Yeah! Let's not have something that is more effective at killing infantry than infantry because I don't feel like it! Even though there are dozens of countermeasures to the role!

are you an idiot!!???

so you want one 100k proto suit to be the same worth as a 2.3 mil isk tank?>>? you nooob go home

And why do you believe this?

For sure the best counter for a tank should be a tank.

But the only counter?

I want what you're smoking!




Only saw your conversation after posting, so here's an edit!

Basically, I think it's somewhat disingenuous to suggest that a tank should be worth no more than an assault dropsuit (if you are in fact, as I presume, referring to its combat abilities) considering your quote.

A tank is not like a dropsuit - it's entirely a niche item; it can perform one role, and one role only. In my tank, I can kill (and scatter the enemy, more importantly) more effectively than any protosuit (and if my blaster had decent hit detection.... but that's another matter ). What I can't provide is any kind of versatility.

In an Assault dropsuit, I can slay, cap points and provide limited support. In a Logistics dropsuit, I can slay, cap points and provide ample support. In a Scout dropsuit... but you get the idea.

A tank should be equivalent to somewhat more than a heavy suit, considering that the heavy suit is primarily a slayer suit (however poorly it performs that role) considering its lack of any support ability (I am referring, of course, to the absence of an equipment slot).

In its niche, a tank should be unmatched. Unlike any other dropsuit, or even vehicle, an HAV is capable of performing only one role to any acceptable standard (in other words, it's not even capable of acting as a mobile spawnpoint, like a DS, or even an effective transport, like a LAV).
There is no legitimate reason why any infantry suit should be able to match the HAV in its niche.

Now, having made that point, I'm going to move on to OP's point.

Even if the infantry has sacrificed its primary weapons slot for an AV-type weapon (or is one of those assholes who primaries grenades as AV) it still has far greater versatility than a tank; in fact, a tank that's fitted for primary AV is generally poor at anti-infantry action, and so has even smaller a niche than under normal circumstances.

I think, for that reason, that the primary AV weapon on the field should be a tank, and that infantry AV should be supplemental (significant, but not catastrophic as it currently is). Certainly I don't think that a single AV player should be capable of utterly negating the entire opposing team's effective vehicle usage (assuming the other side is using equivalently tiered gear).

And I avoided mentioning ISK for a very good reason (though I'd not say no to a significant price drop even were it accompanied by a nerf or two).

well this isnt CoD either and we cant be turning into light weapon 514.

And yes, tanks HAVE to be anti everything. The balance on it is that we get maybe 30 seconds MAX to engage an enemy before we pop like glass to one guy with a forge gun or swarm launcher.

if both tanks and av are equal against tanks, then why skill into tanks when av can do the job just as good at a much, much cheaper price?

by making infantry equally effective against vehicles as tanks are, your basically making this call of duty 514 because everyone will go towards the infantry side because its cheaper, and far more efficient.

the only way to balance it out truly is to make vehicles the best counter to itself, but have av as an alternative that's not as powerful but is still effective.

enemy vehicles get suppressed by friendly tankers, friendly infantry is free to hack objectives and get the small ground work done. the tanks do the enemy suppression and destruction and infantry still get their jobs done. with av on the field, there is no reason to bring in vehicles because mainly... well... vehicles are ****.

>>>What im saying is a tank, without support should have the tactical worth of a dropsuit.
If you are assaulting an entrenched pisition, I would expect a tank to fair no better than an infantry unit.

This is plain wrong; an HAV should be far superior for assaulting an entrenched position. This is because an HAV is utterly incapable of holding a position, except through extermination. Its inability to hack a point makes using an HAV against an objective completely futile.

I feel like 2 AV players of equivalent meta level should be capable of eliminating a tank approximately as quickly as a tank could, so that infantry still have a role in AV, in the event that they have no allied tanker, and to allow allied tankers to 'punch above their weight', so to speak.