DUST Search - A Question about "Community Proposed Tank Balances"

Hey everyone,

I have a question that's been nagging at me for a while, and I'm hoping someone can help me out. I've read a couple tank threads in favor of buffing tanks in some fashion - either by making tanks beefier themselves, making AV weaker, or making AV more skill based. All of these suggestions have some truth behind them, (and should all be taken with a grain of salt, I might add), but one really stick out to me.

"Tanks should be tanks! It should take three to four dedicated AVers to bring them down!" (Or something to that effect).

I was doing some thinking on this as I walked out to grab some lunch. I was trying to balance the desire to make tanks easier to bring down with the desire to make tanks useful and affordable. So, I created a little thought experiment.

Let's say that, come tomorrow, tanks are somehow buffed so that it takes four dedicated AV players to take down a tank and three people in militia gear to "tie" with the tank. No one dies, they just come close. Let's also say that each fight is gear balanced. That is to say, it takes four people in militia gear to bring down a militia tank, . Finally, let's consider these battles taking place in Chromosome - 16 vs. 16 fights.

My brow quickly furrowed. I kept coming back to the same conclusion: "They just don't have enough guys..."

In an isolated incident, 1 (Tank) vs. 4 (infantry) sounds nice. It lets tankers survive the random blueberries who jump at their free AV gear unless they group up, while rewarding coordinated efforts on the part of the AV team. I kept getting drawn back to an actual match, though. In a match where two to three tanks are brought in - which isn't unreasonable. It happened to me just yesterday - at least nine players would have to be engaged with the tanks to kill all of them. If we take "dedicated" to mean "With a single objective", then there are only 7 people left to take letters and win the match, versus the 13 people on the other side.

So there I was, eating lunch and thinking: "Wow. So if that's the case, how can those seven guys win?" In my mind, they guys can't. And that's what I think drives the "tanks are overpowered" debate, at least in part. Some solutions make infantry guys have to chose between dedicated AV with little potential for payoff and losing.

To me, unless there is some type of synergistic effect between AV players - shields that are hit X amount of times in Y seconds receive Z% more damage - or more ways for a group of dedicated AVers to be more efficient - Stronger, beefier installations that can augment an individual's vehicle killing power while still being able to be countered (destroyed) - I can't balance this.

So what do you guys think about that thought experiment? How would you balance an game where there were three tanks out (within the rules of this thought experiment of course)? Thanks in advance.

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Piercing Serenity Faabulous 271	Posted - 2013.04.26 06:44:00 - [1] - Quote Hey everyone, I have a question that's been nagging at me for a while, and I'm hoping someone can help me out. I've read a couple tank threads in favor of buffing tanks in some fashion - either by making tanks beefier themselves, making AV weaker, or making AV more skill based. All of these suggestions have some truth behind them, (and should all be taken with a grain of salt, I might add), but one really stick out to me. "Tanks should be tanks! It should take three to four dedicated AVers to bring them down!" (Or something to that effect). I was doing some thinking on this as I walked out to grab some lunch. I was trying to balance the desire to make tanks easier to bring down with the desire to make tanks useful and affordable. So, I created a little thought experiment. Let's say that, come tomorrow, tanks are somehow buffed so that it takes four dedicated AV players to take down a tank and three people in militia gear to "tie" with the tank. No one dies, they just come close. Let's also say that each fight is gear balanced. That is to say, it takes four people in militia gear to bring down a militia tank, . Finally, let's consider these battles taking place in Chromosome - 16 vs. 16 fights. My brow quickly furrowed. I kept coming back to the same conclusion: "They just don't have enough guys..." In an isolated incident, 1 (Tank) vs. 4 (infantry) sounds nice. It lets tankers survive the random blueberries who jump at their free AV gear unless they group up, while rewarding coordinated efforts on the part of the AV team. I kept getting drawn back to an actual match, though. In a match where two to three tanks are brought in - which isn't unreasonable. It happened to me just yesterday - at least nine players would have to be engaged with the tanks to kill all of them. If we take "dedicated" to mean "With a single objective", then there are only 7 people left to take letters and win the match, versus the 13 people on the other side. So there I was, eating lunch and thinking: "Wow. So if that's the case, how can those seven guys win?" In my mind, they guys can't. And that's what I think drives the "tanks are overpowered" debate, at least in part. Some solutions make infantry guys have to chose between dedicated AV with little potential for payoff and losing. To me, unless there is some type of synergistic effect between AV players - shields that are hit X amount of times in Y seconds receive Z% more damage - or more ways for a group of dedicated AVers to be more efficient - Stronger, beefier installations that can augment an individual's vehicle killing power while still being able to be countered (destroyed) - I can't balance this. So what do you guys think about that thought experiment? How would you balance an game where there were three tanks out (within the rules of this thought experiment of course)? Thanks in advance. TL:DR I've been bothered about requiring four people to kill one tank. I drafted a thought experiment, and the AV team did not have enough resources to both kill the tanks and win the game. Without some type of team bonus or assistance, AV guys have to chose between wining the game and beating the tanks. What do you guys think?
Charlotte O'Dell Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 150	Posted - 2013.04.26 08:22:00 - [2] - Quote How about the other team brings out there own tanks. After all, there is nothing stopping them. And as far as meta level on tanks is concerned, ive seen mlt take down proto, as well as proto crush 6 std, and so forth. HAV vs HAV is pretty balanced as is bc it is based entirely on the individual player's skill. The best counter to a tank is another tank and this has never been proven wrong. There is absolutely no way a Sagaris will be killed as easily by a forge gun as by another Sagaris. One can also take price into consideration. One well fitted tank can cost anywhere between 1.2 and 2.5 mil, whereas one well fitted AV can cost upwards of 250,000 isk or more. It is only fair that the laws of equivilant exchange (#FMAftw) be adhered followed. It simply isn't balanced that one forge gun can hold off a 2.5 mil isk tank by himself. The purpose of AV is to keep tanks at bay. If a tank is to be destroyed, it SHOULD take multiple highly skilled AV mercs to take it down, and to an extent, that is the way it is, but only if the tank in question is driven by an exceptionally skilled pilot, and let's face it: there are hundreds of tankers, but probably less than 25 that can hold their own in any given match. It is extremely unbalanced that having a good tank requires 4.5-6 million SP and HUGE ISK investments. I'm not saying that tanks should be the win-button of a battle, but if your average tanker can't last 4 minutes, then something is extremely wrong. Keeping in theme with the last topic, the only sure-fire method of keeping a tank alive for the average tanker is rail sniping from the red line because getting in the thick of it with the infantry, is extremely dangerous to anyone without noteable ability and SP invested in pure tank skills. The red line sniping is a quick fix, really- buff tanks HP and tankers will be more inclined to come down from the mountains which is more fun for everybody. Charlotte O'Dell, Sagaris Pilot
Noc Tempre Imperfects Negative-Feedback 1313	Posted - 2013.04.26 08:32:00 - [3] - Quote Thing is, once you have sufficient AV, an endless stream of vehicles is no harder to deal with than 1. The problem is that "sufficient AV" is 1 or 2 right now.
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. CRONOS. 3694	Posted - 2013.04.26 08:33:00 - [4] - Quote Or seven depending on how good the tank pilot is.
Piercing Serenity Faabulous 271	Posted - 2013.04.26 08:46:00 - [5] - Quote @IronWolf and Noc: So you're saying that this "steamrolling" effect that infantry guys bring up in regards to tanks works both ways? Its not that I didn't think that was a possibility. I just haven't watched it happen. Which isn't to say it hasn't been happening in the background. @Char.: I agree with you in principle. Protosuits are expensive to me (relative to what I make in a single game). If I buy one, I'd want it to hold its own against militia gear. However, something you said troubles me: "The purpose of AV is to keep tanks at bay. If a tank is to be destroyed, it SHOULD take multiple highly skilled AV mercs to take it down," There's no money in that. In my eyes, if you carry that example to its extreme, AV would dry up save for the few who run in militia gear for a few matches to pay for one match of AVing. I know that my situation is similar if not exactly what tankers do now, but we're trying to move away from that. I guess my new and more refined question is: "What do you think drives this to such polar opposites?" It sounds like Iron and Noc were saying "Three proto forgers are to tankers as three Sagarises are to blueberries", or something to that effect. Although the roles have switched, the steamrolling problem is still there.
BOZ MR Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 75	Posted - 2013.04.26 09:16:00 - [6] - Quote Piercing Serenity wrote: the same conclusion: "They just don't have enough guys..." In an isolated incident, 1 (Tank) vs. 4 (infantry) sounds nice. It lets tankers survive the random blueberries who jump at their free AV gear unless they group up, while rewarding coordinated efforts on the part of the AV team. I kept getting drawn back to an actual match, though. In a match where two to three tanks are brought in - which isn't unreasonable. It happened to me just yesterday - at least nine players would have to be engaged with the tanks to kill all of them. If we take "dedicated" to mean "With a single objective", then there are only 7 people left to take letters and win the match, versus the 13 people on the other side. So you say all the tanks should be killed at the same time. Why your 3 Av dudes can not kill one tank ,resupply and go hunt other one? Either you can not think thoroughly or biased.
Indy Strizer Pink Fluffy Bounty Hunterz Noir. Mercenary Group 70	Posted - 2013.04.26 09:26:00 - [7] - Quote Tankers want more survivability to be able to take hits and stay in the fight, but they already have insane damage output and they're extremely frustrating to kill or keep at bay... but not because of their hit points.... It's because of their speed... Sure, they're not as fast as a dropship or an LAV, but speed isn't really a disadvantage to a tank. (It might be on future maps as they get larger though so I'm just waiting on that...) I've seen tanks circling the entire skirmish maps laying waste to infantry only because there is no AV, but if there's just two militia swarms... Well that tank is running for it's life. It's like it's either one extreme or the other, which is not good, both sides should have a chance and both sides are actually OP... The tankers can't do anything because AV is too strong and the AV players can't do anything because they have to choose between chasing you tank around for the rest of the match or simply die over and over and over... Both sides don't want to budge... By slowing tanks down, you'd give infantry a better chance to get away and survive, tanking wouldn't be so easy as just rolling up on people and shooting them, it'd be more about positioning... Tanks could roll up and cover advancing infantry and you'd have some cool blaster tank fights. Not to mention, you'd also indirectly buff the advantage of dropships and LAVs against tanks by making their speed more relevant. That's just my opinion though.
Nguruthos IX Hellstorm Inc League of Infamy 233	Posted - 2013.04.26 09:48:00 - [8] - Quote The problem with "Then the other team should bring out their tanks to win since they have them too" argument can be illustrated thus. Add to the game "GodMechs". 10,000,000 HP and one shots everything. Now Team A pulls out a GodMech. they win a game and claim "The game is totally balanced and fine because Team B should have just called out their GodMech!" It's broken and silly if this is the way you're going to consider something balanced. Against itself? Of course... Anything is.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 288	Posted - 2013.04.26 09:49:00 - [9] - Quote Tanks should be tanks Yes they should, but they are not, 1 AV guy can pin a proper fitted tank down easily, 1 can solo it if he knows what hes doing and this is in a pub match In a CB its worse because CB have organized ppl so 3 AV ppl will apha it most likely or just kill it on the 2nd volley Few builds back it required 3 AV ppl in advanced to really hurt a sagaris or surya It requires the same SP and ISK but yet the tank is even easier to take out now since everything got nerfed, the hull the mods the turrets They say well support the tank with infantry, ye okay let me have 2 snipers then since they are AV me off top of a building or on the mountain somewhere Let the infantry go in 1st, then wtf is a tank for? might aswell get rid of it if infantry can do it I now run railgun more than blaster just so i have range to deal with sniping AV
Iron Wolf Saber BetaMax. CRONOS. 3695	Posted - 2013.04.26 09:51:00 - [10] - Quote This sounds like a question I can ask tomorrow at the round table.

Vaerana Myshtana Bojo's School of the Trades 741	Posted - 2013.04.26 12:24:00 - [11] - Quote Modern anti-tank missile > Modern tank. AV is fine so long as it obeys this rule: One user of AV can kill one tank of the same Meta Level. -- As to the question of the other team deploying its own tanks, this is often next to impossible on a lot of the maps. The prevalence of redzone sniping Railgun tanks in Skirmish and the small map sizes of Ambush mean that once a tank arrives, they are often able to prevent other tanks from being deployed.
Halador Osiris Dead Six Initiative 222	Posted - 2013.04.26 12:47:00 - [12] - Quote I think the solution is to nerf tank damage. Less AV players will go after them, they won't go like 25-0, tank battles will last longer, the list goes on. I know that "realistically" tank damage is probably accurate, but for balance I think it needs to go down.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 289	Posted - 2013.04.26 12:49:00 - [13] - Quote Halador Osiris wrote: I think the solution is to nerf tank damage. Less AV players will go after them, they won't go like 25-0, tank battles will last longer, the list goes on. I know that "realistically" tank damage is probably accurate, but for balance I think it needs to go down. So nerf tank damage but still let proto AV 2-4 shot that 2.2mil tank?
BOZ MR Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 75	Posted - 2013.04.26 12:52:00 - [14] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Halador Osiris wrote: I think the solution is to nerf tank damage. Less AV players will go after them, they won't go like 25-0, tank battles will last longer, the list goes on. I know that "realistically" tank damage is probably accurate, but for balance I think it needs to go down. So nerf tank damage but still let proto AV 2-4 shot that 2.2mil tank? Yes, that is what this dum+ƒ community thinks.
BOZ MR Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 75	Posted - 2013.04.26 12:53:00 - [15] - Quote BOZ MR wrote: Piercing Serenity wrote: the same conclusion: "They just don't have enough guys..." In an isolated incident, 1 (Tank) vs. 4 (infantry) sounds nice. It lets tankers survive the random blueberries who jump at their free AV gear unless they group up, while rewarding coordinated efforts on the part of the AV team. I kept getting drawn back to an actual match, though. In a match where two to three tanks are brought in - which isn't unreasonable. It happened to me just yesterday - at least nine players would have to be engaged with the tanks to kill all of them. If we take "dedicated" to mean "With a single objective", then there are only 7 people left to take letters and win the match, versus the 13 people on the other side. So you say all the tanks should be killed at the same time. Why your 3 Av dudes can not kill one tank ,resupply and go hunt other one? Either you can not think thoroughly or biased. Reply me If you missed this OP..
Ivan Avogadro Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 120	Posted - 2013.04.26 12:59:00 - [16] - Quote Vaerana Myshtana wrote: Modern anti-tank missile > Modern tank. AV is fine so long as it obeys this rule: One user of AV can kill one tank of the same Meta Level. -- As to the question of the other team deploying its own tanks, this is often next to impossible on a lot of the maps. The prevalence of redzone sniping Railgun tanks in Skirmish and the small map sizes of Ambush mean that once a tank arrives, they are often able to prevent other tanks from being deployed. This mentality ignores too many facets of the game beyond "one match". Yes it is fair to take out 1 other member of the opposing team. But HAV's pay a premium in resources for the power they have. HAV is a 12x skill, locked behind Vehicle Command (1x) Level 5. To even spec Proto Tank without touching turrets costs more SP than obtaining a Proto Dropsuit with a Proto Weapon. Large Turret (main cannon) is locked behind Small Turret (guest guns), which is locked behing Turret Operation. So for the driver himself to be a threat, in a Proto Tank with a Proto Cannon he has to spend SP in 5 skill books. Then the cost of the tank itself in ISK is significantly more than any dropsuit. Plus killing a tank costs the driver his dropsuit too, furthering the expense gap. Putting one footsoldier against one tank on equal footing, even Proto to Proto, is unfair to the HAV on multiple levels. To the thought experiment as a whole, tanks can't practically hack letters (a driver would have to abandon his vehicle making it vulnerable to destruction, hacking, or blueberry theft: so overall highly unlikely). They are a suppressive / field denying unit only. On a map with an abundance of indoor, elevated, or covered objectives you can still win a match by ignoring the tank entirely.
BOZ MR Internal Error. Negative-Feedback 75	Posted - 2013.04.26 13:18:00 - [17] - Quote Ivan Avogadro wrote: Vaerana Myshtana wrote: Modern anti-tank missile > Modern tank. AV is fine so long as it obeys this rule: One user of AV can kill one tank of the same Meta Level. -- As to the question of the other team deploying its own tanks, this is often next to impossible on a lot of the maps. The prevalence of redzone sniping Railgun tanks in Skirmish and the small map sizes of Ambush mean that once a tank arrives, they are often able to prevent other tanks from being deployed. This mentality ignores too many facets of the game beyond "one match". Yes it is fair to take out 1 other member of the opposing team. But HAV's pay a premium in resources for the power they have. HAV is a 12x skill, locked behind Vehicle Command (1x) Level 5. To even spec Proto Tank without touching turrets costs more SP than obtaining a Proto Dropsuit with a Proto Weapon. Large Turret (main cannon) is locked behind Small Turret (guest guns), which is locked behing Turret Operation. So for the driver himself to be a threat, in a Proto Tank with a Proto Cannon he has to spend SP in 5 skill books. Then the cost of the tank itself in ISK is significantly more than any dropsuit. Plus killing a tank costs the driver his dropsuit too, furthering the expense gap. Putting one footsoldier against one tank on equal footing, even Proto to Proto, is unfair to the HAV on multiple levels. To the thought experiment as a whole, tanks can't practically hack letters (a driver would have to abandon his vehicle making it vulnerable to destruction, hacking, or blueberry theft: so overall highly unlikely). They are a suppressive / field denying unit only. On a map with an abundance of indoor, elevated, or covered objectives you can still win a match by ignoring the tank entirely. These scru+ƒs are not capable of understanding what you are saying, I tried a lot.
Vaerana Myshtana Bojo's School of the Trades 742	Posted - 2013.04.26 13:20:00 - [18] - Quote Ivan Avogadro wrote: Vaerana Myshtana wrote: Modern anti-tank missile > Modern tank. AV is fine so long as it obeys this rule: One user of AV can kill one tank of the same Meta Level. -- As to the question of the other team deploying its own tanks, this is often next to impossible on a lot of the maps. The prevalence of redzone sniping Railgun tanks in Skirmish and the small map sizes of Ambush mean that once a tank arrives, they are often able to prevent other tanks from being deployed. This mentality ignores too many facets of the game beyond "one match". Yes it is fair to take out 1 other member of the opposing team. But HAV's pay a premium in resources for the power they have. HAV is a 12x skill, locked behind Vehicle Command (1x) Level 5. To even spec Proto Tank without touching turrets costs more SP than obtaining a Proto Dropsuit with a Proto Weapon. Large Turret (main cannon) is locked behind Small Turret (guest guns), which is locked behing Turret Operation. So for the driver himself to be a threat, in a Proto Tank with a Proto Cannon he has to spend SP in 5 skill books. Then the cost of the tank itself in ISK is significantly more than any dropsuit. Plus killing a tank costs the driver his dropsuit too, furthering the expense gap. Putting one footsoldier against one tank on equal footing, even Proto to Proto, is unfair to the HAV on multiple levels. To the thought experiment as a whole, tanks can't practically hack letters (a driver would have to abandon his vehicle making it vulnerable to destruction, hacking, or blueberry theft: so overall highly unlikely). They are a suppressive / field denying unit only. On a map with an abundance of indoor, elevated, or covered objectives you can still win a match by ignoring the tank entirely. I'm not ignoring this. The same rule applies IRL. Tanks are WAY more expensive than an infantryman with an anti-tank missile. Remember, tanks are supposed to be balanced for PC, not pub matches. That means that the 2M ISK cost can be borne by the corp, not the individual. So, as I said, the system is fine so long as there is tier balance- AV should be able to kill tanks of the same Meta level (with a little luck and skill), tanks of lower levels easily, and tanks of higher levels with great difficulty (use multiple people).
Justin Tymes Condotta Rouvenor Gallente Federation 32	Posted - 2013.04.26 13:25:00 - [19] - Quote -Ban tanks from Ambush. -Problem solved. It's so simple you have to wonder why it hasn't happened yet.
Takahiro Kashuken Red Star. EoN. 289	Posted - 2013.04.26 13:25:00 - [20] - Quote Vaerana Myshtana wrote: Ivan Avogadro wrote: Vaerana Myshtana wrote: Modern anti-tank missile > Modern tank. AV is fine so long as it obeys this rule: One user of AV can kill one tank of the same Meta Level. -- As to the question of the other team deploying its own tanks, this is often next to impossible on a lot of the maps. The prevalence of redzone sniping Railgun tanks in Skirmish and the small map sizes of Ambush mean that once a tank arrives, they are often able to prevent other tanks from being deployed. This mentality ignores too many facets of the game beyond "one match". Yes it is fair to take out 1 other member of the opposing team. But HAV's pay a premium in resources for the power they have. HAV is a 12x skill, locked behind Vehicle Command (1x) Level 5. To even spec Proto Tank without touching turrets costs more SP than obtaining a Proto Dropsuit with a Proto Weapon. Large Turret (main cannon) is locked behind Small Turret (guest guns), which is locked behing Turret Operation. So for the driver himself to be a threat, in a Proto Tank with a Proto Cannon he has to spend SP in 5 skill books. Then the cost of the tank itself in ISK is significantly more than any dropsuit. Plus killing a tank costs the driver his dropsuit too, furthering the expense gap. Putting one footsoldier against one tank on equal footing, even Proto to Proto, is unfair to the HAV on multiple levels. To the thought experiment as a whole, tanks can't practically hack letters (a driver would have to abandon his vehicle making it vulnerable to destruction, hacking, or blueberry theft: so overall highly unlikely). They are a suppressive / field denying unit only. On a map with an abundance of indoor, elevated, or covered objectives you can still win a match by ignoring the tank entirely. I'm not ignoring this. The same rule applies IRL. Tanks are WAY more expensive than an infantryman with an anti-tank missile. Remember, tanks are supposed to be balanced for PC, not pub matches. That means that the 2M ISK cost can be borne by the corp, not the individual. So, as I said, the system is fine so long as there is tier balance- AV should be able to kill tanks of the same Meta level (with a little luck and skill), tanks of lower levels easily, and tanks of higher levels with great difficulty (use multiple people). But they got balanced for pub matches because they cried OP without thinking of what happen in CB which turns out tanks get creamed by a proper AV squad let alone 1 person anyways

Vaerana Myshtana Bojo's School of the Trades 744	Posted - 2013.04.26 14:49:00 - [21] - Quote Takahiro Kashuken wrote: Vaerana Myshtana wrote: I'm not ignoring this. The same rule applies IRL. Tanks are WAY more expensive than an infantryman with an anti-tank missile. Remember, tanks are supposed to be balanced for PC, not pub matches. That means that the 2M ISK cost can be borne by the corp, not the individual. So, as I said, the system is fine so long as there is tier balance- AV should be able to kill tanks of the same Meta level (with a little luck and skill), tanks of lower levels easily, and tanks of higher levels with great difficulty (use multiple people). But they got balanced for pub matches because they cried OP without thinking of what happen in CB which turns out tanks get creamed by a proper AV squad let alone 1 person anyways So... Working as Intended. Every tank in the game SHOULD be creamed by a proper AV squad. EVERY SINGLE ONE. The question of balance only applies to single AV infantry.
Piercing Serenity Faabulous 271	Posted - 2013.04.26 16:54:00 - [22] - Quote Sorry it took me so long to respond. I had a chemistry and Chinese test to take @BOZ MR: The short answer your question is: "I purposefully ignored that because it introduced 'noise' into the thought experiment." The longer answer is as follows: I picked one tank vs. four infantry because that's something I'd seen quite often on the forums. Because no one posted what 1 vs 4 meant to them - killing the tank versus distracting it - I decided that it would take four AV guys to kill a tank. This decision gave tanks more hardiness, in my opinion, because it takes more people to kill a single tanker, minus any complicating factors. "Minus any complicating factors" leads to my next motive for thinking through that experiment the way I did - less noise in the experiment. The purpose of my thought experiment was to represent the problem as I saw it - a case of too few resources to deal with the "problems" of tanks and victory - as simply as possible. I agree with you that 3 AV guys could all focus on one tank and resupply, or focus on two tanks and leave the third for later. But the more you think on it, the more complicated it gets. "Now one of the three AV guys uses a breach forge gun while the other two use assault forge guns. The breach forge gunner has two damage mods and weaponry three (3) and has a DPS of ..." ad infinitum. We could go into detail about how the battle plays out, compare our findings to the average AV player and see how likely it is that our specific battle happens. But as far as my thought experiment is concerned, we don't have to do that. I equated "It takes three to tie" with "Three AV guys doing everything they can to kill the tank - focused fire, distractions, ambushes - will tie with one tank doing everything he can to survive". More simply put, I didn't focus on 'how' that battle played out, just the result. So that's why I didn't focus on the way the tanks were brought down. @Halador Osiris: I don't think that's the answer. You seem to think that AV response is reactionary. That is to say, no one comes into a match with AV. They only pull out AV gear to defend themselves against vehicles. I don't think that's the case. I believe that the ratio of "SP spent on tanking skills / SP in the community" to "SP spent on (Non-vehicle) AV skills / SP in the community" is much more in favor of tanks. If you make tanks weaker, I think you would encourage more people to attack them. @Takahiro Kashuken (And retroactively) Char.: I don't think arguing in favor of tanks on the basis of their price is a strong argument. Not to say that it is invalid - we buy dropsuits and vehicles because we think we are paying a good price for what we can do with that item - but it is very subjective, varying from person to person. My Type II assault suit has 401 shields. It is possible to pay for a more expensive dropsuit, weapon, etc, but have equal shield and armor. I kill advanced suits all the time in that suit. Should those players feel offended that they lost their fittings? I use that example to (try to) emphasize the point that the base value of the item does not correlate exactly, or strongly, with the actual value of the suit. There is no real value for a suit with a base cost of 40,000 ISK and with AR Pro 5. You are essentially adding one complex and one enhanced damage mod, would you say that the cost of that suit was: (Price of suit) + (constituent parts) + ( parts that would be there due to skills)? That's why I personally dislike the ISK argument. @Ivan Avogadro: I agree with your first point in that, the way Tank vs. Tank and AV vs. Tank fight is built, the current system is unsustainable. Let's say that Slap, Zitro, Caeli, and Charlotte are in the same game, and they all plan to use their tanks. They are divided evenly between the teams. Curiously, they constantly run into the situation above when they queue for the next battle. They keep on fighting each other. While dropships are priced in a way that two teams competitive players can be fight and make a large percentage of their losses back after one match, tanks can't. The difference between Slap's payout per match and the cost of losing even a single tank is so large that all four players would have to pause and run as infantry to rebuild their wallet. I disagree with your second point about map protection because of the current map layout. The maps aren't built that way.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page