I feel these tanks should be doing a lot more damage then they already do. Or at the very least, increase the splash damage radius. I don't care what class you're playing, If I land a 150mm shell 5 ft. Away from you, your *** should be dead. I think most people understand this and it gives them more incentive to be way too ballsy and casually approach something they have no business tangoing with. Especially the light assaults, making you feel a lot less effective. I mean come on, it's a tank for FFS, not some Fischer price cozy coup. Increase the damage output and make them more expensive and harder to get. It'll create a better balance between damage and quantity. Their wont be as many around, but the ones that are will sure keep you on high alert and establish you as a legitimate threat. Problem solved.
350 nanites to feel yourself a infantry overlord? Try taking max at least once, call all your friends to be your pocket engys.
Well if you paid the 1000 dollars (which would translate to 1428 resources when compared to frag grenade dollars/resources) then it would be A-OK if your 150mm shell killed people from 5 feet away. But your tank costs around 315 dollars (grenade = 35 dollars for the military assuming the expensive prices. 50 resources = 35 dollars. 450 resources = 315), your ammo is free, your reload speed is off-the-charts because modern tanks are aghast at 12 rounds a minute (with 120mm rounds...) where even the most basic Vanguard will pump out 15 rounds per minute, your repairs+fuel+maintenance is free, your tank can be repaired within minutes right on the battlefield or build at most bases within seconds. Giving vehicles "real life" power would make them OP as hell, because these vehicles have 90% of the real life downsides cut away. So the only way you can have real life vehicle power, is if you pay for it. So go ahead, save up the resources. The cheapest modern MBT's cost 2,6 million and go up to 12 million from there. So for that cheap MBT you would be paying 3.714.285 resources (3,7 million), that's a wait time of 74.285 minutes or 51,59 full days of game time. And then you still have to buy the ammo at 1428+ resources per shot... Have fun! But now on to the balance discussion: You want to make tanks more damaging but also more expensive and harder to get. So imagine the normal way the game is played: Two sides clash in the vehicle battle, assuming there is a battle. One side wins (or one side is faster pulling Sundies) and puts their Sundies in place. Now imagine how this is for the defenders. They have next to no vehicles with only some large facilities allowing the defenders to pull vehicles during the attack, pulling vehicles is going to be tough because the enemies are at the gates and will murder you. Getting vehicles from somewhere else is already a chore: You already lost the vehicle battle once and pulling more leaves you with high chances of being outnumbered when you arrive and losing again. So the defenders are almost completely dependend on infantry to do the job. And what do you know? Someone just made these tanks more powerful, allowing just a few tanks to completely dominate the scene. In the old days we did have much larger AOE's, and even 2 HE Vanguards could dominate a single base, easily allowing the vehicle users to go up 10 to 1 against infantry so their own infantry barely had to do anything. The way to go would be to make vehicles even less expensive and easier to get. Does that mean that tanks need to be weaksauce? No! You can make them more powerful... As long as infantry gets more tools and weapons to deal with tanks as well. Infantry needs a basic upgrade to their lethality vs tanks anyway, but if you are going to do that why not pump up their lethality enough that tank users can get the lethality upgrade they want as well to balance it out? "but infantry AV is free!" That's why current free AV weapons remain at their current power (meaning those get indirectly nerfed when vehicles become cheaper and more powerful) and infantry will get utility-based AV weapons that do cost resources. And no, that doesn't mean that infantry will be carrying C4-strength ranged weapons. The longer the range the weaker the AV weapon, the shorter the range the more powerful. And yes, that's "infantry" in general, not just the HA. All infantry should have access to various AV weapons, as well as some class-specific one's. Note that not all the weapons have to be lethal. Special weapons to reduce vehicle effectiveness, such as blur generators that make it harder to track things from range (where vehicles thrive) or shield walls that protect against vehicle fire etc.
Your suggestion will not be popular. The last thing the majority want is stronger splash damage on vehicle weapons. The picture is a little outdated.
ok if a tank can oneshot infantry because it's a tank then it also shall be oneshooted by a rocketlauncher cause it is a rocketlauncher and .. you know what ? just let us oneshot eachother and play peek a boo who shoots and hits first .. that sounds like fun ...
Yes! Rocket to your tracks, no movement! Large caliber round vs your scopes, no vision! Big rocket against your weaker armor, no tank! Nanite deconstruction package ("C4") against your tank? Tank turned to dust! paid only 315 dollars for a 2,6+million tank? Don't expect it to function as a tank and be thankful the damn radio works!
I'll be honest, I'm a little worried about the PTS. Last time I checked, a direct AP shot to the chest won't kill a HA with max flak, and that has me worried.
Shoot him in the head? Or use an AI top gun? Run target over? Fire any top-gun at them? Use a more-AI focused main cannon? Max-flak isn't all that useful, outside of those expecting to be attacked by tanks & explosives more than ballistics. Like everything but a Lightning or Flash, has a weapon that can unload the kill shot. Sure, it's a bit ****** up, but hey it's one rare-target easily killed by AI rather than the AV focused weapon that didn't one-shot it for once.
C4, mines, rocketlaunchers, vehicles, many like to play heavy, you are just as likely to encounter explosives as gunfire in any decent fight. flak is just as useful as nano, pick the right armor slot for the right situation.
If you are concerned regarding overall vehicle balance please try out PTS and let us know how you feel those changes feel. We are definitely looking for more feedback on them.
Exactly. So why is AP the best gun for tanks? Want to kill a heavy using the proper defense? Use AI, or splash weaponry?
AP is the best if you want only direct fire with good damage vs tanks and have good aim, HE and HEAT are good only if you want some indirect fire, splash can be useful but it's not that great at getting indirect kills. that's why most good tankers use AP. HEAT and HE aren't useful enough compared to AP most of the time, the only difference is AP doesn't have splash, let's not forget that they are planning on reversing their velocity normalization of HE/HEAT/AP which will push people even more to picking one and sticking to it. rather then having to remember multiple drop profiles on top of more range compression focused on vehicles so infantry AV is more effective because vehicles have to get closer to do anything useful.
That was kinda the point. AP was the best weapon, against everything. Considering that if you lack AP, you are incredibly gimped against vehicles, and AP allows one-hit kills, people already used AP exclusively unless shelling a spawn room, choke point or similar. The range compression is odd, as is velocity really. But hey, infantry AV is low velocity, low damage as well. Either way, Vehicles have better weapons than AP for AI work. If the rare flak bugger pops up, at least now you have a reason to have an AI gun over an AV gun that does it all.
Having worked with autists and actually been taught how they work: Autists are truthful, have immense trouble lying, have powerful will to do the right thing even at their own expense and in general are better than the rest of the populace at analysing something. So if the devs did have autism, the game would start getting better balance patches and game design than if they didn't have it.
I think it is about game balance more than anything else. IRL you would not have every single soldier fresh out of basic training able to pull a tank, drive it and shoot the big gun. But you can do that every few minutes with the resources available in-game.
People that work with the challenged do not use disparaging identifier terms to punctuate their statements. When finding out that such drastic and totally unbelievable weapon performance changes are pending, it is not uncommon to express surprise via a violent reaction. Back on Topic: Credible weapon performance, and a true combined arms environment is not too much to ask for. Add content; not appeasement to the people that can't hack an asymmetrical gaming environments.
