A vehicle user has dedicated a ton of skill points and ISK to killing everything around him.

If someone can thwart his efforts with a single cost-efficient pea shooter, why should anyone run vehicles?

The AVer is similarly vulnerable to hostile infantry with peashooters that are helpless against your vehicle.

Infantry < tank < av < Infantry < tank < av < Infantry < tank < av

Notice a pattern? Vehicles are rock. Av is paper. Infantry is scissors.

And I have dedicated a lot of ISK and SP to killing your vehicles. Why should that be relegated to a sideshow?

Vehicle users seem to have this belief that more money should be rewarded with invulnerability.

This is not good design space.

I'd like to see the cost of vehicles drastically reduced. This would end the ISK argument which has SOME validity.

My view is that vehicles do spend more SP and more ISK than AV, they deserve an advantage, but the magnitude of the advantage should be small. The difference between STD and Proto in ISK is like 50X yet the advantage is like 10%. A 5X ISK expenditure of vehicles over AV shouldn't get them a 200% advantage, just a small one, and I think that is where we are.

A vehicle on the run travels much faster than the fastest Scout.

- Scout w/Swarm Launcher

True, but you can give chase better than a heavy on foot

It could only be a false dilemma if I omitted a possible alternative, which I indeed did not. Either Anti-Vehicle weapons were designed to be able to effectively destroy vehicles themselves, or they were designed to be used in groups.


As they should be. Any unit facing off against 2-3 hard counters should be rendered useless.

Any suit who chases a dropship on foot is incurably stupid.

It seems to me that you were posing two realities: either a single AV could *easily kill vehicles or it was worthless. I propose that you are looking at it wrong, that there could be some "middle ground" to the relationship of AV and vehicles besides one killing or not killing the other, namely driving off a vehicle and denying their presence for extended times.

Yes, and that's currently the case now: multiple competent AV can deny vehicles the field (in more or less most situations). But what you're asking is for a single player to play the part of 2-3 people, and if that's the case then vehicles are pretty much useless no matter what AV is on the field.

I think you have that backwards, you are saying that vehicles should play the part of 2-3 people and it should take 2-3 AVers to combat them effectively.

It seems to me that you were posing two realities: either a single AV could *easily kill vehicles or it was worthless. I propose that you are looking at it wrong, that there could be some "middle ground" to the relationship of AV and vehicles besides one killing or not killing the other, namely driving off a vehicle and denying their presence for extended times.

Yes, and that's currently the case now: multiple competent AV can deny vehicles the field (in more or less most situations). But what you're asking is for a single player to play the part of 2-3 people, and if that's the case then vehicles are pretty much useless no matter what AV is on the field.

1 player counters 1 player. Being in a vehicle does not magically make you two players. Balancing so that one player requires two to kill is the definition of imbalance.

Just like ANTI-VEHICLE weapons were created to be greater than vehicles. If they were not, they wouldn't exist.

Funny how that works both ways, isn't it?

Vehicles are far from being an i win button, and so is Av. deal with it.

Ads turret shooting at 800+ dmg/shot even when the missile is 5 meters away from you are what can be called an I win Button ^^

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.

Actually, in this case, "anti" refers to the fact that it is specifically designed to counter and combat vehicles.

Why anyone would design a direct counter with less than maximum effectiveness against the very thing that it is specifically designed to counter?

THAT, my friend, would be stupid.

Ever heard of poison? Poison was designed to kill things.

A small amount of poison might not kill something, but a larger amount would.

Behold, a world where 1 does not have an opposite reaction of 1000.

Dumbass.