Can we get a tank buff without sacrificing anything please?

I think this was mostly due to the income structure of the game.

If you limit people to certain specializations, then they may only purchase cosmetics for those specializations. If I never play in a Vanguard because I am specialized in something else, why would I buy cosmetics or weapons for it?

One of the downsides of a F2P model.

Is it? It seems like the goal is to improve infantry combat vs vehicles. I have yet to see any improvements to the tank game since I started playing, but I've seen nerfs to tanks and buffs to infantry AV.

I just got back into this game and even I find it easy to be good with tanks. It's all about position and a good team. If you are alone, then make sure you are in a position where it's easy to kill any infy trying to kill you. Or make sure your team has your back. You can't just be the "john Rambo" of tanks. Rely on teamwork and no problems should show up

What's your in-game character name, m8?

Happens all the time, 2 squads flip CC and tank zerg scorch ground around to keep defenders in spawnroom. if tanks were very rigid, such tactics would be even more viable, because clearing them during capture time would be nearly impossible.

Tanks need to be tanks.

Sunderes are more like tanks than actual tanks, which is redicolous.

Sunderers need a big resistances nerf - after all they are APC, they carry infantry and serve as command posts - they shouldn't have more armor than a MBT, and they shouldn't eat C4 for breakfest

Tanks need a boost.

First of all, sorry for the late reply.

Ok, so expand on my "6 Infantry vs One MBT Scenerio", we'll call it. When I say it would require 6 infantry to destroy one MBT [in that situation], I can't specifically explain ALL the possibilities as it would be too much on an already long post. What I mean is that on average it would take 6 infantrymen with a concentrated effort to destroy said enemy MBT. That means, they must FOCUS on the MBT, it cannot be an afterthought or opportunity kill. This could mean it takes 5 players harassing the MBT while one C4s it, concentrated fire from 6 Heavy Assaults, 6 engineer AV turrets, etc. What I meant was, if on AVERAGE it takes ABOUT 6 infantrymen to destroy the MBT (aka they must put their effort/resources into dealing with it, and are therefore taken "out of play" of the rest of the fight), then MBTs must be restricted in a way that allows for the player numbers/resources to "even out" if the populations are even. In a very simple way we could think of it as math. If one MBT=6, then MBTs>Infantry/6. Or, if one MBT equals six infantry, then the amount of MBTs on the field must not exceed MAX amount of infantry divided by 6. (And of course you can just tweak the equation should allies pull vehicles, as long as you use infantry as the smallest unit of measurement.) Obviously that is a very low level way of thinking about it, but the general idea is there.

As for what tankers really want. I totally agree. Tanks should feel like a tank, tough, slow, big boom, etc. I'm with you 100%. Like I stated, there needs to be some restriction for this to happen though, otherwise there will be too large an imbalance of power versus infantry. As infantry is and will always be the majority of the game, we must just take for granted that they MUST be balanced against infantry otherwise it will never happen. Trying to push against that truth will just result in frustration, so instead work with it I guess.

As for the last point, about what was lost after a patch and all that. First of all, I don't believe the patch was there to "make tankers lose" anything. I believe the change was to "bring tanks inline with something". I'm not saying they did a good or bad job, but to think they did it with malicious intent will just make both sides upsets. They messed up, but the tank situation was messed up the second they didn't have players specialize. That's why tanks and aircraft are underpowered for where they SHOULD be, even if aircraft are stronger than tanks or vice versa (I'm trying to be neutral here). I wouldn't mind tanks and aircraft being stronger as long as infantry have some way to "make them go away" and the vehicles can't be spammed. Also, by "make them go away" I don't mean destroy the enemy vehicle, I mean something that lets a handful of organized players disrupt the vehicle. Maybe actual effective smokescreens so infantry can "get by" a tank even if they can't destroy it, or they can take out the tracks which immobilizes the tank for a few seconds, etc. Basically tools to "work around" the tank but not be able to destroy it (cept for C4). Until restrictions on vehicle and aircraft numbers are in place though, it will never work.

I'm trying to be neutral and support tankers best I can without taking sides, so if you want to continue the conversation I'll be more quick to reply next time.

Can we get a tank buff without sacrificing anything please?


Dont be silly, this is forumside, where OP weapons 'need to be given something to make up for the nerf'

As I said to Fate, I apologize for the late reply.

First, for the tank main canons. I totally agree they are all under-powered for what they are. I also agree it is silly watching something take a tank round to the face and survive. That being said, until tanks numbers are restricted they must be kept at such a laughable state otherwise they would be abused. You know this, I know this. There are always a**hats who want to go overboard on OP things. If the tank canons were actually "good", they would be overused and probably nerfed even harder in the future. We'd see 40 prowlers outside of a base just shelling while 12 infantry inside try to slug it out (this goes for all tanks, mag and vanny included). It's happened before, it will happen again. This is why I stress so heavily that players should have to specialize into certain things. I have no problem with a tank being strong, I DO have a problem with tanks being stronger and a whole platoon of them comes over the hill. And yes they cost resources, but let us be serious please, resources don't mean anything, at least not yet.

I'm glad we agree on C4.

For the "6 Infantry vs One MBT Scenerio". First of all, I apologize but I disagree that Nanites will really "take time" to get back. I strongly believe they are too easy to get, and refill too quickly. Second, and this is important. You stated that the infantry can just pull more tanks to deal with the enemy tank. This...is difficult. On one hand, yes it makes sense. On the other, it is not always feasible. Those 6 infantry might not be able to fall back and pull their own MBTs effectively. Either A, it would be too far back to pull said vehicles and be effective in the current engagment (which yes I realize they would fight at the next base in the link, but with how bases are laid out...it might be too big a strategic loss), or B they just might not be good "tankers" (yes I understand the first enemy MBT might not be skilled either, but you get my drift). Those are the two main points, but there are more that can be come up with. Just as the answer to max spam shouldn't be "pull more maxes", the answer to tanks shouldn't be "pull more tanks". I firmly believe that armor should be the main deterrent to armor BUT, if need be, infantry that are reasonably more numerous or skilled should be able to deter a tank as well (just as they should maxes). A main deterrent shouldn't mean the only deterrent. Right now infantry deal with tanks fine, but if changes were to happen to armor, they must keep in mind that in some reasonable way infantry need to be able to deal with those tanks. Heck, this isn't even bringing into the possibility that someone might not have a tech plant. You can't pull a "counter" MBT, if you don't have a techplant.

To expand on that scenerio I feel it is important to share my point on something. I don't believe ANYONE should be forced to do something they do not want. Tankers (or any vehicle drivers) should NEVER have to play infantry if they do not want, nor should they have to change to infantry to be effective in their role. Infantry should NEVER have to change to a vehicle if they do not want, nor should they have to change to a vehicle to be effective in their role (for example pulling an MBT to deal with an MBT). Pilots should NEVER have to change to something they do not want, nor should they have to play anything else to be effective in their role. This should ALWAYS be true. One could argue "but Baron, you just said you want specialization and restrictions on vehicle numbers and such". Giving players the CHOICE into what they specialize in when they make their character doesn't mean they would be forced into doing something they did not want to do as they chose it. In a perfect world, you chose to be a tanker, then you should excel in what a tank does. You chose to be infantry, you excel in what infantry does. And in a perfect world, balance would be based around those facts. And if people had to chose between said specializations, there would be less MBTs, not because they aren't strong, but because they would then have to give up strong aircraft or infantry abilities.

For example let us say MBTs get a buff because they are specialized. They tank alot of hits, they have strong canons, they are mean. As their intended role, they will rule open plains and be the main counter to enemy tanks, and "simple" infantry fire will not be a threat, more just a minor annoyance as they do their duty and even blow the hell out of any "simple infantry" that try to impede them. On the other side though, there are players who specialized in Infantry combat. They have tools to deal with tanks, for example heavy assaults with rocket launchers, C4, smoke grenades to hide them from the tank, etc etc. Hell even maxes would be restricted hopefullly. So when this specialized tank meets regular infantry, he crushes them, but when he faces some specialized infantry, they pose a threat. This would even mean less heavy assaults as they can only be pulled by "specialized infantry". So while they still may be strong, the buffs to the tank plus the lower number of threats would do wonders. The important things to get right then, would be better base design to restrict tanks in how they deal with bases (which is doable without flipping walls), and to still allow tankers/aircraft pilots to use "lesser infantry" like maybe only engineers. While those pilots/drivers may never use those lesser infantry, if they do, it will help add to the "lesser infantry" pool MBT's can stomp on. Otherwise, the MBT will feel EVERY infantry they face is specialized infantry....if that makes sense.

As for the resource cost point. I only usually argue resource costs with the generalization that the person piloting a vehicle or using the disposable knows what they are doing. Any new player could burn through resources, that doesn't prove anything to us nor help us balance. Just cause a newbie blows up a vehicle or wastes 4 c4 easily doesn't help us balance at the levels where it is most important, which I believe is "medium skill" gameplay and up. As for the other points there, if specializations are a thing, then tankers would be able to pull a tank from any terminal, newer tankers would have more benefits and a beefier tank to learn to use to hopefully increase their lifespan, and the resource cost wouldn't be as heavy because they specialized in it (and they shouldn't have to play anything else if they don't want to). So I think, it would kind of be solved.

Perhaps all that is a bit too much, but again, I believe in buffed tanks as long as they are restricted. So while one super tank every 24 hours is a little bit much. I don't mind enjoyable tanks (for tankers) with specialization or restrictions set so they aren't spammed and only those who chose that path get to use them. We are kinda parallel in our reasoning here. Perhaps though I was a bit jaded with just hearing about the "its realistic though!" argument all the time. They need to learn this is a game, some things just CAN'T be realistic, it doesn't work.

Again with this next "what tankers want" post, I agree with it all, as long as tanks are restricted. As it stands now, if a platoon (or even just a squad and a half) pulled tanks that were stronger, it would be a balance of power problem. I think that can be easily seen. Not every player should have the ability to pull such a strong force multiplier at all times whenever they want unless they have specialized into it and gave up something else.

Last point, yes currently tanks have NUMEROUS amounts of threats. The reason for this, is because all it takes is a good platoon leader saying "everyone pull tanks" and boom, NUMEROUS amounts of tanks. And even if tanks were buffed, then that would also being giving a buff to the "counter tanks" that would be pulled so it wouldn't affect tank vs tank combat as much as it would tank vs infantry. We must realize, accept, and understand that infantry are the "default" unit in the game. So understandably DBG has made them able to deal with all threats, and all numbers of threats. They want to make sure that if ONLY infantry were available (for some silly reason), that ONLY infantry has a way to counter vehicle spam (or just vehicles in general). I agree with this only because...well...infantry are the default unit. And let's be serious, other than C4 which got lucky, it takes more than one infantryman to destroy a tank (you know...unless the tanker is really bad, but I hate calling anyone bad you know?). That being said, if people were to be restricted and have specializations, then there would be no "default" unit. Tankers wouldn't have to worry so much about being stuck on the ground if they did lose their tank, same as pilots. Those who specialized as infantry (and therefore could not pull a tank or aircraft to counter) would have their own set of deterrence tools, which would not be because infantry wouldn't be the "default" unit anymore. I mean I could go on, but I think you see where I'm going with this.

All in all, I'm not arguing so much that tanks are weak right now. I'm arguing that they MUST be weak otherwise they will be spammed, overused, abused, and probably soon after nerfed yet again. Also, arguing against infantry (which is the current default unit in the game) will never end in your victory simply because...they are the majority. It might suck, but better to work with reality than continuing to be angry. If tanks were lower in number/restricted and specializations were put into the game. It would help with spam, would help with progression in a character, it would help with being known for doing what you do well, and ultimately end in better and easier balance for everyone. At least...in my opinion.

If that came out confusing or unclear I apologize, feel free to message back and I'll reply much more quickly next time. Thank you.