I agree to an extent that forgeguns should be the most effective infantry AV weapon. However, I don't think that the forgegun should be as powerful as a vehicle mounted railgun.

In my opinion, infantry with AV (swarms, forges) should support vehicles with AV (railguns). They should be the backbone of the AV profession that can be spammed quickly, cheaply and easily and used to overwhelm vehicles with numbers (3 infantry AV = Equal meta level Tank, 1 infantry AV = equal meta level LAV, 2 infantry AV = equal meta level dropship). The big expensive vehicles should do the greatest damage by a long shot, but should have compromises to balance that out.

What I mean by this is:

Infantry AV: Soft counter to vehicles (3 infantry AV : 1 vehicle)

Vehicle AV: Hard counter to vehicles (1 vehicle : 1 vehicle)

My reasoning for this, is that infantry AV is more flexible than vehicle AV. They have the benefits of being infantry, while being to fight tanks. As it stands now, infantry is like the "AR" of roles; master of all trades. They are arguably the most effective at fighting vehicles (even more so than vehicles themselves), but can still slaughter infantry like no tomorrow. What Im saying is that infantry needs to be balanced according to its flexibility and adaptability, where it can do basically everything, but it isn't the best at everything.

All tanks can do is kill things that are out in the open and support points. Infantry can go anywhere they want and do whatever they want.

you do know that you can have up to 3 tanks out? that would mean, by your math, it'd take 9 AVers to take a tank out. If the friendly tank tank gets taken out and the enemy has their tanks rolling out on the BF it would effectively shut the other teams ability to call vehicles safely no?

So, I tank.

Lately, everyone is getting up in arms, and the tankers and the infantry are at each others throats, with a fairly consistent back and forth ensues between certain regular parties.

It has all gotten quite dull. There needs to be an effort to reach consensus, perhaps not on concrete details, but at least on the basic principles of AV and how it should interact with vehicles.

Here are some things I have been thinking about lately. Some of these things will upset tankers, and some will upset infantry. Hopefully you all get annoyed equally, and we can make some progress.

1. The heavy should be the primary AV specialist.

Ideally, they should have the best tool for the job, currently the forge gun. The suit itself needs protection from infantry, and is mobility limited. This enforces the need for one heavy suit to focus on tactics to tackle one tank. It also means that a tank must think tactically to avoid getting slapped by a heavy.

A well fitted heavy should be an effective counter to a tank. It then becomes a fight between the tank, which has greater mobility and HP, and the heavy, which has the potential to ambush, trap, use height, etc.

In this type of scenario, you could even bump up FG direct damage if you raised fitting costs to minimize protection on the fat suit. Or you could leave the damage as it is, and reduce fitting costs, to allow a heavy the chance to sit and trade with a tank.

2. Swarms are really pathetic.

The entire idea of how swarms work is completely silly. I don't care about any of the alleged reasons behind it, the behaviour of swarms ruins any type of engagement, because it is a no brainer. 2 guys with MLT swams can overwhelm almost any tank in less than 6 seconds. It is absurd. Beyond that, they are largely ineffective against their primary target, which I would assume to be DS's and LAV's, and instead get spammed onto tanks with hilarious results for the infantry, but deeply unpleasant for the tankers.


1 heavy with a FG should be able to output at least 3 swarm users output over the same time. This means a drastic nerf to the swarms. This promotes the proper relationship of suits, with tanks being powerful against infantry, AV being very strong against tanks, and the AV troop(heavy) being weak to infantry.

Non heavy suits should have an AV option, but it should not be the teams primary choice for AV work.

3. Nuclear baseballs.

I get it that infantry need an option for a rampaging tank on a spawn point. All I think needs to be done is to ramp up the fitting costs on the AV grenades and lower damage levels at ADV. I don't mind if someone wants to use a set of Lai Dais to deal me 6k damage. I can appreciate the balls. What I DO mind is them being able to effectively roll that option while having a very viable anti-infantry fit as well.

Packing AV grenades should mean that the infantry has made a choice to sacrifice either tank, or their anti-infantry capability in order to pack that type of AV damage.

The other way to do it is make them low damage, but instead of three, you get 5. That way, they can be spammed to keep vehicles at bay, but not kill anything but stupid tank drivers.

Nudge

Also for the guys saying it should take at least 3 dedicated av units to take out one tank, ARE YOU KIDDING ME. It's hard enough to get one proto AV unit (Which is not dedicated BTW just SL op 5) but to get 3 DEDICATED AV UNITS TO TAKE ON ONE TANK. You have got to be fking kidding me. Tanks would stomp pubs like nothing. If you want that then CCP better raise the price of tanks and it's modules.

Sorry but I can destroy any tank pretty quickly. They do need a buff. Just not as much as some people are saying.

Also for the guys saying it should take at least 3 dedicated av units to take out one tank, ARE YOU KIDDING ME. It's hard enough to get one proto AV unit (Which is not dedicated BTW just SL op 5) but to get 3 DEDICATED AV UNITS TO TAKE ON ONE TANK. You have got to be fking kidding me. Tanks would stomp pubs like nothing. If you want that then CCP better raise the price of tanks and it's modules.

I propose that if tanks get a buff, AV weaponry grant WP baseed on HITS vs vehicles.This would mean
Hitting a tank with a FG would grant around 15-20WP. This way,at least if i couldnt kill the tank i could make a living
of keeping tanks away.This way tanks can have their so desired HP buff without being broken, both red dot tankers and
Blue AV specialist pushing him back/killing him earn ISK and SP....

Hmmm.
I like this idea.
Some questions though:
Is this idea for all AV or just Forge Guns?
If all AV is awarded similar,
How many wp's for each grenade that does damage?
How many wp's for each swarm missle that does damage?
Do the wp gains stack with kill gains? (i.e. 1 hit = 20 wp + kill = 50 wp = 70 wp total)

If the last is true then I believe there would be an increase of people spec'ing swarms to proto
to get the 6 missles.

...a lot of good stuff ending with:

Vehicles need something done in favor of them. I've always agreed with that. But lets not screw
up other roles while doing so.
As an AV'er I want a good fight with an HAV or dropship. Good fights mean more fun for me
whether I win or lose.

My 0.02 anyway.

Great post AG. We need more of this and imma thinkin' maybe Wolfie and crew needs more of this too - this is one hell of a complex design problem.

I'm just gonna quote first principles here:


My underlining. To me this is where vehicle/AV design starts and ends and is the touchstone at every stage of the process.

And that is why i though the vehicle post by Wolfman - https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1226541#post1226541 - was definitely pointing in a good direction. Specifically this:

"Active vs. Passive modules

WeGÇÖre rebuilding everything with the idea that active modules will allow a vehicle to survive a single encounter, while passive modules increase its long-term survivability across multiple encounters. Active modules will provide very significant bonuses, but once used their long recharge times leave a lone vehicle vulnerable to any follow-up attacks. Passive modules on the other hand provide permanent bonuses that are comparatively small. The breakdown is as follows:"

I find this approach attractive because it allows the tank to be an effective, dominating force if the pilot decides to commit, but it comes with a vulnerability hangover also. For Avers, it would mean timing, positioning, prediction and luck would all be prerequisites for a solo kill. To me that says good gameplay and balanced gameplay.

I want to know what Wolfman and crew ran into trouble with, and specifically i want to know if this Active vs. Passive philosophy is giving them trouble.

Hmmm.
I like this idea.
Some questions though:
Is this idea for all AV or just Forge Guns?
If all AV is awarded similar,
How many wp's for each grenade that does damage?
How many wp's for each swarm missle that does damage?
Do the wp gains stack with kill gains? (i.e. 1 hit = 20 wp + kill = 50 wp = 70 wp total)

If the last is true then I believe there would be an increase of people spec'ing swarms to proto
to get the 6 missles.

I like the idea. But if the numbers are unbalanced then there is going to be a lot of AV on the
field. That means vehicle users are that much more at a disadvantage.
Take swarms... If every hit nets 20 wps then it would he the go to weapon. But, if gross gain is 20
wp then every missle that doesn't hit deprives the swarm user of the same amount of points as
a forge user. And swarms like hitting buildings and terrain so that means forge guns become
the dominate AV weapon on the field.

Given the qq over forges recently, that would just make matters worse. And they can hit infantry too.
(which I'm fine with btw. Leave the forge alone damnit)
So now more are qq for a forge gun nerf... And it would get nerfed at that point. Now vehicle
become OP etc. It's a vicious cycle.

Then there's the grenades. Do those gains only work with AV nades or all of them? Flux grenades
are real useful against ground based vehicles. They take out shields so it stands to reason they
should gain the benefit of the wp gains for damage too.
Locus genades do damage to vehicles as well. So to maximize wp's we'll find
people standing in hive fields tossing locus grenades at tanks from behind cover racking up 20 wp
per locus spammed...

I like this idea and I'd love to see it implemented but I have questions concerning it's balance.
Because if it was implemented then a logi/AV'er would be king of wp gain. Mix in Amarr logi and
you have an all purpose slayer.

Where is the fairness to the vehicle users for their wp gains?
Again, I do like the idea, I just want to make sure it's fair for both sides.