Alpha 443-6732
203
   |
Posted - 2013.11.04 03:37:00 -
[1] - Quote
Atiim wrote:Soulja Ghostface wrote:No. the only way to kill tanks should be by using a tank. and i hate the finite ammo idea. Get your head out of your @$$ AV means Anti-Vehicle, meaning that AV should be a hard counter to HAVs (meaning they should be just as effective as tanks) Yep, the fact that you have infinite ammo and can spam rounds instantly with about 5s of overheat was definitely balanced. Do me a favor, when your saviors Void And Godin get here, remember that you said this, because apparently tankers don't want to make it to where only tanks are able to kill tanks and when I say that they do I am putting words in their mouth
Eh, you are mixing up soft counter and hard counter.
What we are saying is that infantry AV (forges, swarms, AV mines) should be the soft counter to vehicles, while vehicle AV is the hard counter (jets when they come, railguns, missiles). That's not saying vehicle AV should always be the better option, but from an offensive capability point of view, a vehicle mounted railgun should be more potent than a handheld one and a vehicle mounted missile launcher should be more effective than a handheld one.
But that's not saying infantry AV should be bad, but since it is inexpensive and relatively easier to use, it should require a bit of teamwork to eliminate a tank. 3 proto AV working together should deny an entire area of tanks, but no more than three are needed because the same 3 proto AV can retarget another tank after the first is destroyed.
In my opinion, infantry AV and standard infantry should be melded together, I feel the comparisons would be much fairer for the vehicle side. Everyone points out that if vehicles are made viable again, everyone will abandon infantry AV and hop into tanks, when that isn't the case. Tanks are big and clumsy to use, large targets and have many weapons that seek/track them. Infantrymen are more flexible in the sense that they can crawl around in places tanks cannot reach, use cover, play mind games with vehicles while out of sight, etc. It's like the age old argument of people running into heavies and complaining that they were able to kill them easily. People think that the only AV is infantry AV and that they are a class of their own, but it's a lot deeper than that. People need to consider that anti- anything doesn't automatically mean "utterly dominate to the point of uselessness," but merely means that it combats the object.
So basically:
1 tank = 1 tank, but that doesn't mean tanks are the best.
1 tank = 3 infantry, but that definitely doesn't mean infantrymen are useless.
Here is a situation where infantry AV should be a better solution than vehicular AV:
2 blaster tanks are being guarded from your team's tanks by 2 proto AV infantry. Your team has the potential to field an equal 2 blaster tanks and 2 proto AV infantry, but after considering the map dynamics (potential ambush spots only AV infantry can utilize) you decide to field 1 blaster tank and 3 AV infantry, with the AV infantry cleverly hidden out of sight, ready to strike. The blaster tank runs into the fray and baits the 2 armor tanks, 1 by 1, to come into your trap. Both enemy tanks follow, and with the help of the infantry AV hitting the enemy armor from seemingly unknown directions, you succeed in taking out both tanks. To be fair, your friendly tank was lost in the fight. After you are finished with the enemy armor, you easily finish off the enemy AV infantry, only losing 1 tank due to smart teamwork, while the enemy lost 2 tanks and 2 AV infantry.
Also, I just wanna say I mean no harm with this post, just trying to be productive to the balance discussion.
AV =/= Completely dominate and render vehicles useless. AV = Counterpart of vehicles that combats vehicles.
|