Can we get a tank buff without sacrificing anything please?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by ColdSuit, Jul 19, 2015.

  1. ColonelChingles

    I ran the numbers once. If infantry frag grenades were as nerfed as tank HE shells, you would have to toss the frag grenade within a pencil-length of a person to wound/kill them.
    • Up x 1
  2. ColdSuit

    Really??? Wow, I'm impressed by this. This really drives the point home that tanks have been nerfed to the ground due to emphasis on Infantry. Seriously guys, we need to bring some sort of power back into the MBT. It's not fair that we suffer so infantry has their way.
    • Up x 2
  3. Atis

    Make it 751 and we have a deal.
    ********************************************


    On topic: I would be OK with stronger tanks if we had stronger bases, like, you know, actual multilayered fortresses. For now, 70% of them are cattle farms. Tank can sit at 200-300m and shell inside with little risk, often from 3-4 sides, only way to kill it is to accurately land enough damage to finish it off before it crawls under some rock.
    With open bases we simply dont need strong tanks, there is no role for them to play. Game is basically TDM, everything supposed to be constantly chewed, respawned and chewed again.
  4. OldMaster80

    Have you ever fought a subscriber? I did. I camped his Vanguard with my squad for more than 1 hour. Every time my squad managed to destroy his tank he was popping out if the vehicle bay in no more than 30 seconds. And each time, before to die, he farmed a lot of kills.

    When cooldown acquisition was there this was just not possible. In the best case you had to wait a few minutes before a new tank was available.

    Mbts and vehicles in general are a huge force multiplier in ps2: if you have them and your enemy doesn't then you have a big advantage. Making them tougher like they were in the beginning makes totally sense, but there must be a downside in vehicle usage and vehicle spam.

    Otherwise there would be just no reason not to spawn a tank / lib/ harasser whenever possible.
  5. Haquim


    Well.... the problem is that any multilayered fortress makes any kind of vehicle totally useless. So even if tanks had the firepower, shields and armor of a friggin star destroyer they would still be worthless.
    Since every single base on auraxis is apparently made of unobtanium reinforced adamantium that has been hardened in the core of a dying star.
    If we had something like destructible buildings that engineers can spend their nanites on to upgrade and repair it would be a different story.

    Also seriously, if tanks shell your base from 3-4 sides you are outnumbered and surrounded. If you still insist on dying inside that base instead of redeploying it is really not the tanks fault.
    • Up x 2
  6. BaronX13

    If you want tanks to be as strong as you are saying...then they need to be restricted in some way. It is...as simple...as that. Listen to the majority of infantry main players who are talking with you. We don't mind your tank being strong, we don't mind the tank having good weapons, we don't mind if you have coax kobalts, we don't flipping mind. I will spell it out...yet again...for those who who continue to ignore it.

    The only TWO THINGS that infantry really want against tanks (if you were buff them to the levels you are asking) is this.

    1) 2 C4 still destroys a tank (And yes, one brick doing ~55% percent damage is fine, as long as two will destroy the tank without dispute)
    2) If they are going to be that strong, there can't be as many of them on the field as there are now (fancy that).


    If you want one tank to need 6+ infantry opponents to destroy (on average), then there can ONLY BE 1/6 as many tanks AT MAX as there are infantry in the area. It would be silly to expect tanks to be that strong when almost an entire platoon can pull them at once.

    Also, just as you think it is ridiculous that a single infantry player or two can destroy your tank...what makes you believe that you should be able to take on a squad of infantry with just two people and 450 resources? I mean..seriously? Why do you think that two random players who just happen to be in a tank deserve that kind of higher killing potential? Especially considering the lack of a limiter to tanks right now. Are we really going to argue that resources mean anything at all? They're free, they tick in extremely quickly, and everyone gets the same amount. Don't pretend that 450 resources is alot, ESPECIALLY when the simple fact is that if you live 2 minutes in a tank, you will have enough to pull another one over and over and over. If you disregard useless resources, you're basically saying 2 players should be able to take on a whole squad.

    Also, for the "war is hectic, tanks should destroy infantry blah blah". This isn't a real war, it's a game, a game requires balance. Don't expect your tank to act like one in real life, I'm sorry. Also in war, not everyone and their mom can pull a tank like they can in this game, so there's that. Also in war, one tank costs a HUGE sum of money, not 450 resources that take 3 minutes to acquire no matter what bases you do or don't have. Also in a real war, tanks can't reload their ammo and repair all over the place like they can in this game. I mean we can go on, but if you seriously want to even try to compare MBTs in this game to tanks in real life then stop ignoring the rest of the story.

    And for anyone still being silly and saying stuff like, "infantry needs to learn that stuff can kill it hurr durr". Yeah, infantry know this, especially considering the fact that infantry can be damaged by ANY WEAPON, unlike those fancy tanks that can't be hurt by small arms. Also, tanks need to learn that infantry can kill them...SURPRISE. If infantry can get up into butt slapping range with C4 you're going to blow, sorry. And I agree LAs are a problem, but that sole problem isn't what is being discussed here so I'll leave that be. Infantry don't have some insane crusade against tankers, most of us like them, we really do and funnily enough we are ok with them killing us. What we are not ok with, is two players in an MBT thinking they deserve to take on 12 people simply because they pulled a measly 450 nanites.

    Last point, what do tankers really want? A health boost won't work because as much as it may encourage people to "push the frontline" there are 100 more just willing to shell a base at long range with a larger pool of health. If you want your HE and Heat brought in line, I agree with that (with some tweaks). I think HE should have a HUGE damage radius with a reasonably lower killing potential (suppression tool not killing tool). If you want coax kobalts I can agree with that as long as they can only point where the pilot himself has the reticule, your gunner shouldn't be able to have an AI gun and the other secondary. If the tank wants that little bit of AI power, then the pilot needs to pull his main canon from any other targets and aim both at the infantry target at the same time. If you want to push the frontline, then you need to figure out a way to help tanks do that which will scale well with 140 other tanks in the same area. A simple boost to survivability will end up OP when so many people can pull the things willy nilly.

    If you want tanks to be buffed significantly, then everyone shouldn't be able to pull them. (BTW, the devs have already stated they will NOT restrict who can pull tanks as it goes against what they want). Also if you just want tanks to be stronger without giving anything up simply because "it should be that way" then please, keep arguing. Your tears are delicious.
    • Up x 1
  7. OldMaster80

    I agree on everything.
    In other words vehicles (tank in particular) are so easy to get and replace without any real cost that it wouldn't make any sense to buff them further. This would basically kill the relevance of infantry on the battlefield. Vehicles are a force multiplier, maybe the biggest after overpopulation. If you make them stronger there must be another limitation of some kind. The idea everyone should be able to spawn a tank at any time is wrong.

    First they must change the resources system or make a step back on acquisition timers, THEN we can talk about buffs.
  8. FateJH

    Infantry are cheaper and much more deadly, yet we keep giving them more toys against everything they are already capable of damaging. (We have anyway. We're in something of a feature drought, right now, waiting on the September surprise.)
    How often do you expect tanks should be encountered anyways?

    Can I explore this scenario a bit more? when you say "6+ infantry opponents to destroy [a tank]," are you talking about at least 6 people firing a rocket each for instantaneous destruction, or 6 people each firing at most two or three rockets each? If the former, would scaling work too - saying that 3 people landing two rockets each? If people generally believe that the Heavy Assault class is as ubiquitous as they claim, why are there not be enough rockets flying around as it is?
    At the same time, would one-sixth the number of tanks requiring six times as many Heavy Assault rockets to kill still justify an argument for being weak against as much C4 as one player could wield? why does the C4 not scale as well?
    If you want to boil it down to one sentiment, all players just want to feel like they've pulled something that feels like it was worth its investment for the purposes it serves. They don't complain when they feel that way about it.
    At what point, do you give up more than you lose? can you enumerate a list of things--scratch that, name one of the things that the field of tanking in general has gained since the Beta Air adjustment back in early 2013? (A "list" would suggest a longer reply; one thing is enough.)
    • Up x 1
  9. Stormsinger

    Firstly, this is the state of tank main cannons.

    [IMG]

    You will notice that all three High Explosive MBT mains are at the bottom of the list. This is an example of what tankers are complaining about - that's an entire class of weapons that are utterly useless for their intended purpose. A tank, sacrificing the vast majority of it's AV strength for AI... still isn't permitted to do AI - that's the message this sends. Instead, tankers are forced to snipe from a distance - MBTs these days are played as though they were enormous, fat, armored snipers - this is the playstyle that the current "balance" has brought about.

    Great, that's fine with me - if an infantry unit can walk up to a tank and place C4 on it's side, that tank (in most situations) wasn't paying attention, and should explode. Magrider pilots are forced to have less situational awareness due to the lack of a mobile turret, but for the most part, 2C4 should blow a MBT without argument - 55% damage per brick, bypassing all damage mitigation would be fine with me.

    ... You just contradicted your own point, in the next sentence, no less. If two people can take on a full squad of people because they "happen to be in a tank" - that full squad can pull six tanks, and blow the single tank into a fine, squishy nanite paste. That's the theory. If someone comes at you with a tank, throw a tank at him. Armor counters armor very nicely, in most scenarios. When entire platoons of tanks are heading your way, you have two choices - thin the herd with max / infantry AV and pull armor, OR head to another base - if you are facing a platoon of armor, they won't have nanites to counter you for at least another 10 minutes or so, for the most part.

    A "Two minute tank" ... As a subscriber, I get 75 resources per minute, that's a MBT every 6 minutes. Under the previous resource system, the best tankers could make their tanks last for hours, and that has not changed. Playing cautiously, and from a distance, and experienced players don't loose their armor easily - all that the new resource system has changed, is that new players can actually pull tanks often enough to learn how to use them well. This has resulted in many bad tank pilots exploding everywhere, whereas good tankers are still lasting just as long. 450 resources isn't a lot, but the average lifespan for tankers in general is quite short, and MBT terminals aren't exactly in every base.

    Full suites of radar, full battlefield connectivity, sloped armor made of composites that laugh off AV shells from most angles, multiple coaxial machine guns, dozens of shells of a mix between HE, HEAT, and AV. Anti-projectile radar systems that launch interception vs incoming rockets / shells / dumbfire missiles. In some models, 150KPH+ speed and minimal radar cross sections, 5km+ range cannons. British tanks come with full tea sets - these are just a few examples of what they don't mind others knowing, who knows what capabilities they haven't released to the public. I'd take this even if I could only pull one per 24 hours, you could obliterate entire platoons. No one wants this. Except the tea sets, I wouldnt mind that cert option.

    Shelling bases from 100 meters is the playstyle brought about by all the tank nerfs. When a tank can't survive within 100 meters of infantry - the tank retreats past 100 meters, and uses their remaining tools. The state of armor has brought about the playstyle, and even a major change now wouldn't do all that much to change it. Only changes + time will do that.

    I can't speak for everyone, but as someone who every much enjoys using tanks...

    Fix HE shells - you can see from the image I posted, that AI main cannons are broken and useless right now. Projectile velocity is slow, splash is nearly non existent. Without OHK via splash damage, or some other effective AI capability, AV is simply better in all respects.

    Fix ES secondary AI - Canister is finally in a good place, Marauder isn't great, and PPA is useless. No one wants a return to the mega spam of PPA 1.0, but as it stands, the Kobalt is simply superior in every possible way. Clip size is huge, reserve ammo is massive, and it's accurate enough to headshot at 100m. Something comparable for short to midrange would be nice, or at least something that works.

    In terms of survivability - the ability to survive even one more rocket. Merging all directional armor into one cert line would be quite nice, as it might actually be preferable to NAR. Having C4 do 55% damage would be a welcome change - as it stands, it does 80%+ (I don't have the specific number in front of me, but it's around there. Right now, one C4 + a rocket is enough to blow a tank.)

    Coaxial Kobalts - remove HE shells for all I care, turn them into something entirely different, or refund certs - with a viable AI option built into tanks, HE isn't necessary, and it would remove the firing-through-windows-to-farm-via-splash farm that people were doing with them.

    Base design could incorporate a few simple changes to make them less splash-damage friendly. Simply place amp-station anti-vehicle shields in every window (Or a new version of them, which will only restrict vehicle-fired things). Small arms fire will still pass through, and heavy machine gun / tank shells will not - this won't interfere with small arms, but it will prevent tank-induced magical damage from nowhere from interrupting fights within.

    Lastly, I feel this deserves another comment.

    Two players in an MBT attacking a squad of 12 people should invite the wrath of 6 MBTs. The infantry aren't helpless, as you pointed out many times, anyone can pull a tank, and resources are cheap. Rockets are free to fire, AV turrets for engies exist (You can usually place one and get a shot off before the tanker notices, with multiple targets around, and that one round hurts ) and every class but one can carry C4. Given all the possible counters that Infantry have vs armor, tanks should really have a higher potential for AI firepower then they have now.
    • Up x 1
  10. AlterEgo

    So... let me put my following statement this way:
    I like war. Not the idea of killing people, but men fighting for their country. Being the kid that played CoD and MoH a lot, I just loved how men fought and died alongside each other.

    But what do vehicles do?
    Vehicles break through the enemy lines. Vehicles protect the people within them (to a certain extent). Vehicles are simply... dishonorable. Vehicles do not die alongside each other, they explode beside each other. Vehicles act as a coffin for the crew when you hit a mine or take a good bit of damage. Vehicles are the bane of any infantry fight...
    And I would like that to change. Why not? Rebuff splash and damage, man. I miss being able to use HEAT, when it was fair:( And with the upcoming resource system (which I still have no idea what it will do, only a slight glimpse), a lot of people say that fights will be more strategic, and vehicles may not be as spammy as they are now. The latter phrase makes it valid to give vehicles a fair chunk of power back. Let's try to undo the nerfs that people have complained about that pretty much killed diversity in this game.
  11. Jubikus

    Yeah but if you buff the tank then the current tactic becomes that much better right? i believe the reason tanks are the way they currently are is force multipliers if you have 3 tankers around a base they will occupy much more than 3 people trying to deal with them while the rest of your team takes this advantage to the objective the same goes for air. Tanks arnt the easiest thing to take out light assaults can gib them with C4 but this requires them to get there with it and anyone who gets snuck up on deserves to die it something that can be avoided. Rockets work decently in groups but if you have 3+ people trying to counter 1 person then by all means they should win.

    In the end im against buffing tanks but this can be just because of my own personal experience whenever i pull my lightning i die to tankbuster or MBT not some dumbo with a rocket launcher or some light assualt with C4 i just move out the way. Another thing might be because i play TR and well we dont exactly wreck tanks....#striker #fractures
  12. Jubikus


    Lets see here bottom of the list hmm not pulled nearly as often low vehicle kills per hour much less play time however i dont see how its not doing its job the HE cannons have basically double the KPH as the AP cannons. HE is probably pulled less because your more likely to to simply die to enemy tanks if your not running AP you can shoot down low flying aircraft with AP and you can still 1 shot infantry if your a good shot with AP i dont think HE sucks at its job i think AP is just kind of a jack of all trades master of one.

    I wouldnt mind seeing tanks get a buff against tank busters tho they just die so fast.
    • Up x 1
  13. Beerbeerbeer

    One aspect that I've noticed recently compared to the early over-powered tank days is that I see a wealth of infantry moving about, even running from base-to-base. It's nice. It's refreshing.

    If tanks are buffed again, you can kiss that goodbye.

    It should come as no surprise that engineer was my most played class prior to my return as I got fed up trying to move outside on foot. Now I can actually play the classes I want to play.

    I honestly believe that the early vehicle spam was a contributing impediment to greater game participation by the average rank-and-file FPS player. They saw the game, downloaded it, installed it, grabbed their guns, spawned, left spawn and instantly died to an invisible tank 100 yards away, repeated this a few more times and said, screw this, and never returned.

    It was stupid easy farming infantry and required no skill or effort other than finding a vehicle terminal and I'll abuse that lame mechanic again if presented with the opportunity.
    • Up x 1
  14. Stormsinger


    The TR has a lethal main MBT cannon. When armor needs to explode, the NC can pull Maxes or MBTs, the VS pull Maxes, and the TR pulls Prowlers (And more recently, Vulcan harassers.) The Prowler is by far the best single AV platform in the entire game. As it happens, it's also the best at AI due to rapid reload speed, and high shell velocity (especially when Anchored)

    TR maxes don't wreck tanks, but prowlers wreck everything far better then anyone else. Just something to keep in mind when complaining.

    [IMG]
  15. WTSherman

    Honestly, one MBT buff that I think would be nice is if we made ES abilities get their own slot. Then take your empire's iconic ability, while still having smoke or fire suppression.

    Just rebind the Vanguard shield to activate with B and there won't even be a control conflict.
    • Up x 1
  16. Stormsinger

    This is something I have wanted for a long, long time. As the semi-recent bug with Vanguards demonstrated, NC MBTs rather suck without their shields, and Magriders are agonizingly slow without Magburn, having your empire's ES ability by default would be quite a welcome change. It might actually lead to more varied loadouts, too.
  17. FateJH

    Is that good or bad? the developers have constantly been accused on playing down to Call of Duty types while the players seem to have desired being something other than a rank-and-file FPS player's type of game. Unless you are willing to make the argument that we can "out-Call of Duty" Call of Duty.
    That said, we've also done a poor job at retaining players who came from PlanetSide Classic and should have been used to uncomfortable conditions like this as well. And, even after having reduced those problems, we've still done poorly from a population perspective.
    According to some opponents of stronger tanks, nothing has changed, so you should have no barriers of entry anyway.
  18. Jubikus

    Im well aware of our best AV the problem comes in that Prowlers arnt something you can just conjure up very quickly sometimes the nearest place you can get one is the warp gate then you got to drive over to the battle thats why infintry need AV without it defending bases well would be what it used to be something people didn't bother with.
    Then again i believe a tanks roll is to protect the sundy and give what cover it can. however i dont use vehicles all that often and my opinion means very little im just part of the majority of people that play this game as infantry.(we all know that catering to the majority of your audience is bad business right)
  19. Stormsinger


    Yep! That's it's primary shortcoming, although it's typically only an issue on Esamir (One centrally located tech plant) This is why Strikers need to be fixed, as Harasser / Vulcan AV isn't always a viable option. This is, however, a thread mostly pertaining to tanks, and although it's difficult to discuss a system designed around asymmetrical balance without bringing other things into it... I am attempting to stay mostly on topic. The TR's primary strength is the Prowler, thus the TR specifically is weaker in scenarios where they don't have access to their MBT.

    Now that I think of it from that perspective, this could be (one of the reasons) why Vanu frequently do fine without access to Magriders - as the worst performing MBT, the VS rely on having access to MBTs the least.

    Just a few thoughts.
  20. WTSherman

    For additional variety in loadouts it would also be cool if we got alternate ES abilities to put in that slot. Something that still follows the same faction philosophy, but allows the tank to do something different. Keep in mind these aren't replacements, these are alternatives meant to provide different playstyle options. The original abilities will still exist.

    For example:
    TR:
    Overload: Primary and secondary weapons get 15-30% faster reload/rate of fire for 8 seconds with a 60 second cooldown. This is a CQC alternative to lockdown, that provides smaller and more limited benefits in exchange for the ability to use on the move.

    NC:
    Palisade Defense System (PDS or Palisade): The Vanguard projects a forward-facing half-shell shield that extends a few meters above and to the sides of the tank. The shield can be toggled with no cooldown, but has a limited HP pool (3,000-6,000 ish, with front armor resistances?) that only regenerates while the shield is down. Activating the Palisade disables the main gun or locks the tank in place (but not both, I just don't know which is more appropriate). Allies can shoot through the shield. This is a defensive alternative to the Vanguard shield, that allows the Vanguard to protect its allies in exchange for losing some offensive capability (either firepower or mobility, I just don't know which one it should be).

    VS:
    Magjump: A Magburner that primarily thrusts vertically. I know this one doesn't get nearly as much explanation as the others, but it doesn't require one. Allows the Magrider to poptart.

    Trust me, a skilled poptart is absolutely infuriating in a game with low shell velocities.
    • Up x 1