Debate : AI capability of tanks (coax and AV top gun removal ?)

Do you think tanks need to see their firepower improved against infantry either by giving them a coax-gun or by removing the choice to equip AV weapons top guns so you can only take AI topgun ?

The latter allow people to choose a AI topgun without being at a disadvantage against other tank since they can't equip AV topgun either and it will bring the AV capability of the lightning closer to the MBT.
Of course, if needed, tank primary canon could see its damage buffed against vehicles to compensate for the loss of the AV topgun.

I think we need to inch towards our old top guns. Where everything had its specialty, but it could work in a pinch no matter what fight you ran in to.

Unless it was a Kobalt.

Coax Guns would only be possible if infantry get better weapons simultaneously.

I think that a change to the mentality of vehicular AI weapons could already have great results.
Currently AI weapons on vehicles are basically "give it an AOE, if it already has an AOE, make it bigger". Introducing an autocannon like a Viper/Saron/Enforcer but focussing it on accuracy, muzzle velocity, high elevation range and a small/medium magazine size. It could immediately double as a light anti-Harasser weapon or light AA weapon.

I think small arms and the Kobalt should have an extremely limited ability to damage armor as well. If anything, just to give people more to shoot at.

Yes, definitely, but at the same time I'd like to see infantry get better and more fun to use AV options. Over time, both sides have been gimped heavily, especially vehicles, making the game overall less fun to play. Imo ofc, I assume most still playing this game disagree.

Probably too late to make changes on that scale though. They already lost the metric crapton of players that would prefer something like that years ago now and the ones left are in most cases only interested in infantry. So, they wouldn't want to see changes like that and would just leave.

How do you implement the coax on the mag with its forward facing driver controlled gun without it being completely gimped by the mags slow turn speed?

I don't really think tanks need any more help with AI given their nigh inability to not OHK infantry.

But moreso, I don't think it would be a good idea to take away AV topguns. If two players in one tank are shooting one enemy in another tank they ought to have the advantage. If they needed less AI capabilities they could go the way of the at one point Halberd, though I'm sure that'd go over well.

ESAI guns all got light AV damage boosts from the CAI and in the case of the Canister at least are generally worse off for it. Not good at AV or AI now, thanks Obama.

Magrider can turn faster than infantry can run so I'm not sure exactly where the problem is.

As it stands, no I don't think coaxial guns are need. I think tanks have decent enough AI capabilities as is. As long as the tanker in question is a good enough shot, and know what they are doing, they can defend themselves pretty well against infantry.

I especially disagree with removing AV top guns, cause in my book at least, it then makes the gunner seat feel much less important in tank vs tank combat.

Without AV top guns, I feel like, as a secondary gunner, I would be using the tank as a taxi before deploying my own better form of AV weaponry, or just lazily repairing the tank mid battle. And that's not what a tank should feel like when your the secondary gunner. It should feel like your a crucial part of the tanks total offensive power at basically any moment.

I think this is the right idea. If nothing else, it might help relieve the problem of every tank using either a halberd, or one of two of their three faction weapons. I mean, when was the last time you saw a magrider with a proton, a vanguard with an enforcer, or a prowler with the marauder?

It has more to do with its hull rotation speed being slower then a tanks turret traverse speed, putting it at a disadvantage as a result. And at extremely close range, it is in theory possible to out run the guns traverse.

Hmm. Makes sense I guess, but doesn't really matter against other tanks. Magrider has the terrain advantage too, so I'd be dubious of removing any limitations.

At extremely close range I'd reckon so, but a Magrider can just driver over any infantry without issue at that range. Would be better than a coaxial too.

I would say the Magrider would have a slightly larger problem hitting infantry with it's Coax, but infantry also have a larger problem hitting the Magrider back compared to the other two tanks.

Seems pretty balanced to me. And you can always change the damage per bullet or damage falloff to compensate if it's OP or not.

If absolutely necessary you can always make the Coax a second top-mounted turret the driver can switch too. As long as you are switched to it you use camera-steering for the Magrider (so you point the Camera without limitations and the Magrider turns to the spot you are looking at, you can already do this with the Lightning/Prowler/Vanguard in 3rd Person mode and the turret).

I think real 50 cals shoot a lot faster and have bigger belt fed magazines. These Sci-Fi people are pretty low tech for being so technologically superior that they fight over empty planets for fun.

They're also more accurate than many sniper rifles. They're effective against point targets out to 1,500 meters, compared to 308 bolt guns at 800m and M16s at 500m, according to the Marines anyway.

But, gameplay > realism. I think the Basilisk is in a decent place right now. I think it could use better accuracy, maybe at the expense of recoil. Something besides easily holding the crosshair right on target and praying to RNGejus.

mbt's have the option for kobalt and heat ... can't be more AI than that ...
i don't see the lightning requiring further AI options either
nor do i see the need for maincannons getting coaxial machineguns ... this game imo DOES need some hard RPS otherwise it'll go too much into the direction of a shooting gallery against infantry ...

Also keep in mind that you pay about 200 dollars or more for a single box of. 50cal ammo. Comparing PS2 tanks to the cost of an in-game frag grenade the PS2 tank would cost about 300 dollars, require no upkeep for maintenance or fuel, cant have parts disabled by enemy fire, can be repaired on the field in minutes for free while jury-rigging a broken track already takes half an hour to half a day depending on severity and its ammo is all completely free and easily replenished without any vulnerabilities during rearmament.

I say that PS2 vehicles have gotten the long clean end of the stick and infantry got the short sticky end.

How you got yo a box of bullets in dollers to a tank to a grenade is beyond me.

But anyway, if we're talking free infantry vs nanite-based tanks, then I'd argue infantry have it made. If we're talking 75 nanitrs for a grenade vs 450 for a tank, then you have a point.

We both point out nanite-based AV as a way to balance things. And sure enough, C4 is what infantry have gravitated towards. It's risky, and expensive, but the cost makes it balanced. I really think a nanite-based launcher is the answer. "But wasted nanies on missed shots or surviving tanks"..... Yeah, but that's no different than C4, and infantry eat that up.

Looking at this site: https://www.freedommunitions.com/ammunition/rifle/50-bmg.html
2,5 dollars per low-quality .50 BMG round so 250 dollars for a whole box.

A real-life grenade is 35 dollars (although I just looked again and found costs of around 4 dollars, I'll keep it at 35 because it's more favorable for the tank).
A real-life grenade and in-game grenade are far closer together, so we assume they are one and the same.
A 35 dollar grenade costs 50 resources.
450 resources gets you a tank, which is 9x as expensive as a frag grenade.
9*35=315 dollars (cheaper grenade would mean cheaper tank).

So a PS2 tank is only 1/3rd more costly than a box of real-life 100 .50 BMG rounds.

If you wanted it the other way, a modern MBT costs 2 million and up. A frag grenade of 1/9th the cost would mean you pay 222.222 (two hundred twentytwo thousand and twenty two) dollars for a single frag grenade. In real-life terms, you would buy 1143 kilo's worth of explosives inside a frag grenade (assuming the 35 dollar grenade, cheaper grenades would mean higher yield). That would give frag grenades enough firepower to rip tanks apart.

Nah, tanks get much more freebees thrown at them compared to infantry. The fact that infantry are costless afterwards and tanks barely cost anything does not mean you can do the "nargh they are infinitely less expensive!" mathematics. Especially since 50 resources = 1 minute and respawning costs 10 seconds+time to return to the battlefield and the average lifespan is around 2 minutes and then people get into a fight and one dies... So do the math! Infantry quickly get just as expensive if not more so than tanks.

Yes! Yes absolutely. Missed shots costing nanites would be a reason to keep the weapons cost lower and try to make sure that on average you get a kill after you spend about equal resources (or the tank kills you).
Alternatives is to make some AV weapons similar to a MAX suit: It's with you for the ride, but you die you lose it even if you didn't use it.

While this sort of system would be better than what we have now, in my opinion, it'd be much worse than an upfront nanite cost as we have now with C4 & tank mines and such.

While I see where you're coming from with per-life AV weapons they become much like AA where they are forcefully reactionary. If a player has to spawn planning to use one they or others have already been victim to something which they didn't have the equipment needed to defend themselves.

Even if the upfront cost would be higher the practicality and usefulness would more than make up for it, in my opinion.

I gotta say I agree with Campagne. Use the same exact model as C4. Keep some of the same launchers, but they are redundant, so half of them could change. Or just make new ones and let DBG make some money on them, probably the better rout for the game m

I envisioned all 3 working together.

Costless AV available to some classes gives you a bit of a sting against vehicles, but don't expect it to be effective.
Want some more punch? Buy an AV weapon with nanites. Pay-per-use weapons are there if you aren't sure what you are going to do, and if you finally run into a suitable enemy after a few deaths these pay-per-use weapons will still be there.
Want nanite cost power and you know your gonna use it? Pay once for these weapons and then keep using them until you drop without extra expenses. Some of these could be the exact same weapon as the pay-per-use weapons, but you pay for example twice as much as the ammo you are carrying with you is worth for the pay-per-use, but you get the option to re-arm yourself for free (depending on the weapon, this may or may not be allowed on ammo packs).

I would also envision this not being a pure AV option, but to have AI and AA variants as well as support items available under these restrictions. Think of a pay-per-use version of the shield regenerator for example which could simultaneously heal people or slowly revive nearby allies (with a short term damage reduction to prevent easy farming) forcing enemies to try and take it out.