I'm not even trolling.

It's been over 6 months and I have yet to actually see a decent answer to the question at hand.

So by your reasoning, tanks should be as easy to kill as a dropsuit. That is the worst thing I have ever heard and you should feel bad. That sounds like an arguement to just get rid of vehicles. If they are just as easy, why have them. Plus then we need to nerf the heavies according to your statement.

Because it's stupid.

A good tank costs a LOT more than a couple of av grenadea carried by one infantryman. They even tend to cost more than a proto heavy suit with a proto forge gun.

Also, real world infantry rarely "solo kill" real world tanks. Then why should sci-fi infantry "solo kill" sci-fi tanks?

So by your reasoning, tanks should be as easy to kill as a dropsuit. That is the worst thing I have ever heard and you should feel bad. That sounds like an arguement to just get rid of vehicles. If they are just as easy, why have them. Plus then we need to nerf the heavies according to your statement.

Title is Self-Explanatory

Also:

It was called chromosome, devs didn't like it, so they fixed it. Next.

Aside from having already crushed the old "javelin-argument" with my previous post, what makes you say that this is an infantry game? Got any proof of that?

I'd say that the very fact that the game even features drivable vehicles is proof enough that this IS NOT an infantry game.

LOL

I can solo vehicles with a breach FG

And I guess my thought is that the "infantry support" role should be where the MAVs shine (in addition to making HAVs think very hard in groups of 2+). Harder to kill than an LAV, but without the Large turret of the HAV.

And the Large turret of the HAV should be primarily for LAV/MAV/HAV removal, doing little damage and generally being more difficult to use against infantry.

Boom. Vehicles fixed.

That would be "highly mobile armor" for scouting / light infantry support - LAV.
Then "mobile armor" for infantry support / general purpose AV - MAV.
And "heavy armor" for AV / infantry suppression (not total wipe-the-floor destruction) - HAV.

Two LAVs would be fast enough to kill an MAV, two MAVs an HAV, and HAVs would be a serious threat to LAVs, or MAVs, while posing a clear defense of an area to infantry (if the smaller turrets are in use...as is not the case on 80+% of the tanks currently).

For tanks MLT should be popped by solo av. STD tanks should use team work but only if its fitted right. Why not just have "ground swarms" for tanks and "sky swarms" for ADS? Having SW lock on to tanks and ADS it will take a while to balance out. Easier fix would be 2 different types of SW.

No, infantry didn't like it, so they had CCP change it.

all ccp had to do from 1.6 was nerf down that there proto av damge and av nades. everything but proto AV was ifne. but oh no. vehciles got compeltley overhauled and the av nerfed happend ( av nerf is too heavy though give them extra 50 dmage on thes swarms and make it 200m lock range.)

So, one issue that seems to stand out is if an average tanker with average skills gets into a standard tank with standard modules, the other team has the choice of either letting it slaughter them, running from it at all times, or having a merc switch to AV.

One AV isn't going to cut it unless the AV player has godlike skill and manages to always be in the right place at the right time and has his proto forge/swarm aimed at the weakspot when all the hardeners die. Yeah right. More realistic situation is 2-3 average AV characters engaging this average tanker. Those 2-3 AV players are now toting around piddly little SMGs to defend themselves against the protobears on the other team, who had no need to switch to AV.

Tank dude is reducing the effective numbers of the other team just by existing, cause if the other team doesn't have multiple AV out to at least deter the tank they're going to have to live with an enemy impervious to small arms creating large areas of the map where they cant travel without getting melted.

What if we made it so tanks needed gunners? I'm not talking about a guy manning the dinky small turrets. I mean the main gun requiring a dedicated gunner, with the driver having zero control over the main turret. Give the driver control of the front mounted small turret if anything.

Maybe that could help even up the "teamwork imbalance" a bit. Change tanks from solopwnmobiles into something requiring at least minimal teamwork. Every tank on the field means a minimum of two people forced to work together on both teams, instead of just the AV guys. One less person on the tank's team shooting AV infantry in the face with a rail rifle.

That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them.

That's exactly it. Tanks should be primarily AV, but they can't be because there is no MAV. There's just tanks, or buggies.

If you can balance a moderate level of effectiveness with AV, coupled with HAV staying power, coupled with a level of relative affordability, and at least requiring a moderate level of SP invested to have a useful and decent tank......then more power to you.

That or a redesignation of the role of tanks making them designed to deal with other vehicles on the map at costs to infantry killing power, coupled with making small turrets effective enough to encourage/ make worthwhile for tankers to want an Anti Infantry gunner to cover them.

If tanks should be the primary answer to other tanks, then why have Infantry AV in the first place?

If tanks should be the primary answer to other tanks, then why have Infantry AV in the first place?

That's exactly it. Tanks should be primarily AV, but they can't be because there is no MAV. There's just tanks, or buggies.

I've posted this in multiple threads but my ideal scenario would be to make Tanks the Tech II MAV.

MAV being designed to transport troops like the dropship but across the ground and support those troopers with a Medium Turret (in my Mind the current blaster turret is removed from Large Turret designation and nerfed slightly to produce the medium Blaster) being a faster vehicle with less total armour and bonuses to resistance modules.

Thus the MAV is designed to be a lightly armoured mobile troop transport and suppression vehicle with an anti infantry bent.

HAV turrets are then replaced with more or less main battle cannon weapons with high alpha, moderate splash damage, and small magazine sized to encourage skill shotting and not spamming rounds down range.

HAV are redesigned to deal directly and effectively with other vehicles on the map being the pinnacle of vehicle to vehicle combat on the ground at a high but reasonable and meaningful cost to the player in both ISK and SP making Spam of tanks less likely.

Lack of massively and ridiculous effective Anti Infantry killing turrets like the Large Blaster means any infantry kills are the result of a well placed shot not just 30 rounds in their general direction.

Also I never understood the role of HAV in dust, killing Infantry has been my role for a long time, but Tanks are designed to carry large ordinance and deliver it from behind solid armour and with reasonable mobility.....the rail gun essentially now is the only choice to really achieve that role.

LAV < MAV < HAV < Orbital Strike or Other HAV, or AV (but of course the balance between numbers must be first implemented)

just like in future I imagine

Dropship < Assault Dropship < Fighter < AV, HAV, or OB

In my mind, and feel free to point out any flaws in my reasoning, it would encourage escalation game play. LAV are used to quickly sweep to the points, MAV roll in carrying bigger guns and more infantry, tanks come in to deal with those MAV, and an OB will deal with that tank, or AV, or another Tank.

I forgot that everyone has or should have a PRO heavy suit.

AV isn't, nor shouldn't be FORGE MASTER RACE.

It should be FG=/=SL=/=PLC