Are PTS vehicle changes coming to live servers any soon?

This is how it is now though, and infantry-side still crys about it because a single planetman can't solo a tank as soon as he sees it, having to use C4 (normally from an LA) to kill it. Take for example the lancer, the best AV launcher in the game. It can hit any vehicle you can see provided you have minimal aiming skills and does good damage. If 3 people use it they can 1 clip a sunderer easily and cause massive damage to any other vehicle they can see.

They don't use it though. No-one does for some unknowable reason. Maybe it's because they hate team-work? Maybe they still think it sucks or something? If even half of the heavys used it out in the field of battle everyone would scream to nerf it because it'd be extremely difficult to use vehicles of any kind against VS.

Can you explain how that exactly works? Because as far as I can see the balance between infantry/vehicles doesn't take anything into account except "but I was so skillful to pay nanites for a vehicle so I want to be capable of annihilating everything infantry because I deserve it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".

Wrong again, I already explained it. It's not about infantry being capable of soloing a tank, it's about what you can do to protect yourself or engage the target effectively. The simple act of being able to place a hologram generator that is easily identifyable from close range but not from longer ranges would already be a big help in giving infantry some protection against OHK tank shells that they can't even properly engage 95% of the time.

And there's a problem: While tanks reduce the skill required to play (less movement, more time to react to enemy fire, immune to most infantry weapons, almost only needing to lead targets for kills without the need for trigger discipline and all that), infantry doesn't get that. Nanites are too cheap to give all those advantages just because you found a terminal and bought a tank. The infantry in the meantime have to pull off a stealth attack that can be foiled by numerous things and forces the infantry to basically only target stationary farmers because anyone else is a much too high risk, and they can practically only use one weapon for that! Other weapons like HA rocketlaunchers are woefully inadequate and are more likely to attract the tanks attention and get you killed than that the tank will be in any danger at all.

Take for example the lancer, the best AV launcher in the game. It can hit any vehicle you can see provided you have minimal aiming skills and does good damage. If 3 people use it they can 1 clip a sunderer easily and cause massive damage to any other vehicle they can see.

Because you need to pull it off stealth? Because it doesn't work in direct-combat scenario's? Because with a certain amount of vehicle and infantry presence it becomes impossible to do the whole "stealth" thing and arrive at the vehicle alive and without them already blowing you to pieces/avoiding you? Is that truly such a difficult reason to fathom?

Maybe it's because the skill required to pull off that kind of teamwork is miles higher than anything a vehicle player needs to do and even without teamwork the vehicle player only needs half the skill the teamworkers are pulling off to counter them (and that's generously overestimating the amount of skill a vehicle player needs)? Do you know how incredibly easy it is to prevent getting killed by infantry as a vehicle?

It does suck. More skill required to pull it off, more players required to pull it off, enemy can counter it with much less skill, enemy also determines most of the engagement because it's faster and has more range. And all that because you could find a terminal? "But it costs me nanites!" Well the average lifespan of vehicles means that you need to wait about -2 to 3 minutes (yes that is a minus 2) before you can pull another one, so that's a bullcrap idea.

There's no reason for the immense skill disparity required to operate we see between vehicles and infantry. Especially when taking into account the fact that 70% of the time infantry simply isn't equipped to deal with vehicles at all, and 95% of the time they aren't effective at dealing with tanks anyway.

Bullcrap. Why don't you prove it eh?

The balance is that there is always far far more infantry at a fight than there are vehicles. If Infantry was a strong as tanks then it's now heavily in favor of the infantry even more because they are so numerous. Hell just look at flak, a "weak" weapon in the eyes of infantry-side that is completely able to block planes out of a fight as soon as there is 3 or more of them. They then cry there's no planes to kill because if said planes do get close they get shredded with ease.

Stealth? Doesn't work in a combat scenario? What the hell are you talking about. I was talking about the Vanu Lancer Heavy Assault rocket launcher. The no-skill point & click AV weapon that hits out to render range. It also requires as much teamwork as "see another beam? Aim at the target too". Using a lancer does not require more skill than anything in this game.

And yes, I have auraxiumed it and it was the easiest thing to do in this game because I wasn't even rendering to half the targets I was shooting.


A hologram would be cool as a utility though.

That's not balance. I don't know why I have to repeat it again, but I don't want infantry to solo every vehicle in sight. And the fact that there are more infantry than vehicles matters relatively little. Imagine if infantry resource costs for taking out enemy vehicles was about the same as the vehicles themselves, then it would stop mattering if there are more infantry or more vehicles around, because they would be relatively equal in a vs battle.
Well, currently that's not the case, most infantry AV weapons don't cost resources at all... except that time=resources. 1 minute=50 resources. So if you are busy for more than a minute to destroy a vehicle, then you've effectively wasted 50 resources worth of time on that vehicle. Add the amount of deaths the vehicle creates, which is 10 seconds of death+the time it takes to get back into the fight, and vehicles quickly are more efficient in murdering things for their resource/time cost than infantry.

So balancing based on "but there's more of them" is not a smart move. There's fewer Flashes then there's Lightnings or MBT's pulled, should they become stronger because of that? There's fewer Medics pulled than any other class, should we make them more powerful to compensate for the increase in other classes it has to engage? It's a nonsensical idea for balance that doesn't work.

Also, while 3 G2A weapons are powerful, only Skyguards can really "lock down" an area, and considering that there's plenty of ways to still operate within an area with 3 Skyguards simply because it's unlikely all 3 will spot and engage the same target in quick succession it's a bad comparison to the infantry vs vehicle engagement. Also, aircraft have the option to say "whelp, too hot here, let's go somewhere with little to no G2A instead", an option that infantry and ground vehicles overall don't have because they are guaranteed to find their counter in the area.

"There's this single weapon that when used in a very specific scenario (infantry needs high ground and long open area's) can be OP vs vehicles when used in a team. So now **** all other infantry AV weapons!"
Seriously, if you have a problem with the Lancer, you ask for the Lancer to be toned down. But that doesn't mean that the other weapons are in a good state. Besides, if the Lancer was so good you would see it everywhere right? Oh wait, you only see it in highly specific scenario's...

Rendering has been fixed. Also the fact that you auraxiumed it doesn't mean anything. What other rocketlaunchers did you Aurax without farming infantry?

And that's what I'm getting at: I'm not asking to overpower infantry, I'm asking for ways that infantry can combat enemy vehicles. This includes lethal weapons, but it also includes non-lethal weapons to make it harder for vehicles to dominate infantry as they do now.