The word 'Pointwhore'
The word 'pointwhore' is often used to attempt to slate an enemy (or teammate) who is using a powerful vehicle to attack a structure. However, there is no logic behind it.
Tanks can attack buildings from long range. This especially applies to the Mobile Artillery and the MRLS. It is plainly obvious that the game's developers designed them this way; their long range is completely intended. They pack the kind of punch against structures that the Flame Tank and the Stealth Tank do. Their range advantage over those two vehicles is compensated by weaker armour. Therefore, it is nonsense to argue that using an Artillery or MRLS to attack a structure is somehow an exploit. there is no logical reason why attacking a structure with an artillery unit is less valid a strategy than attacking it by any other means.
Furthermore, Westwood designed this game so that a game can be won by points. There is no logical reason why a victory by points is less of a victory than a victory by base destruction or beacon pedestal. Any difference is purely psychological and not practical.
Furthermore, the 'siege' strategy is completely possible to counter, just like any other offensive strategy such as a flame rush, sneaking Hotwire or Stealth Black Hand nuke attack is possible to counter.
If someone is sieging you with artillery and the like, here is what you do about it: Get tanks, go out there and kill their tanks.
If you try to do this and you fail, then it is an absolutely undeniable fact that one of the following statements is true:
1. The opposing team has greater tankskill than your team. It does take a good deal of skill to use a tank effectively in a firefight against enemy tanks.
2. The opposing team has better teamwork than your team, in the sense that they are focusing more players into the overall sieging effort. This can take the form of a Technician repairing you, another tank covering you, and so on.
3. Both of the above
To make the point more apparent, let's summarise the above conjecture.
If you try to rush their sieging units and fail, then one of the following is true:
1. the enemy is more skilled than you
2. the enemy has better teamwork than you
3. both of the above
So, if the enemy has more skill or more teamwork or both, then surely the enemy DESERVES to be beating you. Claiming the sieging tactic to be "lame" or whatever you want to call it is asinine, because it is perfectly possible to counter it. If you have a greater level of skill and teamwork to your opponent, you WILL counter it. If you have a roughly even level of skill and teamwork, you have a fighting chance of countering it. If you don't have the same level of skill and teamwork, you'll fail.
Now, many players will say it does not take skill to shoot a building with, say, an Artillery. While this is true, the statement completely lacks its necessary context and therefore it is bunk.
It does not take skill to put C4 on a building's MCT. The skill and strategy is required to get you there in the first place and defend it if necessary once it's placed.
It does not take skill to attack a building with a flamer or stank. The skill and strategy is doing it at the opportune time.
It does not take skill to lay a beacon down. The skill and strategy is doing it at the opportune time and defending it effectively.
So, what about tanks? It doesn't take skill to shoot a building with a tank. The skill comes into play when your opponent tries to stop you. If a skilled player has a tank sieging a building, and an unskilled player rushes them to try to make them stop, the skilled player will win, and the sieging player can go on sieging. If an unskilled player has a tank sieging a building, and a skilled player rushes them to try to make them stop, the skilled player will win, and the siege will be broken.
Correct usage of tanks can truly demonstrate a player's skill. Tankfighting is one of the most skilful aspects of this game.
So: a quick summary. If someone's sieging you, get your team organised, get tanks, and do something about it. If you try this and fail, the enemy is better than you. Instead of whining about the fact your enemy is "pointwhoring", learn some sportsmanship and accept the fact you lost fair and square thanks to a more skilled, better organised opponent.
In a nutshell, if someone can stay there the entire game hitting a building with a tank, it is not the tank user who has no skill and teamwork. It is the enemy.