I agree and disagree.

A tank should not die to a single infantry player, that would mean as a tank, you'd be a glass cannon. Any of 16 players, including other tanks could kill you, thus making it ineffective to run a tank. But not everyone has gun game, so that is segregating and hurting the population. If someone has AV hades and Swarm Launchers at Proto, it should be able to kill a militia tank. However, a player with23 million SP into Tanks should not die to a 23 million Sp player, because then two players with 10 million by your logic could kill him, and that's assuming their role is strictly AV, with points put only into AV gear.

The trick to balancing tanks and infantry is to make it so that running a tank inspires fear. If I saw a tank in actuality, I'd run. Why? It has a cannon that could tear my bones from muscles in one shot. However, players shouldn't have to field 4 soldiers in order to get rid of one, and many don't. People miss 1.6, where you whip out hades, and then fire one Swarm Volley to kill a Madrugar. This would be acceptable if the tank wasn't 1 million Isk, but it was. Players like the done it, do it, did it game, where they are the COD man getting all the kills and making all the booms. Teamwork is absent in their mind.

Use Proxy explosives. Tell a friend. 8 proxies at 750 damage each equates to 6000 damage, enough to blow up Sicas and hardened Somas. All it takes is to tell a friend. But no. People just expect others to do it for them, and so no one does anything. You go up against any sq of Gods Among Men, and we'll have AV.

People need to stop being lazy, and that will solve many QQing. If everyone has some piece of AV, tankers will be wary. a road could have proxies, Forge guns may be lurking, Swarms not equipped to keep out the guise, or nades at the ready with Cloaky RE scouts on the prowl.

Adapt. But I do agree that Somas are extremely powerful in their current state. Hence forth why we need the vehicle variation or 1.6, where a Falchion screwed Somas for breakfast.
Basically, a militia tank should have a Chance against Standard, half chance against advance, and a slim (quarter) chance against Proto, with nearly none against Officer( if we get those)

AV should work in countenance, but it should take at least 2 people, or one fully kitted out a Aver. Example: A Commando with a Proto Plasma Cannon, Boundless Proxies, Swarm Launcher Prof 5, can take out a Proto Tank. However, people come at tanks wrong, firing swarms and forges dead on, where the blaster can see you. Set up choke points, lay proxies behind the tank so when it backs up from incoming fire, he's done.

Congrats, you have just learned my secrets to killing tanks. And most importantly, if tanks are deadly to infantry, have a tank at ready to combat it if infantry is making it hard to get a lock on

Peace, and see you in battle :)

If it takes two infantry to kill a tank it should take two tanks to kill a single infantry.

Balance.

In computer science when consodering the complexity of certain tasks, we use the Big O notation, it allows us to effectively ignore small constants and such things, it allows us to break things down to its base components.

This all we are doing, stripping the equation down to It's most basic components, you can't account for difference in terrain or skill, so you always create a scenario where it's 1 person vs another on flat coverless ground.

Because you can CALCULATE it, so yes it should take X number of Y's destroy a Z because it's basic maths. The world is all about maths, weapon balancing is no different.

I could go with that. However I'd have to argue that this is already the case, and that Railguns are made for open maps, blasters for cities, and missiles for mid range both, but with drawbacks

To anyone in this thread:

If I changed this quote



to:

As far as a 1v1 medium/light vs. heavy suit, that's only possible if the heavy messes up constantly, just overall sucks, or the infantry gets lucky. Otherwise, it'll be a stalemate.

Would you consider that balanced?

Please I would love to see how you show AV having plenty of cover without giving it to HAV's how do you CALCULATE tanks getting stuck in tight corners, damage types and weapons are numbers so yes they can be calculated.

Your still missing my point, if you start adding terrain advantages that don't have quantifiable values, you can't balance properly, just look at the repdrugar, it's designed to rep through damage at shorter ranges, but it works just as well with just a molehill between them, you can see it just from the maths.

That is why you break it down.

Why isn't it?

Mathmatically it is, 1 man in a tank is no different to a man in a suit, you have health, a weapon.
You even have the same stats!

Why? single user vs single user.

Should an assault rifle 1v1 a tank? Lolno, im all for that.

Why should a single player command that much force? If tanks were still 1 million isk I could see a point.

Everything should have a counter of appropriate investment. For everyone thinking im being an idiot, I can appreciate your standpoint but im playing devil's advocate for a second here. Convince me why a single player in a tank should require multiple players of any form to take him down.

There needs to be a balancing factor. ISK - nope, tanks are, in many cases cheaper than proto fit dropsuits.

SP? Not really, a fully core skilled proto AV player gets pretty close in SP investment to a decently fit tank.

So what is it? Why should the only counter to a tank be another tank? In any other game, or any other facet of this game that would be considered unbalanced.

Why do tankers deserve special treatment?

If a tank requires 2-3 operators for max efficacy I would be 100% for them taking even 4-5 players to take them down (2-3 players working in unison is no small feat and deserves a power differential for it). We're talking 1 player vs 1 player, why does the tank deserve invincibility in that situation?

Remove large blasters from the game or nerf it to be as effective against infantry as a rail and im 100% for 2-3 AV users taking a tank down as well.

Otherwise, its 1v1 - its the same as a heavy vs a scout or any other situation. 1 player vs 1 player.

You see though your missing it, it's all in the spreadsheets, not just the spreadsheet that shows how the battle goes down but the big picture, what happens whem something requires more than 1 person to take down.

When a Tank named X > Infantry Y
X > Y
X = 2Y
X + Y > 2Y
6X + 10Y > 16Y
6X + 10Y = 32 Y

Does that not seem grossly unbalanced?

Then what are you saying? Should it, shouldn't it?

If 1 person can kill it, in one scenario, they can potentially kill it any scenario, hence the open field!
You cannot balance off of skill, amd terrain, it's not possible.

They haven't, because you don't need to, if your balancing a shotgun you give high damage, short ramge and low accuracy.
That's it, no terrain, cover or player skill involved, just pure and simple maths.

If it is a short ramge weapon it should have the highest mathematical chamce of killing an opponent in the shortest time for that range. THAT IS IT, that is literally how weapons are balanced. In every game ever.

Gameplay wise this makes sense...... Logically it is seriously flawed.

Logic makes for perfect balance, it's a lack of logic that
Allowed RR to have DPS comparable to the AR
Allowed pretty much every weapon to out class a shotgun

Logic makes for perfect balance, it's a lack of logic that
Allowed RR to have DPS comparable to the AR
Allowed pretty much every weapon to out class a shotgun

FOR GOD'S SAKE!

This discussion of having "everything done by spreadsheet" is STUPID!

Let me ask you one question: Have you ever heard of this thing called "play-testing"? it allows you to see the effects of unquantifiable values (such as cover, terrain and other stuff) in both controlled and uncontrolled conditions.

If a tank was unable to survive attack from a single person, it would be uneconomical to make said tank.

Unlike people, the machines (vehicles) are able to carry much thicker armour plating and are more durable, and they can carry much bulkier weapon systems. In addition, there are many defence systems that protect against exotic anti-vehicle weapons [1][2][3][4][5][6]

Thus, (for a tank), I can only see the Forge Gun as being any major threat, as missiles, rockets, and grenades have many countermeasures against them. This fit in with the motif of tanks being something to be feared; they are the ones who push you over.

This would not be true for dropships, however. As aircraft, they have precious little capacity for armour (or space for shield generators) that can be applied, thus they would be VERY vulnerable to attack by all current AV weapons. They would instead rely very heavily on their speed and agility to outmanoeuvre attack.

LAV's would be similar to dropships (in two dimensions), slightly tougher, but still very vulnerable.

Since we don't have MAV's, I couldn't comment on those.

Just don't let General Motors manufacture the LAVs anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6IZ2TroruU&list=FLWAVCGsyDP1eXxAenraZ-KA&index=2

I do agree with you on it not being a case of "one is better than the other period." (Even if the post didn't exactly sound like that). But there should still be advantages and incentives to using vehicles over infantry, otherwise vehicles become redundant, useless wastes of resources even.

Balancing vehicles and infantry is a very difficult thing to pin down in 6 000 characters, let alone an entire thread; but it stands to reason the following points:

* Certain AV weapons are necessarily more effective against one vehicle type than another.

* The ability for an AV unit to attack and destroy a vehicle should be proportional to both the difficulty of use, and specialization of the AV ordinance.

* It is basically a requirement to mirror reality that, unless in the case of traps set by individuals (with RE's Proxies, Mines, et al.), very special weapons, or simple lack of parity (a prototype/officer Anti-Vehicle Vs. Militia Vehicle); there must be a minimum number of infantry that work together to defeat a vehicle.

Vehicles themselves would also need the following characteristics:

* Specialization:

** A tank with a weapon designed to mow down squads of infantry will fare very badly against an AV Vehicle.

** Conversely, AV Vehicles would be ineffective at attacking infantry (although tank may not be vulnerable, if there are no AV infantry present)

** There must be NO or VERY LITTLE ability for these two rules to be bent or broken EXCEPT IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES.

* Resistance:

** Simple: They are harder to kill than equivalent heavy infantry.

** Still vulnerable to attack and environmental damage (where applicable).

* Cost

** Depending on how superior to infantry vehicles are, vehicles will be more expensive to buy, run, and train for (but not too costly as to be uneconomical in occasional circumstance).

** Also must take into account the fact that vehicles are unable to move through/more restricted in movement while in urban areas, interior spaces, and small overhangs above 5 mile high cliff faces.

On the subject of cliffs; NO INERTIA DAMPENERS for vehicles.

What can I say?

I'm an expert in ensuring all loose ends are tied down. Keep everything as watertight as you can, saves a lot of bother.

I will cover turrets tomorrow, as it is sleepy mc dreamtime, and I cannot be bothered to get myself into objective mode.

Yet another **** thread from Godin.

If tanks are solo-able by random infantry, nobody will run a ******* tank. Why risk a 150m tank when some scrub in a 10m suit is just going to come by and pop it like it's nothing?

The weapon itself has no favour towards any particular enviroment, it simple favours close range, the enviroment this engagement takes place jn is neither here nor there, stop trying to bring me round to your logic and listen.

A shotgun can kill just as well in an open field as it can a complex, the operation of use does not change dependent on the enviroment. I can stand in a field at 5m and kill you with a shotgun just as well as I can kill at you 5m inside a complex.

Environment does not make the weapon more effective, what your probably trying to say is that shotguns favour complexs because it is easier to find someone in a favourable position. This does not effect balance though, because this engagement has already been balanced out on the coverless flat field.

In short environment does not change the maths of the engagement!

Doesn't change the engagement though does it, think about it!
Would you really find it more difficultmto kill someone with a shotgun at 5m in an open field than at 5m inside a complex?

"as a shotgun user can more easily close the gap in closed enviroment" exactly the chamces of finding a favourable engagement is increased, but the engagement does not change at all.

Prof 5 in Mass Drivers my friend, if the person is stupid enough to take multiple explosions to the face that has nothing to do with balance of the weapon. We almost had it earlier, like you said on paper it will not work any better inside or outside a complex. Therein when you a balancing something with maths the terrain can be excluded from the simplified model.

As such you can't balance tanks vs infantry on the premise that infantry can hide in complexes, because any positives he infantry gains from the complex can also be used by the tank for his favour, if a weapon can kill a tank in a complex, in a single engagement then there is no reason why the same weapon won't be capable of killing the tank on any other terrain at the same range, thereby if the tank kill the AVer out in a field there is no reason he can't use the same weapon to kill me inside a complex.

Thereby you cannot say "Tanks should only really be killed by infantry inside a complex", you can however say "Tanks shouldn't really be killed by infamtry at longer ranges" At which point I would agree and say "only if the force strength required to destroy the tank is equal to the force strength the tank currently possess"

Look at the above post (that I made), it was edited before you posted with a quote of the old one, and thus does not accurately reflect what my thoughts were. Edit accordingly.

My apolgies, yes that is different, it also very easy to express mathematically. However you now bring a new point to the table tha must be discussed.

If AV is only useful when the target cannot figt back, how do you transport troops across the ground? Furthermore how do assault a complex surrounded by open ground on all sides?

You can either connect all complex's together, so that infa try never needs to leave them, this however marginalises tanks to the point of uselessness. Or you can take the high road literally and use aerial transport this once again marginalises tanks.

Even if you split null cannon points evenly between tank and infantry controlled areas, you reach a stalemate where both sides have superiority in a specific theatre.

Trying to solve that by skewing the results in favour of either theatre marginalises the other.

Tanks and Infantry need to be working together across all theaters of war, otherwise those piloting tanks might as well be playing a different game.

Thank you for bringing up the dropship. Contrary to what you suggest, they do not make tanks useless. You see, if the missile launcher is altered to be... Useful for purpose (i.e. attacking aerial vehicles), tactical use of infantry AV is needed. As an AA platform, I have the concept of it being unable to attack ground targets (as it requires the locking on of an aerial vehicle). Thus AV infantry are able to attack it with ease.

See, I see how you may think I believe that ALL tanks should be following the mechanics we have been discussing. Not at all.

I have a vision of the tanks being split into rigid roles (covered previously), Anti Aircraft (L+¬ missile launcher), Anti Ground-Vehicle (L+¬ railgun), and Anti Infantry (L+¬ blaster, or L+¬ flame-thrower. Flame-throwers are cooler). The AV infantry would be able to attack the first two with basic impunity (as they are not suited to shoot back effectively). The Anti infantry tank would be what warrens the use of AV tanks, which would be able to safely approach and rip it apart.

Loose ends all tied up. Happy?

It makes perfect sense. Turrets are what define the role of a tank. They each have their own unique purpose. Imagine, if you will that each of the turrets have been substantially modified from what they are now. The Missile launcher would launch Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs).

The railgun would continue as it basically is, with a lower max elevation (for some reason it currently can aim over 20 degrees higher than all other turrets), so it could be used as a very crude AA or AI weapon if need be. The turn rate would also be boosted quite a bit too.

The blaster (or whatever we will replace it with) would be very effective against infantry, but would be very bad for attacking other vehicles.

Size also fits with this. See, small turrets are basicly fit purely for self defence (in the case of tanks); large turrets are the main weapon.

Way I see it, the medium turret would be what you stick on the MAV (probably something like an APC). How exactly would making the turret smaller make it work better?

No Godin, I explained when you look at stats there is simply no need to include terrain in your calculations. What is being described above can easily be expressed with maths, WITHOUT adding terrain to the equation.

"If AV is balanced only when the Tank cannot retaliate"

@Hawk-Eye, I don't even need to answer that question, they have done so for me, typecasting tanks by turret so stringently is not the best way to achieve balance. Infact doing this marganilises vehicles to the point of, why are we bothering?

Tanks, irrespective of turret, need a general purpose.
They need to be force multipliers, the act of deploying a tank, should improve the force strength of those around you.

Suppressing enemy turrets or entrenchments allows infantry to be more effective, destroying high value targets such as CRU's and Supply depots stops the enemy from holding a position. Using rails as LOS artillery

This is in the end of it all an infantry driven game, as such infantry will/must be involved in all facets of war, irrespective of terrain.

If I drive it fast enough, and if I drive slow enough respectively!

What I hate is that people talk about vehicles vs AV in terms of rock-paper-scissors.
It shouldn't be.

While a sentinel is a heavy frame, an HAV, for example, should be thought of as a VERY heavy frame.
What the HAV has in firepower, the sentinel makes up for in mobility- you aren't going to see a vehicle walking through a doorway and climbing a set of stairs to the roof.
Essentially, saying it should take several AVers to kill an HAV is like saying it should take several scouts to kill a sentinel.

In more coherent english, vehicles should usually win in situations that favor vehicles (open areas), while infantry should usually win in situations that favor infantry (urban areas).