What exactly are tanks supposed to be used for?

I don't know, what are guns supposed to be used for?

They are the best AI tool in the game ... every LMG a HA can carry is better at dealing with Infantry than most things you can mount on a Tank ...

The only things worthwhile to get against Infantry is the Vanu only PPA, the all empire Kobalt, Python HE/HEAT and than there are the TR only P2 Prowler turrets ... of which I consider just the mechanic of two shots an upgrade as AI over any other maingun series since the Viper nerf.

Not to say Tanks are good against Infantry ... it's pretty much the opposite, Tanks are the worst thing you can use against Infantry, you are probably better of using MAXs or Libs. The only thing I would argue is a real AI monster is the PPA in combination of the agility it's mounted platform has.

I would actually spent SC if I were to get a standard issue Infantry weapon ... mounted as a secondary weapon for my gunner. Or better yet, the stuff Infantry has access towards in form of AV ... or AA.

Think of it ... MBTs with G2A launchers or wire guided missiles ... Lancers!

They are here so SOE has something to constantly nerf

Nerfhammer targets

Defending Sunderers.

Against what exactly? Other than enemy Tanks I can't think of anything worth mentioning a Sundy can't handle similar or better than a Tank. Infantry however can easily deal with Armor ...

And no, Skyguards since the resistance change to their gun are no longer "Tanks", they pretty much the only thing really useful "armor" as a battlegroup can offer to Sundy's.

Infantry or other things are far more likely to defend Sundy's against it's real threat ... enemy suicide Infantry.

Currently air can do everything a tank can but better...

Anyway this is what I think their role should be: Hunting and destroying enemy AMS (while defending their own from other tanks) and supressing a base to prevent the defenders from pushing out (not assisting in the actual cap) and going on the offensive.

The tanks stay behind to make sure the Sunderer doesn't get hit with C4 or tank mines. Now go sit in your corner while the infantry have all the fun.

Tanks can't do anything against those C4 or AT guys and most likely will help the guy set off his explosives ... one of you Infantry guys can stay in a Kobalt mounted on the Sundy and do that job ...

If you're telling me a Viper or an MBT can't defend a Sunderer better than a single Kobalt on a Sunderer then I'm not sure you're playing the right game.

You seem to be playing the wrong game, the Viper has been nerfed so hard in the last patch that you could hardly call it AI and the best thing a Vanguard for example could mount to defend a Sunderer ... is mounting it's own Kobalt.

Might aswell let the Sundy mount it ...

I'd personally give tanks complete immunity to all non-AP weapons when hit from the front, and all non-AP (i.e. all except tank AP, Tankbuster, Shredder, Vulcan, ...) and non HEAT/heavy autocannons when hit from the sides (thus ESF nose guns, AA bazookas, Bulldogs, AI base turrets, under-barrel grenade launchers ...).
Top and rear resistance remains the same.

Then tanks would instantly become the vehicles infantry can use for cover when out in the open, moving fortresses which require a bit more than free infinitely spammable tools to deal with frontally, and be the most significant factor when it comes to deciding which side will progress to the enemy's base.

That's what they're supposed to be used for.

They would have to first remove the team kill ability from the tanks.
Taking cover by a magrider is more dangerous than the enemy.

Perhaps its because it has to move around to dodge rockets?
If it was to be immune to all non-AP weapons from the front, then infantry based weapons (except base gun turrets) would all fail, allowing it to slowly move forwards.

Flanking people would have to deal with infantry if they'd want to score hits.
Suddenly we get combined arms and tank battles with one change to game mechanics.

P.S. I do know that when a vehicle spawns and is on auto-drive, all infantry get shoved away without any damage done, so perhaps a tank going slow enough could do the same to friendlies.
The code is already there, only a speed and IFF check during the collision is required.

It's been suggested before that MBTs are made a lot tougher / immune to front and side damage, possibly in exchange for weaker rears.

I think BengalTiger is right in that it needs to be a blanket immunity, not simply a high resistance. At least from the front.

It also essentially boosts the value of both Prowler and Magrider ES abilities by providing more situations where they are viable.

Yeah but if you got rid of teamkilling and added a push mechanic, it would make drivers very careless, as well as open the door to other ways of trolling. You could push people over cliffs and stuff without it technically being a teamkill.

As annoying as it is to have my magrider "run people over" while stationary because the Coriolis effect caused the hull of my tank to shift a few millimeters to the right, it forces me to be careful where I move, which adds more skill to the game.

As for making it immune to non-AP to the front, that'd be quite overpowered. Infantry can already use tanks for cover, but it's a risk. If my buddy is driving the tank, I know he's probably not going to spontaneously back up and run me over. With random people, it's a bit more of an issue, but nothing is without risk.

I've found that in general it isn't an incredibly viable strategy though, since you can still get hit by splash from anything firing on the tank usually, and you're only covered from a narrow field of view opposite of the tank.

In real life, tanks are valuable because they can decimate almost anything in their path, and because anti-tank weapons are costly & cumbersome.

However, they are much less valuable in Planetside 2 because bases, buildings & cover is indestructible, making infantry much safer from them.

There is also no objectives that include simply blowing up bases, command centers, power lines or ammo piles, further reducing their use.

Tanks are there to kill stuff. And they're good at it.
Why does it matter if some things can kill more effectively, there's no reason not to use everything at your disposal

This is why I think the nerf to HE rounds was a joke, and needs to be revisited if they want to keep designing bases that keep tanks out of the mix.

I was terrible at flying helis in A3 until I hooked up my joystick, now it's my favorite activity.

Well, to make tanks more important during gameplay, I would:

Add anti-infantry turrets that fire explosive rounds that literally instagib all and any infantry unit, MAXes included, that approaches the base, but don't detonate past 25 meters. They would have 95% resist against infantry launchers but no or little resist against tank cannons. Anti-tank turrets would still be there (and they should also get a buff IMO) and would need to be destroyed by air support. Air support would be hampered by AA turrets, which would need to be destroyed by the efforts of both tanks and infantry (and maybe the occasional flight ceiling Daltonlib).

Ideally, in this system taking out one of the pieces of the puzzle should not be too hard once logistics and unit placement are sorted out by the attackers, however, taking out all three types of turrets so that infantry can get in and cap the final point would be a long process, giving defenders some more time to gather reinforcements while not necessarily leading to the total annihilation of the attackers (which would end the fight prematurely and ruin the fun for both parties).

Secondly...

LESS FREAKING BASES. The reason why Indar Excavation VS Qurtz Ridge is so popular is that, thanks to the great plains stretching between the two facilities, it is one of those few places where you can have those epic "massive combat on an epic scale" multi-vehicle battles involving tanks and air units that the game promises in the first place. Most other base VS base fights are a Sunderer going from a base to the perimeter wall of another base and deploying. Having larger battles would greatly encourage the use of tanks as more than just a tool to lock down the enemy spawn room.

Thirdly...

Destroyable walls for large facilities. Instead of having infantry do everything and be the only way to allow ground vehicles to enter large facilities (which requires said infantry to destroy the enemy vehicles inside first, thus removing all potential gameplay for tanks that end up being just sitting ducks outside the shields and spawnroom campers once they get inside), tanks should be used to blow up some kind of additional wall or forcefield by means of brute force. The shield would only be vulnerable to tanks cannons and empire-specific and NS AP secondaries (Halberd/HRB/Vulcan/Enforcer). This forcefield or wall would be solid to all attacking units (infantry and vehicles alike), and would have an automated health regeneration system that would restore its health in large chunks (about 25%) every 60 seconds, with the timer resetting every time the wall is damaged. This would encourage the attackers to keep constant siege and the defenders to try to push them away instead of just sitting on the walls until the enemy reaches critical zerg mass and just nukes everything. This feature would NOT replace the current generator mechanic, but simply add another layer of gameplay depth centered around tanks instead of infantry.


Something for air would also be nice. With its ability to thit everything whenever they please, I don't think that air units should have a specific barrier or wall or generator to destroy to enable other type of units, however, it would be cool if there were "repair drones", either AI-guided or remotely controlled by players, that had the ability to repair friendly units and turrets to give a new target to ESFs besides other ESFs. Liberators could simply keep pounding ground units and, most importantly, destroying AV turrets.