pun here). And the thing with M4s and T34s breaking down... is that it ultimately didn't matter. The Russian produced almost 40K T-34 tanks [Im not sure if that figure takes into account the T-34-85 variant, which could be hands down the most [i]efficient [/i]tank of the war] , while the most numerous Wehrmacht tank was the Panzer IV, which, with all variants from A to the ausf.H (or J, I'm not really sure either) rounded up around 9K units. Tiger IIs were around 500

[DarkerCompanion]

ITT: Hardcore WWII tank and engineering discussion.

I'm impressed.

[Serkevan]

World of Tanks and, to a lesser extent, Company of Heroes, ruined my life XD
I'm totally incapable of playing a game with an historical background without acquiring a little bit of knowledge on the way. Well, perhaps with WoT it was a big bit lol.

[Klokos]

Serkevan is all right. I never said the tiger is the worst tank, just that it's extremly overrated due it mechanical fragility and it's cost, I had the numbers of T34/sherman you could produce for the price of a tiger and it was quite high. There is also the fact that in a lot of WW2 reports Germans tanks were mistaken for the tiger (PZIV mostly) by American crews.

I think it went up to I for the PZIV ,who rightfully deserve their reputation.

[Stinja]

I'm lost, are we getting vehicles in ME3 now?

[Klokos]

Stinja wrote...

I'm lost, are we getting vehicles in ME3 now?

 Yes, be prepared to face KV and B1 in all their glory.

[Serkevan]

Klokos wrote...

Serkevan is all right. I never said the tiger is the worst tank, just that it's extremly overrated due it mechanical fragility and it's cost, I had the numbers of T34/sherman you could produce for the price of a tiger and it was quite high. There is also the fact that in a lot of WW2 reports Germans tanks were mistaken for the tiger (PZIV mostly) by American crews.

I think it went up to I for the PZIV ,who rightfully deserve their reputation.

The Panzer IV is underrated nowadays, everyone talks about the Tiger. The truth is that the tank that won the blitzrkieg tactics (until Stalingrad, that is) were the PzIII and IV. Well, and probably the StuG/StuH and the Hetzer. 

[Serkevan]

Klokos wrote...

Stinja wrote...

I'm lost, are we getting vehicles in ME3 now?

 Yes, be prepared to face KV and B1 in all their glory.

We already have the KV. And it honours its mechanical counterpart, lol.
Also, B1 was da shiet. A sardine can with a hull mounted 75mm and a 47mm turret gun? It was useless against anything above the Pz II

[Klokos]

Serkevan wrote...


We already have the KV. And it honours its mechanical counterpart, lol.
Also, B1 was da shiet. A sardine can with a hull mounted 75mm and a 47mm turret gun? It was useless against anything above the Pz II

But...but Pierre Billote, one of the few things I can be proud about my country in WW2. French tank were ahead of the German in the early war period, beside the lack of radio that was quite stupid.

[Bhaal___Spawn]

Tanks for asking.

I'd much rather have someone using what they are good with on gold. I am not going to tell people Vanguards are the end-all of tanking/CC and have a million inexperienced vanguards dieing 50 times in the first 3 waves in gold pugs. I mean the same goes with Krogans and everything else. I've seen krogans on gold trying to melee through entire mobs and dieing. I've seen squishy drell adepts with -200,000% recharge trying to claymore everything at point blank range. Simply put: winning is funner then losing and the player's skill level does matter when it comes to a build being effective. You might be able to faceroll a human vanguard on bronze but gold requires a lot more thought and selectiveness.

A Krogan Sent has huge shields/health and dmg reduction. It just has more limitations. A Vanguard can basically be invulnerable indefinitely with few exceptions. I think a lot of people that haven't played MMOs and stuff like that are thinking of a military tank or MMA? A guy takes a huge beating and you might be like "wow that guys a tank." A Krogan Sent fits that tank description perfectly. However in many video games tanks have a bigger role to fill.  I think it's all just lost in translation. IMO some of the people that are arguing against Krogan Sent are referring to a video game they've played. Like a tank not only shrugs off huge dmg but he has a job. On paper, (or in general) Krogan Sents can not fully do the "tank" role and maintain it in as many situations that a Vanguard can. That is thier valid arguement.

If you want  CC on a Krogan Sentinel(IMO) strap a decently upgraded Scorpion (dmg mod + extra ammo mod) and blast the hell out of clusters of enemies. Or if you prefer use a Falcon. Just remember to be the host. While Falcon can snap freeze groups faster(if you use cryo), at least in my experience Scorpion can stagger a wider area and faster, but I highly favor the weapon over post nerf falcon in many builds. You'll laugh at phantoms and if any footsoldiers are with them - they'll blow up too. It's just fun watching bits blow all over the place when you do things right. I've gotten solo killstreaks with it. You can roll with incinerate/smg or you can forget that and roll with a black widow as backup or a GPS. Whatever floats your boat. You'll be spamming bombs the entire time mostly but it helps to have something to take out the big bosses with.

Ballistic Blades Batarian Soldier can survive just as good, but it can aoe stagger with a rechargeable skill, Double stagger if you use exploding blades. Adding CC weapons(Falcon/Scorpion) and cryo for example just makes it even better. Factor in Grenades limited tho they may be, you still get more with the soldier and the batarians can damage a wider radius thus hitting more things. Blades + Grenades + Scorpion = good fun. Not to mention less trips to the ammo crates if you're specced for it. Last but not least, if you like blowing stuff up with the scorpion, you'll love splitting wigs with the falcon punch.

TL/DR:
Don't be a Vanguard because people think they're potentially the best tank and you want to be that role.  What matters is having fun. Play Gold with the class you're good at because losing isn't fun. Maybe a tweak or two later you'll find you can CC like a pro and hold some aggro. OR practice on bronze/silver with a new build. OR just play whatever you want and have fun. If you're reasonably experienced you'll probably be fine. I mean let's face it. Is gold really all that hard to win every time? I  am closing in on n7 rank 3,000 and I play pugs 99% of the time mearly for more challenge because gold is so easy with a planned team. Sure I lose sometimes but imo the unexpected is just more fun. Which I need because I am honestly getting sick to death of the same three enemies, the same small levels and the same classes. To the point where I am occasionally using Derp Builds  just to spice things up.

As for real tanks? Who cares? although vehicles WOULD be nice, tho the levels are far too small. Them big stationary guns from SP would be nice though aye?

Modifié par Bhaal___Spawn, 23 mai 2012 - 05:39 .

[Serkevan]

Klokos wrote...

Serkevan wrote...


We already have the KV. And it honours its mechanical counterpart, lol.
Also, B1 was da shiet. A sardine can with a hull mounted 75mm and a 47mm turret gun? It was useless against anything above the Pz II

But...but Pierre Billote, one of the few things I can be proud about my country in WW2. French tank were ahead of the German in the early war period, beside the lack of radio that was quite stupid.

Which is why the French won <_<
Nah, I should hate the Germans because without their help here in Spain we wouldn't have suffered a dictator for 40 years. Or, for the matter, France and the UK for not helping the Republic. But that's History, and the only thing we can do about it is to avoid incurring mistakes again.

[Klokos]

French won because of stupid decision, like their military organisation, tanks were used only in small groups to support infantry mostly, the whole Maginot line is also to take into account. If they could pull up a decent tank production before WW2 ( what they couldn't do because of strikes) and listen to their soldiers who called them on Maginot line, the missuse of tanks and oversight in construction they could have done way better.

Early Panzer weren't good, french one were slighly better but were outnumbered and german innovated faster.

[Serkevan]

Klokos wrote...

French won because of stupid decision, like their military organisation, tanks were used only in small groups to support infantry mostly, the whole Maginot line is also to take into account. If they could pull up a decent tank production before WW2 ( what they couldn't do because of strikes) and listen to their soldiers who called them on Maginot line, the missuse of tanks and oversight in construction they could have done way better.

Early Panzer weren't good, french one were slighly better but were outnumbered and german innovated faster.

Totally true. The Germans won because they pulled the Pz III really fast, and the MP40 was a total revolution (the first automatic personal weapon) when it came to storming city areas. In any case, the Germans had Rommel when they invaded France, and that was a big point on their favour. And France fell so quickly because of their leaders.

[Drummernate]

Serkevan wrote...

Totally true. The Germans won because they pulled the Pz III really fast, and the MP40 was a total revolution (the first automatic personal weapon) when it came to storming city areas. In any case, the Germans had Rommel when they invaded France, and that was a big point on their favour. And France fell so quickly because of their leaders.

What about the Thompson? That was like 20+ years before the MP40...

[RYAN MALIN]

tech armor is and remains my favorite power... I am Hasta in this video...



http://social.biowar...ndex/12140465/1