thought of the day on tanks

[chad878262]

So a tank is a heavily armored vehicle of destruction? Got it, Armored Sorcerer makes the best tank. topic solved.

[aaron22]

So a tank is a heavily armored vehicle of destruction? Got it, Armored Sorcerer makes the best tank. topic solved.

probably the best comparison for a tank. ranged armored sorc.

[Flasmix]

To be serious though, there are many official definitions of what a tank is.

Let's just go with our urban dictionary definition (I love this site, it's full of completely true definitions)

Tank
Noun: A player-character, typically in a MMORPG, that is able to occupy an aggressor and take the brunt of the aggressor's attacks while the other players deal damage, heal, or perform some other action. The "tank" can survive longer while taking damage than the other characters. Typically, the tank has higher hitpoints (health) and a higher armor rating than the other characters. Less commonly, a character with a lower armor rating can perform the actions of the tank by using avoidance abilities. Ultimately, the tank needs to be able to occupy the aggressor without dying. The method employed, whether avoidance or absorption, does not matter, as long as the tank can mitigate damage in some way.

Verb: To "tank", or "tanking", would be the action of performing the duties of the tank as described above.

Now, obviously, we all know and recognize that definition when someone mentions a tank in this game. In some games (cough WoW cough), Tanks are typically warriors. In pen and paper, Warriors serve as the best tanks early on due to the hit point difference and the ability to wear better armor than what spells provide. In AD&D, the Warrior types remained as constant frontliners that could protect the squishier classes in the back. Starting with 3rd edition and 3.5, this started to fall off in my opinion, due to the extreme amount of diversity, prestige classes and additional armor types.

[chad878262]

Technically a Fighter/Mage in 1e/2e was a better tank than a fighter once they hit about 7th level or so. Remember that Stoneskin was actually nerfed in 3rd edition, since in 2e it actually gave layers of 'skins' which completely absorbed a full attack. So between mirror images, stoneskin, various armor enhancing spells, blur and at higher levels things like Protection from Magic Weapons and Mantle could make them nigh invulnerable.

Granted, getting to 7th level wizard on a multi-classes character in 1e/2e was BRUTAL (PnP is NOT as easy to get through the early levels as Baldur's Gate or other single player video games makes it seem.

[aaron22]

well, "tanks" are not absent on our server. DD's are great at it. druids, FvS, SS, pally, monks can if built that way. defensively built gishes are fantastic. the new barb may be. not sure yet. look that way to me. bards can tank well. lots of options there.

[chad878262]

Yeah... In order to solo you basically have to be either able to tank or able to use positioning and high DC kill spells.

[AlwaysSummer Day]

Why such tanky hate?

Tanks simply lost a lot of appeal with the advent of both ground attack aircraft and the prevalence of accurate and effective infantry fired anti-armor weapons. When two dudes with a SMAW firing a few thousands dollars of rocket can f*** up your multi-million dollar tank, what's the point?

I hope that was a fairly comprehensive answer.

speaking as a former 19K. tanks are not what you think they are. tanks are more mobile than mobile infantry. they are the absolute bane to mobile infantry that can be destroyed at great range and speed. where a mobile infantry vehicle would be useless against such a foe. even at 20-1 odds because the 25mm would be like a bug bite whereas the 120mm main of the tank would take the mobile infantry vehicle out with a single blow from 1000's of meters away. tanks are only limited in smaller urban areas where they cause more destruction than desired by command. not because they are ineffective. modern tanks can be fitted with many different packages to make them optimized for a multitude of applications. also there is ZERO shoulder fired munitions that could destroy an american M1A2. we are not using T72's here. even a tow would be useless against 12inches of depleted uranium. also abrams are fitted with a coaxial m240 that would make very quick and messy work of those poor two firing a smaw toward the still fully functional tank.

i hope that was a very comprehensive answer

That was a little wrong. . . . Lots of shoulder fired munitions can destroy any tank including the M1A2 even with the new reactive armor kit, flares, ECM, chaff, etc. . . . 12 inches of forward armor does not impress plunging fire from a javelin or other AT weapons. Yes it would quite probably take multiple shots for one to strike successfully but at $80k a pop to destroy a $9m tank it is worth it.

No commander worth his salt would ever intentionally let even 1000 light armored vehicles take on a tank in a fair fight. They would evade and call in air support.

Tanks remain viable in two situations. The first is battle against an opponent with air parody in play. The second is intimidation. Simple as that really. If you see a tank you bugger off because your heavy weapon is a 1980's soviet artillery shell taped to a cellphone that might, if you are lucky, temporarily turn the tank into a bunker.

[aaron22]

Well that would be applicable if the m1a2 didn't diffuse the heat signature behind the tank and well behind the javalin's only shot for penetration. The shaped heat round on top of the tank would be a bad day for the tank. Granted, but it is unlikely that the javalin would hit the tank unless it were off or stationary.

[AlwaysSummer Day]

Alright well all you have to do is check out some of the dozens of videos of Iraq and Saudi Arabia losing M1A2 abrams tanks to Javelins, ATGM's, and even TOW's. I am not saying it is easy but the tanks value on the modern battlefield is simply not what it once was. The logistical requirements and cost of production are massive drawbacks for a tool that has dubious use. This is why I think the western countries merely upgrading their Abrams instead of designing an Armata killer is the right decision.

[chad878262]

Tanks are easy to blow up. Just call in Kael from EDE.

[AlwaysSummer Day]

[Rask]

Seems to me everyone wants to nurf melee in general.. whom already suffer.

This has been an issue with the server for years. Casters get buff after buff, preferred equipment ect, while melee builds suffer and are very under powered. Especially AC wise.

[Valefort]

I suggest you take a look at Barbarian.

[AlwaysSummer Day]

Which was heavily buffed but still is far below the power of any caster let alone the ridiculous strength of favored souls.

[chad878262]

Was not the intention to turn Barbarians in to FvS. Would you argue they are not better off (somehow) then they were before? Are they somehow not capable of being viable on the server? What is the issue with Barbarian?

This is not an MMORPG and even in 5e casters are far and away more powerful than non-casters. It has always been this way in D&D and this game is based on D&D so casters are going to be more powerful. The only way non-casters are artificially MADE more powerful is with ridiculous permanent immunity gear which has no counter play. The idea is for classes to be viable and fun to play, not for them all to be equal.