[Suggestion] Coaxial Secondaries

I imagine this has been suggested before, and honestly, I don't understand why it isn't a thing.

Why don't MBTs and Lightnings have coaxial secondary weapon options? It would be balanced just fine. Players could choose between LMGs or scatterguns for anti-infantry use, HMGs for something harder-hitting, or even missile launchers for long range AT or AA power.

See the side of the vanguards turret? Those two slots? Those used to be HMGs.

NOT A CLUE WHY THEY REMOVED THEM, but I'd welcome a secondary for the turret so the MBT can be a bit more solo

is there not enough infantry farming already ?
why would you need a secondary for your tank, to farm even more ?
and don't give me that crap of C4 fairies, i can dodge and shoot them out of the air just fine

no please no secondary's for MBT's, we don't need more farmers and this is why SOE probably removed them before launching this game
and no it would not be balanced just fine, it would be MBT's farmerside

Lord oracle, please share the future with us, all is grim.

Now how about you explain how bad MBT farmers are, how dreadful they must be. Then I just pull up some stats on infantry v infantry farmers.

Before you doomsay some more, how would this idea make planetside 100% farmside, how many MBTs actually participate in base fights, how many can you actually say had HE and an AI topgun and were farming infantry? Or were they all AP tanks shooting bullets that went less than half the average muzzle velocity...of infantry weapons... Do you consider a tank shooting shells to the side of a base for hapless infantry that walk out to get shot, farming?

Also who said that it would only be infantry farming? The OP states that it could be specialized projectiles for anti tank use, they could be tow missles, gauss cannons, maybe even a laser, some needed depth to the tank game.

But no, you say it would cause a massive inbalance in all aspects of infantry play (which I fail to see why it would), so we get no new vehicle weapons, changes, armor, hell the last vehicle we got was centered around construction, aint that fun.

MBT gunners should get a Kobalt LMG and a Basilisk HMG to choose from. Pretty much two different secondary weapons, like so:



This tank has 4 total machineguns, two of which are controlled by the gunner. The Kobalt is for nailing infantry up-close, and the Basilisk would be to take down enemy infantry at long-range with sniper-like precision.

Also none of them should have bullet drop or significant recoil, being compensated for by the on-board ballistic computer.

Ok now that's alittle overboard. Just one second gun for the driver would be fair.
Also now that I think about it, the hmg would help the MBT be more in line with the lib considering that the lib has a tailgun to kill aircraft, allowing it to specialize in 3 different weapons, granted the tail would be the weakest of the 3 but so would the HMG on a tank.

Bah, you're no fun.

The more obvious route is to go the Battlefield route and let people choose between a Basilisk and a Kobalt.

Although rather than just taking your run-of-the-mill Basilisk and Kobalt, I've always advocated that coaxial MGs should have a lower damage tier in exchange for good accuracy and non-existent CoF bloom.


Good luck making it happen though, they clearly don't give a **** to ground vehicle players as they've clearly demonstrated throughout the game's existence.

Me and various other players have been asking for this constantly since the games inception.

As an infantry player, I'm totally fine with this added realism so long as you also include the other significant feature of real world tanks regarding guns: specifically, how many the driver uses.

i actually had to read your post twice, i was wondering if we where even talking about the same game
or there might be something wrong with you're monitor

in the game i play i see MBT's surrounding basses, shooting everyone coming out of the spawn
MBT's driving over almost impossible rocks to get in basses to farm infantry
and i never did see a MBT let a infantry player walk cause he could not harm the MBT at that moment
yes on occasion i see some tank fights but they prefer to get around the enemy's tanks and shoot at infantry

for the specialized projectiles, even if they are specialized they still will be used to farm infantry
and yes i say it would cause a massive imbalance
for the ANT, it's one big farming vehicle so don't say you are not getting new toy's to play with
but the ANT is not a MBT that you can shoot from harms way, so it's inferior in your mind

we all know these post are supported by vehicle players who like to farm
i felt it was time to speak up and tell you all, NO you can't have a over powered MBT
MBT's are fine like they are, just like most infantry is

from Lord oracle who plays all aspects of this game ( i really like this name)

You're telling me that you've never seen tanks run out of ammo or get obliterated by counterattacks from friendly tanks or aircraft? Also, if I ever see tanks "farming," they're sniping from a distance where coaxial secondaries would be horrendously inaccurate. I think we just need some longer-range launchers for Heavy Assault to deal with that.

I only play infantry and I don't go outdoors now unless I'm riding in someones vehicle unless I want to be killed by a ground vehicle or an air farmer (so, never). I've also learned not to stand near a window or door if it leads to outside the base or on the roof of a besieged spawn room due to incoming HE.

I've killed a few tanks as an LA but tank hunting is pretty dangerous and a waste of time if they've got the range on you and you have to cross any open ground to reach them. The AV mana turret outdoors is a great big, fat target for everything. So, on balance, and as pure infantry, I find vehicles pretty powerful enough and they generally have a top gun too don't they? We are talking about wanting 3 gunned vehicles now, yes?

yes i have seen this, i am only trying to say MBT's are fine and don't need a 3th weapon
MBT's are already good farming tools, no need to give them extra's
MBT's are at the right place now, no need for a buff or a nerf

The old excuse of 'If i can do it, it isn't a problem. And if it gets buffed, its guaranteed OP.' Think you hit a nerve with a sledgehammer OP.

But he has a point. It's almost ridiculously moot because how comical Planetside 2 tanks are.

DUST514 tanks. The world famous dual hardener blaster Magruder. Tanks got buffed because people thought they were 'underperforming', well they slightly screwed it up.

There was no BS about side or top or rear armor, maxed ranked armor armored the entirety, (and ovelall HP WITHOUT it equipped) of course the rear was the weakest but good luck hitting it when its main gun had the ROF of the Prowler on lockdown, two secondary gunners on swivels also with mini mega 50.cals, scanning capabilities of a continuous recon dart ul to about... 100mts i think.

Now the dual hardeners are like your Vanguard shield but throw in about 30 secs of that, soaks up about 60%+ damage except the rear which wasn't much, stack two, and you can play an entire match almost permanently hardened which means unless several people with AV coordinate plus a tank (did i mention AV got slightly nerfed) coordinated against ONE guy, he could farm all day. And since most teammates were NC on downers on a great day if a tank showed up match. Was. Over.

Did i mention that they were spammed so bad it almost rivals PS2 in spam capabilities? And no nanite cost so as long as you had enough in game money you could farm all day.

So forgive me while my two bricks of C4 can actually kill a tank while I'm used to see 4 tossed on the rear and its not even smoking. And he laughs at you for trying.

So... how much salt did i rake in?

it's not that i am a great tank player, i just have the right attachment on my prowler and some awareness of my area
but your wright, it's not cause i can everyone can
glad you're not a 3th gun supporter

Honestly, I would say to nerf their armor a bit and THEN add the 3rd gun.

If I'm going to use an MBT, I want it to actually play like an MBT, not an artillery piece.

In all of your posts you simply doomsay, "Tanks are literally everywhere! Climbing impossible angles and have all the farm tools!".
You do nothing to convince, it's literally all your opinion based on personal experience. If I played only on seabed listening post I'd probably have something negative to say about air, if I only played at aura mats, I'd probably hate tanks with HE, but I don't only play two bases.
I doubt tanks had any impact on bio fights, amp fights or even tech plant fights unless it came to defending the sundi or destroying the sundi.

So what, pray tell, are you doing that gets you shelled in nearly every fight? Because the last time I was killed as infantry by a tank was in an open field using an AV heavy after killing 2 harassers and 2 lightnings. By AP.
I'm primarily infantry, I dable in air, dable in tanks but dear god I have never been killed by a tank in such a manner that I was completely spawnlocked by them unless it was already a losing fight where infantry had it pinned.

You're thinking of a harasser then, tanks are kinda known for shelling things at range. What exactly would you define to be an MBT in your case?

That's good, you understand that being outside a base as infantry is bad if you're fighting tanks, however av turrets have a range of 500 meters, you can plink at a tank well out from infantry render range, AV nests work when you have 3-7 people focusing a vehicle at a time, when done right it's absolutely devastating. Also even big fat targets at 400 meters are hard to hit, if you're using a turret up close then you aren't going to get far.

All fairness, you're talking about a game in which tanks were buffed over all because they were underperforming, in literally every regard, this is talking about tanks that should have one side lmg to suppress infantry.
I mean I could talk about a game where infantry are buffed or changed regularly but the vehicles are so stagnant with fixes or changes that they feel like a footnote in a dictionary under the word: bad.

Til something happens, I'll go the less painful route and play infantry.

I'd view an MBT as a vehicle that can get relatively close to the action, providing multi-role support for an attacking team. A coaxial machine gun would be intended for self-defense against infantry. HE shells just don't cut it since infantry can just pop in and out of cover, avoiding them with ease. Their splash damage is good, but they're situational and very much focused on long range, open field support. The gunner (at least for me) primarily focuses on deterring aircraft or protecting the sides and rear of the tank depending on the armament.

If a vehicle player wanted something intended for long range vehicle combat, it would be better to add a new type of armored vehicle that can act as an artillery piece or tank destroyer. I've suggested something like this here.