Let's just ignore vehicles for this example, and focus on infantry vs infantry in a parallel universe.

Imagine this:

In this universe, suits need to be taken out with very specific weapons. No exception. If you don't have the right weapon to take out that suit, you are absolutely screwed. They can stand there and take it all night long while you dish it out.

Example:

- Player A has weapons designed to take out ADV suits, but ADV suits only. If militia/STD or proto attack this player, the player is defenseless. Nothing they do will harm a militia/STD or proto suit in any way worth a damn.

- Player B has weapons designed to take out militia/STD, but is completely defenseless against ADV and proto suits.

- Player C has weapons designed to take out proto suits, but is absolutely helpless against ADV and militia/STD suits.


So would this be balanced, or completely unbalanced and ridiculous? Cause this is almost exactly what anti-vehicle and anti-infantry players have to deal with.

Anti-vehicle - Only good against vehciles, vulnerable vs infantry and vehicles.
Anti-infantry- Only good against infantry, vulnerable vs vehicles and infantry.


And here's the vehicle players setup.

Anti-infantry & vehicle - Vulnerable only by AV players and some vehicles, but excellent against all vehicles and all infantry.


This is wrong and needs to change. Vehicles have way too much of an advantage. They should have to make hard choices like infantry players do.

Either:

1. Vehicles only good against other vehicles, but worthless against infantry
2. Vehicles only good against infantry, defenseless to other vehicles.

Or:

Infantry players need dedicated AV on all suits. Which means separate PG/CPU and slots for AV specific weaponry, this way infantry can carry both and be equally effective against vehicles and infantry. However the extra PG/CPU and slots can only be used for AV weapons (that way they can't be abused).

''Um... no. Show me ANY real life parallel to this argument and I'll agree. The point of a vehicle, and thus the enormous amount of SP and ISK spent to gain use of and continue to use a vehicle, is to gain an ADVANTAGE.''

The point of AV is to have a counter against that advantage , without the enormous cost.

:3

I see where the OP is coming from.He does have a point.

But at the same time me running with Swarms + SIX KIN SMG makes me useful vs infantry AND vehicles alike, im just sacrificing AI range.

Also people who main Plasma cannons+AV grenade+sidearm can damage everything in the game....

So meh. I wont discuss, i'll wait till vehicle/AV fix is here to rant again in the neverending vehicle vs AV war...

Oh so i've never said that tanks need a buff? YES I HAVE. This are my points overall:

1--Tanks need buff
2--AVers need to NOT be able to kill a tank of hiher level SOLO BUT; be able to make a profit pushing it back in occations.
3--I know you dont care about your enemy specialization earning WP, but i do care about WP gain for tanks,as for in search for balance,both sides must be able to make a profit.
4--Armor tanks are by no means UNDERPOWERED.


I just..despise tankers saying they get 1 HKOd by AV and i have NEVER done that...
And i have Proto AV..
I have taken out tanks alon, OF COURSE.But its never easy unless they are MLT....