loss-loss and loss-win relationships in class utilities

No to the emp buff,just wait till they finally finish and implement vehicle hacking.
Hopefully someday soon.

Semantics. One's man killsteal is another man's assist defeating in the enemy. I want enemy vehicles gone and I don't care who gets the credit. Other people want points, and they don't care how they get them. There are no "loss" and "win" relationships because there are no definitions of what win and loss are.

Tanks are not real tanks? LMAO!! Tanks in this game survive multiple AP rounds and AV rockets. They have ZERO points of failure, they are just a big hunk of hitpoints. They can run over mines without even having their treads damaged. They CANNOT be disabled.

You're right, tanks in this game aren't tanks. I'm not sure what the word for such a stupidly powerful thing is. Might as well give them legs and call them BFR's.

can easily be killed by concentrated rocket fire, C4, liberators and ESFs will wreck PS2 tanks, can be killed easily by tank mines.

modern tanks are heavily armored and you'd be lucky to score more then a single penetration hit out of 10 with an RPG, C4 irl wil lnot damage the tank barely making a scratch, tank treads these days are also heavily armored and hard to destory.

have a glass of reality, you need it.

Take this argument back to the other threads about the suggested/upcoming tank changes, please.

This is subject to perception, of course. If the effect can not be perceived during either the delivery (witnessing the Jammer being used against the enemy) or the effect (the tank visibly displays the effect of being "jammed"), it can not be appreciated and will fall into the prior matter. This is a common QoL problem with effects. It's perhaps unfair to single-out grenades at this time but, under the current system, it's only marginally possible to determine which players have been affected by any of the Concussion, Flash, or EMP grenades at the time of engagement. At the same time, you also have people who do not like concussion grenades at all due to its effect despite the fact that they observe a facet of the loss-win heuristic.

Edit: also forgot. In my time performing Ground AA work, I've encountered friendly pilots who dislike that I'm interrupting their aspect of the game by attacking their targets. This includes one incident where I will asert that my distraction forced the enemy pilot to try and flee, allowing a previously losing ally pilot to defeat him. I still got chewed out for interloping. From my perspective, all that matters is that asset (the ESF) was salvageable and is in shape to assist the rest of the fight. I am not saying this is indicative of all pilots, or all pilots I have tried to help with my flak, but, to make a long story short, there's also the issue of whether the allies being assisted want or will accept the assistance.

Because realism is what makes games good, right?

I think they could have left dysentery out of Oregon Trail and it would still have been a good game.

I don't even think they're being realistic. Sorry but modern AV weapons don't have only a 1 in 10 chance of killing an MBT. This isn't WWII and we're not using Bazooka's here....

I'm not sure stealing kills from friendlies is such a big deal. HA rockets steal kills too, if you're talking about AV.

Of course, before we can talk about anything the LA actually needs a tool. Not just a utility. We really need to get a bunch of guys going over to the next Higby pls and let him know how much LA needs it.

Do you have any other source of that knowledge except for games and "ooorah"-patriotic recruitment videos?

Anti tank weapons vs. tanks is an eternal fight of sword vs. shield. There is no clear winner, because there are no clearly defined competitors.

An old tank without special protection is likely to die to one super expensive guided rocket, just as super technological modern tank with two-level protection system is likely to shrug off old RPG-7 rockets.

I have seen results of actual tests of various AT rockets used against various tanks, and what saw is 1 in 5-6 rocket hits would penetrate armor (damage the tank). I have lost the source article, and it's made in russian anyway, so no point in linking it here, but I have more reason to believe that article than what other games consider to be a realistic outlook of the current state of tanks vs. anti tank weapons.

Would you prefer if:
a)Tanks lost ability to kill infantry
b)Instead they get pre-nerf HE shell which will now be called EMP shell and can only damage infantry shield
c)They also get shield energy transmitter which increases shield HP and regeneration for friendly infantry within AoE

In turn:
a)C4 and other infantry AV can only lower tank's health to 50% or 33% and is ineffective after that point
b)Other tanks or aircraft are need to finish off tank damaged by infantry
c)(Tanks give survivability buff to infantry via shield transmitter while infantry can give survivability buff to tanks via repair tool)

Or do you prefer current situation in which everyone can kill everyone and there is less need to combine different units?

I prefer it when all kinds of units can engage all kinds of units. Relative effectiveness is the same, difference is in the approach.

Rock-paper-scissor balance is not fun, counters are not fun. Being able to take on any threat with any number of different ways is fun for everyone and breeds diversity in the play.

And yet you dislike tanks interfering in infantry fights? You would prefer to deal with infantry and let other people deal with tanks, am I right?

I disagree. You are example of how infantry players hate having to deal with tanks and would rather relegate that duty to someone else. In the same way AA duty is generally considered to be boring and those guys would also rather fight infantry if there weren't for the fact that they would get farmed by air.

Because it's not interesting, or fair. You said yourself - it's boring. If it wasn't boring, more people would want to do it.
Fighting tanks in this game is like banging your head against a brick wall. If it wasn't such a "let me oneshot you then roll back to repair like nothing happened" bull **** festival, maybe I would want to do it more.

Just the simple fact that you can say "tanks interfering in infantry fights" and not be ironic is a sign of how poorly combined arms is implemented in this game. If it was implemented better, people would not hate to deal with vehicles.

So what are the options?

a)Nerf tanks so much that they can be killed by lone infantryman in 50% of 1v1s

or

b)Make tanks buff/debuff infantry instead of countering them directly. Amount of buff/debuff should be capped (for example getting hit by EMP shell will make you be able to survive 2 bullets less but the effect won't stack if you get hit by multiple shells).

We could have 3 concurrent fights going in the region:
infantry-infantry
tanks-tanks
aircraft-aircraft

If one faction achieves superiority in one of those fights then they will be able to get advantage in other two fights. This advantage will be capped so if you have entire tank column shelling the base with EMP they will be no more effective than just having several tanks doing the same because effects won't stack.

End result: friendlies are grateful for tank support because tanks allow them to get more kills, tanks are no longer useless in infantry fights, enemies can actually run out of the spawn and fight without dying to splash damage like they used to before HE nerf.

So, when two tanks encounter one another, the tank whose driver/gunner jumps out first has the advantage?

Well we can agree that would be ridiculous. I can't cover how this "less lethality/more support" paradigm would apply to all possible game cases because that would require huge wall of text.

I'm not saying tanks should never be able to kill infantry ever. I suggest keeping current weapons&vehicles but also adding new ones. Then let players decide which one they will use.

If you decide to use new weapons which are great for support but aren't lethal by themselves then as a bonus you also get protection from other unit types.

That said certain measures are needed to prevent shenanigans such as having shielded aircraft block enemy flak turrets or invulnerable tanks roadkilling infantry.