If "vehicle nerfs" are supposed to make the game "better"...

Excuse me?

Yes they dropped shortly after people had tried out the free game and most realized it was not for them. Until the first server merge it was not fun yes but once that happened in late feb things were fun till the summer.

Quite a bit actually. My main unit of choice isn't a tank of course, but after playing this game for so long I've logged enough time in them that I feel my opinion is as valid as anyone else's. That is...unless you disagree?

Also, this would be your opinion. That is, unless you can show me some solid data where a determination that tanks aren't too "spammy" has been made and agreed upon by a majority and officially recognized by the dev team.

Same way that is my opinion that they are, too "spammy".

That being said, repeatedly simply stating "no they aren't" isn't going to change my mind anytime soon.

Well... for starters, how do you define "spammy" in such a way that can be measured?

For instance, if tank hours exceed a certain percentage of all player-spent hours, then I suppose we might consider tanks "spammy". That means that there are quite a few tanks on the field in proportion to infantry.

So what might that percentage be? 60% tanks? 50%? 40%?

First of all, I'm not going to entertain this past a few posts.
Second, if I were to tell you my own definition of "spammy" it would be a personal definition, which is basically just my opinion. This again, basically disassembles the whole argument down to the fact, "these are all opinions".

Now, if you are asking what my personal belief of how tanks are too "spammy" and how I personally define that, I will be happy to tell you. This of course means you understand that I will be using anecdotes, personal experience, and my own personal deductions based on the information at hand. AKA, I will state my opinion, but don't expect me to waste time on a large series of back and forth posts exchanging spreadsheets and information to prove anything. Why? Because as I've stated, this is my opinion, I recognize that doesn't mean it is fact. For that reason, I will not waste time trying to make it appear as fact.

And if you are curious as to why I even posted in the first place? It is because I'm sick of seeing someone post the same stuff over and over as if it were fact without ever giving the slightest nod that what they are saying is their own opinion, NOT FACT.

And, just to finish up, and considering you took the time to post back to me, I'll try to at least answer what you asked. I wouldn't base the definition of "spammy" on hours in game. I could spend an even longer post explaining why, but let's just go with I wouldn't use that route. What I mean by "spammy" is simply, anyone anywhere at anytime can grab a tank. Tanks ARE already stronger than infantry. The resources needed to purchase them are laughably forgiving should you lose your first vehicle. There really is no downside to pulling one, and the downtime without one is minimal. That being said, look at the games where tanks and infantry are side-by-side, like BF, or even RTS games like Starcraft or Warhammer 40k. Now, I am aware PS2 is a different game, I'm just using these games as a reference. Look at the ratios of vehicles to infantry in those games. In BF, those vehicles are strong but restricted in number. In the RTS games, you can spam them, they can be strong, but they are MUCH more expensive and it is usually not an economical choice to just spam vehicles. In PS2, you can take a platoon that listens, and at any time pull 48 MBT's. Or, 24 2/2 MBT's. Then, 3 minutes later, do it again.

What I think we fail to realize is, with the way the Dev's have balanced the game...Tanks need to be balanced as if EVERYONE is going to pull them all at once. If they don't, then what will happen? Same thing that happened when ZOE, the annihilator v1, or any other weapon was spammed in large numbers. Even if those weapons weren't that OP (zoe was tho), in large numbers they became OP. And while those large numbers may not be very frequent, they are frequent enough to cause problems. Take lancer squads. One or two guys with a lancer, not actually a threat at all. 12 guys with a lancer? Every vehicle dies in sight. So how about tanks? You want tanks to be strong right, so that one tank can roll against a bunch of infantry and be all strong and stuff. That's fine. But what about when everyone pulls that tank? Either A, the opponent side is gonna get slammed over and over until tanks are thoroughly nerfed into the ground, or B, the only other answer is to pull tanks yourself. That latter option might sound well to you, but the main units in this game are NOT supposed to be tanks, they are infantry. I know some people don't like that, but blame the devs, they decided it. This isn't going to be a game where both sides pull a bunch of tanks and like 12 guys assault a base on foot, it just isn't going to happen. So, it is VERY IMPORTANT, to realize what you are asking for with tanks otherwise you are just going to bang your head against a wall, or worse, you are going to get what you want, it is going to be spammed, and then the vehicles you love will end up nerfed worse than where they are now.

Game like this people wax and wane it's normal. The gets stale then something new is added and people come back. It's just a cycle.

By that definition, these things would be more or equally spammy as tanks:

1) Infantry
2) AT Infantry
3) C4
4) AT Mines
5) MAXes (including AT MAXes)
6) Frag Grenades
7) Prox Mines
8) Liberators

And pretty much everything in the game.

I mean it's your opinion yes, but I would at least hope that your opinion is logically consistent. If the definition is that 1) anyone, 2) anywhere, can at 3) anytime grab a tank, then the same applies to pretty much everything in the game, including hard counters to tanks.

In other words if tanks are "spammy", then C4 is even more "spammy" because:
1) Anyone can grab C4 so long as they cert into it (same for HE/AP tanks)
2) C4 is even more readily available because you "grab" it anywhere you can spawn infantry. This includes all bases, terminals, and Sunderers. MBTs can only be spawned from certain special vehicle terminals and with a Tech Plant.
3) C4 is even more readily available because you "grab" it anytime. Simply redeploy, and voila, you magically get more C4! Whereas tankers need at least a vehicle terminal to spawn a Lightning, or a special vehicle terminal and a Tech Plant to spawn a MBT.

and...

4) C4 is much less costly than an MBT. 150 nanites in C4 can instantly destroy 450 nanites of MBT. There is also no nanite cost risk involved until the C4 is actually deployed.

The same applies to most counters to tanks (you really aren't going to find a counter to MBTs that is more expensive than the MBT). So are you prepared to admit that everything in the game is "spammy", not simply tanks?

Uh...yeah I am. Why? Cause if you've read any of my last posts in other threads you and I have partaken in...you would see I constantly argue for specialization and restrictions, not only for tanks, but for infantry and aircraft as well. The reason it always seems to be me arguing against tanks is simply because of all the tank threads that pop up.

So....not sure what point you were making that I already didn't state about myself in the first place.

Also, good job comparing a vehicle that moves faster than infantry, has a OHK canon that can fire at long range, isn't affected by small arms fire, has slots for abilities and equipment, can carry an extra person, has a secondary weapon, sights, etc etc.....to a not moving brick of c4, that needs to be brought up and either dropped or butt smacked onto an enemy vehicle that can destroy an infantryman much more effectively, then they need to wait for a mini eternity to push the button.

Seriously, with that logic, let's compare ballistic missiles to rocks.

Also, let's not speak about resource cost, it's laughable at this point to even believe resources are hard to get or to acquire resources takes a meaningful amount of time.

So are you ready to admit that your logic is just as flawed as mine might be? Cause if you are saying my opinion is illogical, you just compared the effectiveness of explosive play-doh to a fully functional MBT, and the relationship of their accessibility.

While some of you might hate scrin, i think these personal attacks are way out of order. Posts like yours are simply not constructive and if you really want his threads to die, then don't post.

We've all got opinions (that may collide with other opinions or seen as silly) but if we can't share them then this whole forum is useless.

That explosive play-doh is instantly lethal to MBTs. Whereas one MBT usually needs at least a few seconds to kill another MBT.

If anything I was being too generous with C4... it is a monstrosity to infantry as well as armour.

If infantry AV options are nerfed, as they were promised to be, then I would agree that tanks would be in good spot as the currently stand. If you are of course against all things "spammy", then I welcome you to go ahead and start a C4, rocket, and infantry spawn nerf thread. Maybe make all infantry spawns cost 300 nanites or so. Less than a MBT anyhow.

was a joke, maybe a bit hostile but w/e. Scrins an idiot, and I couldn't care less about 90% of this forum

*Facepalm*

I'm going back to discussing/debating actual real issues.

Good maybe you'll stop asking for a poorly disguised nerfs to tank cannons to suit your non-tanker infantrysider agenda.

A tank round is instantly lethal to any infantry carrying C4.

We weren't talking about the relationship between TTK of C4 against tanks and TTK of tanks against tanks. Also, if you were to ACTUALLY quantify TTK, you should add in the time it takes for the C4 to travel (be carried) to the tank because it can't be propelled as tank rounds do. That's not even mentioning the time between placement and pushing the button.

As for your second paragraph. I'm actually ok with infantry AV being readjusted against MBT's, as long as 2 C4 can still destroy an MBT (~55% damage a brick though) and leaving tanks where they are now. And as long as tanks don't receive any buffs other than the indirect buff of infantry AV being reasonably nerfed, we would be ok. And by infantry AV being nerfed, I feel AV should be nerfed more in range/accuracy than damage. Though that is a point for a whole different thread, not worth getting into the specifics here.

As for against things being "Spammy" the only reason I haven't made a thread about it is pretty simple. We are much too far along in this game to do something like that. To add in restrictions and specializations would just be...too much. AKA it just never is going to happen, as much as I would love for it to. That being said, that same lack of specialization and restriction is the same reason tanks cannot be buffed to levels as high as they should be. So the problem we all face here, is that any of the larger scale solutions that could actually fix these problems (either mine or yours) are just....impossible to implement at this point.

PS. Infantry spawns cannot not cost nanites. Infantry are the default unit in the game, whether people like it or not. If infantry couldn't spawn for free, then we would have people staring at their map waiting. While the waiting might only last a minute, it would be enough for people to quit the game cause they are "bored". The reason this is ok to do with tanks is because they aren't the default unit, if your tank is destroyed you can pull infantry for a couple minutes. Doing that in the reverse (as in, if your infantry is destroyed you could pull a free tank for a couple minutes) would be silly, this isn't a game where tanks are the main units. Also, be advised, I use the terms "main unit" and "default unit" loosely. I understand this is a combined arms game where all units are/should be important. But this is still a game, one unit is going to be the default, and 99.9% of the time that default is infantry. So while infantry spawns cannot cost nanites, I have no problems with their ammo, any weapon other than the defaults, special equipment, etc, costing nanites. Basically anything that isn't suit slots or the default weapons and default ammo I could see pasting a resource cost on....that would be quite an undertaking though. The spawns themselves, and class abilities though, must remain free.

Oh, so should I count the time it takes to drive an MBT from one of those specialized terminals to somewhere else on the map?
Or what if there are no Tech Plants available? Should I count the hour or so it might take to recapture a Tech Plant so I can spawn a MBT and then drive it over to shoot at another MBT?


Obviously the rational point to start is when the weapons are fired. In the case of tanks, this is when the cannon fires. In the case of C4, this is when the C4 is released.

In other words...

"Infantry and counters to tanks are spammy but we can't change that because the game has been how it is for so long."
"Tanks are spammy and even though they have been in the game for as long as infantry have, then tanks should be changed."

That sounds completely fair and just. Yup.

For the first paragraph. We will never see eye-to-eye on C4. So why don't we just leave it at that.

For the second paragraph. I never said tanks should be changed, please don't put words in my mouth. Not to be rude, but people need to pay more attention. What I am saying is pretty simple. The reason tanks cannot be buffed as heavily as some seem to want is because of how accessible they are. Or, I never said tanks should be changed, but their accessibility WILL need to be changed if they were to receive drastic buffs. If you are simply talking about tweaking infantry AV, fine, tanks can stay as accessible as they are now (to a point of course). If you are talking about buffing tank canons, health, resistance values, letting them shrug off a huge amount of AV, etc etc, then yeah they will AT THAT TIME need to be restricted. I never said they needed to be restricted now, but with some of the drastic changes a few seem to constantly push for, they would need to be.

So...
Basically, tanks don't need to change, they are accessible and basically balanced (save for the infantry AV tuning).

Should tanks be buffed as far as some wish them too, their accessibility at that time would need to be lessened.

Should infantry become reasonably stronger than they are now, their accessibility at that time would then need to be lessened.

Don't try to portray me as bias just because I am discussing against your point. I argue for restriction and specialization on all sides of this game; infantry, aircraft, AND tanks as I think it would improve the game. As things are now, they are somewhat ok, because the game is based and balanced around very accessible yet weaker force multipliers. If there is ever a time when the game changes that force multipliers are much stronger, then they need to be less accessible.

This is neither here nor there, but why are you quoting my post from the "Can't Deploy Sunderer" thread?

I was replying to posts by Pelojian and ColonelChingles, and to you and Scr1nRusher who Liked them. Since I don't know a way to have you get an Alert for a reference to your Like, I formatted it from your post I remembered from the Sunderer post.

It is better, much better.

It was dumb when one tank spammin HE could pretty much lock down an entire outpost with 20 people.

I remember this because I did this, out of spite more than anything else because I got sick of being on the receiving end.

Yeah, driving tanks, spamming HE inflated my score and ego along with it, but it was about as much fun as shooting fish in a barrel and that's exactly what it was.