Again:

http://youtu.be/6qHL7jET8Gc

This is footage of a FGM-148 Javelin (1990s) completely obliterating a T-72 tank (1970s). This is essentially Advanced versus Standard in terms of generations. Why? The Javelin was the second generation of AV designed to kill T-72s, the first being the M47 Dragon.

Rules of believable AV:

Under optimal circumstances, a single AV user should be able to one-shot a tank of one meta lower.

Under optimal circumstances, a single AV user should be able to kill a tank of the same meta level without a nanohive.

When well implemented, Modules, Cover, and Infantry Screens negate the "optimal circumstances" for AV.

That said...

The current implementation of AV sucks. I'd be happy to see it revamped, provided the rules above hold.

First of all, the LAW and TOW are "Militia" in this system as they were designed for previous generations of tanks, not the T-72. Those should not one-shot a T-72.

Shaped charges with penetrators are pretty common for that generation of AV missiles. It does not negate the argument, as those are second generation after the T-72. The technology will change over time, but it will be designed to exploit whatever the perceived weaknesses of a given generation of tank might be.

Of course a target vehicle would carry live rounds or a substitute if you are doing an "optimal circumstances" field test.

It is also worth noting that tanks can, and do, catch fire. Not the ammo, not the fuel- the tank itself. The temperatures generated by shaped charges can ignite metals like aluminum (or even steel). This is magnified in aircraft where Aluminum and Magnesium are used extensively to save weight. Similar tradeoffs would likely have been made in New Eden:

"This tritanium alloy we used to increase speed could ignite if struck by a missile."
"Yeah, but we have shields for that."

First of all, the LAW and TOW are "Militia" in this system as they were designed for previous generations of tanks, not the T-72. Those should not one-shot a T-72.

Shaped charges with penetrators are pretty common for that generation of AV missiles. It does not negate the argument, as those are second generation after the T-72. The technology will change over time, but it will be designed to exploit whatever the perceived weaknesses of a given generation of tank might be.

Of course a target vehicle would carry live rounds or a substitute if you are doing an "optimal circumstances" field test.

It is also worth noting that tanks can, and do, catch fire. Not the ammo, not the fuel- the tank itself. The temperatures generated by shaped charges can ignite metals like aluminum (or even steel). This is magnified in aircraft where Aluminum and Magnesium are used extensively to save weight. Similar tradeoffs would likely have been made in New Eden:

"This tritanium alloy we used to increase speed could ignite if struck by a missile."
"Yeah, but we have shields for that."

Sake Monster, you pronounce Sake wrong and it makes me sad cause I often drink sake at traditional Nihonshu places where they only serve stuff you need to special order.

But a big +1 for the thread.

Again:

http://youtu.be/6qHL7jET8Gc

This is footage of a FGM-148 Javelin (1990s) completely obliterating a T-72 tank (1970s). This is essentially Advanced versus Standard in terms of generations. Why? The Javelin was the second generation of AV designed to kill T-72s, the first being the M47 Dragon.

Rules of believable AV:

Under optimal circumstances, a single AV user should be able to one-shot a tank of one meta lower.

Under optimal circumstances, a single AV user should be able to kill a tank of the same meta level without a nanohive.

When well implemented, Modules, Cover, and Infantry Screens negate the "optimal circumstances" for AV.

That said...

The current implementation of AV sucks. I'd be happy to see it revamped, provided the rules above hold.

My Observations:

Swarm Missiles fly in strange directions instead of just being fast and powerful. They should follow a believable ballistic with an understandable turn radius and should pack a serious wallop at the end. They should also miss vehicles that can get behind cover or dodge (not outrun- dodge) and they should be vulnerable to things like chaff and point-defense systems.

Forge Guns have no ADS- so even though they are capable of great accuracy, the sights often obscure targets smaller than an entire HAV. Partially exposed turrets, etc. can be very hard to pick out of the terrain.

Proximity Mines appear to have no IFF, so friendly tanks will blow them up.

AV Grenades have a reasonable punch, but it can feel like easy mode when the tanker wants to play Lone Gunman or gets too far away from his infantry screen. Seriously guys... Get backup gunners and an infantry screen.

Plasma Cannon - no clue. I'm guessing it will have similar issues, but who knows?

But your heavily specialised into AV using a forge gun, so you should be able to at least solo standard tanks. But all people have to do is equip packed AV grenades and their set to go.

Again:

http://youtu.be/6qHL7jET8Gc

This is footage of a FGM-148 Javelin (1990s) completely obliterating a T-72 tank (1970s). This is essentially Advanced versus Standard in terms of generations. Why? The Javelin was the second generation of AV designed to kill T-72s, the first being the M47 Dragon.

Rules of believable AV:

Under optimal circumstances, a single AV user should be able to one-shot a tank of one meta lower.

Under optimal circumstances, a single AV user should be able to kill a tank of the same meta level without a nanohive.

When well implemented, Modules, Cover, and Infantry Screens negate the "optimal circumstances" for AV.

That said...

The current implementation of AV sucks. I'd be happy to see it revamped, provided the rules above hold.

My Observations:

Swarm Missiles fly in strange directions instead of just being fast and powerful. They should follow a believable ballistic with an understandable turn radius and should pack a serious wallop at the end. They should also miss vehicles that can get behind cover or dodge (not outrun- dodge) and they should be vulnerable to things like chaff and point-defense systems.

Forge Guns have no ADS- so even though they are capable of great accuracy, the sights often obscure targets smaller than an entire HAV. Partially exposed turrets, etc. can be very hard to pick out of the terrain.

Proximity Mines appear to have no IFF, so friendly tanks will blow them up.

AV Grenades have a reasonable punch, but it can feel like easy mode when the tanker wants to play Lone Gunman or gets too far away from his infantry screen. Seriously guys... Get backup gunners and an infantry screen.

Plasma Cannon - no clue. I'm guessing it will have similar issues, but who knows?

So yeah tanks should be a team effort to take down not just solo able.

i know the feeling, being a proto AV user for 11 months; i find it satisfying when i can solo a tank in the right conditions, as that is my role. Yet i do agree it is sad to see Mady's being taken out by 3-4 packed av nades. I understand why they can do it (as its the counter to free LAVs); but it can be a bit to much at times, as it only takes 70k SP & 4k ISK, to take out a 1M ISK tank.

I think as AV & for tankers, need to "realize" that being solo'd by LEGIT av isn't a problem, as in those moments is usually b/c 1 of 2 things occurs:

1). AV'er has a upper hand/position

2). Tanker, YOU overextended and made an error

It's the use a basic AV (be nades, SL, FG) that can solo a higher tier tank that causes the problem. Not sure how to adjust fully; as we dont want to go back to earlier builds were it required 2-3 proto AV guys to take out a tank, as that was to much. CCP does have a challange

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icEeEaz-Q8A

For you Oh no javelin stopped and tank lives. How does this work. Their is a such think as defenses. And we actually have even better then this out there.

So long as tanks require a team to operate.

I agree with this, tanks should basically require a full crew to be properly run, though so should AV.

Now if only we could get tankers who didn't cower behind the redline for the entire match sniping. It is usually that or the second they take a hint of damage they flee top speed to the redline, it is ridiculous really. You'd think with all that firepower and defenses, they'd have some balls.

590,000 isk... I think we have a right to flee.

Infantry scrub, stop telling us we have no right to hide, I will hide on the red line because it is safer and economically beneficial to me than running out and letting you kill me. Infantry is boring, also how will you be a good infantry player if you wish to eventually go in to Vehicles? When all the core skills are now separated and such, it's not about playing with what we can't afford, you're lucky, Infantry can do well in free fits.. we on the other hand don't get such a luxury.

Edit: and your little bit about "with all that firepower and defences, you'd think we'd have some balls?"
Heres the thing, we don't have any "defences", so take what you think you know about vehicles and shove it up your ass, it's not as easy as it seems, and all those shields and armor mean **** when AV is hitting you at 1/4 of your hp per shot.

I run both proto heavy and standerd tanks and I used to love the chalange of hunting out enimy tanks but now its far far far too easy to solo most tanks , there are still a few other tankers that give me a run for my isk but sadly most otger tankers either die inone or two shots from my rail gun or 2 to 3 shots from my proto tank eating forge gun setup . Jason had a thread that I fully supported calling for a massive hp buff in exchange for a large reductuon in dammage but sadly ccp has gone in the compleate opposite ditecrion . This will as stated by many other tankers will do nothing but force us into nothing but redline sniper tanking . Lets just hope ccp pulls there act together and sorts out the havs so we can acctually be tanks and not just free wp for someone with a proto forge set up.

Cry Moar?

I think I hear CCP aborting your HAVs.

lol.

My problem is that while I do see the tankers point of view and do feel that CCP is headed in the wrong direction with this glass cannon crap , the fact is that AV also has it's problems and no one seems to acknowledge it. Namely the fact that AV doesn't get compensated unless they get the kill shot.

Dedicated AV fits are NOT cheap !


I'm fine with militia AV being nerfed. I'm fine with kill stealing AV nades being dialed back some. But when you start talking about making Tanks tougher against Adv/Proto AV I start talking about making a living . Okay you make it so AV troops get even get less kills. Fine ... but AV doesn't get much WP's atm . My Gun alone costs half my game earnings . A couple of deaths which is VERY likely to happen to a AVer can put me deep in the red. Yet I can do most of the damage to a tank yet get nothing because some nader gets the kill shot and some AR guy steals the assist by shooting the tank (I'm helping !!) between my shots ?

Is it fair to have it take 3 AV guys to take out a tank yet only one of them gets payed in full for it ?

I suppose I could torque off my teammates by blowing up all installations they are usually hacking and using for cover . But should I really be competing against my own team ?


Basically what I'm saying is that I'm not running a charity here how am I supposed to afford this mess?

Outstanding *applauds*
This is why this game is going to ****, you have these AR scrubs thinking vehicles and other classes are easy mode and when called out they respond about said person "crying".

Settle down AR scrub.

Shame there isn't a prototype HAV.

If we're going by meta level; the Marauders are Advanced HAVs.

lol, you called me an AR scrub? lol, I rarely if ever use an AR. You're so pissed you're "Ad Homing" and failing cause you don't know **** about me. I, however, am willing to bet that I have you pegged dead to rights since you're so very very butthurt over my post.

HTFU.

Allow me to Reiterate: H. T. F. U.

Allow me to reiterate something else too: "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" --CCP