No il sacrifice my AV abilitys by using the blaster that way i dont have to bring anyone or even have to rely on a bluedot if i fancy playing solo

And AV sacrifices it's AP capabilities.

So I guess we shouldn't have to bring a friend either?

This does happen though but I guess not as frequently as some would like but I know that I'm not the only one witnessing it , I have even seen players chop up drop ships and HAV's with plasma cannons so I know it's just not as bad as many make it out to be .

I just know that I'm not the only one seeing swarms and forge guns killing tanks and in the kill feed .

Sure if you just happy at scaring it away or you really know how to solo a vehicle

I'm curious:

How, exactly would an AV be a thorn in the tanks side, if the tanker does not regard the AV as a serious threat?

Without the capability of eventually doing enough damage to the tank, then the tank driver would quickly learn that the AV is NOT a threat, and we'd end up with the situation that you see in the OP's video, where the tanker simply disregards the AV player altogether.

In order for the AV to be able to at least even chase a tanker away, the tanker must feel that, given enough time, that AV player WILL be able to destroy his vehicle.

If the AV is not capable of even eventually destroying the tank, then the AV will never be a credible threat, and therefor will never be a hinderance to the tanker.

So you agree that, if an AV has enough SKILL, then he SHOULD be capable of SOLOING a vehicle, right?

Nobody's asking for it to be EASY, just POSSIBLE.

After all, why should something as limited and vulnerable as AV REQUIRE teamwork, if operating something as durable and powerful as a tank doesn't?

... and around and around and around and around we go!

Because AV is not only relegated to forges and swarms. AV is Anti-Vehicle, and anything that kills them can fufill this role. Large railguns, PE, and RE all can fulfill this role extremely well, as can large blasters.

Frankly, we need to make large blasters into AV, but not until we have all the vehicles in the game. Beyond blaster tanks and the occasional dropship, there really isn't much for AV to shoot at.

It should be possible only if AV has spent a comparable amount of SP in their AV weapons to counter a vehicle. Again, it takes 3.4 million SP to simply field a repper tank like the one in the video, but the swarm used to kill it only used at minimum 1.75 million, including getting complex damage mods. That's almost half the SP the tanker needs just to get one called out. If he spends 3.4 million on killing the tank, then yes he should stand a chance on killing the tank, but not before.

This is why tanks were changed in the first place. Because 20 million SP tanks were going down in 3 shots to a 610k SP investment in swarms.

Not a dev, just a player.

Someone said one AV guy shouldn't be able to solo a tank. Sure I see that. And I can scare one of those guys away in my proAV fit, maybe. But when it's three tanks, you need at least 6 guys to deploy in AV gear, to scare them away unless AV unites against one tank and instapops one at a time.

In a pub, that's never going to happen.

Every pub game I have played in maps where a tank can truly affect the battle, is won by the team with madrepper superiority. The balance is way better in non tanky maps right now. Sadly I don't see a lot of tank v tank battles either which is probably what tankers desire.

This is a difficult problem and I know we have spent a lot of time on this internally

1) KDR of tanker vs non-tanker
2) ISK efficiency vs elite tanker comparable to elite assault player
3a) proto AV vs proto tanker
3b) proto AV vs standard tanker
3c) average AV needed to rapidly destroy a tank without tank recourse (2v1, 3v1, 4v1)
4) measuring the best tankers who are in the spotlight (very few) versus normal tankers who don't so so well
5) efficiency against infantry
6) nades and re's requre non slayer specialization, so AV is pretty inaccessible to majority of players.

Instead of more tankers v nontankers, what are some simple ways to balance this?

You can't fit 3 Damage mods on a Minmatar Commando...

Tanks also enjoy a ton of benefits for those SP that AV doesn't.

A tank is capable of killing both vehicles and infantry, has a ton more hitpoints, does a ton more damage, and is immune to a large percentage of other weapons in the game.

It's really starting to seem like many of the tankers on here want all the benefits, but no weaknesses.

Easy mode, if you will.

So yes, we should have a ton more hitpoints, do a ton more damage, and only be vulnerable to certain weapons, and require either teamwork or heavy specialization into those weapons to threaten me. But I should be fitting small turrets in order to combat you on the ground effectively. Just as one shouldn't expect my Eve battleship to fall to a single frigate. It should take at least 3, and very possibly 4-5 frigates to down my battleship. But my battleship has trouble hitting those frigates unless I fit frigate drones to it. Same for small turrets. Those are my infantry defense, while my main turret is for killing other vehicles.

Not a dev, just a player.

Someone said one AV guy shouldn't be able to solo a tank. Sure I see that. And I can scare one of those guys away in my proAV fit, maybe. But when it's three tanks, you need at least 6 guys to deploy in AV gear, to scare them away unless AV unites against one tank and instapops one at a time.

In a pub, that's never going to happen.

Every pub game I have played in maps where a tank can truly affect the battle, is won by the team with madrepper superiority. The balance is way better in non tanky maps right now. Sadly I don't see a lot of tank v tank battles either which is probably what tankers desire.

This is a difficult problem and I know we have spent a lot of time on this internally

1) KDR of tanker vs non-tanker
2) ISK efficiency vs elite tanker comparable to elite assault player
3a) proto AV vs proto tanker
3b) proto AV vs standard tanker
3c) average AV needed to rapidly destroy a tank without tank recourse (2v1, 3v1, 4v1)
4) measuring the best tankers who are in the spotlight (very few) versus normal tankers who don't so so well
5) efficiency against infantry
6) nades and re's requre non slayer specialization, so AV is pretty inaccessible to majority of players.

Instead of more tankers v nontankers, what are some simple ways to balance this?

If 10ppl cannot kill 1 tank then they should quit

3 complex damage mods, 3 proficiency proto swarms vs 2 complex 1 enhanced heavy repair with level 3 in repair proficiency.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v7AwrgVwNA&feature=youtu.be

And I strongly disagree with you. Why are all of you so hell-bent on destroying tanks? Is it not enough if you managed to make it activate its modules and retreat?

That's how it should be. A dedicated AV vs a dedicated tank won't be able to kill the tank, but it will be a huge hindrance to the tank and limit its abilities. Though two or more dedicated AV and the dedicated tank should be in trouble.

Not a dev, just a player.

Someone said one AV guy shouldn't be able to solo a tank. Sure I see that. And I can scare one of those guys away in my proAV fit, maybe. But when it's three tanks, you need at least 6 guys to deploy in AV gear, to scare them away unless AV unites against one tank and instapops one at a time.

In a pub, that's never going to happen.

Every pub game I have played in maps where a tank can truly affect the battle, is won by the team with madrepper superiority. The balance is way better in non tanky maps right now. Sadly I don't see a lot of tank v tank battles either which is probably what tankers desire.

This is a difficult problem and I know we have spent a lot of time on this internally

1) KDR of tanker vs non-tanker
2) ISK efficiency vs elite tanker comparable to elite assault player
3a) proto AV vs proto tanker
3b) proto AV vs standard tanker
3c) average AV needed to rapidly destroy a tank without tank recourse (2v1, 3v1, 4v1)
4) measuring the best tankers who are in the spotlight (very few) versus normal tankers who don't so so well
5) efficiency against infantry
6) nades and re's requre non slayer specialization, so AV is pretty inaccessible to majority of players.

Instead of more tankers v nontankers, what are some simple ways to balance this?

Sometimes i do it in game

Infantry can go where vehicles cant and if i have a scanner on i pick up assists too, depending on map vehicles cant even suppress and are mostly useless

But vehicles can do other things too

AV can suppress vehicles, but they can also kill them, OP video shows that 1 is not enough, get a 2nd tho and its dead

Give us a way to

(a) grab onto a tank and drop a bomb inside of it to kill the gunner. (perhaps add some kind skill to grenades that increases the probability that the nade will make it inside? also perhaps add some sort of button combination for this task so that it is not as easy as L2, tanker down.)

(b) grab onto and enter the tank and somehow fight the gunner (maybe some random sequence of buttons determines who wins).

(c) shoot gunners/pilots out of tanks.

Note that all of these should apply to dropships as well. LAVs already allow us to shoot and kill gunners.

Also, I don't understand how the empty seats in Dropships, LAVs, and Tanks are restricted from enemy access? If a tank drives into the midst of 10 enemies without any backup, someone should be able to get into the tank - - this makes sense.

Because that same vehicle is hell-bent on killing our team?

No, it is not enough. If a vehicle doesn't/cannot die, then where is the risk involved i using one? You've also yet to list a valid reason as to why it should be that way, so I'll just write this off as bantering from a tanker who feels as if he should never die to another person.

Uhmm, if I may interject here with some simple logic.
Let's go with Harpyja first, you cannot force a tank to retreat if you cannot destroy it, with this current 'repdrugar' you effectively get the archimedies turtle, since the reps are both constant and high you get only a little bit closer to the tanks destruction with each hit, it was calculated as taking well over 12 volleys, any tanker with half a brain is aware of this and can become almost invincible.

But let's look at the algebra

1infantry = 1 infantry
now before I start this is a generalisation, Im not accounting for different tier of dropsuits. Now the above statememt is balanced because both sides are equal. So let's break it down a little.

1infantry + 1AR = 1infantry + 1RR
in this case it is still balanced as they both have similar DPS and have attributes that both buff and debuff each other, so an infantry unit using an AR is no less disadvantaged than the RR (this may not be the case in reality, but you should catch my drift, the AR will exceed in some areas where the RR will not and vice versa)

1infantry + 1tank > 1infantry + 1RR
this currently unbalanced, since as a tank you severly outclass infantry, HOWEVER to make a tank only as strong as infantry is unfair, a little pointless and altogther useless.
So we need a way of balancing this equation, we need to create a circle, cue AV.

So for balance we make standard infantry greater than AV, like so
1infantry + 1RR > 1infantry + 1SL

then we do the same for AV vs tan. . . . oh, hold on, since AV should require teamwork that doesn't work out, since unless the tank is destroyed all the AV has effectively done is delay the enivetable, so instead you get

1infantry + 1tank > 1infantry + 1SL and
1infantry + 1tank > 1infantry + RR which compiled into a single statement becomes this.

1infantry + 1SL < 1infantry + tank > 1infantry + RR this can be further simplified to
1AV < 1tank > 1RR and now you have an unbalanced statement.

You see the problem is a tank is only an extension of your unit, you are still only 1 person, it is in theoretical terms nothing more than a weapon for your unit.
and as such it must be counterable by another weapon weilded by a single unit, to require more than 1 person to take you out, yet allow you to take out more than 1 person (to be more effecie t than) is entirely unbalanced.

Think about everything else.
How many people are compulsory to take down 1 brick tanked heavy? Just one with an RE
How many people are compulsory to take dow a Proto Assault? Just one in the right place
How many people are required to down a sniper? Just one who knows where he is

Actually, in EVE, you can totally slay a battleship in a single frigate. An Ishkur can tank and kill the light drones, then just tackle and whittle down even the most expensive battleship until it's dead.

3 complex damage mods, 3 proficiency proto swarms vs 2 complex 1 enhanced heavy repair with level 3 in repair proficiency.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v7AwrgVwNA&feature=youtu.be

1) Lets all agree on one thing, mechanized infantry (tanks) should have high HP and should be able to create opportunities for infantry. With that being said, if the level design of maps doesnt give enough possibilities to get behind cover let say 40-60% of the time (because no one would wage war in open spaces like we did 400 years ago) then tanks would naturally be less of a threat to infantry.

2) We want risk/reward to be balanced (because tanks cost alot, but with the data in hand a single tank can do easily 20 kills, if they are proto, than they netted a kill ISK value of 2 mil ISK alone if each proto infantry suit cost 100k)

3) Tank player alone in his vehicle should not add the equivalent of 2-3 more player in fire power alone. It causes imbalance in firepower on one side. This is clearly been demonstrated in TankBush with Nyain san and Milkman.

4) I would not touch the power of weapons has is, I think number wise the tripple rep madrugar is a kind of a fit, we should keep the customization of builds in this game.

5) If main turrets of tanks would be slower, engaging infrantry would be harder, and would require drivers to have small turrets to handle 20 meters or less infantry, throwing stuff at it. All tanks would suffer the turret slowness and it would make tank engagement better IMO.

6)Conclusion, do not touch the firepower but the hability to quickly kill all around a tank with a single driver, in BF3, tank turret do not allow you to be 100% effective against infantry !

1) KDR - I wouldn't actually address this as a 'metric' worth balancing around as a primary statistic.
2) Isk efficiency of vehicles vs infantry. This one is also quite tough, but I'd say that in their current state most vehicle users will acknowledge that they are (unless in a coordinated situation) extremely isk inefficient compared to infantry. This has a problem on both sides in that vehicles underperform when played solo, or overperform when played with a group. As it is, I think it's *mostly* fine right now, but I would like to see vehicles get slightly more isk efficient *without making them infantry murdering machines*. Isk efficiency could easily be boosted through WP for MCRU spawns, allowing tanks to replace a weapon turret with an active scanning station (functions like current infantry active scanners, instead of the giant pulsing scanner).
3a)Proto AV vs Proto tank should probably be at about a 2.5:1 ratio. I don't have any numbers to really support this idea, but I heavily feel that AV (even heavy av) should be a strong deterrent to equally fit vehicles, not instant death.
3b)Proto AV vs STD tank should be closer to a 1.5:1 ratio, where once again it's not instant death, but it is a big threat.
4) Start with the average players, then take a look at things where they might be overperforming and find out *why* things are like that.
5) Cant help you here.
6) Infantry don't like to use weapons that cannot kill other infantry, or put them at significant risk from other infantry.

To take someone elses words : There are too many differences between the tiers of AV and Vehicle, things need to be brought much closer into line with each other - aka tiericide.

That sounds so ******* cool but I don't see anyway to implement that. I'm pretty sure the 60+ metric ton tank has a lock on the hatch. lol

I would agree if it wasn't for the accuracy of the blaster.
No recoil, no dispersion, no muzzle climb, no pre-fire charge time, nothing.

Blasters either need a reduction in fire power, AT LEAST 30%
or it needs to be given dispersion that is about the same as the HMG (scaled up obviously)

This would allow blasters to be better at suppressing infantry yet give AV enough of an oppurtunity that it can at least lock on a swarm launcher without dying.

I would agree if it wasn't for the accuracy of the blaster.
No recoil, no dispersion, no muzzle climb, no pre-fire charge time, nothing.

Blasters either need a reduction in fire power, AT LEAST 30%
or it needs to be given dispersion that is about the same as the HMG (scaled up obviously)

This would allow blasters to be better at suppressing infantry yet give AV enough of an oppurtunity that it can at least lock on a swarm launcher without dying.