Vehicle combat is very boring and unenjoyable.

Oh, I'm not so sure. Clearly there's a disconnect around here somewhere...

Anyways, no. As I said there are more infantry in infantry-only areas. Take two platoons of infantry, stick 'em in an open field, then throw in a squad of tanks on either side. Who do you suppose will get the most kills per unit?

But the moment those infantry platoons are stuffed into a meat-grinder of a biolab or some such place they'll get 100% of the kills even though a tank would be more effective.

Well, since we're apparently playing the Cut-and-Paste game:

You used the leaderboards as evidence, I explained why that wasn't a very good source of information.

Anecdotal, nothing to support initial beliefs or positions. Also I don't care. Regardless, you looked at an incomplete data set without critical thought or analysis and this "changed your mind."

I apparently have to point out here that your opinion and beliefs don't mean anything to other people, indeed strangers, even, on the internet. Ultimately you may have agreed or not, but what matters and what we're discussing is the final position.

ANYWAY, you haven't even attempted to discredit my position, please do so. Personal attacks against my character aren't relevant and aren't very convincing.

Pound-for-pound vehicles are considerably more powerful against infantry than infantry is. Everyone knows this, even the devs., so infantry mostly play against other infantry is areas more or less protected against vehicles. When vehicles are allowed to fire into a base or simply have nothing to restrict them, they dominate infantry with ease.

The KPU stats don't show this because there are several times more infantry at any given time than vehicles and said infantry are majoritarily located within areas with limited access to vehicles. KPU is also not dependent on repeated success, meaning even a random low-performance infantry player can die ten times for every kill and all that will show up for him is the kills. (The ten deaths are some other infantryman's KPUs.)

Eh I don't really like the idea of being able to disable or degrade certain parts of vehicles. I feel like that would be annoying to deal with especially with light and heavy assaults. They'd aim at your treads immediately then destroy your vehicle as you slowly try to escape. It would make it even easier for them to fly over the tank and place c4, they just shoot a few rocklets at the treads then fly over and detonate c4. I do agree to emp grenades doing something of the sort though because it makes sense.

I do think locational damage on vehicles would be cool though, not every side of vehicles should have the same amount of armor. Tanks are designed to attack and be attacked from the front so they focus all their armor near the front and slightly on the front of the sides too. The back however isn't ever supposed to be approchable so has much less armor.

they are actualy prevented depenting on the base layout ... obviously sunderers and any aircraft can easily partake in basecombat (for the most part) but groundvehicles often are blocked out by walls and can only enter into the fight once gateshields are down ...

then you have such things like biolabs and techcenters were the majority of infantry fights in were vehicles have to stay outside and may take on the occacional enemy ...

rpg needs to put more emphasis on both infantry being capable to support vehicles and PMBs need a reason for players to take them down, not just with a small group of infils ...

people may have valid reasons for disliking how hives brought an unfair advantage when it came to VP back then ..
but what it also brought was intresting options to fortify positions, have vehicles on them supported by infantry fighting the opponent close to a laticebase (which iirc was rather due pretty sturdy walls were contant cortiumsuply wasn´t neccesary for autorepairmodules, correct me if wrong) and when it came to hivePMBs teams went and tried to crush them with various vehiclegroups or infantrydrops were their enemies tried to defend it, sure it was messy, but also a spectical ... and imho we need this back to a degree ..

mind to elaborate? imo if infantry were to have the AVoptions they need (f.e. AV grenades, medic-grenadelauncher, rockletrifle) it could work out well enough to have basewalls removed ....

I have no idea which part of my post youre replying to, please quote my post and not change it if you actualy want to talk about a specific part of my post.

Youre still saying 'this is what i said' when all i have to do is scroll up and see that you didnt say that until questioned.
You initialy said that vehicles kill more infantry than infantry do. You did not specify where this happened, or when, or how, or in what imaginery world.

Where / when is this hypothetical situation going to happen?
Because appart from a couple of mags, vehicles dont go into bio labs, they dont go into infantry only meat grinders.
You made a statement of fact, vehicles kill more infantry than infantry do.
In the game right now, as evidenced by the stats i provided, infantry kill more infantry on a unit per unit basis.

Playing the cut on paste game? Sorry what? I thought we were having a discussion?
Why do you feel the need to throw childish buzz phrases into this?

At least i looked at the stats before taking a massively stubborn position that i have yet provided no evidence to support.
Show me the stats that backup your statement that vehicles kill more infantry than infantry do and ill happily change my mind again.
One can only base their logic on what they see as evidence presented to them, so far ive only seen evidence to support my view, and none that supports yours.

Ironic considering your statement that vehicles kill more infantry than infantry do is your opinion, and you chose to give it anyway.

I gave you stats that showed on a unit per unit basis vehicles do not get more infantry kills than infantry, this was directly discrediting your statement.
Please show me where i attacked your character?
Was it when i said this:

Because that was a satirical comment based on this:

To which i demonstrated was actively false, i did some research before-hand.
You then changed your mind and decided that looking for supporting stats was a bad thing, and attempted to be-little me by implying my mind was 'easily changed' without proper thought.
Tell me camp, who is being insulting here?

This is the most accurate thing youve said so far, but again, that is not what you said.
If youd started with that then this entire conversation wouldnt be taking place.
The fact is, that right now because of base design and terrain layouts vehicles are restricted from 'farming infantry' in almost all places where infantry have to opperate, this in turn means that vehicles are getting less infantry kills than infantry are, not more as you so elequantly stated.

Im sorry but KPU takes into account the numbers of people using the weapons, thats why the stat exists.

If 10 people pull a tank and between them they get 20 kills total, the tanks KPU is 2 (20 'kills' divided by 10 'Units' = 2 'Kills' per 'Unit'
If 100 people pull an LMG and between them they get 200 kills total, the LMGs KPU is 2 (200 'kills' divided by 100 'Units' = 2 'Kills' per 'Unit'
Thats 10 times the usage and 10 times the kills, but the KPU remains exactly the same.

If you die with a weapon equipped and then respawn, you add another unit to the calculation.
So if, as you say, random low-performance infantry are dying repeatedly without making a single kill, then they actually lower the KPU figure of said weapon. In other words, deaths have an influence on the stat.
So with that in mind, the 'vets' of those weapons must get a serious amount of kills in order for the KPU stats to remain so high.


Apologies to everyone for this wall !

I agree infantry and vehicles ought to have interactions with each other rather than just purely (one-sided) combat and instant kills.

I really dislike PMBs in general. Very unfun, unenjoyable. They're all too often broken in one way or another and usually strongly prefer one faction in bad way. Add in things like automated turrets, painspires, and indestructible walls and I'm not not interested in even looking at one, personally.

Back before the walls, bases on Esamir were very open. Some where literally just a collection of buildings on a mostly flat ice sheet. This more or less allowed anyone or anything to come at the point from any direction. I actually really liked this version of Esamir for infantry combat.

However, any vehicles could just roll right up to the point and decimate any infantry. I'm not sure as it's been many years by now, but vehicle may have also been able to capture points like infantry. Don't quote me on that though.

I remember once I was alone in a building overlooking a point in a small base, stuck in a sort of stalemate with a couple Magriders. I couldn't do anything to them at all and they couldn't manage to hit me while I was inside, so I just sat there and watched them sit on the point. I was pretty new at the time so if they both got out where the current walls are and shot at me I'd probably still have lost, but at least I'd have had a chance.

I suppose a more recent example of forced exclusion are those little posts in techplants to stop harassers and sunndies from driving up to the second level.

I really wouldn't mind seeing the walls removed again. Current Esamir is way too confining and largely funnels infantry into chokepoints, with the walls at times not even stopping enemy vehicles from firing in. Too many set paths and awkward routes. If infantry and vehicles were balanced against each other I'd absolutely support opening it back up again.

I guess I'm being a little too subtle. Nevermind.

Maybe try checking again. If a situation is not described, it's not unreasonable to assume the situation exists effectively within a vacuum, if not going off based entirely on raw numbers and stats. One tank verses one infantryman in an open field is going to yield the same result, over and over. Two infantry players in an open field will see alternations in who wins more or less regardless of equipment. In all realistic capacity, a tank is vastly superior to infantry on a unit-to-unit comparison. If given infinite infantry verses infinite tanks, the tanks will kill more infantry than the inverse. You're trying to make a point out of this where one does not exist.

See above.

/sigh. You're no fun to chat with, you know that? Stop looking for ways to attack my character.

I have access to the same information as you do. One cannot assume ignorance if a person chooses not to mention it when it is not relevant. As I said, the data set is not a complete picture. It requires interpretation because of the dramatic differences in the number of users as well as the general accessibility.

The stats don't support either position because they lack enough information to actually describe the reality of the situation. It's easier for comparing like to like, as if NS-11Cs to Tantos for example. LMGs to tank cannons is apple to oranges and unsurprisingly the data's limitations represent that. (They are not used in the same ways or to the same extents).

It's not in sharing the obvious initial opinions, as we'd not be able to speak on the matter if we couldn't even address it. It's in repeating and drawing special attention to one's own opinion that is just distasteful. I don't care if you at one point held the same position if you do not do so now. The point of the discussion is to align final positions, not reminisce about opening thoughts. You use your opinion as a talking point and then use this asa sort of justification to once again criticize me.

Unfortunately not. Comparing the averages of a pair of data sets isn't quite the same as comparing the average performance of each unit of either type. Due to all the usual limitations of statistics, we're not getting a truly accurate picture. If vehicles and infantry occupied the same spaces for the same periods of time we'd have something more to work with, but alas apples to oranges.

Suffice it all to say, the data set doesn't tell us the reality of the situation because both platforms are radically different in nearly every aspect. The two are simply too different to measure with the same tool and call it fact.

Well, I was hoping to save some space by not posting redundant quotes over and over again but I guess we can't have everything. I'll be fair and chop out the bits that can reasonably be assumed to be more or less playful banter.

In just the last two posts in this thread, and I was a little generous with some things one could have considered less than playful pokes. For real though, I don't think I'm using enough smilies to appropriately convey the tone. If you're reading hostility from me you're not receiving it as I intend for you to.

Again, merely claiming you had some great epiphany and changed your mind doesn't matter to the conversation. Looking at a raw data set without any critical thought or analysis and accepting it at face value doesn't give a great track record.

Actually, that is pretty much exactly what I said before. I was restating my position... As I said above, one doesn't need some specific situation to see this to be true.

Yes, that is how KPU works. Given this, you don't see how this can influence data given radically different population sizes?

Infantry can be revived, respawn much closer to the enemy, re-enter the fight much sooner, cost nothing on death and can be repeatedly used in suicide charges among other things. Tanks can't. They take more time to repair and longer to replace, take time to drive from fight to fight and pad to fight. They can't be suicided time after time and are restricted in usage time and usable areas.

No, that is not how KPU works. Dying with a weapon equipped doesn't affect KPU. It's literally just kills divided by the number of users as I'm sure you obviously know, and as such player deaths don't matter. Only kills. Perhaps deaths can slow the rate of kills per player, but again as above death takes much less time to recover from for infantry compared to tanks.

I hope you can see why I discredit the stats at their face value, because they're not as useful as they initially seem.

Again i hate to point out that this is what my initial post was responding to:

Im not going over this again with you, you seem intent on moving the goal posts over and over again.
The cold hard fact is that right now in game infantry account for more infantry deaths than vehicles do, the stats prove it.

My point was that if there are a majority of players who are only getting a kill or not getting a kill before death this will not raise the KPU, it will lower it.
The fact that vehicles take much longer to get back to the action only reinforces the notion that infantry kill more infantry than vehicles do, because a much higher % of a vehicles time is spent with no enemies in sight compared to an infantry.

At the end of the day if youd just said, 'thats not what i meant' convo would have been over, because as i said before i agree vehicles are more powerful, thats their design intent, what would be the point in them otherwise, why would they cost resources etc..
Why didnt you just say that?
But when your talking total kills attained at any point in the game world, which was what you said, infantry have always had the most, as the KPU, kills leaderboard, and activity statistics point out.

caveat: the game has changed over night, with much much more population after the dev stream its hard to tell whats happening in game now, stats over the next few weeks will shed some light im sure(if anyone actualy cares), but im doubtful that who is responsible for the most death on Auraxis will change.


I really dont care if you feel i insulted your character, if you dont like your negatives being pointed out to you then correct them, but dont play the victim card, i have 0 sympathy.
Besides that fact, you directly insulted me by saying i 'make conclusions and then look at the evidence' and that i 'change my mind' easily based on little info, so excuse me for responding in kind.
Theres also a word begginging with H to describe insulting some1 and then calling them out for insulting, somehow i think youll fail to see that. Yes that is another character attack, /shrugs, sue me.

The cold hard fact of the matter is that infantry and vehicles don't fight each other enough to be reflected in the stats. If given some tanks and some infantry the tanks will kill more, that's just that. Allowing tanks move access to bases and other important areas will only increase how much infantry are farmed.

The stats don't show a perfect snapshot, they depict a trend, nothing more.

If I recall correctly, players must get a set number of kills before they can be recorded by certain sites. I'm not entirely sure what the number is though. Something like 50 or 500?

Anyways, if vehicles are spending more time traveling than engaging the enemy infantry, wouldn't that mean the "true" KPU/KPH of vehicles is actually higher? That in actual combat situations and scenarios vehicles would be killing even more than is shown?

No, clearly not. What I meant is obvious to me, clearly, and everything I say is based around that idea. I've already said that's not what I meant when I explained it. We just have assumptions of the underlying elements of my claim it would seem. I have never once said total kills. "Unit for unit" being how many kills each unit of either type is able to realistically/practically achieve in a given time frame. Vehicles will kill more infantry (if they can access them) than infantry can in equal numbers.

Neither do I. If anything is insulting in this forum it's how often people just ignore positions in favour of insults. I wish you actually refuted my claims, that's what I'm here to see after all! Though do note I'm not calling myself a victim, I'm just asking you to debate my claims instead of trying to distract from them.

I won't pretend that I've respected you. Wouldn't you expect this in return? I'm merely reflecting your tone, though it's a stretch to say I've insulted you.

Camp, you started with the insults m8, im not going to quote them a third time. If you want to sit there and deny it fine, you go right ahead, but the proof is in the previous posts that you cannot delete. So deny it till your blue in the face, wont make a difference.
And repeating back to me what Ive accused you of just makes you look like a child in a playground.

'You did not refute my claims'
Again with the repeated stuff, as ive alread gone over again and again:
I posted KPU stats that are in direct contradiction to your claims, what more can i do to 'refute' them?
Youve gone on to say that because infantry die before they get a kill this raises the KPU, to which i refuted it actualy lowers the KPU.
You then said the because vehicles spend more time driving around this supports your view, to which i refuted this lowers the KPU.
I have constantly refuted what youve said, with stats to back it up, which you quickly dismissed whilst also calling me stupid for looking at them.

Im sorry camp but im done, this is clearly going no-where with your constant moving of the goal posts & making up of imaginery situations. And your answer to statistical facts is to deny they are representative for reasons you cannot prove, then at the same time say i lack critical thinking......

I have about as much 'respect' for you as i do anyone i dont know in the slightest way. I dont hold grudges and if i saw you i the street i would say hello.
To disagree is not to disrespect, but i guess youre now going to again claim that i started with the insults and youre the completely innocent party who was just 'poking fun'.
Like i said, im out, reply...dont....i dont care.

I'm afraid not friend-boy. Like I said, it's a bit of a stretch to say I've actually insulted you at all so far. I've given you some rough pokes but that's about as far as I've gone, but you clearly can't say the same. Strangely, you later here say "to disagree is not to disrespect" yet you are the one making the leap.

If you want me to insult you, you're a douchcbag. Light jabs are harmless jokes, they're supposed to be witty, clever little bits of humor to break up the monotony of a wall of text. An insult is just a blunt offensive remark.

A snide one-liner verses "questioning" one's intelligence. I don't say this because I don't want you to feel insulted or not, just because I want people to be clever in their remarks. As I said, you're no fun.

Anyway, yes, you have not refuted my claim. I've told you why KPU isn't a very useful metric for comparing tank cannons with infantry weapons to compare the raw power of each platform, but you just repeat the point. To refute me you'd have to argue a strong case as to why KPU to the best of our ability to measure it is accurate and relevant to the main claim.

You claimed "[if a] random low-performance infantry are dying repeatedly without making a single kill, then they actually lower the KPU figure of said weapon. In other words, deaths have an influence on the stat." (#44). I responded by stating the obvious, that KPU doesn't measure deaths, kill in X time frames, K/D ratios, anything other than the total number of kills divided by the total number of users. Rather than argue why it does, you just restated it as fact and left it there.

I said vehicles spend much more time driving around outside of combat, and that therefore the amount of time spent actually fighting will net a higher number of kills in this time than is shown. You responded by repeating your point, again. "The fact that vehicles take much longer to get back to the action only reinforces the notion that infantry kill more infantry than vehicles do, because a much higher % of a vehicles time is spent with no enemies in sight compared to an infantry." (#47).

You have not refuted anything. I don't need you to repeat the talking point, I'm hoping for a detailed explanation as to why you feel the claim is true backed up by logic, reasoning, and as much evidence as possible. Instead you take numbers in favour of your position at face value and just assert your arguments as fact without actually arguing them. This is lacking critical thought.

Same. I can't hold a grudge for my life, and believe me I've had a lot of good reasons to hold grudges. Naturally if and when we speak next I'll probably just continue to reflect your tone.