Higby: Return of the Tankside

Which actually is a real tactic, or at least similar to one.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_in_detail

The problem is that Redeployside makes that tactic so easy to execute, so difficult to counter, and so overall dominant that there is no point to doing anything else.

DiD's weakness is the logistical difficulty of getting everyone together, and moving quickly enough to prevent the enemy from counter-zerging or exploiting he areas you left exposed to encircle your zerg.

Being able to redeploy anywhere in 10 second nullifies DiD's weaknesses and plays wholesale to its strengths.

Edit: And now you know that "defeat in detail" is basically Pentagonese for "zerging".

If you have a problem with the meta of Planetside 2, or it's specific mechanics, that's valid. And I would welcome a discussion on that topic.

I fail to see, however, how massively buffing armored vehicles solves any of that. It won't. And deep down you know that. You simply do not care, as long as you get what you want in the end.

"Hey guys, don't Redeploy, tank armor is buffed! Let's just pull tanks instead of saving that base!"

Uhh yeah, don't see that happening.

Translation:

You should have to use a vehicle, to counter my vehicle.


The warcry of the entitled whiney Vehicleside minion.

Can we at least have the old lock on system back for av weapons then?
It's frustrating using them right now with over half the shots hitting trees and rocks once you finally do get a lock...
So I don't even bother.

And in my opinion using the AV turret sucks to since I'm sniper and tank shell bait..
So once again I don't even bother.

Makes me wish I could lock onto the mountain so the missile would fly off and hit an random aircraft.

Yes, you're like the other TR HE/HEAT prowler spammers like Sinist or ubermenchen that camp infantry and then run at the first sign of danger which is why GOKU lancer camps always make sure to focus fire the likes of those people.

Also, as someone else said if tank spergs don't want a lone LA to kill their tank then they shouldn't be able to kill infantry nearly as efficiently and HE/HEAT needs to be nerfed even further. And no, nanite cost doesn't mean a damn thing when a MAX suit costs the same as a MBT yet can also be taken out by a lone C4 LA if he lacks situational awareness. So I guess since the nanite cost and your QQ about situational awareness that means that MAX units need to be much more durable since the EXACT SAME ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE FOR MAX UNITS YET TANK SPERGS THINK THEY'RE SPECIAL. Furthermore, I actually think that a lone LA shouldn't be able to take out a shielded sundie since they are used for infantry pushes where as tanks are useful only to (a) be a counter to vehicles like sunderers or other tanks or (b) farm infantry as your stats have proven since you only manage to kill 8 vehicles per death vs. 31 infantry per death... but keep dodging the issue that you're just using your tank to farm infantry while at the same time demanding that one of the hard counters against that type of game play should be nerfed.

Because god forbid 2/3rds of the content within planetside get validated right? It's not like most bases on most continents have walls and capture points indoors right?

It actually seems to me that it is the infantry side players that are acting entitled, and if this thread is anything to go by they are also whining.

Keep dodging the issue that a minimal cert investment and some nanites nets you a tank kill. Never mind the fact that the tank may have potentially 10.000 certs invested into it, as well as time invested in driving to it's location whereas the light assault guy is a disposable tool that is going to be halfway across the map looking for a better fight with the click of a button.

Whats wrong here ? You can't handle that you can't c4 a tank to death if the buffs go through? I'm sure if you complain enough SOE will let you get some vehicle deterrence ribbons for your efforts.

Your MAX argument falls apart once the MAX swaps his loadout and goes inside. The tank has to stay outdoors, and can't swap his loadout. The player inside the tank will have to ditch his vehicle to stay relevant.

Wait.. so the instant I load C4 into my load out I get a tank kill?!?!? HOW DID I NEVER NOTICE THIS?!?!?!

It's the third most common death for an MBT according to the stats on DA, so yes. Presuming you aren't obvious about it or target someone clever that deploys their tank with radar you should probably manage to find a blind spot to c4 the guy.

Can you has my babies?

Seriously though, you have just won the argument. Period. It's over.

This is how the tank changes would at least contribute to combined arms strategy:

1) The most efficient counter to tanks would be other tanks, not infantry. As such, if you are infantry beset by tanks, the best way to counter that tank is to pull a tank of your own. This is a game mechanic that is further emphasized by an anti-tank tank being at a strong advantage over an anti-infantry tank.

2) Reducing infantry AV capabilities at range opens up the "open field" zone for tank warfare. Right now except from some unusually open territories (the area around Indar Excav for example) there's not actually too much space for tanks to even have an environment where they have the upper hand. The main reason for this is that bases are built too close to each other without sufficient space between them. Even if tanks wanted to have an open field fight, they usually are at risk from a number of infantry AT weaponry (Ravens, Vortexes, Lancers, and AV MANA turrets to name a few). Combined with the indestructible cover that infantry can hide behind and their unlimited numbers, this makes tank warfare problematic.

3) Reducing infantry AV capabilities close up means that tanks aren't limited to parking at long ranges and shelling bases. Tanks ought to have a combined arms role in taking a base along with infantry, and this involves strengthening tanks against close-range infantry AT weapons (C4, AT mines, AT grenades, rockets).

Now would these changes by themselves improve the role of tanks and make a much better combined arms game out of PS2? No, not at all. These are only part of the solution. The two main other aspects that would finally give tanks a proper role would be to:

1) Drastically limit redeployside and introduce an actual logistics system into PS2. This would make the open area outside a base just as important to hold as the closed area inside a base. So a defending infantry-only force could not hold a base indefinitely if they have lost the outside of the base due to attrition and the lack of supplies. Likewise logistics become much more critical to the attackers, meaning that allowing the defending force to counter-attack is a viable strategy.

2) Redesign bases to allow them to be more open and hence more accessible to vehicles. Bases should be redesigned with all sorts of roads and alleyways. Therefore while tanks are still at a strong disadvantage in such close quarters, they would nonetheless have a very significant role in taking bases (rather than parking outside them).

If you do both these things, plus reduce infantry lethality versus tanks (which was promised to us by Higby many months ago when they reduced tank lethality versus infantry), then tanks will have a proper role in the combined arms environment.

Presuming you aren't obvious about it or target someone clever that deploys their tank with radar, or isn't alone, isn't parked next to a wall, isn't afk, isn't tunnel vision'd while shelling spawn rooms, isn't... well.. you get the idea.

Yea yea. I'm sure you have better things to do than kill MBT's with c4 all on your lonesome, but in case you missed it. HE and HEAT were nerfed. Higby promised buffs to come, and now they are coming.

So it's no longer nanite cost it's cert cost... where is that "movinggoalposts.jpg" picture.

And no, if I'm using C4 the only way I can now heal myself is via implants or going back to friendlies when the entire point of the LA class is to flank and go behind enemy lines and the ability to self heal is critical to this. You would of course know this spending a whopping 8% of your time as a LA.

My Lancer kills all the tanks in the yard.

Seriously, I don't every use my C4 LA load out unless I'm in a dedicated sundie hunting valk or at a tower defense that's being swarmed by vehicles because they TOTALLY deserve to get blown to hell... or are you saying that you should be able to camp a tower with relative impunity in your tank because you can't be bothered to pay attention when you're playing farmville?

A tank's also immune to small arms fire making all but C4 LA's and rocket primary HA's irrelevant... but hey lets just totally get rid of one of those since it's an inconvenience to be bothered to pay attention when you're playing farmville.

Look, using the excuse that LA are useless w/o instagib C4 just goes to show that LA needs to be fixed. They are not meant to be this solo-tanker class.

You shoulda saw reddit after the H1Z1 airdrop fiasco that turned out to be nothing, too.

Tanks are forced to fight other armor because their main cannon is practically useless against >1 infantry AV. I prefer if the infantry don't get to just farm tankers with impunity tyvm

I don't see how this is NOT valid to what he said. Armor has been in desperate need of a buff forever. Tanks should be fighting other tanks, and infantry shouldn't be allowed impunity at farming armor columns. Bases are already heavily covered from direct/indirect tank fire, and they've given infantry tons of ways to deal with tanks already. It's time to step up tank strength so they can safely ignore infantry and fight other tanks instead of desperately looking around for the next C4 fairy or solo heavy who'll kill them if they don't deal with them.

Absolutely! I mean... so long as in the same patch you make it so infantry can safely ignore tanks.