Yes av nades are effective against bad tanks. But a good tank with ANY squad support makes AV nades trivial cause you won't get in range long enough to throw more than 2.

And it's not about balance it's about fun. A guarentee you a majority of players have less fun using AV than standard infantry weapons. I'm saying make AV more fun. Or make small arms fire be able to contribute to AV. Not saying full damage but if a clip if my Scr or ar can drop 500-1000 health from a tank then you could have players work together to bring it down or hp the full AV players. It would be a more fun experience. You could then buff tanks a bit because players wouldn't hate them so much

I dont know? Be good at the game and kill people who actually have the ability to fight back?

So let me get this straight. Tank users are admitting they want to feast on a game where 90% of the population cant fight back against them? So what if 100% of the players have AV capabilities, 100% of the players have anti-infantry capability? Why would it suddenly break the game if players could actually fight back? A gameplay mechanic that relies on a majority of the players being unable to fight back is a broken mechanic.

Based on the replies here it seems this games balance relies on AV being so unattractive a play style and so un-fun that a majority of the players stay away from it. Because if a majority of the players had it, tanks would feel pointless? Am I getting this correct? Does that, logically, sound like a solid system?

A majority of the players on the field do not use AV. I suggested making AV a bit more fun for infantry by increasing the anti-infantry ability a bit for AV. Tankers then complain that "no, then everyone would use AV and tanks would be pointless."

So the Tanker doesnt want AV on the field, they dont want the player to be able to fight back. They prefer a game where most players cant fight back. A suggestion, not to buff any AV capabiltiies, but to make AV more fun for the common user by reducing the anti-infantry limitations of them, is shot down by tankers.

An alternative suggestion of giving small arms fire a slightly bigger role in AV, by allowing them to actually widdle down the health a bit to support AV units, or in mass blobs, actually chase off a tank, is also rejected.

A majority of tankers dont want to fight AV, they dont want to fight anyone. They want to shoot targets who cant shoot back. If players can shoot back, suddenly "OMG tanks would be useless then!"

Literally, the response was that if you got a majority of players to use AV, tanks would be useless. I ask again, how is that a good balance? Isn't there a better scenario where both tanks and AV can have a role that isnt all or nothing?

Then perhaps AV gear needs to be slightly nerfed, but more appealing to play? You can't deny that right now its all or nothing. If folks bring out AV, apparently its an auto-win (which is being over-stated here, good Tank drivers still dominate a few dedicated AVers).

So the hope for tank drivers is nobody brings out AV otherwise they are auto-dead? Why is that a balance you support? Like, look through this thread, its tank drivers pretty much saying "If someone can fight back I automatically lose, so I dont want people to be able to fight back."

That sounds like a terrible experience from the tank side, I know its lame from the infantry side.

See, you are saying "easily" I never said that. Ive suggested small arms fire doing a small amount of damage to tanks so that a blob of infantry may be able to chase a tank off or help AV destroy it. If 3 or 4 dudes firing a entire clip at a tank did as much damage as a standard proto shot, it would make the game play feel a TON less broken from the infantry side. Would that suddenly break tanks? I mean, if you are driving into an area surrounded by infantry who are free to shoot at you...you kinda deserve that punishment right?

On the flip side, I suggested AV should be a little less all or nothing, like BF. This doesnt mean AV gear that destroys infantry super easy. It maybe means slightly less powerful AV gear but that doesnt reduce the infantry effectiveness as much. This would get more people to be willing to use AV. Right now very few folks do.

I rock advanced, not proto, AV gear and Im usually the only one out there attacking tanks. I would like my team mates to be able to play a role in taking tanks down. You may say "well LOL go get proto" but I also rock advanced, not proto, anti-infantry weapons and do fine there. It shouldnt be a requirement that I get proto gear to battle tanks, it isnt a requirement to do so for any other class.

And the PC battle argument is silly because, PC battles have been around, what, a week? And a what, 3% of the DUST players participate in them? I get you need to be concious about PC battles when balancing, but you cant just ignore 97% of the players experience because you feel thats not the "real" game.

1. You know wat tht sidearm is called AV nades. r u dumb or something?
Lol yep. Im dumb. Or maybe good tank drivers dont "park" and shoot and allow AV nades to walk up to them? Yes, if a tank is dumb enough to stay still long enough for 4-5 AV nades to hit it, its an easy kill. But we shouldnt be balancing AV weapons off the absolute worst tank drivers.

2. Called the plasma launcher. U see how useful tht thing is
the plasma launcher isnt REMOTELY AV. You can't hit AV with it at all. It is an anti infantry weapon that can sort of damage AV. Hell the mass driver is a better AV weapon than the plasma.

3. advanced is good enough u need damage mods nuff said.
Eh, advanced swarms are not good enough. If a tank driver is decent, at all, you are lucky to get more then one volley to hit them. Forge is likely good enough. Ill likely be getting some points into standard glass cannon heavy with advanced forge soon. But it shouldnt be so restrictive to have a role in AV.

4. PC is wat it needs to be balanced by because thts the selling point of the game. pub matches r not the selling point.
And PC has been out a week, and youve played how many PC matches? Suddenly anyone who's been in 2 or 3 PC matches knows whats up based on like an hour of PC? Lets at least wait a few months before trying to tag some fancy "I play PC" tag on ourselves...