[Suggestion] 3-crew MBT Variant

There should be a 3-crew Main Battle Tank Variant of each empire specific MBT, where most of the stats are significantly buff because of the greater difficulty in running this tank.

The crew should be as follows

• Commander - controls the mounted weapon on top of the turret and activates utility abilities
• Gunner - controls the turret, fires the main cannon, and fires the co-axial machine gun (Gauss SAW for NC, T9 CARV for TR, and Orion VS54 for VS)
• Driver - drives the tank

These are the suggested buffs to this variant

• Increased hitpoints to 6000, more resistance against C4
• Muzzle velocities of all cannons should be doubled.
• The maximum, minimum, and indirect damage for all tank cannons should be increased by 1.5%.
• Tank shells should receive a significant damage buff when it hits an enemy tank.
• There should be a slight maneuverability and speed buff
• More powerful variants of Empire Specific Abilities
  • The Vanguard variant can have an ability called "Electromagnetics" where it deploys a shield and activates an electromagnet in the cannon, allowing the shell to fly faster and deal more damage.
  • The Prowler variant can have an ability called "Disable Reload Governor" where it increases the reload rate and debuffs speed of the tank instead of making it completely stationary.
  • The Magrider variant can have an ability called "Omni-Directional Magburner" where boosts the speed and maneuverability of the tank.

Regarding the variant for the Magrider, this variant should have a cannon with a limited axis of rotation, not unlike that of a tank destroyer. That way there is a reason for a gunner.
Regarding the co-axial machine gun mentioned above, it can be selected by the gunner by scrolling with the mouse wheel or a key binding. The co-axial machine should also have its recoil decreased because it is mounted.

Whether or not I agree with the 3-seat variant, I do not agree that it should be such a significantly improved variant in all aspects that there is no contest between it or anything else on the field.

An idea! Great! Balance it!

there should be 3 man variants of the mbt's but they have to have no stat difference it would be VERY good by itself, think of it you have 3 people at any point bail out and drop some repairs on your tank at a moments notice not to mention 3 eye's looking for target's or threats these tanks would reliably and realistically be the best performing versions of the mbt just with that alone.

a stat change would be too much for some people even if it had 10 more hp than the 4000 we have right now people would complain just because a better crew/certed vehicle killed them.

Just add a 3rd seat to the existing ones and make it a 360 degree spotting seat he just looks around and spots everything.

There would be threat to these MBT variants, such as other MBT variants, bombers, ESF's with Hornet missles, mines, and anti-tank turrets, which is pretty much how it is in real life.

Sure 3 people can attempt to drop out and repair in the middle of the battle, but someone is probably going to die. If you lose 1 person, you are going to have a delay activating abilities from switching seats and no mounted weapons gunner, and if you lose two, you are only left with the driver.

What is wrong with having three eyes looking for targets? If you are in an infantry squad, you have multiple eyes scanning the battlefield for threats. Why should this be different on the 3-crew MBT? It should take a team to take down a team.

A stat change would not be too much. If there wasn't a stat change to these MBT variants I am proposing, there would be no point in pulling a 3-crew MBT because it would be much more efficient to pull the normal MBT since there would be no communication delay between the driver and the gunner or commander. In a 3-crew MBT, there would be a delay from when the commander orders an action to when the driver or gunner reacts a second later and executes the command. The stat buffs for the 3-crew MBT is there to promote teamwork and compensate for the time delay.

About the argument "people would complain just because a better crew/certed vehicle killed them", there are already better certed vehicles in the game and implementation of 3-crew MBT would make no difference. Anything that has to do with teamwork will always seem overpowered to a group of solo players. The solution to this is, unsurprisingly, forming your own team.

3 MBTs > 1 3-man MBT.

They NEVER, NEVER should've gone live with the one-man MBTs. All they had to do was listen to us in beta. The fact that they didn't pretty much set the stage for the inevitable mediocrity of this game.

So again the VS MBT trait is stupid and useless.

Give it a ******* cloaking device already, Jesus.

it is unlikely like 80% chance that you aren't going to lose the repairer so i am sorry that won't fly... the driver jumps out not the gunner's, the gunner's can actually do something if a threat appears if the gunner's get out then they deem the area safe enough to do so, the only threat the gunner can't deal with realistically is air with a av setup.

there is nothing wrong with having 3 eye's looking for target's.. i think you took my sentence the wrong way, also it doesn't take a team to take down a team it generally takes c4 and if it's air 1 esf.

i believe i have stated my claim about the reason there shouldn't be a stat change it would be good enough as it is.

the argument about better certed/team killed them is that people will whine and b*tch on the forums until it's nerfed case and point vehicles in this game with more than 1 seat all nerfed lib's hit very hard multiple time's mbt? hit also very hard and infantry given more tools and vehicles have nothing to defend themselves with i am sorry at most it will be a bit tougher than the normal mbt but that's it.

don't get me wrong i would love to have 3 man mbt's but i am almost sure the dev's would give them minor buff's at max because it's a 3 man vehicle but that's it.

First of all...
How are you going to do this for the Magrider? It's cannon is fixed more like a Tank Destroyer rather than a MBT.

Second of all, like some people already mentioned, this would make the tank OP as hell. Just adding 2000 health to it and doing nothing else would make this tank a beast.
The tanks wouldn't exactly be more difficult to run. Only between the main-gunner and the driver a few difficulties can be expected with a few shots. But the main gunner can stay on-target while the driver keeps up situational awareness and informs the crew of enemies and C4 fairies. In fact, if the Driver is able to keep looking for C4 fairies these things will become immune to them. A smart driver can drive any tank underneath an LA and be away before he can drop the second C4, which means you get a ton of damage, but survive anyway.

Command seat module for SL to call in air strikes or atry.

How will these 3-crew MBT's be overpowered? Just because you cannot destroy one of these tanks with C4 does not mean its overpowered. There are many ways to destroy a this MBT as I have mentioned previously, such as through bombers, anti-tank turrets, mines, ESF's with Hornets, other tanks, and etc.

Tanks in general have its limitations. Sure they dominate in open terrain like they are supposed to, but they are greatly limited in their uses in urban, close-quarters, or mountainous terrain. In those urban, close-quarters, or mountainous terrain, infantry will always have the upper hand. Infantry is also the only branch of the Planetside 2 military that can capture points. Tanks are certainly not overpowered.

What is wrong with having someone looking for targets? If you are in an infantry squad, you have multiple eyes scanning the battlefield for threats. Why should this be different on the 3-crew MBT? Besides, in real life, anyone in a tank crew would scan for enemies through their view ports and computers.

If you have thoroughly read my post, you would have seen my solution with the Magrider.

I have also mentioned in my post that the gunner also controls a co-axial light machine gun.

Sure crew members can jump out to repair their tank, but that greatly reduces the effectiveness of the tank. If the driver jumps out, the tank is immobilized and if the enemy in close in a vehicle, the tank will be flanked. If the commander jumps out, there is no one manning the mounted weapon, reducing the firepower of the tank. Every time a crew member jumps out to repair, they are exposed to hidden snipers, blast from tank rounds, pretty much anything. It is simply more effective if all members of the tank crew remained inside the tank to fight because each crew member has an incredibly important role.

Does this person carry a sword as well?

The history of the original BFR in PlanetSide Classic was a vehicle that was released that was so over-powered it dwarfed everything else on the battlefield. And stayed that way for a good year or so, I am told. There was no point pulling anything else over a BFR - at least, armed with your BFR, you might actually chance engaging an enemy BFR, on top of trouncing everything else. It had more health, more resistance, and did more damage than anything in the game up to that point. Maybe the armored Ground Transport vehicles and the Galaxies came the closest in survivability, but definitely not in armament, even in groups. They added a nontrivial overhead to its certifcation and driving and even that wasn't enough to control their frequency (it probably didn't help that people who were subscribed prior to the Core Combat/Aftershock expansion didn't have to go through the farm-tastic Imprinting process).

It did a good job of flushing population while in this state. It's the original ZOE. It's also the only thing in the original game that used a complex hitbox to simulate different kinds of damage. It became something that could be taken on 1v1 by any sufficiently prepared Infantry player, by which I mean anyone with a throw-away plane certified and the common Anti-vehicular certification.

Historical anecdote: soloing guide, with a weapon swap technique that was patched out of the game. You can see the Decimator swap trick in this video, which is also about solo'ing post-nerf BFRs.

Well as all the development is now on PS4, Santa is not coming to town any time soon, certainly not with anything like this magnitude.

Also as SOE have learnt, bringing out something strong which could easily be deemed OP is not going to happen, so more than likely you would end up with something like the Valk.

Finally, infantry-side would appose any new tanks, certainly if there was any chance they would die, so i cant see this getting off the ground at all.

Crew-dependent tanks will never happen and neither will any significant buff to armor. The same pro-tankers who think dying to one guy with C4 is BS also think 1-guy driving around in a nigh invulnerable land battleship farming platoons of infantry is A-OK.

What happened to Higbys mention of HBT's on one of the Higby Pls episodes, wasn't that basically what you're asking for? Albeit the HBT was going to be an NS vehicle.

It's cost-effectiveness is too high?
It's not just it's capability to survive 2 C4. It's the fact that you have a seperate gunner, which is both a blessing and a curse, but this seperate gunner can use a co-axial gun against infantry as well as a "normal" canon against tanks. Since you already have a co-axial weapon you'll see almost no people using HE or HEAT, it will be AP all the way. Oh, and aside from 1,5% extra damage (why?), which is nothing, you also get a significant damage increase against tanks.
Oh, and aside from more resistance against C4 and the ability to curbstomp other MBT's as is, you also get 6000 health, meaning you are basically a Vanguard with shield always on, a damage AMP and the ability to engage infantry all the same. Oh, and you have better speed and maneuverability.
I don't see how this tank is fair compared to other tanks. Why would anyone take another vehicle?
Well, I'll tell you the only reason why anyone wouldn't take this vehicle: The driver. The driver has everything taken away from him. All he can do is drive around. No abilities, nothing to shoot with. Boring. It's the only drawback in the entire vehicle, the fact that it's boring for the driver. In Valkyries and Harassers it works because of the amount of attention you need while driving. It's exciting and tough regardless of your ability to wield the gun. But in a tank designed for slugfests? It would more likely come to two people occupying one tank, and the driver switching to the secondary gun the moment they engage.

Tanks in general aren't overpowered. this tank is overpowered. It can beat every other ground-based vehicle in the game hands-down, and mow down half a zerg while you are at it.
I also think the choice for co-axial guns is a bit unbalanced. On tanks you will usually engage infantry at range ("open area's, not urban etc), so you want good accuracy, not too good since you probably won't be pin-pointing them, good ROF and the damage doesn't have to be that high since you aren't that much in danger from them. You have the option to whittle them away, while they risk their life every time. So the NC is going to get... a high damage, low accuracy weapon that needs trigger discipline to be good? Just about everything you don't want unless you are standing near a building door and use it as supression.

The difference is that normally you spot something, you either run away or start shooting at it. In this tank such a large situational awareness would be an incredible force on the battlefield. You can see an enemy, tell your gunners and in the meanwhile check for other enemies such as C4 fairies and react to them. The reason why C4 fairies are powerful is because of the lack of situational awareness, they don't see them coming. My beef with the tank as you proposed is that it's about 750+ resources worth of power. Everything together this thing would hands down beat everything on the ground. Do we want that kind of power running around in such a relatively small package? I don't.

I don't think that would be completely fair. On the magrider the Driver and Gunner would need to aim simultaneously, while on the other two the gunner and driver need far less concerted action to actually work effectively. Even if you allow the Magrider almost 180 degrees rotation somehow it would still be a big handicap compared to the other two.

This isn't a disadvantage. This is pure logic. Every single vehicle in the game "suffers" from this. In you get out of a normal MBT you are missing either the secondary gunner firepower or the main gun firepower and the maneuverability. The difference with a 3-crew tank is that for instance the driver can get out and repair while the tank is still boasting it's incredible, buffed firepower against both infantry and tanks.

its called Liberator

What if you swapped the main and secondary gun on current MBTs.
Driver controls the secondary and the gunner has the cannon.

Or make current MBTs function like a 3man man tank. driver/gunner/second gunner.
But also allow the current system where the driver can control the main cannon if he wants.

The tradeoff could be that a dedicated driver/gunner is (arguably) better than a multitasking driver.
Or make drivers who also maingun have reduced stats like reload speed or something.

And while we are on the subject of drivers and gunners: Why doesent the harasser allow drivers to also gun when the MBT with superior firepower, armor and range does.
Solo manning a harasser would seriously be freakin awesome.
Are they worried a solo harasser would be better than a solo MBT for farming stuff? Surely it cant be worse than solo MBTs

You have completely disregarded the situation where the 3-crew MBT of one faction is up against a Liberator, an enemy 3-crew MBT, ESF's, and anti-tank base turrets. Regarding the "significant damage increase against tanks", it is to replace C4 as a viable anti-tank weapon. I do not understand why you are so defensive against a tank's ability to survive C4; if you really want to destroy a 3-crew MBT, just grab a team and pull a 3-crew MBT, Liberator, or a squadron of ESF's. After all, this is supposed to be a combined arms game. Wars are not won by infantry alone.

A person may pull another vehicle in order to harass because it has incredible maneuverability (the Harasser), set up a mobile head quarters (the Sunderer), personal transportation (the Flash), has a preferance for lighter, mobile armored fighting vehicles (the Lightning), or wants to solo in a tank (the MBT). As shown, an addition of a 3-crew MBT will not eliminate the reasons for selecting another vehicle. The 3-crew MBT allows for better team armored gameplay.

It is simply your opinion that being a driver is boring. I would be perfectly content as the driver, pulling off maneuvers during a battle, such as circling a target and attempting to avoid huge bumps in order to give my gunner an easier time. Being a skillful driver on rough terrain so that the gunner does not miss every single shot is quite difficult. If the developers think driving is too easy, maybe they should add gear changes to add a little more authenticity to driving.

Regarding a driver switching to the commanders position, I do not think it would be advisable for a tank to be stationary at any time in the battle. If you seen the tactics in game tankers use, they are always moving, peek-a-booing from behind cover or circling an enemy tank. Stationary tanks are usually dead tanks in the middle of the battle. That is why when you see a clump of tanks unable to maneuver at a choke point, they all go boom.

The co-axial light machine gun is there to add a little more versatility to the tank. This is supposed to be a main battle tank after all. The light machine is supposed to be most effective at closer ranges. The main cannon is supposed to be used for longer ranges.

I like your hypothetical situation. Sounds like awesome teamwork.

Vanguard Commander: "Gunner Prowler 2 o'clock"
Gunner: "Identified"
Commander: "Fire"
Gunner: "On the way"
Driver: "Commander C4 fairy 6 o'clock"
Commander: "Gunner C4 fairy 6 o'clock
Driver forward"
...

After your little hypothectical situation, you sound like a disgruntled solo light assault player. Like I said before, teamwork will always seem overpowered against a group of solo players. If you really want to destroy a 3-crew MBT, just grab a team and pull a 3-crew MBT, Liberator, or a squadron of ESF's. If you want to stick with infantry, ambush one of these tanks with a squad in an urban environment.

That is where the vague damage bonus comes in. It should be adjusted to each tank based on the amount of teamwork required for each tank.

Like I said before, it's highly inadvisable for a tank to be stationary and for the crew to exit the tank for a repair in the middle of a battle.