[Vehicle] About the roles of MBTs, specifically the Magrider

totally agree with the mountain climbing too
magrider can be used just like the other tanks, Saron is a fantastic hybrid weapon able to play like GK at long range but also spew death in cqc by mag-dumping, an AP magrider with a saron is no easy meal for a vanguard/prowler in a standard close and personal face to face fight!
the only thing to be ready for is the vanguard shield, simply line of sight them while it is active

Have you considered playing another Faction if you want to use a more conventional tank?

Oh come off it, do I have to correct you again?

Let's go over the list of advantages/disadvantages that PS2 gives to tanks and infantry.

Overall:

• The game uses something closer to WWI to WWII style combat by removing lock-ons and ultra-long range artillery weapons.
• The skill of the people on Auraxis is greatly improved. Despite the size compression (no continent is only 10Km by 10Km) players can hit pretty consistently. Even "bad" players with an average of 10% accuracy out-distance themselves from the real-world where they use thousands of bullets for each opponent.

infantry:

• + Weapons and armor are now costless.
• + Often there's a higher infantry:Vehicles ratio than in real-life (which can just as easily be a disadvantage)
• ++ There's more infantry AV weapons around.
• ++ Infantry come back alive and well after being killed with the ability to impart the battlefield knowledge to others.
• +++ All Infantry AV weapons can penetrate vehicle armor regardless of how strong that armor is, most of these weapons are costless
• - Infantry AV weapons have only a portion of the range of vehicles
• -- Resource-costing infantry AV weapons costs are ultra-high. 9 grenades cost as much as a complete tank. As opposed to the real-world hundreds of thousands of grenades you could buy for a single tank (this compensates the "infantry can penetrate vehicle armor)

Vehicles:

• + Vehicles cannot be destroyed with a single weapon hit (C4 and mines need at least two hits and their cost is many, many times that of real-world AV weapons compared to the tanks worth)
• + Vehicle ammo is completely free (as opposed to having to pay around half a tanks worth in ammo for a full magazine)
• + It's relatively cheap to field enough tanks to have a larger vehicle:infantry ratio than in real-life.
• ++ Vehicles are but a teeniest fraction of the full cost of modern-day tanks (or any tank in any time-period ever, even if you start building old tanks with modern-day tech to keep the costs down the tanks would be much more expensive, 9 grenades=1 tank).
• ++ Vehicle servicing does not require a vulnerable supply train of ammo, parts and fuel (and all the factories, service stations and manpower accompanied with that) to keep the vehicles running
• ++ Vehicles need only a fraction of the personell to keep running.
• +++ Vehicle servicing is costless and can be done within a minute right on the battlefield without the need for specialist knowledge. It can be done by the driver while waist-deep in the Hossin Swamps while under heavy fire for crying out loud and it won't even be slowed down!
• +++ Vehicle damage will not impact vehicle performance in any way until the tank is below 10% of it's health, at which point it will only have reduced speed and acceleration. Vehicles (parts) cannot be disabled with a well-placed strike (hence why infantry stopped using weapons that can only shoot the treads off and now only uses weapons powerful enough to actually damage them).
• +++ Vehicle costs are so low that in the space of minutes you can build a new one with the resources you gained. Similar to infantry a destroyed tank can be back in the field quickly but project far more power than infantry using the same resources (or no resources). Building a tank is almost instantaneous and the amount of available facilities are extraordinary large compared to real-life.
• - There's a higher infantry AV ratio that in real-life
• --- Any infantry AV weapon can penetrate your armor

I'm sure I'll have missed a few things, but do you really need a boo-boo for a just those two drawbacks compared to every damn advantage you can get compared to real-life? It far outweighs the disadvantages of more infantry AV and infantry AV that can actually damage you. Just the fact that your tank's ammunition (without the tanks costs added) doesn't cost more than a hundredthousand times that of a single grenade is something that already out-weighs the disadvantage of having all infantry AV penetrate armor and having more infantry AV available. Just imagine if you really had AV teams in PS2, for but a fraction of the cost of your vehicle, practically free (hehe) they could destroy your multi-million dollar tank. Even non-team AV weapons would be so laughably cheap and a single strike against the treads can get you a mobility kill that's going to take more time and resources to fix that it took to get in a position to destroy the tread in the first place.

I always liked the overall concept of the Magrider since it reminds me of the Warhammer 40k's Eldar Gravtank but it's lack of a turreted main cannon is it's major glaring flaw. If a Magrider gets stuck and can't rotate itself to point it's main cannon or can't adjust itself to gain the correct cannon elevation, it's toast.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind is one player = one player.

In a perfect simulation we would only ever see 2-3 MBTs per platoon, coupled with a handful of other vehicles with most platoon members being dismounted (well carried by a sundy or gal). And everyone in a platoon having a tank or gunning for a tank would be impossible.

And for most, it would be incredibly boring. And annoying for many still. How would you handle:

1. Certs spent on tanks being useful.
2. Money spent on weapons being useful.
3. Bling spent on tanks being showed?

If tanks were more rare, those things lose their value. I don't care if they changed a HE round to have a lethal blast out to 5m and heavy damage out to 10m. Its still not going to be worth $7 if it can only be used not once per play session, but once over several.

I don't use tanks very often for various reasons. But even to me that's ridiculous.

In a MMO you should have the option to play any class and role whenever you can. It may or may not be useful in a given situation, but you always have a choice. Taking away that choice for realism is annoying, frustrating, and not very frugal to quite honest.

I've always stated that realism is a guideline, not a straight jacket. Look at Super Mario Bros. It makes sense that Mario falls at a speed that is relative to gravity. This is so we can control him on an intuitive level. Can you imagine how annoying that NES game would be if he could take damage from falling? When they added falling damage to the 3d version on the N64, they designed the game around it. It was used as an obstacle.

Limiting class and role choices in a MMO is not an obstacle. It is a arbitrary limitation. Don't get me wrong. There are MMOs that do this. And those aren't the MMOs I play for that reason.

So now we come back to one person = one person.

What does that mean? It means even a person outside a tank should have some rough means of dealing with said tank. That doesn't mean counter. Counter means you take this, I take that and I win. But it does mean if 2-3 guys takes on a Lightning.. well the Lightning is dealing in a 3v1 situation. That may or may not be an even fight.

Nanites play a role of course. I know many people are upset that 200 nanites worth of C4 can kill a 450 nanite tank. But thats analyzing the situation in a vacuum. If you put a LA against a master tank driver for an hour. That LA could die 100 times before getting close. Or if the situation is slightly different, the LA could get the tank without the driver knowing the LA is there. The problem isn't matching nanites to nanites. But situations.

Lets look at a bolt action sniper equipped sniper and the carbine equipped engineer. Engie on a turret firing at vehicles is going to die against the infil. We're fine with that. Of course.. if the Engie is around a rock about 20m away.. and sees that little red dot as the infil fires the rifle.. he's likely to get the infil. We're fine with that too.

But we're not fine when it involves a vehicle. There has to be some crazy circumstance going on when a Tank gets C4'd. I'm talking about 200 nanites spent (not 550 with a throwaway ESF). In every situation where I've C4'd a tank, and I don't like doing this because its usually a waste of time and resources (I hate using C4 for tanks). The tank had put itself in a very awkward position. Most times its in a spot where I don't even need to be a LA to do it.

I just played in a harasser a few days ago and experienced C4. I was dropping a buddy next to a control point on Hossin when a LA came from behind their position. Being as observant as I usually am, I spotted him. There was enemies on point so I couldn't call to a gunner or other to deal with. This was a 1 on 1 situation.

I was also in a base. I couldn't just burn out of there. This was a very bad situation. Even getting out to shoot with my carbine wasn't a guarantee as he had friendlies in the windows. So what I did was backed up enough to give myself an angle, and switched to the secondary. Gunned that muthaf--er down from the sky with a Vulcan.

Needless to say.. I got a giggle out of that one.

So I have to ask.. how many times do these people die before getting a kill? If they have even a 33% chance... That's quite alot of time spent. Lets say everytime they take on a tank. It takes 15 seconds to reach it. And 10 to respawn. That's 75 seconds of trying to get one tank.

This is why I don't use C4 on tanks. 75 freaking seconds. If there's 4 tanks. I've lost the base before getting the fourth. That's assuming all C4 placed hit their mark. Miss and its a death pretty much plus another 200 nanites. Well I have membership so this isn't an issue.

C4ing tanks is one of the most wasteful things to do. Not so much in nanites, but time. Time is the resource everyone forgets. Alerts are times. Base captures are rated in time. Gaining nanites takes time Everything is time sensitive.

So while sure a derpy LA can take out your tank. He can't take out everyone's tank. And my favorite is when a squad takes LA's to go deal with tanks. That's when you ditch the vehicles and take their base. You eventually have to get out anyway. That's a good time. Let them go after empty tanks while you take their base. The time it takes to get to the tanks and blow them.. is likely more than it takes to get their base. A squad out derping with tanks is one less squad defending a base.

C4ing tanks is a waste of time.

Then I hear horror stories about ESFs or Valks being used to drop C4. Really? We're going to throw more nanites into the mix? I mean it sounds cool. Put four LA's in the back. Drop one on one tank. For an extra 200 nanites get four tanks.

Yeah.. lets take five people away from where the fight is to deal with 4 derps on a hilltop somewhere. How much sense does that make? I mean if the point is accessible by the tanks. Sure go for it. For all of 3 bases across 4 continents (its a little more than that.. but out of 200 bases.. its not more than 5%).

I'd be more worried if they dropped those four as a Engie, Medic, and two Heavies on the control point.

But of course the issue isn't so much as people getting blown up by C4 that they are upset about. But when. its sudden. Its out of 'nowhere', and final. Your dead. People just need to get over that. Its a game, you're going to drop. Just like those 20 people you just dropped with your cannons (I usually get about 20 in my lightning, I'd imagine dedicated tankers get more).

Overall I think tanks vs infantry is in an.. alright spot. It could be better. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing tanks be just.. a tad tougher. Like one extra rocket, tougher. But other than that I think they're ok. Where I think tanks are weak is in how they can be used. Most bases are designed to keep the vehicle fight outside and infantry fight inside. This sucks because there is no way a tank can be a factor in a base capture or defense in some cases (they can sundy hunt, but not every attacker uses a sundy).

Base construction sort of helped with this. But the majority of the game is still in the regular bases. I dunno what they can do there. Maybe some larger bases have an optional vehicle control point. This point doesn't determine who's gets the base. For example you have the Octagon, or some base near it (can't remember which is which atm), on Esamir with four points, A, B, C, and D.

We''ll add a V point as a 'fifth point'. Lets say NC control the base. VS is attacking. If VS have 2 control points, A and B. Nothing happens. As we all know you need a majority like 3/4, or 2/3. If they take the V point, well.. nothing happens. V point in my suggestion here doesn't count towards capture. So what will it do?

Lets say the VS get C point. They now start capturing the base. In about 20 minutes. But wait.. they have the V point. So what it does is Halves the timer. So with 3 out of 4 points, they cut it down to 10 minutes. If they get the D point, the base will be theirs very quickly.

But lets say the NC control the V point, and the A point. VS have B, C, and D. The tide turned a bit. Usually it would take the VS 20 minutes if nothing changed. Well NC control the V point and it works in reverse.. it DOUBLES the capture timer. So with only 3/4 points.. the VS would take 35-40 minutes. Good luck with that.

What this does is allows vehicles to be a factor in capturing bases. In a direct but slightly indirect manner. The infantry can still have an infantry fight. But it encourages you to use vehicles as well. These V points can only be flipped by vehicles. And I would say it would have to be a Harasser or bigger to make a difference. No flashes. In addition, the V point is a no deploy zone for Sundies. And finally, V points would have decently large radii proportionate to the vehicles, and located in areas where infantry would be sitting ducks if they tried to directly attack the vehicles in it. We're not talking next to the base, but 200m out from it in some cases.

Of course it would only apply to large bases. Not single point bases. This is to prevent vehicle zergs from just ramping down a lattice lane.

I wouldn't be opposed to air versions either. But that's for another thread I think.

But there's my 2cents. I think you all got a bargain.

both a prowler and a Vanguard can deal a lot of damage on a dive, and yes, the alpha from a halberd/ap Vanguard is impressive, but its not far off from the alpha of a magrider. and of the three only the magrider can run off and try again.

it gets boring to hear from bad magrider drivers about how bad the magrider is, when good drivers can harass like no other, dive in for kills right in the middle of a column and run off jumping of a hill. nothing can match it on the field and at times its mobility practically breaks the game when the only counter present is dumbfire AP. they can tank entire cells worth of damage, when only a fraction of it could instagib a Vanguard with shield up.

Except of course infantry are given access to optically-guided ATGMs and lock-on missiles. Tanks, on the other hand, are not even equipped with modern Fire Control Systems or stabilizers. This means that tanks are stuck in WWI-WWII while infantry get weapons from the 20th/21st century. How is that fair?

As for size compression, it's been shown that tanks have been disproportionately affected compared to infantry. Consider, for example, how much tank shell velocity has been reduced versus infantry bullet velocity:

These are just more examples of why infantry are given unfair and unnatural advantages while tanks are not.

Infantry AV weapons should be outranged by vehicles. That's normal and completely balanced. The Javelin ATGM, for example, has an effective range of 2,500m (some very optimistic tests push it out to 4,750m). 120mm HE can engage targets at 5,000m. The 120mm LAHAT, on the other hand, has a range of 8,000m. Why are vehicle-mounted weapons capable of exceeding the range of what infantry can carry? Because of weight issues. Longer-ranged missiles are bigger missiles, and bigger missiles weigh more. Tanks can carry more than infantry, so it is totally right for tanks to outrange infantry. That is balanced.

Infantry AV weapons are actually quite pricey. A single Javelin CLU is ~$153,000. That does not include the missile itself, which is another ~$100,000 or so. So if you think about your typical HA with a launcher and 5 rockets, that's $653,000 in cost. An M1A2 tank, on the other hand, costs ~$8,800,000. Tack on $8,500 for each shell (yes, shells are much, much cheaper than guided missiles) for a total of ~$9,200,000 for the loaded tank. So pretty much for the cost of 1 MBT you could only get 14 HAs with ATGMs... ones that only have a fraction of the range of the MBT.

Your estimation of costs is way off. Tank shells are only a fraction of the price of a tank. For a full loaded of 42 shells, that's only 4% of the cost of the tank itself. As I pointed out earlier, tank shells are actually much less expensive than infantry ATGMs, where the cost of a single guided infantry rocket should be over ten times more expensive than a single tank shell (this is incidentally why our tanks fire mostly shells and not all guided missiles).

But no one does, because tanks are terrible. And as I've explored before, the cost of an uncrewed tank actually pales in comparison with the cost of training and maintaining a single infantryman.

That's all based on the older, more expensive price tag for an M1A2.

I guess it depends on which vehicles? I lay that out pretty clearly in my breakdown of costs versus nanites that I examine here. Compared to aircraft tanks are fairly expensive. Compared to Sunderers, tanks are fairly cheap.

Infantry do not require supplies of food or water either, so to require tanks to be resupplied is pointless to discuss.

Single person tanks are almost a thing now. The Russian T-14 can be operated by a crew of 2, and of course there are plans to convert it into a drone or robotic tank. Consider, for example, the Uran-9, which is a tank that requires only one person to operate:

And infantry can be hit in the chest with a 150mm AP shell and be patched up by someone with no medical training in much less time. Your point?

And infantry can be within a hair from dying and yet function at 100%. Infantry even have the advantage here... at least tanks experience some effects from being near dead.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Every "advantage" you think tanks have is actually also an "advantage" for infantry as well. Funny how you think it's so one-sided.

And infantry are free and not only are born instantly trained and of a fighting age, but also come with all their equipment that is 99% free! Wow!

See, the thing is that for most of your points, those aren't unique advantages for tanks because infantry get those same boosts. In fact picking through your argument I can't find one compelling advantage that tanks unfairly have over infantry. It was a lot of text to parse through, but ultimately meaningless.

On my server there is a thing we've termed the sundy ball. that is how you brute force your way through enemy lines. it basically consists of 5 (or more, 10 or 15 is insane) repair sunderers all scrunched together advancing as a unit. the damage they can soak is astounding and they will keep your friendly vehicles alive as well. all factions have access to this. with fully manned turrets working in coordination it truly is a force to be reconned with.

I imagine that is probably the closest thing PS2 has to an HBT. get coordinated and move that line! magriders don't need to be tougher to push lines. planetmen's NEED to be better coordinated.

Well then we get to another valid point:

If transports are better at tanking than tanks, then what purpose does the tank serve?

Say you have 2 AP Lightnings, and each is destroying an enemy vehicle. One is trying to blow up a Prowler/Magrider, the other is trying to kill a Sunderer.

Against the front of the MBT, the Lightning's 1,600 damage hit is reduced to 592 damage and then increased to 680.8 damage. It would take 6 hits to kill the MBT.

Against the front of the Sunderer, the Lightning's 1,600 damage hit is reduced to 880 damage and then further reduced to 633.6 damage. It would take 7 hits to kill the Sunderer.

Why is the Sunderer better at tanking my Lightning hits than an MBT?

That's a rhetorical question. The answer is because the Dev's have to hold people's hands and make transports incredibly OP because people can't be bothered to get organized enough to run escorts. Really Sunderers should die in 2-3 hits from any AP cannon to be balanced, meaning that for Sunderers to survive they need to be screened by friendly forces.

Sunderers need to be significantly nerfed so that they resemble the MRAPs that they are. Strong versus infantry-carried C4 and AT Mines, but weak to actual vehicles with heavier weaponry.

Sundy ball is a better tank because it has 4 other rep sunderers repairing the damage as fast as enemies can deal it. not because it's harder to kill than a mbt. (On its own a rep sundy is free certs to all the other vehicles) the mbt is more of a mobile weapons platform. it takes more damage than anything but a galaxy. but it deals better damage than anything besides maybe a liberator. I think the sunderer and the mbts are in a pretty good place. I think a lot of people just see"tank" and think it's supposed to let them survive the entire hexes focused fire.

The Prowler is 10 kph faster than the magrider. Let me repeat that, the Prowler, you know that tank has the most dps and always sits on hills, like surely it must be the slowest tank, cause well that seems fair right? but no, the Prowler can chase you down, and can theoretically shoot while running away. Unlike the mag, which can not shoot while repositioning, unless it strafes or reverses, which is much slower.

Any tank that camps in one spot, that isn't protected by a squad full of heavies, while die to another tank flanking it. The Magrider isn't special for flanking, it simply relies almost entirely on this tactic, since it will lose a fair fight against either of the other tanks.

Magburner, which you seem to think allows a magrider to escape a bad fight whenever they want, is an ability with like a 20 second cool down, that increases speed to 100 kph for 1 second. That's all. A racer prowler can cruise at 70 kph! So you can sort of outrun a prowler, for 1 sec, then die a quick death because you can't return fire, while a Prowler could turn and shoot, while in lockdown, and still result in a draw.

In short, the mag only holds it's own against tanks because it is forced into strategies that give it the upper hand, and it's higher gunner rate. Prowlers underperform their true power level because their pilots are lazy and tend to farm infantry and vehicles from a distance, making them easier prey.

If both sides in a fight pulled 10 2/2 tanks, it would be slaughter in favor of the Prowlers, not even a contest. Vany's would only win if there was a narrow chokepoint, but as the battle ages, raw dps wins out, time and time again.

Can we stop pretending infantry doesnt have costs and downsides and that tanks dont have upsides and that resources replenish so tanks can be as "free" as infantry if you arent stupid

That sounds reasonable right?

Actually that's only true over flat, even ground.

Where the Prowler (and Vanguard) get hit is over ridges. Not even large ridges, but uneven parts of the terrain. The Prowler and Vanguard are more significantly slowed down over that terrain, while the Magrider can glide over. The Prowler and Vanguard need time to reaccelerate, while the Magrider does not.

So in practical terms, it is actually easier to run away from a Prowler or Vanguard than a Magrider. I know this because Lightnings spend a lot of time running away from things. Sure, a Prowler is likely to kill you faster, but a Magrider is more likely to chase you down.

As for "theoretically" shooting while running away, so long as the smallest rock can stop a tank, not looking where you're driving is a good recipe for disaster.

So you're all for giving infantry a respawn nanite cost? I mean so long as infantry players aren't stupid and can stay alive for a certain length of time it wouldn't matter anyways, right?

10 nanites a life... that's five lives every minute, seems fair doesn't it? Would give medics a more important role as well in reviving.

Because tanks are much more powerful than infantry

When Max suits are free what do you think happens?

EDIT

I feel a need to say

That argument was just plain stupid

At least try to make some kind of reasonable idea

5 lives a minute seems too generous. That's a sustainable lifespan of 12 seconds. And it's at least what... 10 seconds to respawn, leaving 2 seconds of actual dying time. Most people can spend at least that much time picking a loadout.

I would say requiring infantry to be alive for 1.5 minutes (technically 80 seconds) seems more fair. That would be a 75 nanite cost. If you're dying more than once per minute and a half, then maybe your platoon should reconsider its strategy.

To make it up to people who can't seem to not die, there would be a free infantry class to spawn as. You get an assault rifle and a pistol. That's it. The "Medium Assault", so to speak.

I mean this would also apply to vehicle operators as well, who would have a 75 nanite cost tacked on to their vehicle cost.

As a side note, this would also fix Redeployside, because redeploying would cost nanites. If a force were to redeploy too often, they would either find themselves stuck or unable to pull vehicles/MAXes/deployables.

Well it was your argument.

Again, if the point is that vehicles and MAXes can be "effectively free" (as you put it) with a little care on their part, why should infantry get a pass to being careless? If we implemented a cost to spawn infantry then so long as the players were good at not dying (or having a Medic around) there would be no change. It would only be a penalty to "careless" infantry, just as how vehicles costs are only a penalty to "careless" pilots (according to you, at least).

You would have to agree with my position. Otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

This actually sounds very balanced... instead of calling them Medium Assault we could simply refer to them as Troopers, basic infantry fighter, nothing special about them really, but they are free to spawn. That means Infiltrator, Light/Heavy Assault, Combat Medic, and Engineer are essentially specialized classes. It could absolutely work, unfortunately that'll never happen this late in development.

If i agreed to that itd only mean im stupid too

Tanks dont play the same way infantry does

Thjats why they cost nanites and thats why they get immunities to damage

Thats a basic balance point for the game

Its below common sense. Youre not being cute or funny or trollish

The line starts at stupid and falls on its face behind that line