[Vehicle] Tank Coaxial Machine Guns & Assorted Proposals

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by IvanDrago, Oct 20, 2014.

  1. IvanDrago

    I have many ideas regarding tanks, most of them probably nothing new or special, and some probably not compatible with each other. Given that, this post will be broken into sections.

    Coaxial Machine Guns

    Watching tanks, particularly those running AP guns (more on that later) attempt to kill infantry is best described as embarrassing. I imagine most people have been on both sides of this equation at some point, with the footman running back and forth, jumping around while the tank rather impotently attempts to bulls-eye him. This bizarre situation always ends up one of three ways: one dead infantry, one dead tank, or one retreating tank, shamed by the jumping power of a lag wizard.

    So, much in the way that ESF can switch between two weapons at will, I propose that we give tanks the same ability. The new "secondary" for the driver would of course be a simple coaxial MG. I have two potential plans for implementing this, as follows.

    Empire Specific

    The default coaxial MG would be a recoilless (by virtue of being mounted inside a tank) version of each empire's default LMG, meaning the Prowler gets a CARV, Magrider an Orion, and Vanguard a Gauss Saw. Bloom would of course remain for the sake of not transforming these weapons into pinpoint lasers. Furthermore, a player could purchase or cert into an alternate coaxial MG representative of each faction's special heavy weapon. While the MCG and Lasher would work reasonably well mounted on a tank in such fashion, the Jackhammer probably would not. Perhaps it could fire precision slugs instead.

    NS Safe Easy Mode

    Simply make the coaxial MGs for all factions be a Kobalt. Safe, balanced, boring.

    Shell Types Instead of Turret Types

    I'm sure this has been suggested before, but instead of unlocking and mounting an entirely different turret for each type of ammunition, make access to the ammunition itself be unlocked instead. This could then allow tank drivers to select their specific ammo load-out, such as 80% AP and 20% HE. Type of shell could be toggled via a hotkey, with selecting a different type of ammo triggering a double duration reload, to both add a downside and represent the current shell being removed from the firing chamber. Obviously this would mean nothing to a deployed prowler, so the deploy effect would need to not apply to the ammo switch.

    This would of course allow for a much more versatile tank, or a tank with the same level of dedication to a role that we have now.

    Tertiary Weapon Mount

    Instead of having a driver and a secondary gunner, there would be a driver, a secondary gunner, and a tertiary gunner. The current pool of weapons would be split into either the AV/AA or AI category, with the Basilisk shared between both categories. The secondary gunner would have access to the AV/AA selection, and the tertiary access to the AI selection. My proposed categories are as follows:

    AV/AA

    Basilisk, Walker, Ranger, Halberd, ESAV

    AI

    Basilisk, Kobalt, ESAI

    This would provide tanks with a much greater volume of fire if fully manned with 3 crew, and a greater level of versatility even if only partially manned. Splitting the secondary weapons into AV/AA and AI categories also prevents doubling up on any weapon that is not the Basilisk, in order to prevent monstrosities such as double Halberd AP lockdown Prowlers or twin PPA VPC Magriders. Twin Basilisk is still more than viable as has been demonstrated by Battle Bus crews, but less devastating than the examples I listed.

    Conclusion

    I debated listing the idea of the separate driver and main gunner positions, with the driver being given a bow machine gun such as those seen on WW2 era tanks, but the idea has been suggested and shot down too many times to count.

    So, do you like these ideas? Perhaps all implemented together, or just a combination of two? If so, feel free to comment. If you think I'm full of Nanites, go ahead and tell me. If you're a crazy person that thinks an AP cannon from a vanguard should take more than one hit to kill a foot soldier, perhaps keep it to yourself.
    • Up x 11
  2. KiakoLalene

    First ideas seem solid, and personally I'd like the third idea as well, since it would make tanks require teamwork to actually use them. Alas, the third idea is likely to never be implemented, but I'd do enjoy seeing the first to being done.
  3. Uncle_Lou

    I feel like the majority of your ideas point towards giving MBTs additional close(r) range abilities against infantry, which I'm not entirely convinced they need now. Vehicles are powerful against infantry; coordinated infantry are powerful against tanks. I don't think the balance of power in that regard is too far out of whack at the moment, but I am a fairly casual player so some may disagree.

    I also tend to lean more towards specialization as opposed to generalization as I think it lends itself to more compelling gameplay and rewards teamwork. Giving MBTs access to all three shell types in one loadout really kind of dumbs down the process. I like that you have to at least give a little thought to the type of fight you are driving to in advance. Likely to face lots of ground vehicles? AP. Infantry farm? HE. Not sure? load HEAT and be able to handle both, but not well. I think lack of specialization is one of the biggest things that hurts PS2 gameplay because everybody can do everything.

    Since you mentioned it, I have been a proponent since beta of returning MBTs to a separate driver/gunner configuration where the driver just drives and the gunner just explodes stuff. That is an old and contentious topic though, so I won't derail your thread with it.

    tl;dr I would say - respectfully - thumbs down to shell types and tertiary gunners. I could probably live with a coaxial MG but I think I would want it to be NS - maybe a Kobalt with a reduced RoF. I see a coax MG as more of an 'oh crap' weapon when infantry get in close; if as a tanker you put yourself in that situation you should pay for it.
  4. Angry Scientist

    Tanks need something that can combat one of their worst enemies: a simple ridge or hill. The infantry whack a mole is frustrating for tankers and lucrative for infantry. The only time they get caught is if the tanker has excellent reflexes, the infantry stands there like an idiot, or pure luck.

    Since, ya know, a tank shell passing inches from your head does nothing. But fine, balance. That said, there needs to be some way of defending a tank without forking over 50% of their AV ability. Severe ammo restrictions and COF bloom would help, though there needs to be perfect placement on the first shot at least to defend against lancer/long distance lockon/etc.

    Of course, this is asking for a tank buff. Are you nuts? Pfft. As if.
    • Up x 5
  5. Metallic123

  6. Juunro

    Coax Kobalt for all three MBT's has been something I have wanted since... basically this game launched.

    On the subject of AP tanks against infantry though, there is little that is more satisfying then hitting someone in the head from 200 meters with a 150mm anti-tank round. There is little that is more silly then watching a medic somehow revive him.
    • Up x 4
  7. Pelojian

    Amusing when you nail someone, lulzy medic does his revive jig and you score a direct hit on him before he can complete the revive.

    I also find indirect kills with HE satisfying, bonus points if you aimed for overhead cover instead of walls/floors. also note vehicle shields are your friend, enemy pops through your shield and your shield acts as a highly reliable impact detonation so you can dakka dakka both shots right away and don't matter if you miss a direct hit.
  8. LodeTria

    I don't think the AI slot should have access to the basilisk because it has AV damage, and a AV tank would never use anything else. The AI gun should be mounted on the front of a tank, but can only only fire in a 90 degree angle so it isn't providing 360 degree coverage. This would make it a defensive tool rather than an offensive one. The driver should control it so the main gun and the AI gun cannot be fired at once, and add a small delay between switching between the two like using under barreled things on S variant weapons.
  9. Voiidd

    Nah, man not gonna happen. The thing has a 4 sec reload, if a medic sticks around for that long to revive some1 though he deserves to die.
  10. BengalTiger

    How about swapping crew positions a bit:

    -Tank driver/gunner becomes commander;
    -Secondary gunner becomes main gunner.

    The commander drives and mans the secondary weapon, the main gunner operates the main weapon.
    Thus 2 people are needed to run a tank and the driver also has a weapon system.
  11. TheMish


    You saw the movie Fury too eh? That suppression fire scene stuck in your head?

    Agreed, coaxial guns need to be here!
    • Up x 1
  12. Demigan

    Although I like having these guns mounted next to my main cannon, it would give too much power to the arcade tanks we have now.
    An alternative would be placing this in the Utility slot. You need to sacrifice something to gain something. Although it might be that Prowlers, who use their ability the least, might benefit from this much more than others.

    I had different idea's about shell types.
    Imagine this: similar to an LA with C4, you can purchase ammo in your utility slot. These are resource-based and are expended whenever you "use" them. When you do, you get X special shells that you picked before-hand.
    For example:
    -Tracker Shell
    When you hit an enemy they will be tracked on the radar for everyone to see for a whole minute. Great for keeping tabs on moving tank columns, Harassers and the like. The tracker shell is mounted on top of your normal ammo, so you don't get extra but it deals normal damage
    -RPG
    A rocket propulsion device is mounted on top of the shell. This greatly reduces shell-drop
    -High velocity shells
    For reducing leading time and shell drop. These obviously cost more than the RPG
    -Potent shell
    Shells with much better technology and explosives behind it. Increases damage, but not AOE.

    Expensive ES shells below:
    -Vanguard Railgun shell
    Allows your shell to pass through multiple targets, even tanks. Damaging each equally (however illogical, this would mean an HE shell could hit 2 people in a row and have 2 AOE's killing everyone nearby)
    -Prowler handling shells
    These shells are much easier to load than regular shells, although they hold the same power as the one's you equipped. Increases reload speed, allowing Prowlers on the move to quickly add a great deal of damage.
    -Magrider Nova shell
    These shells leave behind a burning sphere of plasma. All vehicles and infantry that stay in the area receive damage until they leave. Great for area denial... or preventing anyone from repairing a Sunderer for instance.


    A direct upgrade that I'm not agreeing with. I would rather have alternate tanks. You have the Main Battle Tanks, and a Heavy tank with more weaponry etc.

  13. IvanDrago

    You caught me! The ideas have been there for a while, but Fury definitely prompted me to post.

    I have to disagree with it being too much power. Almost every instance of tanks in other combined arms games has coaxial guns included, and it works without issue. Really, it just makes tanks far more dangerous to approach from the front, which you should never be doing in the first place, and gives them more viability in open field combat where they are supposed to excel, but currently somehow struggle since we rely solely on either direct hits or multiple hits to the ground near individual soldiers. In a close quarters environment such as in or near a base it would have little effect on tank survivability.

    This was the least likely of my ideas I admit, and heavier ES tanks would indeed be preferable. I unfortunately suspect we will get nothing but NS junk in the future.
  14. Rentago

    dont want this to be a military sim, dont want this to be battlefield.

    want dedicated driver, and dedicated gunners where appropreite.

    ie vanguard can mount a basalisk next to the turret, it was originay meant to if you look at the model, making it a one driver, one gunner with two weapon options like an ESF.

    however the prowler would need two dedicated gunners, one for the cannon and one for the machine gun.
    magrider needs the main cannon given to the gunner and the driver gets the machine guns.

    lightning should get similar weapon attachments as the flash to its turret.
  15. MykeMichail

    Personally I think coaxial MG's would be great. Perhaps Kobalt or an M20 Drake, whichever the driver choses. Perhaps even an S12 mounted on the front if they choose to do so? Although I feel this would give the VS and TR a C85 like weapon on their MBT which would be a little unfair.

    Putting a coaxial mounted NC6 on a Vanguard would, in all honesty, be incredibly OP. I know how good that weapon can be in the hands of a heavy assault. It would be insanity on a tank.
  16. Cest7

    Coaxial for Lightning would be awesm. Make it a 2nd weapon slot with some stupid switch & reload time... and unable to switch weapons while reloading (Pilot is loader)
  17. Alarox

    I kind of like the idea of a three person tank with three guns. IMO:

    -First Seat: Driver + Primary
    -Second Seat: Gunner + Secondary (AV)
    -Third Seat: Gunner + Tertiary (AI/AA)
    -Bump the cost up to 500-550 nanites

    I think there are also some interesting things you could do with a third seat beyond just manning the tertiary.

    Although I think such a radical change would come with a bunch of problems.
    • Up x 1
  18. Axehilt


    Er, the third suggestion is an outright increase to vehicle flexibility, which is an outright decrease to teamwork's value.
    • Dual AV Tank: Relies on others heavily for AA support.
    • Dual AV Tank with a 3rd AA turret seat: Doesn't need AA support.
    So it'd be a pretty bad idea to implement it, since vehicles should have weaknesses based on their weapon selection.

    In reply to thread, I initially thought that at least the coax MG would be a good idea. But after the rationalization above I realized it's really just making tanks way more flexible and that would be bad for the game.

    When I pull an AP+AV tank, it's supposed to feel risky and mediocre against infantry. That's the point! You shouldn't be able to take that loadout and also get a free coax MG to make you really good against infantry and a free AA turret to make you really good against air, because that vehicle would kill everything and offer no interesting tradeoffs with its weapon choices.

    If infantry was a concern, I'd have taken an AI turret. If threats were unknown, I'd have taken a basilisk. (Though the basilisk should probably get buffed just slightly.)
  19. Thesweet

    Yep, they really need to do something about this. Infantry have it to easy to just poke there head out, quickly shoot a rocket and then back in the safety of cover with minimal risk.

    Two ideas to stop this:

    - tank shells get concussive force whilst traveling through the air like they would irl. Meaning you wouldn't need a direct hit to land damage.

    - cof bloom on launchers for a "setup" time, meaning you would need to stand it one spot for a second or two to stabilise the launcher.
  20. Werefox

    Even as a tank driver, I don't have an issue with this. Yes its annoying, but its the Infantry using their initiative and the environment to their advantage - plus they can't really see you if they are behind a rock (sure you are on the minimap, but that's not great for lining up shots). I think that sort of play thing should be rewarded, rather than making it more difficult.

    What I would like is the ability to change my loadout after I've pulled a Lightning or other vehicle without having to purchase a brand new one.