Are Anti-Vehicle weapons (read: SLs, FGs, PLCs, & R/PEs) meant to "solo" vehicles?

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

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.

Currently, it is possible for a single player to solo a single vehicle given proper skills and situations. I should know, I do it sometimes.

Unfortunately, the only current way to do that requires a forge gun. Swarms (pre buff) and PLC are just not capable of doing that.

The thing is, I'm not sure they should. Forge is a heavy weapon, the rest are light. Heavy weapons should be a major threat to all vehicles. Light's should need at least two people, imo.

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.

I hate to play the Isk card, but I'd be concerned with the sustainability of the pilot's role if 1/2M vehicles were too easily destroyed.

There's that word ("easily") again! If vehicle users would stop slipping that word into the equation, maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about this!

Can someone please point me to a single post from any AV user that ever said it should be "easy"?

PS: Prof(5) Swarmer. Not a pilot.

I solo tanks allll duh time

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.

Commandos remove/reduce the primary weakness of the Swarm Launcher fit (being able to fit a second light weapon) means that Swarm fits should really, if serious about the idea of AV, be in a Commando. I think I've wandered off topic...

wall of text

I'd love CCP's comment as well.

Truthfully, I feel that a single devoted AV'er, when properly fitted, should be able to solo a vehicle. He has assumed the role of AV'er. If he can't destroy vehicles on his own then why bother having the role?

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?

I agree with everything you've said, up to this point.

Firstly, this represents an unreasonable SP tax on infantry. Each and every infantry unit is vulnerable to being farmed by HAV or ADS. To require that each and every infantry unit cross-train as a commando to not be steamrolled is unreasonable. Do we tell all newbros to first skill into commando to have a fighting chance against squads with pilots?

Secondly, this standard isn't applied elsewhere. I needn't run my Scout mk.0 to use Nova Knives effectively; in fact, I prefer to use them on a Scout gk.0. I haven't invested a single point of SP into Amarr Assaut, yet I've killed several thousand mercs with a Scrambler Rifle. NKs and ScRs may be most effective on particular suits, but they certainly aren't ineffective when wielded by another.

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.

Maybe it's the Commando, but I myself have soloed many vehicles with a Swarm Launcher, though most of them are Madrugars and Un-Hardened Gunnlogies. But to do so, you need to invest Heavily into it, as well as know how/when to delay a volley's flight.

Then why would anyone choose anything other than a Forge Gun?

A tank or ADS can run away from my forge suit with no problems, not so with a scout and a swarm launcher.

Here's the rub. AV ISN'T in line for significant buffing.

Nor should it be.

The only buffs are making swarms able to outrun a dropship (by 10 meters per second) while nerfing the 90-degree cornering. This is not a bad tradeoff.

The other is accelerating the laughworthy plasma cannon projectile so it can actually apply its power and not simply be a troll weapon/AoE shotgun.

But there are no damage buffs in line for AV. The two buffs are solely to allow our under performing AV (swarms and plasma cannon) to be able to land hits in decent fashion. There should be little to no change in time to kill. ADS will still take 4 pro swarm shots to kill. Plasma cannons wont be utterly dependent upon the "surprise buttsex!" Maneuver.

Thats it. No forge buffs. No increases to heavy damage mods. No increase of av base damage.

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.

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.

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.

No matter what I say you are too much of an entitled moron to understand how things have to be. All I can do now is offer you the charity of recognizing how stupid you are.

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.

Lol, if you say so.

I think I'm done here anyway. Let me know when you're ready to have a mature discussion about this, without the petty name-calling, and maybe I'll be back..

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.

This is like saying that an assault shouldn't be able to solo a heavy, but be a thorn in his side, unless 2-3 people are attacking the heavy.

If we're lucky, you never will.



And that's why you will never be a relevant factor.

Vehicles are not entitled to escape destruction.

No one is entitled to squat.

What makes you think you are a special snowflake that gets to have his way? Besides deliberately trolling the thread?

That's exactly what it means. Now you understand the concept of a bigger opponent being innately superior to a smaller opponent. Good job.

That is their purpose

Source?

Probably because I'm smarter than pretty much everyone on the forum

actually have a paying career in competitive gaming, whereas most of the folks who come on here are idiotic neckbeards who strive for a relevance they will never attain.

Currently, it is possible for a single player to solo a single vehicle given proper skills and situations. I should know, I do it sometimes.

Unfortunately, the only current way to do that requires a forge gun. Swarms (pre buff) and PLC are just not capable of doing that. The thing is, I'm not sure they should. Forge is a heavy weapon, the rest are light. Heavy weapons should be a major threat to all vehicles. Light's should need at least two people, imo.

As an ADS pilot, I have lost ships to Swarms and Forges, never to a PLC. When I lose a ship to swarms, it's my own fault though for either not paying attention or being cocky. When I lose a ship to forges, it's usually either a skilled forger or he bounced me into a building.

I don't think that milita level AV should be able to kill anything that is fit better than militia by its self, other wise there's no reason to skill into the higher tiers of weaponry, but if someone invests the time and SP into getting proto forges/swarms/plc then they should be able to lay down the pain to vehicles.

This statement has been proven wrong numerous times. After all, you play DUST.



The mere thought that playing video games makes one relevant somehow has to be the most hilariously stupid thing anyone has ever said on these forums.

Congratulations.

You win the "No one cares what you think still" award.

In my experience geniuses don't have to claim it. It is evident. You fail utterly.

Are Anti-Vehicle weapons (read: SLs, FGs, PLCs, & R/PEs) meant to "solo" vehicles?

I'd really love to have CCP settle this issue already.

It makes one relevant as far as conversation about video game mechanics go. Simply put, I understand them -- you do not.

That can change, though. I am still taking students for this Winter. $45 an hour and I guarantee after each session you will be far less garbage than you were prior.

Ah, such arrogance.

I'm sorry to see you have chosen to remain worthless. No matter though.

Maybe it's the Commando, but I myself have soloed many vehicles with a Swarm Launcher, though most of them are Madrugars and Un-Hardened Gunnlogies. But to do so, you need to invest Heavily into it, as well as know how/when to delay a volley's flight.




Then why would anyone choose anything other than a Forge Gun?

Probably because I'm smarter than pretty much everyone on the forum and actually have a paying career in competitive gaming, whereas most of the folks who come on here are idiotic neckbeards who strive for a relevance they will never attain.

Well, I'm the one guy smarter than you and I say, Nananana booboo.

I've seen smarter chihuahuas.

Did I spell Nananana wrong again?

Currently, it is possible for a single player to solo a single vehicle given proper skills and situations. I should know, I do it sometimes.

Unfortunately, the only current way to do that requires a forge gun. Swarms (pre buff) and PLC are just not capable of doing that. The thing is, I'm not sure they should. Forge is a heavy weapon, the rest are light. Heavy weapons should be a major threat to all vehicles. Light's should need at least two people, imo.

As an ADS pilot, I have lost ships to Swarms and Forges, never to a PLC. When I lose a ship to swarms, it's my own fault though for either not paying attention or being cocky. When I lose a ship to forges, it's usually either a skilled forger or he bounced me into a building.

I don't think that milita level AV should be able to kill anything that is fit better than militia by its self, other wise there's no reason to skill into the higher tiers of weaponry, but if someone invests the time and SP into getting proto forges/swarms/plc then they should be able to lay down the pain to vehicles.

I agree.
When someone is a Heavy AV player they are sacrificing mobility and a lot of anti infantry capability to take out vehicles so it seems about right that a heavy with damage mods and a good forge gun be able to take out a tank.

Light weapons should be able to disrupt vehicles and if they team up take them out.