I'll say it. I think the reduction to MBT's primary velocity is a good thing.

I understand the point that tanks arent designed for close range entirely. I understand that the main killer of any MBT anywhere, is not another MBT, it is C4. I think you bring in a really good point, and worded it perfectly: "Tanks in general are too fragile for close range, so sniping and hit trading at long ranges is the most logical type of combat.." which is something I completely agree with. But it's exactly that style of game-play they want to discourage. The devs seem to want tanks more involved in the front line, which leaves tanks more vulnerable, but doesn't necessarily harm the gameplay between MBT's and the rest of planetside.

I would argue that it really depends on how many numbers you have on a base that lets you get close in, there are many many many times I have experienced in planet-side where a lot of tanks were able to just roll on up to a base and simply blast away any outside AV. In fact I would argue further that the improvements to stabilization could only help a tank in getting closer to do exactly that.

If the stabilization, and maneuverability changes aren't enough to keep tanks alive in that environment in a few weeks, THEn I would argue that some of those infantry AV counters should be brought down as well.

Can't change a damn thing in the game without people throwing a ****fit.

People point out that you can still shell from a distance by lobbing shells on one hand, and on the other complain that things will be so irreversibly ****ed up by the changes that they may as well not play anymore.


That said I do agree that tanks are extremely vulnerable to infantry in close quarters, but that's pretty much a common theme in history and any game. Tanks theoretically have a very limited field of view which makes them quite vulnerable to ambush from people moving up on them from unexpected angles and slapping explosives on them. In theory it doesn't take much either to immobilize a tank by blowing a track and making it even more exposed.

That said, in game sense you have immense vision with 3rd person and potentially having pro radar, so people sneaking up on you shouldn't be an issue. That said I would think mines should do more to disable a tank, rather than outright destroy them, not so much with C4.

And at range, any of the potential AV counters will die to a single shot from you or are easily hosed down with an AI secondary. I feel these are relatively fine, especially when you can reduce the boon of their being a small target with thermals.

Personally this probably won't change much for me at all, if they think that doing this is going to force people like me to get into the middle of the action they're mistaken. Hell, personally I'd say most of the time I'm using the AP cannon closer than I should be, so the only affect this will have on me is me raising my sights a bit more that I currently do.

Velocity nerfs are stupid. People won't get any closer to fights unless tanks get massive health buffs or resistences to c4, mines, infantry rockets, av turrets, etc are implemented. Also this will make anchor for prowlers that much more useless. Another indirect nerf to TR making their unique stuff complete garbage. Yay :/

I'm certainly not moving an inch closer in any serious battle.

I completely agree that anchor seems the most harshly affected by the stabilization and maneuverability changes. This might warrant a quicker "anchor" time but I am too extremely unfamiliar with anchor in general to say.

You confused tanks with the Harasser.

That is not a gameplay style I am interested in. Yes, I am Interested in moving while shooting. No, I am not interested in brawling with other tanks, because the Vanguard will just win all the time and then it will have to be nerfed.

The turret stabilization shifts the balance in favor of a moving tank over a tank that is stationary. That's fine. The only problem is that the Magrider will need it's strafe speed increased to keep up. Usually tank battles are not lone 1v1's in the middle of nowhere. Since TTK on tank vs tank is higher than infantry, you can't just rush them.


All these changes are doing is just annoyance for tankers. No, I will not be running out into the field to suicide at my enemy. Yes, I will be annoyed that I am now less accurate at normal tank combat ranges (300-500 meters is where it should be).

The reason why I don't drive right up to Indar Excavation is because the Maxes that sit on the pads (NOT RENDERING) firing endless AV with no way to fight back, yet alone see them until I am almost on top of them.

No body wants to. But what will you do to get to effective range of that other tank? Either compensate by aiming higher, or moving closer. Either way long range AP is less effective, and closer ranges are encouraged. Not everyone will get closer, but not everyone has too. Encouragement might not change one person, but it will do alot with masses.

Let's just say, maxed out, even now it barely gives you a noticeable difference to velocity. It really just helps with the reload speed and that's it. Takes about 2-3 seconds to deploy and undeploy (which is huge when under fire).

I wouldn't say that. The velocity buff is quite good. Especially when you are shooting at infantry with anti tank rounds

Months ago I would've agreed but since the nerf.. naw.. You still have to aim higher unless in close range. It's a bit easier to aim while anchored with AP but the AP on lightning's isn't that much harder to aim with either. There's barely a difference imo. As is, I anchor for the reload speed bonus and that's it.

I as well am concerned about the power of a stabilized vanguard, but I do not believe that is unbalance-able. A mag strafe speed buff could be well in order. But I would rather see stabilization with velocity reduction and minor balance tweaks than no stabilization at all. Tanks on the move truly need stabilization to keep an advancing tank or armor line effective vs it's enemy.

I think the velocity reduction is linked to the stabilization and maneuverability changes. Letting tanks be able to be a bit closer, and advance easier, at the cost of being less effective at range. This is a gameplay mechanic that I think benefits planetside as a whole, although tank play is still vulnerable at those regions.

Tankers that want to play it safe from far away still have the option, but now aren't as rewarded for it.
When the enemy has taken time to fortify defenses with numbers, and has things like anchored fracture maxes deployed and waiting on towers which are made for infantry to defend, I have no problem with getting annihilated. But even at indar ex tanks are able to close in with enough population.

I'll give you that there is not much besides air support that can really effectively get those maxes on the pads, but then again this is a combined arms game.

The Magriders main cannon is already a mortor, Why does it need to be even more crappy.

Aim higher. I refuse to change my style to conform to SOE's ... view ... of how tank warfare is conducted as long as they do nothing to compensate for such an un-called-for nerf. The only way they could make me move closer with these changes is if they reduce the resource cost of MBTs to 200 mech, but beyond that or possibly another solution, I'm not moving. If anything I'm moving back, and just start 1/2 with my Saron.

If you don't think that matters difference matters, This change won't matter either.

I honestly think they could have just left it at only nerfing Dalton/Zephyr & Tankbuster projectile velocities.

A tank sitting up on a hill 400m away is not a real threat to anyone. Is it annoying as hell if they have Racer and take off the instant you try to advance on them? Hell yeah, that's why the first upgrade I got for my Vanguard after 2x scope was Racer II. (I'm a sniper ... I let my outfit do the frontline tank heroics ... they actually have the 1000's upon 1000's of cert invested in armor & reload & stuff ... I DON'T).

Ever since the dawn of Siege Weaponry, they've always been more effective as a Visual intimidator than a practical solution to most problems. Our own US military has atleast a million of the damn things yet a lot of our most practical responses lately has either been pulling from a much smaller pool of "Drones", or dispatching elite squads of the most elite-trained CQC marine squads on the planet. For the most part, Tanks are just a government "Make Work" program to pump money into industrial sectors and then sit in huge armory warehouses until some nut job decides to take one for a joy ride then it become a Media stimulus too.

If they want more maneuverability and on the move tank combat, they could stop spreading butter over all Auraxis. And maybe making our sight still useful when we aren't on a completely leveled terrain.

They didn't even have to do that. If they wanted it to not be an anti-ESF weapon, they should have added projectile acceleration.

If for some reason this is relevant I have 691 hours in the Vanguard.

I always facepalm pretty hard when my Lightning starts sliding sideways down a hill like it's on skis