[Suggestion] Making Tanking More Fun

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by ColonelChingles, Nov 14, 2015.

  1. ColonelChingles

    So with the new Armored Warfare coming out and the current giant of videogame tanking World of Tanks, I thought it would be interesting to explore tank gameplay mechanics that make tank versus tank warfare much more fun and engaging.

    But tanks are so OP against infantry with their HE spam!
    Eh... this thread is more focused on tank versus tank fights and not so much tank versus infantry fights. In some ways, these suggestions will make tanks weaker against infantry, but in other ways they will become more powerful. Anyhow, the tank versus infantry balance shouldn't be changed a whole lot with these suggestions and overall should be about the same.

    But I like how tank gameplay currently works!
    Well sure. I tank a lot too, and according to the stats about 1/3 of all PS2 players will jump in and drive a tank at some point in their playing. On the other hand WoT and AW have tons of players, so I think there is a high demand for tactical tanking. If it makes you feel better, these changes could be used for new tanks, so the old MBT/Lightnings will be kept the way they are but new harder-to-use but stronger tanks will be introduced. What new tanks?


    But these changes would be too difficult to implement and would take up Dev time!
    I've left out some suggestions, like modular damage or camouflage, which would actually be new features. Instead, almost all these suggestions would be relatively easy to implement, making use of current in-game mechanics.

    Without further ado, the suggestions:

    Turret Rotation

    Tanks usually need some time to rotate their turrets, because moving a massive, heavy turret with a giant gun in it takes time. For example, this tank requires about 20 seconds to fully rotate the turret 360 degrees. PS2 tanks currently do have some limits in turret rotation, but the rotation speed is so fast that it's barely noticeable.

    Having tanks in PS2 need time to rotate their turret would create a few changes.
    First, flanking and ambushing would be much more effective, because it would take longer for a tank to return fire. This would reward proper tanking tactics.
    Second, this would weaken tanks against infantry and fast-moving vehicles. Tank cannon would generally be for attacking fixed or known targets, but would be less effective against smaller faster-moving targets. This would probably have to be combined with a HE/HEAT buff to even it out, and secondary AI and light AV weapons might need to be beefed up too.
    Third, this would limit tank awareness, as it would be difficult for them to look behind them. This improves the value of a secondary gunner who can look out for threats, as well as working with other tanks to cover blind spots.
    Fourth, different guns and cannon would rotate at different rates, allowing for more differentiation with tanks. Lighter weapons, like the 75mm Viper or 100mm Python, would turn more quickly than a 150mm Vanguard cannon.

    This would not be a difficult change to implement because turret rotation speeds are already in the game... they just need to be slowed down.


    Tanks, being extremely heavy vehicles, need a lot of power to move. This means that they do need a bit to get up to speed. Having their first few gears be relatively slow before moving into higher gears would create this effect, along with noise and vibration.

    First, this change would really help with immersion, in that a tank beginning to move would feel more tanky.
    Second, this change would mean that stopping and going would have more tactical value, as stopping in the wrong place would take more time to correct. Trying to flee infantry with C4 would be more difficult if you were at a complete rest.
    Third, this change would make for a bigger difference between Lightnings, MBTs, and Heavy tanks (when we get them).

    Making this change would be pretty easy... just tweaking with the gear system already in-game.


    In general, tanks are less accurate when firing on the move and more accurate when firing still. Tanks in PS2 have stabilizers built-in, but it's almost as if these stabilizers are too good (especially in 3d person, where there is no recoil either). Sure it's the future, but laser-accurate cannon encourage too much run-and-gun. In other tank games, tank gun need some time to "settle" before they reach their optimum accuracy, usually as a result of a rocking tank. We could add in a CoF to tank cannon which greatly reduces when still.

    First, this means that tanks who are firing from a still position have an advantage over tanks who are charging into battle, which rewards tactics and planning.
    Second, this can be used as a characteristic to distinguish between different tank weapons. You could pick a more stable cannon that has some other drawbacks for shooting on the move, or a less stable cannon with other advantages. This deepens tankplay.

    Not too difficult to implement, as other weapons have both moving and still CoFs. Just give the tank cannon some moving CoF and no still CoF.

    Ammunition Specialization

    In PS2 tanks have different cannons for different types of shells. AP is supposed to be better against vehicles, HE is supposed to be good against infantry, and HEAT is somewhere in the middle. The actual result though is that pretty much everyone uses AP because HEAT and HE are terrible.

    In most other tank games, AP, HEAT, and HE are all useful for fighting tanks in different ways. AP is best for close-range attacks, but at longer range it loses effectiveness (because penetration comes from speed, which is lost over time). HEAT is less useful for penetrating armour, but if it does can be highly destructive so is great at lighter vehicles. HE doesn't penetrate armour at all, but instead causes a small amount of internal damage and is used when you have no hope of penetration.

    What this means is that shell selection is more important than AI/AV. Knowing the armour and range of your target also becomes important. If you are engaging at close range, AP might be best. But at longer range HEAT would be better. And engaging tanks with indirect fire or full-frontally might mean using HE.

    First, this would give a valid role to all ammunition, not just having everyone use AP.
    Second, this would deepen the tank game as you would have to know and predict the best type of shell to guarantee the best outcome.
    Third, new players with HEAT would actually have a proper counter to AP tanks... simply remain at range.

    These changes wouldn't be too hard to make...
    AP gets a reduced damage over distance, much like how most small arms work.
    HE gets to ignore tank directional armour, much like how C4 works.

    Ammunition Loadout

    Since picking the best ammunition for the changing battlefield conditions is important, tanks would be allowed to take different types of shells. In most other tank games you are allowed to take a mixture of AP/HEAT/HE shells. PS2 currently just limits you to one.

    I think that in PS2 tanks should be allowed to carry two of the three shell types so there is still some value in choice. Switching shells in the field would be done by pressing the "fire mode" button, which would start a reload cycle and then load in the new shell. Alternatively this could work by simply having tanks carry two "weapons", and having a long "drawing" time when switching between the two to simulate reloading.

    First, this would allow for tanks to preload the type of round that they think they will need, which rewards tactical skill. Of course if they messed up and loaded the wrong round then that would penalize them.
    Second, this allows for tanks to engage a variety of targets in a variety of situations, making tanks more flexible and useful. This should balance out the turret rotation and awareness nerfs.

    While this might be the most difficult change, none of it requires anything new. Just two fire modes (with a delay in between), or two different weapons (like switching between a carbine and a UBGL).

    Cannon/Gun Types

    Well what happens to the different tank cannon if ammunition is no longer linked to cannon? This actually opens up even more space for tankers to play in, because now tanks would have access to different guns. For example, the turrets above are both for T-34 tanks, but one is 76mm while the other would be 85mm. Same tank, different guns.

    Why would you ever take a smaller, weaker gun? Well smaller guns might actually have favourable characteristics, like better rotation, stability, and RoF. They could also have better ammunition counts, or even carry a bonus (such as to speed). The options are pretty limitless. You could play with velocity, ballistics, elevation/depression, etc.

    First, this change would allow for mixing and matching of ammunition and guns to produce a high variety of results. This allows tankers to customize their tank to their playstyle.
    Second, this change would allow for the creation of different vehicle types. A Vanguard with nothing mounted on top except for twin Kobalts, for example.

    Not too difficult to implement, just a good amount of modeling.

    Sidegrades, Not Upgrades
    This isn't taken from tank games which generally do just have upgrades. But in my view PS2 should be a game where you don't simply get something better than a BR1... you get something that's more suited to your playstyle instead. Small arm attachments, like suppressors or grips, do this. You get something, but you give something. In my view, tank "upgrades" like Reload Speed or Rival Chassis should carry downsides with them, so sometimes you're better off with Reload 2 instead of Reload 4, or even no utility at all!

    First, this would make tank upgrades a little more difficult to choose, adding to depth. I mean currently for many weapons you have a single choice anyhow.
    Second, this would mean that new tankers aren't at a true disadvantage. Sure they might not have some of the advantages of a tricked out tank, but they also don't have the disadvantages of a tricked out tank.


    Most of these tanking games have tanks that are operated by a single player, which is fine. Same way PS2 does it. But they also feature virtual crew who can have perks and specializations, which add them to your tank. They don't actually do anything, only apply certain modifiers to the vehicle that they're in.

    These crewmembers could be introduced so that tankers can further customize their tank, creating a number of different specializations. For all intents and purposes they would be treated as "utilities" with their own crew slots, but would have upgrade trees.

    Might need the most tweaking to make work, but I think it would be worth it.
    • Up x 6
  2. maxwell smart

    this is a very long read

    -HE is made to be good against inf.
    -u really want a slower turret rotation with all them fast moving targets?
    and whats with the mag. will it the turn slower or something?

    hmm the more i read the more i get the feeling i would not want them changes
  3. Daigons

    C4 > Tanks

    Sad but true...
    • Up x 1
  4. ColonelChingles

    Turret rotation would depend on the weapon you have. So while a 150mm Vanguard might find difficulty in tracking a Harasser, a 75mm Viper could easily engage it. To make up for that, tank lethality against light vehicles would probably increase (so if a 150mm Titan shot managed to hit a Harasser, it would be a OHK and the Viper/Skyguard would be very lethal).

    Secondary AV weapons like the Enforcer, Saron, and Gatekeeper would also do increased damage to light and fast vehicles, making a secondary gunner much more useful.

    You might not want it as in it would make life harder for you, but in return you would get a deeper, more complex teamwork-focused tank game.

    A lot of people do have questions of what to do with the Magrider, given its strange fixed gun. The funny thing is that both WoT and AW have great answers:


    These are tank destroyers, which like the Magrider have a fairly fixed frontal gun. Unlike the Magrider they have fairly weak armour and can't exactly float sideways.

    So how do they survive as equals to MBTs?

    Well for starters they carry decent guns and can hit hard. Often times as good or better than their "standard" counterparts. This allows them to deal with threats with less risk of return fire.

    Armour varies. WoT TDs generally have decent frontal armour but relatively weak side armour. AW TDs are just weakly armoured in general and rely on stealth and improved mobility to stay alive. As STK are generally lower in other tank games (2-3 STK is common from the sides or rear), often times this means that you can kill the enemy tank before they can engage you.

    Although they lack the Magrider's side-to-side mobility, they make up for it by moving rather quickly and with a lower profile.

    The point is that having a fixed cannon should be balanced with other characteristics. In the case of the Magrider, Vanguard and Prowler turret rotation speeds might decrease, but I think Magrider rotation speed should stay roughly where it is (perhaps a dollop slower). The Magrider will function as an ambush tank capable of using its high mobility to set traps, which will be more effective as Vanguards and Prowlers need to take more time to fire back.
    • Up x 1
  5. Pikachu

    Interesting ideas. Any suggestions for the numbers? Btw if there were to be thermobaric shells, how would they differ from HE?
  6. BaronX13

    Not that I think any of it will be coming anytime soon but, alot of those ideas look interesting/good. Really, I'd be ok with almost all those ideas except HE buffs towards infantry etc. Though, that's mainly due to ****** base design, not about it's killing potential in general. The rest seems interesting enough. Also, I don't really think a crew is needed, the role they would fill is already kind of taken by certification upgrades, I'm not against it of course just saying a crew and cert upgrades are kinda one and the same set of benefits.
  7. \m/SLAYER\m/

    yes, more tanks, feed the Liberators
  8. Liewec123

    the day has finally come that colonelchingles has made a vehicle post i agree with! :D

    also TL;DR:
    make tanks move slower and aim slower (all around more cumbersome)
    make tanks stronger and more durable
    • Up x 1
  9. Ximi

    Very good vehicle thread,im a fan of using infantry btw. Never going to a vehicle other than sundie for go from base to base.
  10. Demigan

    Different speeds would give a lot of tactical differences between different guns and tanks. Especially when special AI versions are introduced to better deal with infantry (not HE).
    One thing though: this would be the first time C4 really needs changing. With a reduced situational awareness C4 would be too easy to place and need some changes.

    I don't think this is a completely necessary change. It would be nice, but I don't think there's enough differences and enough tanks available to make this an intriguing system.
    Maybe you could do something with the frames where the racer frame has the fastest top-speeds and switches gear much faster near the max speed. Rival Combat would have fast startup acceleration to halfway the max speed, then have a slow acceleration to it's top speed taking much more time to get to maximum.

    A definite no to this one. I would actually do it the other way around. You want to make accuracy less useful while moving. I would want it to be more accurate. Currently we barely have a run and gun game because any pothole or tiny rock messes up your aim, except for the Magrider. Getting a gun-stabilizer that keeps guns more stable would be my favourite, especially as an equippable gadget.

    Not sure if I like this type of ammo specialisation. I would prefer more gadget-like differences. HE for instance could be detonatable by the player and get a proximity gauge that keeps track of the nearest enemy infantry. That way you can detonate it yourself and hit targets high up. AP could get ES differences, such as NC can shoot through one target. TR gets delayed-charge ammo so an enemy moves behind cover too late etc.

    This change would take away my problems with the differences between HE/HEAT/AP you mentioned in the above point.

    Not sure, I think that it takes too much balancing to make different gun sizes viable. I fear that most people would simply gravitate to a specific gun size, and the general populace would only have those specific gun sizes

    While good in principle, I think it would be very hard to balance out these sidegrades. You need to suddenly balance every single stage of every single upgrade so all 3 factions stay equal in each setting, despite having different advantages.

    Maybe for differentiation you could introduce computer systems that replace crew. These computer systems give different advantages depending on the software you put on it.
    • Up x 1
  11. IceMobsterrr

    Yeah, why not nerf the harasser even more by making vanguard OHK it.
  12. HadesR

    Well most unlike PS2 don't allow for 2/2 vehicles so the " virtual crew " replaces the lack of real teammates

    With that being said though I think the idea has merit, but I'd have a system where you could add " crew buffs " that only came into effect when you had actual crew in the vehicle and not while running solo ..
  13. Chal

    I can see you've put lots of thought into these ideas but they really don't fit into PS2 there's too much going on in a fight to be lumbering around in a tank like you want, you'd either be not much of a threat because you're easy to avoid or everyone would just focus fire and you'd be too slow to get away. Air, c4 fairies and the CQC harassers would probably love it though.

    Reducing turret rotation and acceleration would just make us sitting ducks versus everything I can't see why any tanker would want that.
    The ammo changes are unnecessarily complex for casuals which is the majority and I imagine getting stuck with a niche loadout all the time would get old really fast.
    Reducing sabilitity so we have to stop still to be able fight reliably sounds boring and would make tank fights a matter of "whoever lands the first shot wins".
    The crew thing I don't really see the point of but the easier way to do something like that would be via the Implant system with some vehicle specific implants for drivers and gunners.

    Adding bigger, slower, stronger tanks don't make tanking more fun atleast it didn't in PS1, they brought in BFRs which are basically what you're wanting a slow moving hardhitting bulletsponge which made fights outside of bases really dull and sluggish whenever they were around.

    Overall I think we have very different ideas about what makes tanking or even ground combat in general fun.
  14. McMan

    I think it is more likely they would put infantry in WOT and AW before they implement ricochets in Planetside.
  15. Gundem

    mfw implying Liberators pose an actual threat to the general populace.

    I swear Chingles, if you start ranting I will find you and I will slap you.

    • Up x 1
  16. DeadlyPeanutt

    OP has won the wall o' text award for today ! congradulations !!

    • Up x 1
  17. ColonelChingles

    In my estimation, most tank fights occur within 300m, with that being roughly the longest range for "effective" tank combat.

    AP would be the dominant choice from 0-175m. Maybe from 175m-225m it would be a wash, and HEAT would do more damage from 225m onwards.

    HEAT could also have additional bonuses for attacking side/rear armour that might make it somewhat viable at shorter ranges if you can flank and hit weaker armour.

    At "long" range beyond 225-250m, HE might do more than HEAT against the front, but HEAT's side/rear bonuses would make it superior against those targets.

    HE might also be useful if you know there's a tank parked behind cover and you want to keep dealing light damage to it (not how HE actually works, but whatevs).

    No thermobaric tank shells that I know of, mostly because HE is usually destructive enough. But if it is added, that should be a pure anti-infantry room-clearing weapon. No damage to tanks, but massive damage over a wide area against infantry. Given tank turret rotation limitations not so great at nailing moving infantry, but if infantry think that they're safe inside a building they should think again... :p

    Yeah, that's why "crew" was put in quotation marks. Could be a targeting computer upgrade or AI or something.

    But these ought to be different from standard cert upgrades in that they have unique and exclusive "trees". So you can build them how you see fit.

    And yes, that might actually take a bit of reworking as PS2 currently has no system like that.

    The way I'd figure, MBT frontal armour would be completely immune from any infantry-carried rocket. Infantry would have to flank a tank or hit from above to actually deal damage to it. Lightnings would probably still be vulnerable to infantry-carried rockets, though they also would not be slowed down as much as MBTs.

    It would... but I think that's the value of a secondary gunner. The top secondary weapon would still spin quite quickly, and would most likely get a lethality buff as well. So 2-3 12.7mm Kobalt hits to kill an infantryman or 1-2 20mm Basilisk hits. Saron or Enforcer hits would probably be OHK to infantry as well.

    You can also get tanks to provide overwatch for each other. Again, this encourages teamwork. Having a 40mm Skyguard with OHK capabilities against infantry watching the rear of your tank would give them some protection.

    This is pretty balanced. If the tank is unaware of infantry, the tank is now easier to kill. But if the tank is aware of infantry, the infantry are now easier to kill. A fair tradeoff.

    The main problem is that the difference between a Lightning and an MBT in terms of speed and manoeuvrability isn't actually all that much. From a short distance it is highly unlikely that you can outrun an MBT in pursuit with a Lightning before it kills you, or do things like drive in circles around them.

    I'm not sure how much I'd change it, but there should definitely be more pronounced handling differences between Lightnings and MBTs, and maybe even between MBTs themselves.

    I do think that some tank weapons and types would be more "run and gun" than others. This change is really just to create that space, by decreasing the stability of some weapons so that more stable weapons stand out more.

    You could of course options to have gadgets that try to stabilize an unstable gun, but this should be more of a band-aid solution or trying to make a gun do something it wasn't meant to do.

    Well there certainly is good precedent for the Lightning. Some people like the 75mm Viper, while others like the 100mm Python HEAT. Both are supposed to do roughly the same thing, but shine in different circumstances.

    Yup, but in my opinion it would be worth it. What I'm thinking is that the positives and negatives aren't actually linear, but after a certain point you're giving up quite a bit to eek out that last bit of advantage. Take the Reload series for example:
    Reload 1- Decreases reload by 0.06 seconds, increases minimum CoF by 0.05
    Reload 2- Decreases reload by 0.12 seconds, increases minimum CoF by 0.10
    Reload 3- Decreases reload by 0.18 seconds, increased minimum CoF by 0.20
    Reload 4- Decreases reload by 0.24 seconds, increased minimum CoF by 0.40
    Reload 5- Decreases reload by 0.30 seconds, increases minimum CoF by 0.80

    The numbers are largely made up, but the point is that while the benefit increases linearly, the drawbacks increase exponentially. So you really have to ask yourself if it's worth it to have that last 0.06 second reload decrease when your shots start going wild. Maybe it's worth it because you're running a close-range drive-by tank. Maybe it's not because you'd prefer to have some accuracy.

    True, and a good alternative. Current 21st century tanks already manage to cut down crew from 3-4 to 2, simply using automated systems. A 28th century tank could easily be operated by a single person with customizable AI to monitor the rest.

    Because now it will be much harder for the Vanguard to aim at your Harasser? Harasser goes fast, turret turns slow.

    In a good way, this will penalize 1/3 Harassers or Harassers that stop moving. If you sit still long enough for an MBT to rotate its turret and blow up your glorified go-kart, then you probably deserve to die in one hit.

    They don't "replace" teammates... no one is shooting that empty top gun for you. All they do is confer bonuses that allow you different ways to "build" your tank. As others have suggested, think of it like fire control upgrades or automatic suspension or something.

    You're still better off with a secondary gunner on the roof with the new slower turret rotation speeds.

    It would of course be in exchange for greatly improved forward firepower. If you can hit it, then it's dead. If you can't hit it, then you better hope someone else on your team can!

    It can't be worse than the current niche loadout that tanks have, which is pretty much "AP for everything".

    That's not a bad thing in my book because it rewards tactical tanking. If I hide myself well and I see you first and catch you at a vulnerable angle, then I think I should win. For your part, you need to advance stealthily and cautiously to try to see me before I see you, and to try to get the flank on me.

    Right now flanking is not nearly enough rewarded because the opposing tank just swings their turret back and engages you almost instantaneously.

    I can agree with this. :D But I do appreciate the input!

    Oh come on, I didn't even start it this time! Not just even a little rant?
  18. RedArmy

    i stopped reading after the first picture, "i aint got time for that"
  19. DefendYourBase

    I Actually have to agree with OP.

    This would be a awesome upgrade to the game mechanics.

    I always thought the turret rotations in this game was silly at how fast it is. They should make this game more "realistic".... imho.
    Then also make it Occulus Rift Support!! ^^
    • Up x 1
  20. Iridar51

    I like these suggestions.

    I remember playing Steel Beasts as a kid, this reminds me of that game. Very like the idea of choosing ammunition, sometimes on per-shot basis.

    I think crew is a bit overboard, after all, you're playing as your soldier, NPCs shouldn't exist even virtually. Additional upgrades can always be done via personal cert trees or equipment pieces.