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

Balance.

Did you not read a frickin word of my post? Or are you trolling?

You make a good point, and I agree with you, but there shouldn't be a "One is better than the other period", which is the whole point of me making this thread.I think you get that though.

Only problem I have with this is the part where you talk about turrets (what do you think a turret that is AI friendly vs. AV friendly is?), and the part where you say that there is at minimum, which I think you covered under the "There's exceptions to the rules", so I'll let it slide.

Well, you left me hanging on the turrets (read my last post again), but otherwise, yea, you did.

No I merely startmthe engagement at the correct time, if you are in cover this is the same as not engaging the enemy since neither of you are firing upon each other, you are between engagememts.

You do not need to consider enviroment if balance across a varied set of ranges, because each time you duck in and out of cover you reset the engagement, it's simple, your just to dense to see what Im getting at.

But I will give it 1 more try.

If an engagement starts at 5m in open field what is the difference from engagement that starts at 5m in a complex?
None

The range is the same, the accuracy is the same, the damage is the same, the ammo is the same.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE

True, but there is also no maths involved in real life, 1 shot will kill a man, therefore it comes down to can he shoot me back?
Here in DUST we have DPS, EHP, Range all effecting the time it takes to kill.

IRL it doesn't matter if I shoot you at 10yrds or 100yrds the bullet will still incapacitate you
IRL it doesn't matter how big my sword is, 1 slice can kill you.
IRL it doesn't matter how big the bullet is, most of them will incapacitate you
IRL it doesn't matter how many bullets hit you, the first one will incapacitate you.

In DUST all of these things matter. However flanking, sneak attacks and all that jazz can still easily be mathematically expressed. But so long as you can shot at your enemy, the enemy has the same chance of shooting back.

Hence Maths.


The problem is unless you have done an extensive amount of physics the idea of a simplified model is difficult to understand. So I will try to explain it as best I can.

When you calculate the the trajectory of a projectile, you do not concern yourself with how or why the projectile is doing what it is doing, you do not care how it got in the position it is in. You only care about the information you can gleen from that snap shot in time.

In terms of a single engagement between two people it doesn't matter how/where/why those people are in the positions they are in, they could be in any situation that gives the same parameters and will still pan out the same way.

If I have a gun that does 400DPS and an accuracy of 60%, it doesn't matter how much sh*t is between me and my target, or where I am, the DPS does not change, the accuracy does not change. I could be in the cold void of space and the maths would still play out the same way.

Therin you do not need to account for the terrain when balancing objects in a game because, if I can kill a guy at 5m with a shotgun, it doesn't matter where that 5m is (Space, the center of black hole, an open field, a corridor in a complex) I can still kill him just as well.

If I have a gun that does 400DPS and an accuracy of 60%, it doesn't matter how much sh*t is between me and my target, or where I am, the DPS does not change, the accuracy does not change. I could be in the cold void of space and the maths would still play out the same way.

In the end it doesnt matter though, you cannot make a tank that requires multiple infantry to destroy if that tank is only operated by a single player.

It is, functionally, exactly the same as saying a heavy suit should require multiple infantry to kill. Does that not sound overpowered? Because its exactly the same from a game balance standpoint, exactly. It is a single player wielding enough power to require multiple players to kill him, no matter the graphic you apply to it.

Just because you 'feel' that a tank should require multiple players to kill because it 'makes sense' does not mean it automatically balances it for gameplay.

Just look at ambush, if one team has two tanks and the other side does not, guess who wins?

The only reason tanks are somewhat balanced in some domination maps and some skirmish maps is because the map design excluded them from the objectives. Seriously, it was balanced because tanks weren't allowed to be there. Can you seriously not see the imbalance?

In the end it all revolves around the Large Blaster.

Tank vs Tank is finding balance (though damage mods are waaaay too strong atm) and turrets like the rail and missiles are fine against infantry. If the Large Blaster didn't exist, then it would be completely reasonable to expect a minimum of two coordinated infantry to take down a tank. Why? Because a similar effort would be require from the tanker (given you would need a small turret operator as well for anti-infantry). There does exist the possibility that a large rail and large missile turret cam kill infantry on its own but they are not that effective so its generally fine.

You have balance it so that the TTK of a tank from specialized AV is similar to the TTK of an infantry person from the Large Blaster. Either nerfing the large blaster vs infantry or buffing AV vs vehicles. We've already tried the latter in 1.0-1.6 and it didn't seem to work well so I guess the former is up next.

[...] 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. [...]

[...] Just look at ambush, if one team has two tanks and the other side does not, guess who wins? [...]

As with weapons like the MassDriver you have to be out of cover in order to shoot the target, in cover you must out of cover to do so, as such you can assume the enemy will take the logical option and shoot back, or move out of the blast radius which has the same chance of happening with or without the cover.

Be carefully suggesting such heresy...

Sure if a tank requires multiple operators you can do that then, and it will be balanced that way as well.



I feel its poor game design if your 'balancing' is done by designing your maps in such a way that you are excluding tanks from portions of the map.

I understand the premise behind it, and I wont say its wrong but it severely hinders map design - and I don't want to count on map designers to be the counter-balance to tank power.



So that is the current food chain.

Infantry kills AV infantry kills AV tanks kills blaster tanks kills infantry.

And that is not bad on its, its okay. The problem is that some of those are soft counters and some are hard counters. If tanks are going to have seriously infantry killing potential then infantry must have serious tank kill potential. Either separate them entirely or the street has to go both ways.

As already said in another post.

An AV infantry can hold its own against AI infantry, its not optimal but its possible.

A blaster tank can hold its own against a rail or missile tank, its not optimal but its possible.

AV Infantry pretty much cant do **** against a blaster if that blaster is even half cognizant, I've never lost a blaster tank to infantry that didn't have a rail with them.

AI infantry cannot touch tanks at all... not even scare them away. AV grenades did that before but have been nerfed into uselessness.

An AV tank is sort of okay against infantry AV depending on the situation, but in the end its extremely easy to just drive away.

The problem is the tank gains too many pros and doesnt have to accept many cons for that power.

So we either remove blaster tank from the equation or we buff AV and AV nades again significantly.

Or we go a different route and rebalance # of operators.

No matter what, a solo operated tank cannot be 'unsoloable' by infantry as long as the blaster exists as anti-infantry.

[...] 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 [...]

1) In-game tanks can rotate the turret irrespective of position.
2) dragons don't self heal
3) dragons don't take cover or wait until you move out to fire

4) If DUST Tankers were that dum, we wouldn't be having this converstation

Basically it's all well and good saying "just stay in the complex" but if I can't kill him, I am achieving nothing more than hiding.
And if I can kill him in the complex, then killing him outside the complex will be just as easy.

The only weapon that can do what the video shows, is the forge gun, which is tethered to a heavy suit,
the time it takes to move out, aim (because how many tankers are dum enough to remain stationary?), fire, move back into cover, is longer than it takes a blaster to find you rotate, and kill you.

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.

Hold up; that's not necessary, nor does it make sense. You realize that they are all Large turrets, right? Why should a large turret be fixed to a specific target like that, especially when some of those don't even make sense (why would you use a large blaster if you could use a medium and most like do far better, or why use a large rail against a LAV)? Sure, there should be some T II variants to go down a specific path like that (or rather ammo), but locking a turret to a role like that is a very bad idea.

I cannot say I am a fan of your rigid ideals of turrets.