Balanced would be 1.

Av should blow up tanks and tanks should kill infantry.
the whole a good tanker can survive thing is bs. Tankers can kill avers infantry can't kill tanks like they used to.
Meaning tanks need to be as vulnerable to av as infantry is to vehicles now

Balance is 1:1:1

How can you equate a hard armor infantry support ... anti-vehicle " Machine " against a " Meat-Bag " ???

That's like saying , " A car should be as strong as a person or the person that's driving it . " and if that was the case ... there would be way more vehicular homicide's . That's in the physical since and not mentally , a good driver is a strong driver like a good anti-vehicle trooper is a strong one , but again that's mental .

People that say that just don't make much since to me but what do I know ???

Comparing a vehicle machine to a person slash " Meat-Bag " just doesn't seem like sound reasoning or balance .

I don't think it should be anything, it depends on how you use it and how good you are but against infantry it can range from 6.0 to 100+ however if you are someone who only does tank v tank I think anything above 2 is good, 3 is "you're pretty good", 4 is awesome and 5 is godlike. Tanker all time kdr usually is somewhere slightly above the best slayers. Total kill count per match is however considerably lower for a tanker than it is for the best slayers in a single match, ambush is however completely random as it depends so much on the spawns.

5 is godlike? k.... id say 10 would be godlike

I'm not talking about stomping wannabe tankers, I'm talking about going up against proper tankers.

I'm not talking about stomping wannabe tankers, I'm talking about going up against proper tankers.

Depends though doesn't, if we want (and I can only assume we all do) to keep the regularity of tanks as near as damn it to now, I would expect AV Tanker to probably be as good (overall) as a Infantry Slayer. You can't really give a fixed value because there are too many variables.

All the OP really wants to know is, do you think a tanker should have a higher or lower KDR than equivalent skill infantry?
Wether you disagree with me or not, I believe that role dependant a tanker should be ABOUT the same as infantry, unless of course you are role that has a high tendancy to die (AV, Logi, Vanguard Scout, Vanguard Heavy).

Although and I hope you do agree, there are considrably more actions that merit a warpoint reward that some tankers already do. MCRU spawn points, Intel Kill Assists, maybe even distraction and guardian bonuses (friendly infantry getting kills from within a certain proximty of your tank), stuff that encourages tighter play between vehicles and infantry.

At the same time infantry should be rewarded for protecting your tank, such as warpoint commisions for killing AVers who are firing upon you tank, triage points for tank healing etc.

There's few problems with your comparison of AV tanker vs infantry slayer. AV tanker has no way to get out of a no win situation, it's too big to hide and not agile enough to dodge enemy fire reliably while retreating and changing directions is slow so you cannot change your mind about which route to take in split second, all of which an infantry player can do.
As a Slayer if you know you wont come out on top in a situation, most of the time you can run for cover. Also you as a Slayer will most likely have anywhere between 800-1000 EHP and the infantry that you stomp has 300-500 EHP (of course slayer vs slayer this doesn't apply) but tankers have only marginal EHP differences between fits and SP levels.
That is why it is highly unlikely to kill 5 enemy tankers who know what they are doing one after another without dying. And it is almost impossible to engage in 1v2 and come out on top, where as infantry can do 1v5 and come out on top.

Why is that? Time for arbitrary numbers: 5200 EHP and 800 DPS vs 5200+5200 EHP and 800+800 DPS, big enough targets to not miss. Or you could have 1000 EHP and 500 DPS vs 500+300+400+300+300 EHP and 300+400+350+400+300 DPS, small enough targets to miss if strafing.

CCP are game simulators. See EVE for details. Its amazing real science and math simulating space,

Dust is a version of that. Lets not get hung up there. But themed with EVE is similar and hopeful soon joined.

My point. In real life if a army had a tank there was clear unstoppable power. The other army had to deploy specialized tactics or deploy a tank... Before this horses on the battle field played the same unstoppable power.


I don't use tanks, but if they get 40-0 and you QQ ... Bad on you. If you hate it so much specialise to blow them up - the gratification will be 10 fold fueled by revenge.

Its pure and simple algebra actually.

1man = 1man
1 tank > 1man
therfore in order for a balanced statement, something must be > than tank, but < than man. This is AV

1man < 1tank < 1AV < 1man

That is balance, however as you are probably aware
A tank can kill an AVer
An AVer can kill infantry

This is fair, because it is required for defence and you (should) be much less effective at doing so, thus you have a reduced chance of fighti g back against your counter, but you can at least fight back.

Infantry cannot fight a tank, so instead we give supply depots which allows infamtry to swap out for AV, this is balanced because you can kill them before they get to the supply depot. In addition if they respawn, they already died once so baalnce is maintained.

If however it requires multiple people to destroy/reasonably suppress (as in for a significant enough time to allow an infantry to make a push) then tank becomes greater than infantry and you end up with pure unbalance.

too bad CCP Shanghai logic does not work like that

Its pure and simple algebra actually.

1man = 1man
1 tank > 1man
therfore in order for a balanced statement, something must be > than tank, but < than man. This is AV

1man < 1tank < 1AV < 1man

That is balance, however as you are probably aware
A tank can kill an AVer
An AVer can kill infantry

This is fair, because it is required for defence and you (should) be much less effective at doing so, thus you have a reduced chance of fighti g back against your counter, but you can at least fight back.

Infantry cannot fight a tank, so instead we give supply depots which allows infamtry to swap out for AV, this is balanced because you can kill them before they get to the supply depot. In addition if they respawn, they already died once so baalnce is maintained.

If however it requires multiple people to destroy/reasonably suppress (as in for a significant enough time to allow an infantry to make a push) then tank becomes greater than infantry and you end up with pure unbalance.

5.0 maximum

ait...are you suggesting we use KDR to gauge BALANCE!?

Who even cares!?

All a high KDR means is an ambush stomping tank noob.

In Chrome we had a word for those people: Fags.

But I digress, a railgun or missile specced tanker will have a lower KDR than a blaster specced pilot.

It annoys me oh so much when all of you generalize tanks and basically ask for blanket nerfs.

All tanks are NOT the same. So stop generalizing them.

Balance should look like this:
AI tank (blaster) > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank (missile/rail) > AI tank

I'm already forced to retreat with my missile tank at the presence of AV so I think that part of the equation is balanced. Blaster tanks have too much AV potential so that part still needs balancing through a blaster damage nerf. There needs to be a trade-off between AI and AV.

Any argument that says that it shouldn't take a tank to kill a tank (as evidenced by AV tank > AI tank) is just wrong to make. Tanks and vehicles in general are very much roles just like infantry. Why does it take a dropsuit to kill an AV dropsuit then?

It annoys me oh so much when all of you generalize tanks and basically ask for blanket nerfs.

All tanks are NOT the same. So stop generalizing them.

Balance should look like this:
AI tank (blaster) > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank (missile/rail) > AI tank

I'm already forced to retreat with my missile tank at the presence of AV so I think that part of the equation is balanced. Blaster tanks have too much AV potential so that part still needs balancing through a blaster damage nerf. There needs to be a trade-off between AI and AV.

Any argument that says that it shouldn't take a tank to kill a tank (as evidenced by AV tank > AI tank) is just wrong to make. Tanks and vehicles in general are very much roles just like infantry. Why does it take a dropsuit to kill an AV dropsuit then?

I never said you can't kill a tank with a tank, but it should not be the only viable option, if you prefer it would be more like this.

1man < (1 AI tank < 1 AV tank) < 1AV < 1man

Because an AV tank, even a Rail is better than infantry right now, because it's so damn survivable.
I generalise tanks no more than I generalize AI infantry.

Your getting banned, because in a post the only word I said was "feg" so be prepared for people to report

Your getting banned, because in a post the only word I said was "feg" so be prepared for people to report

That's what I'm trying to get at, thanks.

AV infantry should have an easier time against AV tanks because those tanks can't fire back as effectively as an AI tank. AI tanks have the ability to shoot back at AV infantry, but there should be more factors involved than just simply saying that AV infantry > (AI) tank.

If the AV infantry gets an appropriate drop on the AI tank, then the tank will either have to react quickly and tactically to engage and eliminate the infantryman, or retreat and not risk a loss. That's why I didn't place AV infantry and AI tanks next to each other, because it's not as easy as saying that one should beat the other.

Personal skill and luck aside, the list generalizes how the counters should go. AV infantry should beat AV tanks, either by destroying them or forcing a retreat, though depending on how skilled the tanker is with their turret, they might be able to bring it to a stalemate. AV infantry against AI tanks should be about a stalemate, but depending on the situation and skill of both players, either side may get slightly favored.

Basically, the list I brought up shows an order of effectiveness. AI tank > infantry > AV infantry > AV tank > AI tank. AI tanks are most effective against infantry and should be least effective against AV tanks. Similarly, AV infantry should be most effective against AV tanks, with reduced effectiveness against AI tanks and least effective against infantry.

I consider infantry and AV tanks to be soft counters against themselves, because they can usually end up in a stalemate. Also, their hard counters (AI tanks and AV infantry, respectively) are much harder to engage and win against.

I hope what I'm trying to say makes sense. Again, I'm not trying to say that AV infantry can only take out AV tanks, for example. They will just have an easier time against them instead of AI tanks.

Your getting banned, because in a post the only word I said was "feg" so be prepared for people to report

Char's got a 2.5 or something :P

By old standards that'd be appalling; most tankers I know these days have heavy infantry presence and have comparatively poorer KD as a result; there's also the fact that more time is spent killing tanks as opposed to infantry which results in a lower KD anyway (because tank kills = WP not KD).


So to answer your question, I'd say a skirmish KD for AI focused tankers (which shouldn't exist IMO) of about eight at the top end (taking into account the top end of infantry players who typically have a six or thereabouts).

Pure AV tankers should have a 3-4 KD in matches where they actually tank; most matches don't require dedicated AV to that degree, though.

(I'm referring to pubs and high-skilled veteran players; this is not saying 'if you run an 0SP Sica you should kill six tanks for your one).

Feel free to flame me if you disagree, though, people who are actually dedicated tankers these days.

(I used to have 70% of my SP dedicated to vehicles, these days I have about 25%. The difference between 13M and 40M SP xD)