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. ColonelChingles

    Well yea, that's why in PS2 infantry should certainly be obsolete, if everyone can get their hands on their own personal attack aircraft or tank!

    Take away cost, and there's really no reason for infantry to exist anymore.
  2. AshHill07

    Except to clear bases and secure Capture Point's.
    But don't worry, its not like this game is just a massive game of Capture the Point or anything like that..
  3. ColonelChingles

    Give me destructible walls and such, and we'll see if you really need infantry to "clear bases". ;)

    I mean castles stopped being a thing in the beginning of the Gunpowder Age, right?
    • Up x 2
  4. warmachine1

    Real MBTs have co-ax MGs to defend against infantry. The way SOE designed vehicles is simply wrong. Except ESF pilot, all vehicle stations in game have only 1 weapon system.
    • Up x 3
  5. ColonelChingles

    Actually as SOE originally designed the vehicles, they were supposed to have coaxial weapons. Take the Vanguard for instance:

    [IMG]

    In the concept art, it was to have one 20mm HMG on each side of the main cannon.

    Then in the early modeling of the Vanguard:

    [IMG]

    Those 20mm HMG/autocannon were moved to the side of the turret, but were still there.

    And today's Vanguard:

    [IMG]

    Is completely missing the coaxial weapons but still has the cut-outs in the turret!

    But as usual, SOE was catering to the moans of the unwashed masses of infantry, so it was nerfed and instead switched to a roof gun. Really though MBTs should have coax and at least 1 roof mounted LMG/HMG as standard!
    • Up x 4
  6. warmachine1

    Secondary weapon stations are also very simplistic & boring, just compare modern RCWS with PS2 "Gun on the Stick"

    [IMG] [IMG]
    • Up x 4
  7. Demigan

    Remove classes and update vehicles to realistic standards in terms of damage but not cost, and infantry will groundstomp tanks...

    Tank battles ensue, then stealthed infantry will move up and place high-tech explosives on it. If we continue the realism part where we somehow don't have country-radius lock-on missiles with huge explosions, you would still have tanks and infantry that's build at a nano-scale.

    So you get super-soldiers with bone and flesh structures that can survive a 100m drop and be capable of carrying 50 to 200 times what a normal human can do. Combine that with the infiltrator stealth suit and super-heavy shaped charges (mini-nukes for instance) and specialised super-acids (which will cost a whole lot less in resources). Since you can build stuff on a nano-scale you can create molecules that will rip the molecular structure of tank armor apart so fast that it would actually get a blast-wave of particles as it does so. You can construct them in such a way that the container is one of the few things that does not react with the acid.

    And tanks will be pretty dumb to field pretty soon. You need to spot the infiltrators, who will be carrying super heavy bombs or super-acids that can be launched with rocketlaunchers or grenade throwers, and there can be more infiltrators for the same cost as one tank carrying these weapons. Nano-weaponry will quickly cause armor effectivity to go down, and the only thing left will be infantry due to their small size and capability of carrying powerful weapons, and high-speed vehicles. The only armor you would need is anti-AOE armor, as any direct hit would likely result in the annihilation of the tank. So both aircraft and high-speed buggies that can avoid the infantry rockets and grenades would be viable vehicles, but actual tanks would stop being functional. Especially when you take into account that even small caliber tanks would be able to penetrate heavy tank armor similar to the infantry wielded weapons, add monomolecular structures to these tanks and they will also be able to carry super much weight or strengths. This armor will invalidate most kinetic weapons, as the penetration power needed would be as large as the power needed to break the molecular bonds. Which is why chemical bombs designed to break these bonds, mainly acids, would be the prime method of destroying this armor.
    What does this mean? It means that it's a matter of mass rather than energy. Throw on enough mass to break the molecular structure and you destroy the tank, which is why infantry-borne weapons would become much more viable again, just a few canisters with the right method of application and you can burn through tanks and destroy whatever makes them tick.

    Now we add in nanites. We know the game supports nanites that can create infantry, their gear and vehicles in a matter of seconds, completely operational and functional. Admittedly this is all powered by buildings through massive generators (we can assume some kind of super-generator based on the energy shields of the warpgates and other power requirements that we have in the game). But creating something in the right order that way is much, much harder than disassembling something in an explicitly wrong order. Nanites could work simlar to the acid bombs, but unlike the acid bombs have a much slower desintegration time (the more powerful an acid, the faster it becomes harmless as it makes molecular bonds faster until it can't bond anymore). The nanites do not care about what molecular structure they are bonding to, meaning it can be used against any armor (unlike acids which do not bond to everything, so having acid-hardened armors is a possibility, but with a near-endless possibility of super-acid combinations through nanotechnological building any attempt would have a short-lived result). The nanites would work until they run out of energy, all the while disassembling the vehicle, it's components and it's crew. Since we can steer nanites to build a tank in seconds, we can also steer disassembling nanites through shaped-charge like weapons that steer them to vital tank parts in the short time they are active. Possibly you can let them power themselves partly by creating energy out of the very tank they are eating, but it would probably not let them eat much farther anyway. But if we see how an engineer can manipulate and power nanites to repair vehicles, we know that infantry could power nanites similarly as well. Walk up to your enemy, place a nanite-generator on the tank, power it while the nanites eat away at the tank. This will quickly slow down as the power isn't that great (more than a minute of repairing to full health compared to assembled in a second) but with a heavy start-up energy source you can already have eaten halfway through before you run out. Only disadvantage would be losing the ability to launch it with a rocketlauncher. Anyway, to prevent that they would use high-speed vehicles and aircraft, nullifying any tank game.
  8. FateJH

    Pardon, but it feels like you're meandering.
  9. CNR4806

    Let's not forget these ugly things refuse all kinds of camo and are perpetually stuck in ugly grey.
    • Up x 2
  10. Megalegs

    Not really.
    Edinburgh and St. Michael's mount in Cornwall are 2 I've visited recently that have multiple cannon, and firearms in the museums.
    The Israeli's seem quite keen on wall building in the present age.

    Nice concept art though, thanks for that.
    And destructible scenery would be cool, but we'd just have 4 massive craters by now to play in wouldn't we?
  11. Demigan

    Yes I was, sorry.

    Tl;Dr then:
    If game becomes more realistic, we get mono-molecular armors and super-materials. We also get no restrictions to class weaponry, so you get Infiltrators using specialised weapons against tanks.
    Kinetic weapons, including explosions, become almost absolete
    Chemical-based weapons become more efficient, which counters the current trend of infantry becoming more absolete
    Nanites can build a vehicle in seconds, but can destroy even even faster. Weaponised nanites would turn the pieces of tank they attack into dust. The speed at which they can build vehicles is also the speed at which they can deconstruct it, meaning a tank and (part of it's) crew can be dusted in seconds.
    Nanites can be steered to construct an entire vehicle, to reduce the amount of weaponized nanites needed (and their power consumption) you can create steered nanites to disassemble in a particular order, dusting the crew and vital tank parts faster.
    Since size of armor and weapon become less relevant and tactical weapons designed to take out key vehicle parts and crew become more widespread, heavy armor tanks will be extremely vulnerable to any vehicle in the game. Stealth-flashes and Harassers would rule supreme.

    End result: tanks as they are will be phased out, infantry is used for low-visibility and hit options, high-speed ground vehicles and aircraft for their own tasks.
  12. Megalegs

    It's been 22 years since I studied chemistry but I'm pretty sure the "acids" you talk about aren't feasible.

    Chemical weapons tend to be gaseous or aerosolised, and tend to work on respiratory and nervous systems to my understanding (qualified medical doctor).

    Acids are very much more potent against organic materials than, say, metal.

    But yeah, if you've got a hand held nanite beam that can reconstruct a dead person with multiple bullet wounds in 2 seconds, you could presumably cause far more damage by putting it in reverse over the same time. A mechanised version would presumably be far more powerful.

    Edit: Thinking about it white phosphorus causes physical trauma, but still more effective against people than buildings or vehicles.
  13. ColonelChingles

    Okay, I will grant you that fortifications have tourist and historical value... just not military ones. :p

    And I don't think the Israelis are expecting Hamas to show up with armoured companies anytime soon.

    [/quote]

    And maybe vehicles might finally have a role to play in base fights! :D

    But of course those things would work against infantry as well. In fact, whatever super nano-weapon you come up with, tanks will always have the advantage for two reasons:

    1) They can carry more armour to resist whatever magical weapons you happen to invent (at least compared to infantry).
    2) They can carry more of the magical weapon to use against infantry.

    This is what the earliest equivalent to what you describe, biological and chemical weapons, are far more dangerous to infantry than they are to vehicles. And not only are vehicles much safer against these weapons than infantry, but vehicles are also the ones meant to deliver those weapons (not usually infantry).

    In fact, I would argue that based on current evidence, if those weapons would be introduced, infantry would become obsolete overnight and reliance on vehicles would increase. Just launch a nanite-cloud that is capable of eating away at infantry in milliseconds, whereas at least vehicles would have some more armour compared to infantry.

    In almost any situation, tanks will always be better than infantry. No matter what magic you invoke. :p
  14. Megalegs

    Hamas have certainly got gunpowder, and walls clearly do have a defensive role in the age of gunpowder.

    But with destructable scenery you'd have no base to roll your armour into.
  15. Pelojian

    I can see the amusement out of destoryable bases with only cap points and spawn room immune. shell out the flooring on elevated bases so only light assaults can stand on the little floating cap point isle you've made or shell away every wall and structure around a cap point or spawnroom and watch the defenders fail at defending.
  16. LordMcZee


    Spoken like someone who can't defend his tank.
  17. JohnGalt36

    LOL, OK. I'm not going to go into a stat comparing competition with you. You are obviously a better infantry player, but I promise you, I know what I'm doing in a Vanguard.
  18. ShineOut

    God dammit there is no defense to a LA hovering vertically above you landing behind your tank with holy bricks from the heavens. What do not understand, like I mean are you not comprehending what is being said in this 15 page long thread. I mean holy **** if it's come this far there's quite possibly a damn issue. " Can't defend his tank " . Bull **** we know how to defend our tanks, but when the counter isn't able to be well countered I'm clearly at fault and deemed a trash tanker who needs to L2P. I've peaced great tankers with drifters gliding .. 2 hexes over in the air to land behind and c4 their butt.

    You're acting like it's the most complicated thing to C4 a tank, like you need to be an MLG player to close distance and throw two bricks at them. Yes, I'm a little agitated because of how far this thread has come and there's still people like you.
    • Up x 5
  19. JEFCCC

    The only distance this thread has come is in page number. We still have people for C4 and others for Tanks and in the end neither side has gained any ground by shouting increasingly extreme versions of legitimate arguments at each other. I put forth that we all agree to disagree until either:

    A: The Dev's change something

    Or

    B: Somebody can convincingly and decisively show/prove one of these arguments with several different tests

    And since I can't Imagine B is gonna happen anytime soon, we might as well start waiting. Though at that, we've managed to go a few days without a post until this one...
  20. NinjaKirby

    Not played for a little while now so I might be a bit flakey on this matter, but as an avid Vanguard MBT'er, I think C4 is fine.

    I don't know how to check my own Vanguard stats besides the DBG Playerbase site, but whatever my statistics are in regards to 'Death by C4', whatever the value is (especially for just the past year) I accept it wholely and wouldn't change a thing.

    "Situational awareness" is quite a buzz word (or "Buzz Phrase") that comes up a lot, but it literally just boils down to being paranoid, tbh. Nearly every time I operate near a Base, Hill, or Cliffs primarily, but any where really, just turn 360 degrees frequently. Keep moving, I'm now very concious of pausing for more then 10 seconds at a time any where. I don't find it an "irritating task", because I know it keeps me alive, keeps me a moving target. I still have ample opportunity to strike targets.

    It all comes down to developing new habits for your own peace of mind, and it's rendered practically no negative impact on my own enjoyment of MBTing, if any thing it's only enhanced it because I don't die in silly ways.

    If C4 is OP, well, my opinion: I disagree.

    Btw, yes, I've C4'd some tanks (who hasn't), but I can't say I've adopted the Flying Fairy technique and all that milarkey simply because it doesn't interest me, for it doesn't entertain me to play the game that way; specifically going out of my way to OHK blow up random tanks. I get my fun from Tanking other Tanks in my own Tank... tankity tank.

    Hopefully my BR69 (Last I checked anyway) main character I've used since 2012 helps portray the way I choose to play. A facet of which can sometimes mean rolling around in my ******-up Vanguard for 5 minutes at a time and not killing a single person :p

    So, just wanted to throw my own experience out there.