Why is it that a single infantry can 'solo' a MBT in this game?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by orangejedi829, Jul 30, 2015.

  1. DeltaUMi

    I did focus on a tank that was destroyed by C4, but I did not focus on that the entire time. Here's the original post.
    What do you mean by gameplay as a whole? How I read, it sounds like your reply was just a restatement of my post, where C4 can act as an "incentive to prevent" or "a deterrent" for "static" or "tunnel-visioning" gameplay. I assume by "tunnel-visioning farm machines", you mean that the farm machine is staying stationary or at least moving in a general area of approximately 10 meters in diameter.


    Please explain what "they" refers to. Does it refer to the "other examples" or another noun? Or does it refer to infantry within the phrase "infantry with C4 on tank combat"? But "they" referring to "infantry" wouldn't make sense in the first part of the sentence but "examples" do. So reply clearly next time.




    No you did not point out how stupid my argument was. You lazily tried to illustrate a tank sniping an ESF with a completely different situation.
    Tanks would have a field day if their shells go at the speed of a sniper round when fired and if their cannons can point nearly 90 degrees upward or downward like how a sniper can with his/her rifle.

    Sure the Decimator and Phoenix can one-hit kill ESF's, but their rockets fly at 60 m/s and 42 m/s respectively. Flying ESF pilots hardly need to maneuver to dodge those things if at all.




    At least in all these scenarios, in which if I were the tank driver, I have time to react after the first instance I take damage rather than be destroyed instantly by C4. As a tank driver, at least I'll have time to rush into any piece of cover near me while attempting to throw off the attacker's aim.

    All these examples the people come regarding game mechanics in Planetside 2 that are similar to the situation where a tank is destroyed by C4 cannot fully illustrate and be compared fully to that situation.




    It is obvious that a drop pod deaccelerates to a stop, otherwise it will simply go through the ground. The question is if the distance and time it takes for a drop pod to deaccelerate is proportional to the time it takes for a shell to accelerate to its muzzle velocity in a tank barrel.

    Regarding the calculations, it wasn't me who posted, possibly random, numbers in an effort to support your hypothesis. It is agreed upon that it is the person who presents the hypothesis also present whatever evidence or calculations needed to support that hypothesis.

    Beside, is the fact that you are challenging me to do such calculations myself mean that you do not have the calculations, or correct calculations yourself to support your numbers that you have posted in effort to support your hypothesis.

    I recommend you to simply stop trying to plug a hole, one of many holes in the Planetside 2 lore. For example, there is not any reason for a tank to have three different types of cannons to fire three different types of ammo. It's been long proven that a single tank cannon can fire multiple different types of ammo such a AP, HEAT, HE, APDS, etc.

    Just so everyone knows, the in-game description of C4 is "Plastic explosives capable of incredible damage to infantry, MAXes, and vehicles alike." First of all, that is one versatile explosive. Also notice that it mentions nothing about nanites.



    You are just being lazy now aren't you. Since you are too lazy to find my exact quote where I said HE would be almost obsolete to give your argument substance, I'll provide you the original excerpt from the post that these replies have been referring to.
    Never once did I say "any shell works as an HE" nor "HE would be almost obsolete."



    The gaming experience is too different in regards to tanks. Players expect tanks to be tanks, not a bucket of bolts where nearly everything in game can attack and kill it or where it can be destroyed instantly by a hand held explosive. Players expect the proper counter to tanks to be other tanks and maybe some air to ground missiles from ESF's and Liberators, while all the hand held infantry anti-tank weapons be more of a deterrent rather than an efficient procedure to kill tanks. There's probably a significant amount of players who left this game because the armor gameplay is so limited, causing them to see Planetside 2 more as a generic FPS rather than a unique combined arms game. Look at War Thunder and World of Tanks; those two games have a significantly larger active player base than Planetside 2. If Planetside 2 had a much more developed armor gameplay where tanks can be tanks, then Planetside 2 will be able to enter that market of tank games as a true combined arms game.



    I know. That's the point of my suggestion to limit the detonation of one C4 at a time; it is to allow the tank a chance to escape. Besides, you can still instantly kill tanks if you bring another friend along with C4.
  2. Mihaus

    C4 LA make HA look like a joke as the anti tank/anti MAX class.
  3. Demigan

    What is there not to understand? You see it from the perspective of the destroyed tank, I see it from the perspective of tanks as a whole.

    'They' refers to the tank examples not fully illustrating the situation. That should have been clear with the added 'can kill repeated targets without resource cost'.
    A tank can (especially a Prowler), after being bought with resources, kill tanks with almost 0 chance of escape if he is Anchored and shooting for their rear. 2 salvos is enough to kill a Magrider or Vanguard from behind, unless the Vanguard activates shields. If I recall correctly, it's about 1,8 seconds per cycle of firing and reload of a Prowler, so at maximum he needs 5,4 seconds for the Shielded Vanguard, who can barely get behind any cover in that time (it is a rear-attack after all, if there wasn't a danger in front they wouldn't be stuck there).

    Tank fires, ESF supposedly hears it and can dodge. The slowest shell travels 175m/s (Magrider HE). At 200m you can't possibly hear the shot and know it was aimed at you unless you are looking directly at them (which is situational awareness again). Even then, you have less than 1 second to react, 0,2 seconds of which (assuming fast reaction time players) are spend creating a reaction, meaning you have 0,8 seconds to start accelerating out of the way. Unless you are already moving out of the way it is impossible to avoid in that time.

    Sniper fires, if target is looking at the sniper he can dodge (smaller hitbox vs faster bullet), however the likelyhood of that is also almost 0 due to reaction times. They are not different situations, they are the same but with different actors.

    Again, different actors, you are nitpicking rather than facing the argument.

    Exactly! But how do they need to dodge...? Oh yeah, by seeing them coming. How do you dodge a C4, which goes even slower than a Decimator or Phoenix and needs CQC and has the highest bullet drop in the game...? Oh yeah, just move.
    Also, Phoenix and Decimator are free to fire and can be used at range, even from spawnrooms. So they have tons of advantages compared to C4 when talking about OHK of hovering aircraft.

    If your reaction will not accomplish your survival in 95% of the cases, how is this different...? That's the point I'm trying to make. The situations might differ somewhat, but the actual results are the same: destruction without the option to prevent it. Except that you can keep LA off of you at a much higher degree than you can keep aircraft off of you who can appear from anywhere faster than you can react to them unless they are appearing right in your vision, which is situational awareness again.

    Yes, because the other scenario's have less things to worry about. They have more range, less chance of failure when detected prematurely, cost less or can repeat their scenario multiple times without it costing each time etc.

    Eh... Really? Ofcourse it is not of the same proportions! Look at aircraft, if you fly towards the ground with 100KM/H (or 27m/s) and exit, you are dead... Since the Droppod shields you the player from this deceleration and has multiple giant thrusters to decelerate you (and a game mechanic that cannot predict when you'll hit the ground and thus simulate this deceleration) we can assume that yes, Droppods will preserve C4 functionality.

    Since you haven't gotten the gist so far I'll repeat it again.
    Infantry dies at less than 5 to 7x the speed of the slowest HE canon in the game. Droppods have an obvious slow acceleration and not as obvious decelration, but seeing that it prevents any damage to the infantry unit inside it has enough deceleration to preserve the infantry and C4.
    Tanks fire at 175m/s at minimum, accelerating their shots in the space of the barrel. Then the shot also decelerates in the instant it hits the target. That could, if my hypothesis about C4 containing deconstruction nanites is correct, destroy the nanites and be the reason why we don't have them in tank shells. And also be the reason why tank shells don't cost nanites, or that we have C4 launchers available instead of having to throw them etc.

    Yes, but if the answer is obious or can be explained without numbers, you can circumvent it.
    When you say 'a bullet can't pierce the armor of a tank' I'm not going to ask how much kinetic energy the hypothetical game bullet has and how much the hypothetical game armor can defend against without receiving damage. There is a limit to what people can ask. I am not asking for a complete workup about the possible gravity of the planet and minimum energy requirements to keep a Drifter Jet afloat for the time it can float, along with the powersource necessary to replenish your jetpack in that same time. We both assume it is possible (because we can see it in the game) and move on.

    And my numbers are not random, and you can look it up for yourself in seconds.

    You are nitpicking. I have given you numbers, you don't seem to have done a single similar thing. Just accept that sometimes you have to participate in the discussion by looking up stuff yourself. I have given plausible enough information for an internet discussion to go through, if I was going to go through the trouble to make it scientifically accurate it would take months for a single 100% irrevocable scientific answer.

    So... We'll just have to accept the fact that C4 is a futuristic plastic explosive that can deal 3/4th damage to a tank? Yey! Thank you!

    aaaaaaand how does that have anything to do with the subject of buffing tanks with specific anti-infantry weapons and improve the gameplay? Just because HE weapons are in-game specific AI weapons (and in Reality we do have specific AI tank weapons like the Tank Shotgun video I've quoted somewhere) does that mean it's all done? I'm proposing improvements for tanks to engage infantry and somehow you still attack my tank buffs (that was the post where you reacted on with the HE stuff). At least the others attacked the infantry buffs I proposed along with it but you seem more a loose canon that attacks whatever he wishes because... you don't like me I guess?

    You now assume every player thinks that way, even though you've already seen plenty of players here who attest the opposite. You also name two different things: 'a bucket of bolts where nearly everything in the game can attack and kill it', which implies that nearly everything can damage and kill it easily, and number 2 reason 'where it can be destroyed instantly by a hand-held explosive'.
    Well tons of people seem to agree that explosives placed on a tank can destroy it, they don't always like it as a game mechanic, but they agree on it.

    But gameplay wise, we need such a weapon for infantry. It has enough limitations in range, resource cost and risk/reward. The only thing that is 'problematic' is that tankers often make themselves extremely vulnerable to C4 attacks, and complain when they do get C4red.
    As I said before, it's like driving backwards to an enemy column 'because you'll be able to escape faster'. The theory is sound, but it also means that you'll be groundstomped because your stragetic has a massive flaw: your back armor. In many older games the armor is equal on all sides and this is a great strategy as in many games the turret is placed more on the back and it means you can show less of your tank to the enemy, but in PS2 it's a broken stragetic that nobody uses. Still, people have a ton of ways to prevent C4 attacks, but they don't use them because they prefer to sit in one area and bomb some infantry or hostile tank column without much thought.

    Really? They expect that? Since when? I'm going to be a dick here and ask: can you provide the numbers to prove that hypothesis?

    PS2 has a wonderful tank game. It has many other issues such as lack of proper goals and truly exciting moments which probably drive people away. The tank game can be improved a lot for sure, but it's not bad at all. The terrain differences, the massive environment to drive through and surprise your enemies (I once drove through more than 6 bases to avoid terrain and flank from behind, to blow up a stand-off of TR vs NC by simply taking out any tank that started repairs with a shot from behind), it all adds to the games flavor and fun.

    This isn't a 'chance' to escape, this is almost a guarantee to escape. It defeats the purpose of having a hard counter against tunnel-visioning farm players.
    As someone else mentioned, just add more counters. Add secondary AI weapons to tanks that can look and aim 360 degrees around them to spot and kill any infantry, add new tank canons to specifically deal with infantry, or even a Heavy MAX that acts more like a vehicle but with the infantry ability of always remaining vertical regardless of terrain, 360 degree looking around you, some heavy machine gun weapons (the air canons for instance) and a lack of armor against tanks.
  4. DeltaUMi


    For your information, "examples" cannot "kill repeated targets without resource cost" unless if "examples" is a name for some sort of weapon that is completely free, but this is a moot point.

    Getting back to the real topic at hand, at least the Magrider or Vanguard has a chance to survive after the initial damage dealt by the Prowler. This situation is nothing like the situation where two bricks of C4 is detonated on a tank, which destroys the tank immediately.

    Also, you are contradicting yourself now. Take a look at the exchange in questions and answer from before.
    Demigan said:
    DeltaUMi said:
    “Seriously, enough with comparing infantry with C4 on tank combat with other examples in game since none of them can quite fully illustrate the situation.”

    Indeed they can't, because they are safer to pull off and can be repeated for multiple targets without cost.”
    Just now you claimed that "they" refers to the "examples." You just admitted that examples are unable to fully describe infantry with C4 on tank combat, and yet you still try to defend these examples in that they do illustrate the situation. This quote below from your post confirms that you do agree that these examples cannot fully illustrate the situation where C4 destroys a tank.



    Yes, the answer is obvious and can be explained without numbers. That answer is that you simply made up those numbers in order to fudge your way into the conclusion that C4 can't be place as an explosive filler for rockets or tank shells.

    By the way, I tried various words in order to find your numbers online, but I cannot find them. Provide a link please. I am not asking for a scientific journal, just your calculations in finding that the terminal velocity of C4 is approximately 31 m/s. I do not understand why this is so difficult, you probably show your calculations out in math class, or maybe you don't have the calculations to begin with.

    Is there really something wrong with nitpicking? If people do not nitpick the problems, then nothing will be solved.



    It doesn't. That's why I previously stated that it was "just so you know".
    You guessed right. I don't like you because you do not read my posts; simply look at how many times I have to quote myself in order to explain your mistakes when you "analyze" my posts. In this case, I wasn't attacking your list of proposed tank buffs but in fact agreeing with it.
    I alluded to your post in this reply. You admitted that you have played World of Tanks yourself, and you should know that "hitting specific weakspots" and changing ammo type between HE/HEAT/AP ammo is part of that game.



    I never said every player thinks that way, but rather a significant amount based on the population of two popular games based on vehicular combat. World of Tanks population peaks at around 30,000 active users simultaneously on the US servers alone. Planetside 2 doesn't come anywhere near that, even with all its servers combined, which its population peaks around 6000 users. Log into World of Tanks anytime and look at the population count left of the top middle Battle button, and use this link to find Planetside 2's population http://www.therebelscum.net/world-population/.
    DeltaUMi said:
    “There's probably a significant amount of players who left this game because the armor gameplay is so limited, causing them to see Planetside 2 more as a generic FPS rather than a unique combined arms game. Look at War Thunder and World of Tanks; those two games have a significantly larger active player base than Planetside 2. If Planetside 2 had a much more developed armor gameplay where tanks can be tanks, then Planetside 2 will be able to enter that market of tank games as a true combined arms game.”


    Regarding your "tons of people", they are ignorant to tank combat in real life, in other games that are not only just arcade, and tank history. Really, tank engineers will laugh at that ignorant belief that mere high explosive that come in the size of two C4 bricks can destroy a tank, let alone disable the engine. Even in a game, it is still quite ridiculous and broken.

    It is broken that in Planetside 2, a single infantryman that uses negligible resources, that loses no resources upon death, can go a up to a tank and destroy instantly with one detonation and nothing else. Why is C4 so versitile? Just like its in game description, it is effective against infantry, MAXes, and vehicles. Even MBT's are not that versitile, and they are a weapons platform that is much more expensive than C4, costing full 450 nanites versus a mere 75 nanites for one block of C4.



    To you, Planetside 2 may have a wonderful tank game, but to me and the millions all over the world who play World of Tanks and War Thunder, the tank game in Planetside 2 pales greatly in comparison.



    How would my suggestion defeat the hard counter against tunnel-visioning farm players? A massive loss in health would make anyone move and look around, hence solving the tunnel-vision problem by allowing the tank to live and learn from that mistake. In the current game, the tank instantly blows up from one detonation of C4, solving the tunnel-vision problem, because there is no tank left to tunnel-vision with, which also means no more tank to practice with. Currently C4 is just giving the player the message, "Ha ha! 9 minutes until your resources regen! Suck it!". This does not teach the tanker anything except create animosity and cause that player to play another game where tanks are respected for what they are supposed to be.
  5. dough



    I hate to break this to you, because its just going to make you whine more...

    Tanks in REAL LIFE are meat on the table to infantry in situations that allow infantry to get up close. Its well known in the armed forces that you don't take tanks into urban situations without a lot of infantry support, because under those situations you end up with lots of dead tanks. This has been true since WORLD WAR 2!

    I understand you think tanks should be overpowered vs. infantry.. and they are if EMPLOYED PROPERLY. But if you drive the thank like you are a god and expect infantry not to hurt you, you'll end up with a busted tank.

    C4 is not overpowered.. it models the real world difficulty of tankers in urban situations. Its your understanding that is broken.. not the game.
    • Up x 1
  6. FateJH

    *writes down "C-4 power decreases with respects to its distance from the closest capture point" and puts that piece of paper at the bottom of his pile of to-do work*
  7. Demigan

    I really hope you are purposefully not understanding my points now.
    My 'they' refers to my 'tank examples', the very things we were discussing. But somehow you completely ignore that link and only focus on how the words I say can somehow be interpreted to be contradictory or false. They are not, just read it again and again. It's right there.

    I used this:
    http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/aerospace/terminal

    Now if you'll excuse me, if you are so smart and can instantly see that it supposedly wrong, you can also think and search the right values for a brick yourself. Have fun.

    If you fill in 'terminal velocity brick' it's the very first link, how can you miss that?

    http://nl.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nitpicking

    But I knew better that there are better AI weapons available so it is a moot point anyway?

    You keep quoting your points about things where you misunderstand or seemingly purposefully do misread my words, or simply nitpick my wording. And I don't analyze your posts, I read them and reply to them. I even try to keep up with what you mean rather than what you say because sometimes you say something wrong but it's clear what you actually mean, and I'll respond to that.

    This the only quote so far where I have to admit that you were right. You are agreeing.

    I never said changing ammo types to HE/HEAT/AP, but yes that is part of the game.

    Does World of Tanks or War Thunder have even the slightest look of a consistent MMO FPS combined arms game? (insofar as PS2 is 'combined arms' and not just 'tanks and infantry happen to be moving to the same goal')

    Your whole argument could be used for any game that is highly popular. COD is still arcady and has tons of players, do people leave because the infantry combat is bad? Ofcourse some players will leave because they don't like the combat system in PS2, but that's their personal taste.

    Why do people leave? Just look at the forums at the players who leave. They complain about imbalances, lack of good support from the developers, the lack of updates and action against OP weapons. The fact that there are systems that both the users and the people who it's used against don't like, the lack of goals and ways to achieve them in the game. But none say 'you know, that tank combat could be more expanded, I'm leaving'. They might say that tank A is OP, or that tank B doesn't hold up against tactic C. That Zergs are much more common in faction X etc.

    From a reality perspective, yes (except that you could blow up the tracks for instance). From a gaming perspective, absolutely not.

    2 blocks, and you can easily defend yourself against it. If you get caught by C4, you did something wrong.

    Oh dear. Game 1: an MMO FPS game that sports multiple unit types, continents that allow for massive combat and tactics on a larger scale and bases that need to be assaulted. If you get destroyed you can pick a new one, or switch your unit type and way of attack.
    Game 2: A tank game without infantry or aircraft, based on (relatively) small maps and single-life.

    One has huge requirements from the game by allowing more than 200 people to duke it out in one area, or spread around over multiple. The other has about 20 people duking it out in a single unit type, allowing for much more detail and realism to be put in.

    You really think those are comparable? If you want that tank combat, stay in World of Tanks! I would love if PS2 could have it that detailed, but it's simply not possible, and the current system works fine instead, especially considering the limitations.

    It would defeat the purpose as after killing the LA, they would return to what they were doing.
    Also, the LA would be defeated in 95% of the cases that he can place C4, making the entire exercise completely mute. Place 1 C4 and pay 75 resources, let it go off, tank starts moving, try to place second while tank can and will be out of range, get killed. Tank repairs and resumes position. Net gain: minus 75 resources for LA, some repair XP and a kill for the tanker, who might be pissed that he had to take time to kill you and repair while he could have been shooting people damnit!
  8. Movoza

    I think I need to explain this one better. The fact that I think it is similar to a C4 case but with longer distance, is simply the speed of the bullet.
    At 100m, with the slowest AP (Magrider), you have half a second to react. At 200m you have a second and at 300 you have 1,5 seconds.
    Reaction times are well documented in psychology. When primed in a situation with practically no distractions, you can have a reaction time of 0,2 to 0,6 seconds. To be clear, this is the time of the process between presenting the target, seeing and processing the target to the point of input. This does not take further in the further time needed for a manoeuvre.
    Adding distractors in the field of view or redirect focus on other cognitive intensive material will increase the reaction time exponentially. This means that an ESF unaware of a tank close-by needs to see the tank getting visible on the radar, an element that is away from the central field of view. This means the ESF first needs to shift it's attention from it's targets or approach routes to a blip on the radar, decide on a crude 2d map, it's own knowledge and a bit of orientation if the tank can hit the ESF and is actually shooting at the ESF. Then the ESF needs to decide on evasive manoeuvres and execute them. How much time will this take?

    Cars are a good example. There is a reason that you need to have "2 seconds distance" from the next car. When distracted by looking in a rear view mirror or quickly adjusting the radio you need to be able to do the exact same technique as the car in front of you to prevent occupying the same space. This is actually even longer when calling hands free (comparable with being quite drunk). All this is assuming you know the situation only moment ago when you looked at it. So we can assume that in that scenario, your reaction time is around the 1,5 to 1,8 seconds as you need to execute the technique before the 2 second mark.

    In the ESF scenario, the reaction time will likely be higher, as you actually don't know the the situation of the tank, as you didn't know it was there, nor if the target is actually you, increasing the reaction time with doubt. Also, the moment you can still evade is smaller than the travel time of the bullet. This means that at 300m, you probably have less than a second to react to a bullet to successfully evade it. It is physically so improbable to evade a tank shell at any distance within 300m if you only notice it upon firing, it is an unaware shot and kill scenario at great ranges. In contrast to C4, which is unaware dropped and killed in several seconds at short ranges.

    Also, lets see the merrits 450 nanites can buy you.
    A MAX is a 1 player unit. It has 2 weapon systems that can be modified or changed at any time at an infantry terminal. The weapon systems are generally less powerful than most weapons, lacking scopes and thus long distance attacks, but they compensate with two weapon systems active at once, often larger magazines, more stable gun control and better resistances to stay in the fight. The MAX gains full damage from explosives, unless certed in (up to 50% reduction). This reduction makes it survive one direct hit from a C4 (without it it dies with one direct hit). It has an 80% reduction of small arms fire, but can be upgraded to 87,5% reduction with kinetic armour. These two reduction upgrades can be foregone by a nanite auto repair system, the only repair system available on a MAX. A MAX has 2000 HP. The person cannot get out of the MAX to repair. All infantry area's are available to the MAX, but it is generally slower than infantry, unless charging. It can be revived. It sets off all kinds of mines but is always invisible to radar, unless spotted and can't be locked on. As special abilities you can charge, do more damage but gain more too (VS), get a directional shield (NC), lock down and increase your firerate (TR) or gain more ammo. Chance to C4 is quite high.

    An MBT is a 2 player unit. It has two distinct weapon systems that require a person per system to use. The main cannon boasts a high speed projectile that can damage all units in the game. There is no damage drop-off or bloom and direct hits on infantry are nearly always a one hit kill. Their guns have a large pool of ammo, especially at maximum certification. The systems are set after buying, but come with scopes that are equal or better than infantry. The secondary turret can be specialised to either AA, AI or AT, often with incredible stopping power in their respective fields. AT often has a good power against infantry too. MBTs can improve situational awareness with third person, which MAX units cannot do. MBTs have high acceleration and top speed in comparison with infantry and MAX units. They are however bigger targets and can't jump. Most infantry quarters are off limits to them. MBTs are invulnerable to small arms fire and gain 30-63% reduction against ANY weapon. Most weapons are reduced even further and the MBT has double the health of a MAX, 4000. A tank will be auto spotted at a distance but the tank can be upgraded much further in terms of defence systems than a MAX. Stealth, side armours, auto repair systems and proximity radar are all viable options. The special abilities entail firesupression, IR smoke, shield (NC), lockdown (TR), speed boost (VS). You can exit the tank and repair yourself. Chance to C4 is not very high, especially for people who know what to do (next to impossible).

    A liberator is a 3 player unit. It has 3 distinct weapon systems that require a person per system to use. The drivers cannon is often a tank burster that can melt any target at close range, which is actually still a respectable range in tank and infantry fights. The belly cannon can specialise to AI or AT but is still effective against all targets and has no damage drop-off. The rear cannon is more of a support, doing extra damage against the chosen targets. All cannons have the best scopes available. It has 5000HP, can fly, is immune to small arms fire, can evade most fire due to its speed and acceleration despite its size, has a ton of resistances although no base resistance like the MBT. It is vulnerable to AA, but has most defence slots available to MBT, without the proximity radar. It has all special abilities the MBT has, except for the empire specific ones, but has the addition of an ejection seat and an afterburner. All people can get out to repair the vehicle. It can't gain access to infantry quarters, but it can fire upon nearly every area from the air. The thing is next to impossible to C4.

    I think the MBT is doing all right. Invulnerability to small arms and damage reduction to most other forms? The only "lethal" infantry AT solutions are tank mines, AT turrets, rocket launchers and C4. Tank mines require a great deal of positioning and some luck, the rocket launchers barely have enough ammo to kill a tank and are relatively short ranged due to their slow rocket speeds (especially in comparison with the big guns on a tank), the AT turret requires you to be stuck to a location and hope as hell you don't get shot in the face and C4 relies solely on the lack of awareness and lack of movement of a tank. Or the tank thrusting himself right in the middle of enemies of course.

    In my eyes, the art of C4ing tanks is based on the skill of the tanker first, the skill of the infantry second. There is so much you can do against infantry getting close, it is mind boggling you put yourself in a position that is risky for C4 and not accepting the consequences. You gain an incredible amount of immunities, speed boosts and powerful cannons that it is weird that you resist against a form of attack that could destroy you when you make mistakes or take risks, while every other unit in the game has the same severe mistake --> punishment method.
    • Up x 1
  9. Movoza

    About the tunnel vision. Demigan means that if you kill a MBT with C4 repeatedly, the tank will in most cases learn to not go into tunnel vision, as it means destruction. This means to them that tunnel vision doesn't work. Tanks that are only damaged and can repair will only get out of tunnel vision temporarily, as their current approach works. They do not get destroyed and can continue their assault after taking down a threat.

    Also, dedicating 150 one shot nanites vs 450 continuous nanites is a fair deal in my opinion. The C4 is immediately spent while the tank has the potential of killing tank after tank, infantry after infantry. The potential of 6 C4 is 3 MBTs/lightnings or up to 6 smaller tanks (Harassers and flashes) (more if you are lucky and they are close together or damaged) or a bunch of infantry, if you don't get killed during. The average of AP turrets kill about 5 tanks and 9 people in one run. Then we don't even take in account the secondary turret (about 4 normal kills and 2,5 vehicle kills) which stats are skewed because a lot of tanks don't have gunners. Q4 stats are even more interesting with above 10 KPU. V KPU will be interesting but isn't available, but is expected to be higher too.... And these averages aren't their potential, which is limitless.
    • Up x 1
  10. Disconsented

    Well its a good thing this is a game and not real life so there goes your whole argument.
    Sorry bub doesn't change anything
    • Up x 1
  11. ColonelChingles

    Kinda sorta. But not 100% true in the 21st century, and based on current trends is probably not the case in the 29th century of PS2.

    For example, kind of interesting how the secondary gunner doesn't have to stick his head outside anymore, not like in WWII:

    [IMG]

    Instead we have fancy cameras and optics in PS2... which reduces the ability of infantry to either kill the gunner or throw in a tasty explosive package. So is this some 29th century techno-wizardry?

    Not at all. We are implementing those today, as part of the urban upgrades for tanks. For example, the US TUSK program:

    [IMG]

    Which is meant to grant greater functionality for the M1 tank in urban environments.

    And really the TUSK program is sort of a half-cooked way to modify an older model tank... what if we were going to invent a new tank?

    Well the Russians have, with their T-14 Armata. It has 360 degree viewing capability from inside the armoured and relatively impregnable cockpit of the tank. Along with a remote weapon station and the possibility of an attached autocannon.

    [IMG]

    There's also the Russian BMP-T concept, which is a half-tank meant specifically for urban environments. It forgoes the tank cannon altogether and instead relies on two autocannons in a completely remote turret. This gives excellent protection to the crew (though not as good as the T-14/T-15 design), while incorporating high-elevation autocannon that can devastate infantry from below.

    [IMG]

    So are tanks at a disadvantage in urban areas? Yes. But are they harmless? Of course not. They are still extremely lethal to infantry and capable of destroying whole platoons if left unchecked.

    And of course tanks can just blow up the whole dang building if they feel like it... infantry in PS2 are spoiled rotten with their indestructible cover. ;)

    [IMG]
    • Up x 2
  12. DeadlyPeanutt

    you were out played.

    it's a heck of a lot harder to c4 fairy an MBT (or to sneak up behind it and dump tank mines under your track, topped off with a 'nade cherry) than it is to farm a doorway with a MBT, as I see almost every day. Stop whining and play smarter.

    Or get out of the MBT and play infantry
    • Up x 1
  13. ShineOut

    Haven't we been over this? Like this whole thread....
    • Up x 1
  14. Crayv

    Modern tanks sure are great. It's a wonder why any army would ever use infantry at all and just stick them all in tanks.
  15. Scr1nRusher

    Infantryside has watered down the game over time.

    Everyone claiming "vehicle nerfs" made the game better should really spend some time watching the population of the game(which has been slowly dropping).
    • Up x 1
  16. FateJH

    Not all problems are exposed nails and a tank, no matter how sophisticated you make it, is still just a hammer.

    Guided missile systems sure are great too. They tried to get rid of aircraft-borne machine-gun weapons for them once. Until they realized the folly in that, no one ever stopped to consider what you were supposed to do after you fired off all your missiles.
    • Up x 2
  17. ColonelChingles

    Because tanks are expensive I guess. :p Not just the tank of course, but the crew as well.

    It's a lot harder to train tank crews than infantry. The lowest rank you'll likely find in a tank is an E3, though most tankers will be at least Sargents of some sort. Technically you might find an E1, but unless you're really strapped for manpower you'd probably want someone a bit more experienced.

    [IMG]

    Whereas in an infantry platoon most of them are going to be lower than Sargent... only 1/3 are Sargent in a typical rifle squad. And the 9 person weapons squad only has one Sargent with them. Compared to half of tankers rate as some kind of Sargent or above.

    At the end of the day, infantry are great for being numerous and inexpensive. You can put them in places where you might not expect significant enemy resistance or heavy fighting to occur, and they can alert you to enemy movements and such.

    But for heavy fighting, you want to bring the biggest guns to battle. Aircraft, artillery, and armoured vehicles do the heavy lifting in modern militaries. I mean what's some infantryman going to do against a guided missile strike from kilometers away?

    To be fair, that was with the early introduction of A2A missiles when things weren't that great. Nowadays, missiles and BVR missiles is what is expected to dominate air engagements. Consider of course the air combat in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. There were only three engagements that involved the use of gun cannon... one against a parked aircraft and two against low-flying helicopters. In all other cases missiles were the decisive element.

    Some things do become obsolete in warfare. Wooden pointy sticks. Horse calvary. Crossbows (apart from what PS2 would have you think). Aircraft nose cannon are part of that. The F-35B and C variants do not even carry an internal cannon.

    Infantry are not obsolete, but their importance has drastically decreased since WWI. They have long since ceased to be the major factors in modern warfare, which instead falls on much heavier and more powerful vehicles. Most casualties in conventional (not irregular or COIN) warfare come from artillery or aircraft.

    That's why PS2 has it backwards... where infantry are more important than most vehicles.
  18. Crayv

    Don'tcha know any ol sod can drive a tank. As for expensive? Bah, an MBT only cost as much as 9 grenades.... well at least in Planetside 2.
    • Up x 1
  19. orangejedi829

    lol.
  20. belthazor3457

    Tanks are like having a small pug that drags itself all over the floor and couldn't stop barking to save its life. You have to cover all the expenses for manufacturing them, transporting these incredibly heavy pieces of equipment around, fuel costs, fuel costs for the fuel vehicle that you are paying for for the right to pay for the tank's fuel costs, costs on escorting the fuel, and when a tank's armor becomes too outdated and the crew can be killed by the latest one-to-three-man-rocket-system at a fraction of the cost, you now need to pay for all the new armor upgrades. And heaven forbid you don't pay a premium on properly trained tank crews, or some wise guy is going to drive your investment into a ditch and require a six-hour excavation project if you don't have a super-towing-vehicle around. Which is going to happen anyway even if you do pay the premium. Your big armored vehicles will be very expensive and have very high upkeep costs, and if you didn't get enough bang for your buck before a new model was needed and you want to sell a bunch of them off to some third world backwater for lumber to correct your country's lumber shortage and stimulate house construction, you'll be met with a bunch of unwashed protesters shouting "BLOOD DIAMONDS! BLOOD DIAMONDS! SAVE THE WHALES! DON'T SELL GUNS, SELL FLOWERS! SAVE THE WHAAAALES! YOU'RE MURDERING THE WHAAAALES! MY DIGNITY IS BEING INAPPROPRIATELY TOUCHED BY YOUR ATTEMPT AT ECONOMICS! ECONOMICS IS BIASED AGAINST ME! PERSECUTION! PREJUDICE!! IM BEING PER-SEY-CU-TAYED!!!111oneone111!!"

    To make PS2 more realistic, I motion that unwashed protesters congregate near infantry and vehicle terminals at contested facilities, and they will all sleep outside in tents and will smell very badly. This overpowering aroma creates a disorientation effect while attempting to use a terminal akin to a concussion grenade, and the people will accuse anyone using a terminal of persecuting the whales.
    • Up x 1