Either that or buff the main guns of mbts. If it hits right between your feet. You should die unless flack jacket. Just. Make the shells on par with grenades. Just tired of having to take a frustrating amount of time attempting to hit those speedymcbullet dodge ninjas directly at dangerously close distances. That is all. Sincerely: rando person from ps4 crowd.
I have thought that either coax or hull mounted MGs would be good, but there would then be a need for balance. Some other games with tanks have these, and they are useful for lining up a shot, as the bullets from the MG intentionally have the same trajectory as the main cannon. This would not be as useful in PS2 however, as the tanks here have much faster rates of fire, and lower damage per shot, so you can use your main cannon to line up your main cannon. Just floating the idea, what would folks think of tanks receiving a slow down to their reload, but a matching increase to the yield of their munitions?
How about a coaxial machine gun and 3 on the roof? Or 2 coaxial machine guns, plus one on the roof and one on the hull? Or 3 coaxial machine guns, one roof mounted machine gun, 2 hull mounted machine guns and 2 backward facing machine guns on the turret?
In real life you would be right, but in real life a tank shell itself is at minimum 30x more expensive than a fragmentation grenade, and then we are talking about the cheapest training shells not actual HE/HEAT/AP shells. This is PS2, where one full MBT with all it's shells costs just 9 grenades. You wouldn't be able to buy a working engine for a Flash for that money in real life. Giving tanks the ability to OHK infantry just with a near-miss is not good for the gameplay. It just isn't. A Co-axial gun is good, assuming that infantry also get buffed to deal with vehicles in turn. Co-axials could easily be fired with the grenade or melee button which is currently inactive on tanks. I would even give players the option to get a top-mounted gun instead of a co-axial gun. This top-mounted gun can be switched to just like the ESF can switch it's guns. Such a top-mounted gun would be used for one of two purposes: Either to add a higher elevation range to deal with infantry on more ranges or a low-level G2A gun. Best for balance would be a specialized auto-canon with low ammo per magazine, but decent damage to infantry and aircraft. It would be especially nice if such a weapon would also create a small concussion effect on aircraft it hits, making it harder to strafe the tank and more dangerous to do dives close to the ground.
What if instead of balancing this by giving infantry more AV, increase the nanite cost of the tank to balance it? More juice for more cost? I do think in general that it's just not as big a deal as it should be when tanks show up.
That would be worse actually. Imagine losing the vehicle battle. Your team now has less nanites and even less chance of building a vehicle force to fight off the enemy vehicles. And the system is already designed to favor the attacker vehicles to start with due to how vehicle pads are designed! So rather than make vehicle players pay for more juice you are actually rewarding them by reducing the thing that kills vehicles the most: other vehicles. We've actually seen this already early in the game where vehicles were more expensive and timers were attached to vehicles so you couldnt pull more quickly if you died trying to beat the attacker horde. Making the nanites come quicker and removing those timers greatly reduced the attacker advantage overnight. I would argue that vehicles need to be cheaper. In fact vanilla vehicles should be completely free. Players should never be limited in their playstyle in PS2, its not designed for it. In return infantry need to get a lot more tools both lethal and non-lethal to deal with vehicles. This would be especially good if infantry have access to things vehicles do not and vice versa so they can actually support one another in combined arms rather than the segregated arms the game is currently set up for.
@JustGotSuspended I have to give that idea a nope. The deci is free, so giving it 1HK on a 450 nanite asset would be utterly broken. I do think rockets need to be scarier. I was upset however many years ago when they changed rocket launchers to rapid fire tickle guns. They were better before with higher yield and slower reload. It was actually a decision to fire it. I thought the Phoenix was particularly hard hit by that, given the amount of time it takes to guide the rocket to the target, only to score lack luster damage. I haven't played my NC in over a year now, but that launcher is only good for a free scout before I leave the spawn room.
Im down to make all of the MBT cannons kill infantry in 1 hit if you are OK with making 1 c4 kill a tank or 2 heavy rockets kill a tank. Wanna trade?
