There is a huge difference, I did not mind loosing 2-3 100k isk suits taking out 600k isk tanks before 1.7. I am not about to risc 2-3 100k isk suits to take down a 50-60k isk tank. Anything less is barely scrathing the tanks, not to mention the skilled tankes with invulnerable hardners.

I find it easier to simply ignore the tanks, run for the nearest city and ignore the existence of the tanks.

I have tried and taken out some tanks with remote explosives, but I get more war points and are of better use for the team than spending the whole match taking out 2 tanks and dying about 10 times.

I have also tried with a cheap railtank, only to run into invulnerable hardened blaster tanks that simply rolled up to my rail tank and smashed it and my 4 rail shot did not take a tiny bit of its armor.

No, I have removed all AV grenades from my suits, have one AV build with remote explosives left but it is no longer used.

I do not complain about the tanks, I like the added chaos but I have no intention of wasting 400k isk to take down a 60k isk tank.

cost is a big issue. It was fun pre 1.7 to hunt an expensive tank. Not because it was a threat but because you knew the tanker would rage loosing a 600k-1mill isk tank. Why chase a tank and risc dying when I can avoid it with my dampened scout. I often pass right pass the tanks, they ignore me as I do not light up on their tachnet as a red dot. I could have placed some REs while passing the tank.

But why waste time hunting a cheap tank when I can help the team win the match by hacking nullcanons and placing droplinks in strategic locations out of a tanks reach. If the tank was back at 1mill isk cost, I might take up the challenge again

You might be right and I am wrong, I will continue without AV grenades as I have tried with av grenades and find a higher success rate ignoring the tanks than attacking it and making my position known to the tanker.

For some reason tanks seems balanced when both teams have tanks deployed, it is rarely a balanced match if only one team have tanks. I would conclude that infantry alone against the tanks in 1.7 is unbalanced.

EDIT: I will have to add that I have seen forge guns and espeiclally proto forge guns taking out tanks with success. They are just rare on the team and expensive to deploy, personally I very rarely use proto in pub matches. Sad that we need proto AV to counter mlt tanks.

skill into REs, get militia LAVs.

place REs on said LAV, proceed to speed towards enemy tank.

Tanker is trolled and you get a vehicle and infantry kill.

Heh heh no, my logi is dependent on his fluxes for 1v1 situations, instead I should be able to rely on my AV squad member to be able to achieve this 'retreat' scenario with his AV DEDICATED LIGHT WEAPON. People who play with squads often fill a certain role which they are geared towards.

But now I need to start packing sub-standard AV countermeasures because the guy who's dedicated role as AV is about as useful doing the maccarana.

I'll say it once I'll say a thousand times, people should not be forced to do something. You shouldn't force Logi units to use all equipment slots, you shouldn't force heavies to use heavy weaponry, you shouldn't be forced into teamwork to destroy or coerce the retreat of vehicles.

Instead it should be advantageous to do so, a logi should WANT to fill out his equipment, a heavy should WANT to use a heavy weapon, squad members should WANT to work together. We need AV equipment that encourages the use of team play, but doesn't make it a neccesity.

I should want to equip something that helps in my role, but also his role. So as a combat engineer I would pack webifier mines, or deployable small railgun turrets. My point man might start packing EMP grenades that cause weapons to misfire or so on. But at the same time if I am busy doing my Job, I need to be confident my AV unit can do his Job, Solo!

I wouldn't necessarily expect him to blow up the tank, but I certainly expect him stop it ramming a blaster turret up my backside and to be adequately be rewarded for it, you can not tell me that
A) This already happens
B) They are adequately rewarded
C) They have the facilities to do their job effectively

Also finally you missed the main point, I can do my Job, rather well if I do say so myself, but at the moment my AV physically can't do his Job, he might as well use a mlt assault suit and do an entirely different role.

I don't even use them on my AV fits. They barely work for LAVs.

Thats the entirety of your response? I had been gearing up for an interseting intellectual battle and that is all you can reply with? Alot of people are using that argument lately.

Im right your wrong, I have no evidence to support my arguement or weaken yours, but Im still right!

I used logic and gave you clear workings of that logic. Once again you are assuming everyone wants to win and the orginal tactic does not already contain a counter.

In my squad we already had a counter to vehicles, we had an commando AV specalist. His job was to stop tankers from wiping us out. Now at the moment the only method of dealing with vehicles dealing enough damage to destroy or cause a retreat. So when you nerf the application of damage without providing other methods to counter the threat how do you propose you adapt?

You end up with rather outlandish tactics like LAV bombs because the stock provided methods no longer do their job, it has killed a role, hampered the use of a suit (commando is hardly geared towards AI operations) and your solution is drop everything you normally do and start running identical fits in order to have the best chance of survival.

It's all well and good saying adapt and HTFU, but if people don't explain things like this then we would still be at the killer taxi stage.

I did it...
Can I complain now?
There is still the problem of how much more valuable a tank is compared to a regular infantry person. One person playing in a tank is able to affect a match more than 3 or 4 people playing in a squad.

So you are saying you are happy with this scenario.

To counter threat A we have counter B - Brilliant
Threat A has been buffed, counter B has been nerfed - Ok is there a counter C?
No there is only counter B - But that doesn't work anymore, what do we do?
Use more of it!

You are happy with that? You don't want to give people options?

For example omitting fighting with fire: How can you deal with a Sniper?
Short range Combat (Hard Counter)
Vehicular Combat
Long range combat(Forge Gun, Rail Rifle)

How do you deal with a hmg heavy in a corridor?
Mass Driver (Aoe Combat)
Shotgun ( close range combat)
rifle (long range combat)

How do you deal with a Tank?
AV (doesn't work effectively anymore)
Suicide LAV (not really a tactic)
. . . .

We need more options if you are gonna make the dealing damage difficult then you need to give us other counters that don't fequire damage.

Or he can use locus grenades to save himself while he ignores the tank. I'd go ahead and say that is the biggest disadvantage to your suggestion: reduced effectiveness against everything else besides a tank. What he's saying is not nonsense and I believe it makes more sense than claiming that people should run AV nades in an effort to reduce the number of tanks seen on the field. If they're only meant to scare the tanks off if they "bother you" then what's to keep them away after you've run out of grenades? Tanks aren't afraid of infantry and the easiest counter for a tanker is to just come back later after they've wasted their grenades trying to scare it.

The end result of this "ignore the tanks because AV nades are worthless" position is that you stay away from tanks and focus on infantry. This is safer. There's no room for "if you had AV nades you would've survived" situations if you avoid them all together.

You tell me the list is small, then you give me a soultion from the list, AV grenades are AV.

Yes there are solutions, Ye people do adapt. But just because we can adapt doesn't mean the mechanic isn't broken. As you said during the BPO killer taxi days, every man and his dog had AV grenades. But that didn't stop people complaing about the broken mechanic, if didn't stop CCP providing a soultion.

And it won't stop it here.
Just because the soloutions currently available involve slim pickings, that doesn't mean we haven't employed them.