[Suggestion] Make tanks tanky

Just throwing it out there but what if tanks had 2-3x as much health as they do now? It never made any sense to me that if you are in a tank and you see like 3 infantry near to you you have to retreat due to HA/C4, unless you are specifically outfitted for AI.

Would it improve the game? Or would tanks just become OP.

Thanks for your thoughts!

I think tanks as a general rule are too dangerous to have tons of health.
Which is too bad because I'd love to see people using armor as mobile cover when moving across the open. But they explode too fast.

Man,non HAs with RLs or LAs with C4s are meat for tanks...just learn how to position ur tank,if u pick a good position u will have a lot of kills and certs...specially in zergs.

I'd be all about that, but they'd have to be considerably more expensive and rare, not spammable like they currently are. Vehicles just don't have much value in this game.

I fully agree with that, positioning is a must, but isn't being in a tank meant to push the front lines? Kinda hard to do that with a million engis and heavys. Even a little more health would be nice.

I don't know what you think of as tanky. RL tanks are pretty much bulletproof (check), are quite fast (check) and are heavily damaged or destroyed from one modern infantry RL or simply destroyed by tank rounds (ps2 is already 3-5 times stronger!). Also large AP rounds of machine guns and the like can do massive damage with sustained fire. Especially if they are mounted (again, ps2 resistance is much higher on tanks than RL!).
Now compare it with other games. How much punishments can those tanks take? Much more? Really? Give me any game where tanks are more "tanky". Sure some are out there, but generally tanks aren't as tanky as you believe they are.

Also, I generally wack those infantry. Often I also retreat, but that is actually some part of gameplay. You aren't an impervious god between mortals. If you make tactical bad decisions, you should be punished for it. If 3 heavies take you down, I applaude their teamwork and skill or stand on my high tower and sneer at you for your tactical oversights.

Generally, I think tanks are good as they are now. They do need a more tank vs tank oriented combat or tank vs infantry with special tank capture points or the like. Doesn't have to be real bases. Can be small random support buildings providing (regional) benefits (vehicle creation, radar, slower draining of construction resources and the like).

Yeah, I guess you are right. I would like the feeling of being invincible though lol.

Should infantry also be buffed to take three main cannon shots, because they might not always be carrying AV?

Are those headshots?

Yeah, but those powerful counters aren't spammed by absolutely everyone like in PS2. In real life, when a truck shows up with a .50 on top, it's a high priority target, as that one gun can wreck a whole squad. Real life, medics don't carry C-4, rockets aren't replaced with little ammo packs, people don't lug around multiple anti-vehicle turrets, people don't non-stop spam out of aircraft, there is the equivalent of the C-4 Flash, but people only car-bomb once.

Back to real life, the last time we actually faced a serious tank threat was WW2. Back then, a single tank showing up to a battle was a huge turning point, and taking that valuable asset out was without question the top priority of the enemy. In PS2 you just LOL over to it with an invisible Flash or C4 fairy, and once it dies, it's back in 20 seconds and the C4 fairy goes out to kamikaze again. I don't like it. There's a growing trend in games to kill-die-kill-die-kill-die, all action, not so much strategy, and that's sad. I'd like to see more value given to vehicles in this combined arms game. They would be OP, so the price would have to be staggering to balance that, and their loss should be devastating, and of course infantry would have to be adjusted accordingly. But I don't expect it to happen here, maybe in Planetside 3.

Well a counter argument can be made about the spammability of rockets verses cost effectiveness.
For example, a modern day anti tank rocket, you really think those aren't expensive or easy to aquire?
Let's say javlin, a fire and forget rocket launcher designed to kill tanks, still used today and takes a crew of two to use, setup time expensive freakin ammo and it was incredibly heavy.

But I prefer to keep realism out of the game, it never should be a balance factor or even a comparison to the game.

The main reason why people don't think tanks are tanky is because of infantry support, aggressive role in combat and are primarily used against 1 thing, vehicles. Not to mention a LOT of weapons actually have better resistance values against tanks than sunderers, even though sunderers have a fraction of the side and front armor but the back armor is just fine, tanks take more damage from the back than lightnings in fact.

Infantry support, aka guys that kill everything can be seen as a mob of pests, it's hard to kill a mob of pests without AoE or specialization. But imo the specialization is pretty weak and is often left to just good infantry players to kill infantry(which makes no sense but whatever). Since the sunderer has AMS support and can easily constantly provide reinforcements, it's sort of like broodmother verses moderately powerful enemy, unless you suppress the source or outright kill it, then it will eventually overwhelm you. Tanks don't spawn meatshields in tactical play, they are often prioritized by nearly everyone.

Aggressive verses defensive, aggressive has many stationary counters and weapons to beat the playstyle while defense only has a few counters.
Aggressive tanks have to go through all manner of defense, mines, turrets, maxes, C4 faries, lockons, other tanks and thier support and base manned turrets. Defense only has to deal with other tanks and flanks, both are not hard to counter. The aggressive playstyle of tanks is often drawfed by any sort of defense infantry can provide.

Primarily tanks take on other vehicles, while there might be some HE users, how effective it is in a base fight is often drawfed by the fact you have to get over the walls by shelling (which many MANY bases prevent) or you have to get into the base, which then a new problem arises called C4 or other easy defenses. Even HE can't beat effective cover usage, which is ironic to say the least, an anti infantry tool that can't beat infantry bread and butter seems stupid; I digress. Many bases also have height advantages or easy access to elevation, so even if you get into a base to wreak havoc, you will almost always have something towering over you allowing the light assault class to kill tanks rather easily and effectively. Not to mention since every non infiltrator class has access to an anti tank weapon, this means you would have to fight every single infantry you come across and win or leave the base quickly.

Before anyone accuses me of being a "tank main bigot that farms infantry so therefore is a witch and shouldn't be trusted" I actually main heavy and infantry combat, ironically I find that tanks are far too easy to kill and far less menacing as they should be along with spammed too often to the point of boring.

As it stands now, I am fine with tank vs tank combat. It is mainly tank vs infantry combat that I think is a little imbalanced right now. This being said, I haven't really spent a lot of time driving my tank so I can't really speak from experience. It could very well be from my noobish tactics.

I disagree. Tanks in PS2 are already quite tanky versus infantry. Even Lightenings can be quite difficult for infantry to deal with in the hands of experienced drivers. What we really need is coaxial machine gun, gyrostabilizer, laser distance measurer and faster projectile speed (but not necessarily flatter trajectory)

OP has a good point and i think it would work if tanks would be more expensive AND if ressources took longer to recharge. This could actually be healthy for the game, reduce vehicle spam etc...

In real life Medics don't carry much weaponry at all. In real life Medics can't revive people who had their brains shot off and even if they did revive someone on the battlefield that guy is only going to a hospital and not back to the fight. In real life Medics need time, effort and specialized equipment to treat different kind of wounds. In real life soldiers can die from a single shot... Or live after getting hit more than 70 times. In real life getting hit can incapacitate you. In real life running&gunning is a recipe for disaster.
Also in real life it depends on the army how many AV weapons you have per infantry. Palestinian armies have far more anti-tank weaponry because Israel has a vehicular advantage which it tries to exploit in most battles for instance. PS2 has armies where a full-fledged tank is mere minutes away and they are allowed to spam tankshells which in real life cost 1500 dollars and upwards at single infantry, so it is pretty damn logical that infantry in PS2 has more AV weapons available per person.

Also look at all the advantages you get when buying a tank. Extra health, the ability to enter/exit instantly, the ability to repair it in the field in a minute with a tiny handgun-sized repairtool rather than repairs costing weeks if not months inside dedicated depots and costing tons of money for replacement parts. How about complete immunity to getting your weapons disabled, your tracks disabled or other equipment such as scopes destroyed causing the tank to become inoperable? How about invulnerability to getting one-shot by a large enough caliber round from an opposing tank? Or infinite fuel?
Your tank is also cheap as hell. In real life C4 costs 20 dollars per pound, that puts a tank at +/- 120 dollars. You don't pay costs for fuel, you don't pay costs for repairs, you don't pay costs for your ammo (1500 dollars a piece in real life remember?), you don't pay costs for the constant supply chain required to keep the spare parts rolling to your tank. Your tank doesn't break down or show signs of wear-and-tear no matter what you do with it, ammo can be replenished in multiple locations quickly, for free and out of thin air just like rockets.

I say that's enough of an advantage list to make it worth it. It's a game, and we have game mechanics to keep it fun.

I would prefer the lethality between infantry and tanks to be increased. Give tanks co-ax canons to mow down infantry, add additional abilities aimed at hurting infantry such as an EMP attack. On the other hand infantry needs to have even easier access to AV weapons, with cheap or costless non-lethal weapons such as shields or vision-obscuring weapons to protect themselves and a variety of expensive AV weapons that allow small groups of infantry to go toe-to-toe with vehicles at the cost of nanites.

The last time the western world faced a serious tank threat was WW2. However since then many forces have had to battle America and it's tanks, or like the Palestinians against Israel there's plenty of underdog groups that have to go up against tanks in modern times.
Now in WW2 and even modern day combat when a tank shows up it is a force to be reckoned with, however that tank and it's driver can't be rebuild within minutes after destruction, that tank costs many times more to produce, maintain, repair and even use. And in PS2 you don't just LOL over to it in an invisible Flash or as C4 Fairy, not unless it's a tunnel-visioning player who doesn't pay attention to his surroundings.

The trend of kill-die-kill-die is better than giving tanks immunity to infantry, which would make it a Tank shows up&kills all situation. Besides that you can still increase the amount of strategy and teamwork in the game, but it has to come from two sides. Just because you are a tank shouldn't mean you should be capable of soloing a teamworking group of other players of similar skill. A tank is no excuse for a lack of teamwork and should not function that way. Instead, vehicles should be capable of buffing each other and nerfing infantry nearby (like the EMP strike), in the meantime infantry should be capable of buffing each other (like placing shields to block incoming vehicle fire) and nerfing vehicles (blind scopes, reduce maneuverability slightly with each hit, decrease damage resistance, block the use of ability energy etc). This way you get more teamwork between players, but also combined arms. Imagine if friendly infantry can buff allied vehicles, or if some infantry support a tank charge by reducing the capabilities of enemy vehicles. Or if friendly vehicles can aid their infantry support, I wouldn't mind seeing a tank create an overshield on all players within X distance or have the capability of firing a shell that boosts the ability energy recharge rate of all allied players in the AOE etc.

"They would be OP, so the price would have to be staggering to balance that, and their loss should be devastating, and of course infantry would have to be adjusted accordingly." -me in the post you quoted-

That's a really important part I mentioned. I don't like that they're spammable, and don't like how their counters are spammable. I never mentioned I wished them to be invincible either. I actually think a single AT rocket to the rear should set one on fire, causing their crew to bail, repair and be vulnerable. But I think those rockets and C-4 should be gold, not something to be spammed down hallways. I also think ammo should be powerful as hell but cost substantial Nanites, no HE spam on bases anymore. A lot of the frustration infantry feel towards vehicles is due to spam. ESFs spamming LOLpods, tanks spamming HE..... I'd rather see all vehicles have substantially less but more powerful ammo, so shots would have to be thought out and made to count. Even the Basalisk showing up to a squad fight should be scary, right now it's kind of a crap shoot if it'll actually hit you enough times or not, and that's just silly for a 20mm. Anti-vehicle turrets should be the go-to during base defense, but it's almost suicide to jump in one if the enemy brought tanks. This whole game is just silly.

What does?

That idea would upset the infantryside mantra that currently exists. Infantry should be ABLE to deal with any and ALL problems quickly and effectively *eyeroll*.

I think tanks are too squishy and i barely touch them.

How about 70% armour resistance on all sides but 700 nanite cost?. It's obviously an issue when a lot of people prefer to mbt with an IFV.

http://ps4eu.ps2.fisu.pw/player/?name=terranaxiom&show=vehicles here's me in case anyone wants to assume whole pages of bs that i main tanks.

They would be less kill-die repeat with more armour, and less spammed if they went back to the driver gunner paradigm (which is also more fun because it encourages teamwork). Bases need removing to free up space for decent land battles away from bases, and deployside needs removing so that you can only spawn at the nearest base or one which you are matrixed at. All of these things would create more strategy and tactics.