It can be adjusted though.
F.e. killing the whole tank squad counts as a tank kill; crewless tank counts as destroyed after 10s; person who did the most damage get the kill (should be the case even now).
So I’d say score is not really an issue.
Imo it’s a bigger problem that disabling the tank doesn’t cause the monkey neuron activation like in case of destroying it in a big explosion.
No, it’s completely unnecessary. Devs should prioritize completely different things.
There’s no need to try something that’s at least working as it should.
Especially since all argumentation is based only on “but it works differently irl”.
Yeah, so what? Lol.
Did anybody said it’s a priority?
So why not add a soldier that is a woman with a prostetic arm with a warpaint on face? It won’t affect the gameplay so why not?
Oh hell no. We better not be going in that direction…
With vehicles filling a suppletory role.
Objectives are taken by infantry.
Vehicle use alone without any infantry to capture or defend will result in failure.
You can get rid of vehicles and still have a functioning game.
Throwing an explosive pack requires knowledge and skill, too. The knowledge to know how much it penetrates, where to throw, and the skill for it to land where you want it.
Then play at a distance outside of infantry throwing range.
Anyone can spawn in a tank so long as the slots are open.
From datamining, the value of a vehicle squad is equal to infantry squads.
In spite of this, vehicles can often reliably kill more than their entire complement of crew due to its firepower and relative survivability.
In cases where a tank has spawned, a tank is unlikely to be easily reached by the enemy team unless they deliberately overextend and get into infantry throwing range.
Just as it is easily spawned, it should be just as easily destroyed on the principle of equity, otherwise its already high effort-to-reward ratio would become inflated even higher.
If you have concerns regarding its survivability, then don’t put yourself in situations where infantry can reach you.
If you don’t understand the difference between the two, there’s no point in discussing it with you.
This argument with its completely overblown extreme is so cheap.
It is cheap. But still, technically nothing stops us. “You are ok with a hand grenade exploding a heavy tank but not with a prostetic that doesn’t even affet the gameplay?”
his overblown extreme is intended to show that realism is not a problem here at all, we already have a realistic destruction model, so the right step would be to develop it also in the case of explosion packs, literally everything can be adjusted, scoring, balance, etc.
the only thing is your opinion that “it’s fine don’t change it”, basically keeping the game from developing.
Yeah, let’s cripple gameplay for the sake of immersion and compare it to BF skins.
That’s so bizarre argumention. In that case bullet should dismember limbs of your soldiers and so. Why just EP should act so realistically? 
Let’s remake enlisted into completely different game because why not.
I don’t see how it cripples gameplay.
I almost haven’t used explosive packs since the merge and I don’t feel in a disadvantage vs tanks one bit (unless I use AT rifle as they suck hard). I don’t believe I say this but if you think that explosive packs are essential for balance, it’s a skill issue.
1.Complain about explosion pack
2.Tanks away from the battlefield
3.Complain about tank camping
4.Tanks get close to the battlefiled
5. REPEAT
I agree, it’s like clockwork.
I’m thinking they can remove all these things and have a melee v melee mode, and they still would find something to whine about.
our discussion is pointless, the game will develop either way and will be divided to different game modes, arcade realistic simulation etc.
Why should I even care that you haven’t used EPs since merge?
I am using them all the time.
It’s strange that someone who doesn’t even use the item that is the main subject of this discussion has a high interest in getting it changed. No comment :))
Who cares? It proves nothing.
“I use the weapon you think is too strong all the time and imo it’s fine” +100 social credit
Because imo they are detremental to the gameplay.
I didn’t need to spam impact nades to want them nerfed. I don’t need to use explosive packs to want them changed.
You sure the people who complain in 1 and 3 are the same people?
Yeah, because proving anything was definitely my point. I said that because your statement proves nothing. Your response doesn’t make sense in the context of why I said it. You’re just being manipulative here.
Yes, in your opinion. But your opinion is not very relevant since you have not much experiences using them.
And you’re probably not very active in the tank either, or you’d know that non fatal damage from EP happens quite often now. Especially if the enemy dont know how to cook EPs properly and you have to move away from him.
Proper use of EP is now rewarded. But if this suggestion will pass, the skill would no longer make a difference.
And why? For the sake of immersion.
Let’s cripple the thing what makes the game a game for the sake of pseudo casual milsim experience.
But this is where the community gets conflicted, when you come up with a solution for “TNT OP” to keep tanks off the battlefield, but at the same time it’s another topic complaining about.
Do tanks exist to cover infantry attacks or as HE gun positions? Both sides have a lot of player support and hope that the game will be further modified to what they want.
You: EP are needed for balance
Me: no they arent, look
You: manipulation!!!
But your opinion is relevant because reasons.
Ok, point for you.
The game is casual, you’ve said it yourself multiple times.
So complaining about lack of skill, immersion and “casual milism experience” is quite ironic.
When did I say that?
Yet another manipulation.