Anti means effective against. It does not mean instant kill. That would be angsty 13 year old entitlement complex. There are levels of effectiveness, and how much of something needs to be applied before it is lethal. You can apply your entire teams focused firepower of assault rifles on a Madrugar, but his shields will not go down. It doesn't matter how much ammo you throw at it. Simply because those are not anti-vehicle weapons, and they are not effective against it.

And swarms are effective against vehicles. If they were not, they wouldn't run away from them.


Good try, but the logic doesn't fit there at all.


The stupidity of this community, as always, disappoints me.

My position is fully supported and infallible. I have no further need to support it, nor do I have any need to display class to an idiot.

Not really.

AV stops vehicles from doing their job. That is their purpose and that is what they do.

You are not entitled to anything else, nor will you receive anything else.

Your question is a black and white fallacy: either one AV player can or cannot take on a vehicle.

The truth is a single AV player should be enough to threaten and/or disrupt vehicles, but actually killing them should be difficult, but not impossible, depending on the situation, each player's skill, and a multitude of other variables.

If a single AV player could easily kill a vehicle, then vehicles would be worthless once 2-3 players used AV.

It's a balancing game, and vehicles should have a slight edge, but that's not to mean that they should be an "I win" button. Any AVer should be a thorn in the side of a pilot unless dealt with immediately, either by fleeing or engaging.