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.

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

Balance.

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?

Hush! My child...

It is already to late for the little one...

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.

Actually, you can. It's not that hard actually. You want to know how? Design each thing around set strengths and weaknesses. For example, a vehicle is much better in a open environment vs. a infantry unit, but will suffer when in a closed in or tight environment with lots of foliage, rocks, etc. Damage types, and even the weapon that is being used is another example.

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

Actually, you can. It's not that hard actually. You want to know how? Design each thing around set strengths and weaknesses. For example, a vehicle is much better in a open environment vs. a infantry unit, but will suffer when in a closed in or tight environment with lots of foliage, rocks, etc. Damage types, and even the weapon that is being used is another example.

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

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?

It's not the same thing...........

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?

Because a vehicle is not a suit, nor should it be treated like one.

It's not the same thing...........

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!

Again, put the spreadsheets down and think about it.

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?

So you're saying that all combat ever has to be on flat ground to be balanced? Oh sweet Jesus, put the spreadsheets down and just think about it...........

1: Did I ever say that it should take multiple players to take down a single HAV? NO. Learn to read.

2: Let's see: Going into Legion, a Pilot will have to skill for:

Pilot dropsuit

modules to put on pilot dropsuit

T I HAV of race's choice

T II HAV of choice (to keep it equal with infantry using a T II suit)

modules to fit on HAV

That makes it around 2x the SP for a pilot to max out it's specialization, but for one type of vehicle (there's more than just HAV's, and yes, it's not all about HAV's in this thread). But to be fair, well just stick with just one, otherwise, the difference would be insane

3: Whoever said that you needed to kill the HAV?

Never said it took more than one person to take a HAV down, learn to read.

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.

On equal grounds (skill, SP, equipment, positioning, numbers), a infantry player should be able to fend off against a vehicle, or vice versa. They would cancel each other out, If one of things becomes an advantage