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.

If tanks are so easy to kill, what Is the point of having them? You seem to be mistaking my argument as an emotional pro tank one for some reason. Know that I am nether a tanker nor emotional.

Let's say you are the leader of some faction. And you get the report from your advisers that all those tanks you ordered to be built have no greater a survival rate or effectiveness than infantry. You'd have to be stupid to keep making those tanks if that were the case, as production of vehicles is a costly process. It needs factories, operators must be specially trained, all the materials to make the tank...

Point is, making 1-1 Infantry Vs. Vehicle makes no sense. As I said before, this is not an emotional argument. Tanks are designed to be hard to kill war machines.

Ever heard of the British main battle tank; the Challenger 2? There is only 1 of the 466 made that was ever destroyed (and that was due to a friendly fire incident with another Challenger 2). One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs, and was completely unaffected.

Given the current AV weapons set, I reiterate, that the only weapon that I believe may be suitable for 1v1 is the forge gun. Not because I'm a heavy. Not because I'm a tanker. Because of physics. Have a read of the forge gun description, it's great.

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? [...]

Worry not, I have a keen grasp on physics (including that of projectile motion and the like).

I do have an issue with what you just said here though.



Problem with that is, it doesn't matter how many bullets you are shooting; if the target has positioned himself such that there is a large block of industrial rebar and steel plate between him and the barrel of your gun, then he will be safe from attack.

But, if you assume he has a mass driver, he can shoot over, and attack you.

Cover and terrain must be taken into account.

Lets go to your example of the shotgun that you are continuously using.

Sure, it is true that it works just as well in a plex as outside on paper. But that does not take into account the constraints of these terrain types.

On a perfectly flat surface, with no cover, a man with a rifle can kill our shotgun man from over 500m (far outside the effective range of said shotgun).

If we have a large cover filed battlefield, with trenches, buildings and all that; the rifleman may not be able to see the shotgun man, and also may not be able to attack him even if he knows where he is. This allows shotgun man to get closer to rifle man, and shoot him at point blank.

The behaviour of weapons and tactics still has to be taken into account, otherwise, your model is flawed.

Never said anything about them being operated by one player.

You could easily have the main cannon being operated by a second player (thus requiring an actual "tank crew" of at least 2)

Also in my post summarising vehicles (in this very thread, I might add), I actually covered numbers needed to kill.

[...] 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. [...]

And, you just saved me a lot of time with this one:



Your experiences with tanks have been due to the fact that ambush is almost always on open ground, where tanks are supposed to excel. Come the possibility of tightly packed environments and urban settings in Legion, tanks will not be able to capitalize on it's open ground advantage so easily.

The imbalance lies not with the tank, but with the map design.

As for the blaster turret, it should be that if you are using that, then it works very poorly against other vehicles, thus requiring either Infantry or Vehicle AV support. Small turrets are more for self-defence only, not really for mounting an attack (at least for something as slow as a tank, which should be slow, not the lightning fast things we see).

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.

Have you ever used a Mass Driver? or a grenade launcher in other games? It works just like a mortar, allowing you to do this neat trick called:

Shooting OVER the cover. Cause, ya know, the projectile arcs.

So yeah, you DONT have to be out of cover.

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"

[...] 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 [...]

Just watch this, man...

Just what benefit will the tank gain from being in a tiny street where it may not even be able to rotate it's barrel (without ripping it off)?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

Hummm......

I guess you're for real a lost cause then

Also, I assume you plan on driving a LAV through a ocean, or a jungle.

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

Now I think you're just trolling me......

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).

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).

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).