Has anyone considered that man-portable AV isn't meant to contend one on one with a vehicle, while vehicles have a difficult time popping a lone infantry (except large blasters, but from what I read on here they suck vs tanks)? Sure, infantry get options to counter vehicles and vehicles can mount small turrets, but don't tanks do an astounding job taking out other tanks while infantry does an astounding job taking out other infantry?

I mean, think about it - How many anti-infantry weapons does infantry have access to compared to AV? How small is the blast radius on that missile turret?

Has anyone thought that, maybe, the current imbalance is intended to drive infantry to kill other infantry because "it's easier", and for tanks to shoot other vehicles because "it's easier"?

My two cents. Feel free to bombard me with your "facts".

That would be all well and good if tanks were so awesome at killing infantry while being immune to infantry.

If the blaster didn't complete destroy entire squads of infantry then I would say that AV is at a decent place. As it is right now, there is a reason why everyone and their mother is using militia somas.

Has anyone considered that man-portable AV isn't meant to contend one on one with a vehicle, while vehicles have a difficult time popping a lone infantry (except large blasters, but from what I read on here they suck vs tanks)? Sure, infantry get options to counter vehicles and vehicles can mount small turrets, but don't tanks do an astounding job taking out other tanks while infantry does an astounding job taking out other infantry?

I mean, think about it - How many anti-infantry weapons does infantry have access to compared to AV? How small is the blast radius on that missile turret?

Has anyone thought that, maybe, the current imbalance is intended to drive infantry to kill other infantry because "it's easier", and for tanks to shoot other vehicles because "it's easier"?

My two cents. Feel free to bombard me with your "facts".

Much like infantry must gimp its anti infantry capability to combat tanks, the blaster sacrifices the tanks ability to contend with other tanks. They could use a bit of nerfing, but that's a discussion for another thread.

But Amazing. May I call you Amazing? But Amazing, whatever shall infantry do when a tank exists somewhere, anywhere on the field at any point in time?

I mean it's like being addicted to cigarettes. They gotta have one every 15 minutes or it's just not balanced.

Well nerfing aside, you can admit that one pays in spades and the others is like hitting a wall with a banana right? (infantry gimping for AV versus tanks gimping for anti-infantry)

I'd definitely be fine with one man portable AV not being good enough to take out a vehicle IF they did something about large blaster turrets. There's virtually no escaping them on foot, and they still do a good job at taking out other vehicles. If it's going to be the infantry oriented heavy turret, then make it do less damage against other vehicles. That way you have to choose what you want. Good against other vehicles but have a hard time nailing infantry? Or great against infantry but need to flee if you get targeted by a rail/missile tank?

The best counter to a tank is a tank. The best counter to infantry is infantry.

wrong, current MLT tank with a fit for 100k will keep proto suits dead away from objectives far better than any suit can do. the MLT tank wont also die as fast a suit and thus preserve clones.

beside that, even if it would be that way, it would still be bad. binary game mechanics are last century and CoD.

The best counter to a tank is a tank. The best counter to infantry is infantry.

Except I'm right. What better way to take out a tank than with a tank, or a proto suit with a proto suit? I'm not talking in terms of ISK efficiency (which, btw, I agree with you that MLT tank prices are out of whack for their power), but simply in ease of use. Infantry can simply gun down other infantry much easier than a tank can gun down infantry (again, with the exception of the blaster turret, which we all agree performs its role too well).