Because tanks take way longer to come back into action than infantry spwning at a rally and then are worth more tickets to spawn.
Some maps have you drive for ages before any LOS opens up to the playable area.
And finaly… it is a damn tank…
any example?
ffs idk why is everyone ignoring my post about having 4 ways to kill gray zone tanks. they are far from indestructible. i guess it is easier to ignore that argument and continue whining about how you cant destroy gray zone tank…
what team effort?
- you bring another tank
- you bring plane
- you bring engineer/AT squad and build AT gun
- you bring AT soldier with AT rocket launcher
- you bring AT mortar (germany/soviets only)
2 Likes
Go to the range and try it out - use your soldiers thumb to aim or change the sights zero, look where the projectile impacts - repeat and adjust until you nail it, you can hit very far targets like that.
I dont really do videos - don’t even know how to.
polygon != real battle, in action noone will get you that good conditions.
That is why training beforehand is important.
Once you get a feel for the arc you can massively reduce the number of ranging shoots needed.
If you can somewhat predict where the projectile lands it is way easier to correct shots and hit the target even at range or when moving.
1 Like
I’ll bite.
- Another tank? Soooo, how often is it that one gray zone tank can shoot a gray zone tank all the way across the map to another gray zone tank? I imagine it happens occasionally, but it’s likely pretty rare.
Don’t change the goalposts here. (For non-English speakers, that means “don’t change the rules of the game”) - in other words, if it’s good for one side, it’s good for the other side. Problem is, this solution doesn’t work since one side or the other is going to have to grab their balls and expose their tank to kill the other tank that does not want to expose themselves.
- Bring plane. If it’s suicide plane, which you typically speak about - that’s a straight up admission of playing the game outside of what’s intended. I cannot possibly believe that Darkflow intended all the various countries to suddenly become Kamakazi pilots to take out tanks in otherwise untouchable areas. Even the Japanese did this to take out ships and carriers which have far, far more value than a frickin tank.
One should not have to do …shall we say, non-conventional means to take out a tank who is using non-conventional battle tactics. Both sides should be confined to what the game designers intended.
Which means, Darkflow needs to fix this. More on this in a second.
- Engie/AT gun: Ditto my tank argument. How often can someone build something in the gray zone and hit the tank anyway? What are the odds that, even if they did so, that they could get enough hits in before they themselves are blown up? For one thing, they don’t have the armor of a tank.
Again, there’s this assumption that to defeat someone who’s playing using an exploit, that the other player does not get to use an exploit. The problem is, they have to expose themselves to in game danger/risk in order to take out the exploiter. This is obviously/patently unfair competition.
-
See above. Getting tired of repeating this. Unarmored AT guy in middle of gunfire with other soldiers, with no armor, is the only way this works. So one side gets to “cheat” and to take them out, the other side has to take maximum risk and quite a lot of skill. The other option is stay in the back, gray zone or other, and maybe/maybe not be even able to even SEE the gray zone tank, much less hit it.
-
Ditto. But, who knows maybe this would work, since the ranges are better and a mortar has the benefit of not needing a line of site and can be protected by buildings and terrain. Still a question of “is the mortar also in the gray zone or not” but it’s less of an issue.
But as you noted, only two sides can do this anyway. And at relatively high level.
Lastly, all your arguments are basically just reasons how one can maybe possibly take out someone who is doing something that shouldn’t be allowed anyway. The fact that anyone at all defends the practice is b/c there’s a bit of game imbalance where tanks should not be so easily defeated - while, they should also not be indestructible.
So, players are taking it upon themselves to make them more indestructible (not entirely, but more so) by sitting in the gray zone. More annoying to many players (self included) are the jackasses who actually take pride in doing so. It’s one thing to do it incidentally, it’s another to KNOWINGLY do it. That’s straight up exploitative.
There have been a few recommendations on fixing this, and to me, the fairest one is to simply make tanks in gray zone areas automatically miss. I mean, shoot, I have use sniper rifles at extreme ranges and at closer rangers and DUH…the closer ranges hit more often, despite being the same gun. No harm, no foul. Same is true of tanks, and the difference would be making it a guarantee that they miss.
As for protecting the tanks that expose themselves - also mentioned, is making explosives do less penetration. Not a bad idea - so it would take more explosives to kill a tank.
Between the two ideas, they’d make the game more immersive and more balanced.
quite often. it is much rarer to actually not have line of sight to another gray zone tank from your gray zone.
? idk where you saw me mention suicide plane. you can easily learn to dive bomb or shoot rockets without suiciding.
your lack of skill and map knowledge doesnt change the fact that it is easy to do. i have loads of kills with AT gun even though i dont build AT gun that often. also why do you need to build it in your gray zone? you can build AT gun anywhere on the map if you need to kill enemy tank.
than maybe combined warfare game isnt for you? AT rockets are way how infantry kills tanks. you can come at them at any angle.
you just want to have easy way to kill tanks with det packs cause you dont want to bother either learning how to play tanks/planes or have certain squads that can counter those tanks e.g. engies or AT squad. there is nothing exploitative with this. you are just lazy to learn skills on how to deal with tanks.
there are certainly arguments on why those methods wont work, e.g. US/japanese guns suck for high BR battles (devs are working on high BR AT guns, so fix soonTM), soviets AT gun cant pen KT (same as before), US/japan have shit rocket launchers (people have provided few suggestions on how to fix that), but your arguments are just lazy way on not wanting to deal with tanks even though you have tools for it.
why? tanks were used as direct fire support. even when they were used in front line roles they had infantry support and they werent charging into urban area where they were easy pickings for enemy infantry.
2 Likes
Uh huh. Right. Despite my message saying that perhaps they should make explosives weaker.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem. It’s probably why no one was bothering to answer your questions. Also, you’re not a mind reader, since you obviously have no idea why I’m posting this, despite my mentioning it several times.
Like everyone else, I’ll just go back to ignoring your arguments since you either don’t understand the response or willfully ignore them.
nah you just gonna ignore my arguments cause you cant counter any of it. you are behaving like gray zone tanks are invulnerable even though there are plenty of ways to kill them. you just dont want to use those solutions cause you are either lazy or unskilled or both.
what i consider legitimate complaint is when someone says: “US AT guns cant pen BR4+ german tanks.” solution is to bring in new AT gun that can pen BR4+ german tank.
what i consider whining: “gray zone tanks make me hurt. nerf them to the ground cause i dont know how to kill them.”
try to find yourself in those 2 examples.
2 Likes
OP has no clue about the tank gameplay and think that you can’t murder waves upon waves of infantry and tanks while sitting in a greyzone.
No, tanks are crucial when it comes to destroying enemy reinforcements that are coming to the point, i let my teammates to capture points millions of times just because i lobbed a few HE shells and mowed down squads with my MGs. Saying that not a single tank won a game is just laughable and i should just stop reading there.
Them with Flamethrowers are the best tools to break the stalemate and also destroy enemy tanks and apcs.
That’s hilarious, there are so many locations that let you do exactly that especially in Normany, Pacific and Tunisia.
New maps have better design with terrain or buildings that a lot of the times prevent you from sitting in a greyzone and forces you to reposition.
Yep after they’re going to get new AT launchers and also stronger buildable AT guns i won’t even care anymore about their pointless ramblings. It’s just pure skill issue. Tanks are glass cannons in this game and they want to make them even more fragile.
Where did I say that?
If you mean this:
I was referring to newbie players who use the gray zone to protect their tank. One would think that would be obvious. Although, I imagine it’s possible that veterans with less than stellar skills in defending their tank use the gray zone to protect it. In which case, they are likely doing it to rack up points for themselves.
If you note point 5 in my OP, I mention the above “score whore” issue - which implies actually killing “waves of infantry” as you put it.
That’s b/c it requires soldiers standing in the capture zone to capture points. Literally. Most players, I’d think, play all kinds of things - support, assault, tanks, planes, whatever.
It takes a special kind of player to point whore in a tank that has to fight from the gray zone, though.
Look - if the gray zone didn’t provide additional protection, tanks wouldn’t park there.
At least the honest folks say they do it to protect themselves b/c explosives are OP. Fair enough, to a point. It means Darkflow needs to make that mechanic more balanced.
As it stands, in some matches, it leaves 2 out of 10 players sitting in the back racking up points, and the rest of the team doing the dirty work that actually wins matches.
Having said that - if you were “mowing down squads with your MGs” - you likely weren’t in a gray zone.
Hey, whatever works. The whole point of my thread is simply pointing out the hypocrisy. I find the gray zone tanks a little annoying - but I find the idiots defending the exploitative practice FAR more annoying.
I may have only played this game for 3 months and 546 games. But I’ve played many, MANY others over the years and I know an exploit when I see one. And tanks sitting in the gray zone, no matter the reason, is an exploit - whether it’s intended or not, whether the player knows it or not or whether the Devs intended it or not or whether a player thinks it’s fair b/c explosives are OP or not.
Tanks sitting in the gray zone is allowing one of the most powerful units in any match additional protection that other units don’t get because they don’t have the same type of armor and the same type of long range capability.
It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
I also think this is the true agenda for all these post claiming gray zone tank is indestructible. There seem to be a trend where people claiming tanks are more useful closer to the cap are newer players while the people claiming tanks are more useful further away are the seasoned players.
1 Like
why even have tanks and planes if you wont let them play as they should be played. what is next, planes getting nerfed cause they are not on top of the cap all the time?
there are 8 ways to kill tank
- other tank
- plane
- AT gun
- AT rocket launcher
- AT mortar
- det pack
- tnt
- AT mine
being in gray zone block only 3 ways (more realistically 1-2 cause AT mines are almost non existent and tnt packs are relatively rare). so tell me how this is exploit? i would agree with you if those 3 ways were the only ways how you could kill tank (even if it was only as infantry). people are only complaining cause they cant kill tank with det packs.
2 Likes
are we operating “feelings” or real facts?
bro, noone still cant approve god is real…
You people are forgetting something,
-first most maps have already a massively nerfed grey zone.
You can spawn camp tanks already, or even move into the grey zone and suicide charge them even with your detpacks and actually reach them.
-second while I do claim that Panzerfaust and such can target vehicles up to 200 meters distance with some practice, in reality this isnt even needed, if you manage to actually reach the greyzone, on 90% of the maps your “grey zone camper” will be like 50 meters away from you, in rare cases 100 meters, which is absolutely in range to any AT weapon.
I don’t disagree, on the whole - I mean, I’ve done this myself. But it’s at GREAT risk to myself (since you never know when you’re just going to kick over dead, you don’t have armor, you’re deep in enemy territory, and at anytime, even if the tank is alone, they can turn and shoot you, whereas, all I have is secrecy, luck, and either an AT weapon or an explosive…) Not gonna lie, taking out a gray zone tank while the timer is running out and landing the explosive just right… it was a pretty sweet kill. 
First, let me try to explain something here, since those who speak English as a second language obviously aren’t understanding the point at all.
The situation you describe above is realistic, just as the one above that and I’ve done both. (Again, as I’ve mentioned in this thread, the gray zone camping doesn’t really bother me that much. It’s the hypocrisy about it that does.)
And here’s part of that hypocrisy: It’s fine for a tank, with armor, machine guns, cannon, and protected crew - to camp in an area that provides them excellent protection (gray zone, meaning no CQC, meaning it very much narrows down what can take it out, that’s why people do it).
Vs. the counter to it which is either a tank, AT weapon or soldiers of various types generally having to leave their gray zone to get close enough to get in range for their weapons to be effective - some of which have to risk even further by going into the enemy gray zone and seeing how long it takes for the luck to run out.
The point here: why does the tank get to be a special snowflake and get the benefit of gray zone protection but the counter to it doesn’t? Doesn’t that illustrate the unfairness of the situation?
Sure, sure. The answer could be shorted to “get gud” - but the point I’m trying to make - the counter to the tank using the gray zone - takes a LOT more work than the tank who benefits from it. How is this fair? How is this balanced?
Why do the strongest units get the benefit of sitting in the gray zone?
As the saying goes: two things can be true at the same time: Tanks get extra protection by being in the gray zone, whilst there are still SOME ways of taking them out. It doesn’t make the situation fair. Where do other units (outside of say, AA guns and AT cannon) get any benefit from hanging in the gray zone?
There’s no remotely comparable situation in the game. Here’s a thought:
Ignoring for a moment any other reason for having the gray zone (like protecting rally points, etc) Hypothetically: Why not just take out the gray zone completely? The tanks would still benefit from being at great range, right?
Wouldn’t all you “gray zone campers” be okay with that solution?
As a player who is good at and often uses ground troops against tanks
I can say very responsibly
Almost all gray zone massacres are the victims’ fault
Because they don’t want to prepare anything that can counterattack or interfere with these tanks.
And don’t want to take a detour away from what’s killing them
1
The player has 3 infantry squads and 1 vehicle squad
They can make choices for (selfish desires) or (for practical needs)
In the end, they can only be responsible for (their own choices)
2
Any vehicle has this issue
If they did a good enough job then I wouldn’t have a problem with it
So I think a better approach would be to use performance reviews to make sure bad players don’t stay on vehicles for too long
3
This is a slander without any actual proof
Because whether camping or not
More than 70% of tank drivers have the same lack of skills
They cannot effectively use their shells, performance, and terrain to protect their teammates and themselves.
4
They can provide long-range suppressive fire and smoke cover (if they wish)
Maybe the problem is that the skills of those infantry are too poor to break even strongholds with only a few enemies or that have been breached.
5
Except for casual players who have an obvious negative impact on the environment
I don’t think there are many players who don’t care about scores
6
I don’t know how the victim’s eyesight and thinking logic are.
but
Even if I’m on the ground
I can also make judgments based on the location of the bombardment, the sound of the gunfire, and the light spots, and then find them.
The infantry in this game has at least 4 methods of efficient destruction and 3 methods of effective interference with tanks entering the war zone.
Unless tanks meet casual players
Otherwise, under normal conditions
Once close to the battle zone those (serious players) will manage to destroy every tank they can see within 1 minute and 30 seconds
Going deeper into the gray zone may allow the tank to survive for an extra minute.
This is why most tanks are reluctant to enter combat zones
Obviously players can use smoke, terrain, and even dig bunkers to protect themselves
Or use engineering troops and anti-tank troops to fight tanks (advanced environments in the United States and Japan will be discussed separately)
but
At least among all the victims I’ve seen
No one would do the above behavior
just like you said
If they can’t even make the most basic choices and efforts for their own survival,
Is there any reason to require official protection for them?