[Suggestion] The Ultimate Combined Arms Gameplay Thread

Just to make my position clear. I have nothing against classes having weak weapons that can tickle an MBT, or when used enmass, kill it. C4 being the prime example. I have no problem giving classes the ability to damage tanks, or even kill them with extreme luck. But no random ******* should be able to float over my tank, drop two bricks of c4, and kill me. No ONE player should have the ability to kill a tank, not even HAs. It takes a minimum of two players to field a tank (talking fixed tanks here), so it should take a minimum of two players to kill it.

I just don't want medics, or LAs, charging tanks with the intent to kill them. If they have the tools and find themselves in a good position, sure they should be able to contribute to the downfall of the tank. But they shouldn't actively seek it out to fight it.

For the specialization thing I direct you above, as I cleared up my position.

As for your suggestions, every class already has AV weapons. MAXes have dedicated AV weapons. Medics, LAs, HAs and Engineers have C4. HAs have rockets. Engineers have mines. Infiltrators have jammer nades. Some of those weapons, like c4, just need to be nerfed into the ground so one player can't run up to a tank and kill it. But they should, and do, all have a means of combating vehicles. But since they aren't dedicated AV classes like the engineer or HA, they should be pretty damned weak. Fighting back =/= killing. You can fight back, you can damage the tank, but you aint gonna kill it by yourself. Not unless you're specialized to do so. If you're not a dedicated AV class then at most you can contribute to the kill by slapping down some c4 as it gets pelted by rockets or disable it with a jammer nade.

I know you didn't suggest using certs on anything other than armor, but it's still stupid nonetheless. NOTHING should cost certs unless it's a permanent purchase. If you want to use certs as a means of countering spam, then I again mention using certs to get rockets, c4, aircraft, snipers, etc etc etc. People need to stop treating MBTs, and indeed all vehicles, as super special entities that deserve unique mechanics. If MBTs cost certs, so too should everything else that's powerful.

As for the lib, it's big gun on the nose is often only used at the beginning of a bombing run. You rarely see lib pilots dogfighting and ignoring their primary gun. They're focused on flying and not getting shot down. Also, using the main gun on a tank while driving is MORE difficult than using the lib gun while flying. There's a reason tanks hardly move when shooting. You'll never see a tank drive forward while shooting something behind it, for example. Players drive, stop, THEN shoot. They don't do both. And again, there's two tanks for a reason. Lightnings for one-man tankers who just wanna drive and shoot. MBTs for crews. Same as ESFs/Libs.

In a large battle libs are no better than MBT, they both get shredded by infantry. They're both powerful tools, only one requires teamwork and one can be used by any ******* who feels like farming some kills. As for the Lightning dying too quickly, a slight hp buff is in order. Also, a Lightning can two-shot MBTs. AP gun to the rear, it's dead. I believe it three-shots with the HEAT. HE obviously does nothing because that's anti-infantry and the default gun is pretty lackluster. The differences between the Lightning and the MBT are the exact same as the differences between the Lib and the ESF, it's just pilots have to choose whether they go solo or group up, tankers don't.

I'd take 5 libs over 50 MBTs any day.

As for resources and timers not being relevant, you're right. On their own they aren't. But it's death by a thousand cuts. On their own they don't do much, but when combined with all the other limiters and suddenly you've got yourself something.

I never said your cert idea would be unpopular. I said it was a terrible idea to charge tankers certs just to pull their vehicle, but not charge anyone else certs for anything of the sort. It's simply not fair to tankers. My ideas for rockets are fair. Infantry may not like it, they may ***** and moan because they can't rambo anymore. But it's still fair. Your idea isn't fair.

You want MBT to be more powerful relative to infantry, well they are already special cases compared to infantry even if infantry do have some BS pay to win weapons and tactics. Some infantry tactics vs tanks are only viable with teamwork but you want them shut out and the only justification you give for this is that if pilot and gunner were separate players then tanks would be super teamwork orientated? Doesn't fly.

Lib tank buster gun can take out a lot of stuff with one pass I think, certainly they can just fly straight at a skyguard and own them. You rarely see tanks shoot while moving or shooting behind because #1 aim is terrible and all over the place when moving for tanks with turrets #2 if something is behind you then you are dead because of poor piloting and stupid weak rear armour. If you could shoot when moving and kill things when reversing it would mean that you showed skill as a tank pilot, why lower the skill cap. Higher skill cap is a better argument in this game for vehicle power than large crews.

I have to two shot a tank in a rear with AP then go get another lightening with HE to farm infantry? That is so totally equivalent to rocket pods. False equivalence, I'll stand by that. I see no argument you make to think otherwise.

I'm only interested in ideas that might work. Cooldowns, resources, only mean something for an already dedicated tanker. Spammer will be able to spam when they feel like it because it's something they do rarely when they see a zerg starting.

If people want to add multi crew land vehicles that just own everything only based on them needing a crew to limit the numbers then they could add some giant robots to the game or something. I don't know. I'm sure that resourse points and cooldowns would stop them being spammed in combination with the crew requirements.

Just to be clear, I am a major proponent of the "EVERYONE has the chance to tickle MBT with mortars, magnets, and thermal grenades," school of thought.


See my earlier posts, nothing I recommended could two shot a MBT....

I don't think any could actually take one down in fewer then a dozen hits.

waah mega thread, wanted to wait with commenting till I finished reading it all, and was sure I understood. but at this rate, i'll forget what I wanted to say before i'm done.

If any of this is a misconception, do tell me however. =)

Nice thread, compiles alot of thoughts, I don't agree with your vision of tanks entirely however.

Personally I want all tanks AV setups included to have the tools to defend themselves against infantry, this does not necesarily mean more killing power.

It could be short range concussion/flash/EMP nades to disable infantry while you reposition. the details can be worked out. But personally the only "bane to infantry" tank I want is one that is fully kitted for an AI setup, and sacrifices AV and AA ability for it.

Or Coaxial machineguns, with low proectile speed, and high damage fall off. (to make them good against those who run AT you, but not effective at actively hunting infantry), esentially think of a pump action shotgun fitted to a tank to kill suicide runners and LA who can't be bothered to flank but just jump a few meters above the tank, in the middle of the open.

Otherwise we run into a similar problem as we have with strikers and rocketpods. (to great versatility in a single unit/setup)

Also regarding AP, I'm worried if you make it too high damage, people will simply just do what they do in most RPG's, I'd rather see the difference btween the two, by how much recoil/velocity/drop they have. (much like now but with heat being worse then it is now.).

Also Heat and HE properly need their inner AOE size tuned. since near misses are punished too hard. the prowler doesn't need a very big change here, but could do with one, its mostly the single barreled tanks that need this.

Well thats what comes to mind now, GJ mate. =)

EDIT: also to be clear, I want tanks to be more survivable, or as I like to say it, have more control about their life and death. To do this I think tanks need more "active" survivability. Here I think, tanks should recieve no health buff, but get ways to reduce/avoid damage, by actively pressing using abilities, and evading incomming dangers, the idea is to increase the skill ceiling, allowing tankers to get easier get good enought to survive, but not have every massive buffs to tank zergs.

I wanted to add, in regards to directional damage, can we get much more advanced damage modeling? To deal rear damage the attacker has to hit the back plate. But in addition, have angle of impact matter. If a tank is angled 15 towards you, you have to choose between shooting the front (at a 15 degree angle) or shooting the side (at a 75 degree angle). The shot at the side would be very likely to glance, resulting in little to no damage (depending on shell detonation characteristics).

World of Tanks is a really fun game and I think they do a lot of things right. However, without combined arms the game is lacking and I think Planetside 2 can take help deliver a more epic feel from a tanker's perspective by making the mechanics less arcade-ish.

As much as I would like a more advanced model, it has to be done right, look at the BF3 model, it's full of gliches, you get shot at the right and your left ERA platting goes of or they hit the top of your turret and it count's as a rear hit, instantly disabling you.

Also, server stress has to be calculated in, after all it's a game with thousands of players.

Calculating angle like you suggested would be not that bad, since HEAT based weapons have a though time with angled surfaces, they work best on flat surfaces, while AP rounds compared have a easier way to penetrate angled surfaces.

Meaning, this would actually be a use for AP weaponry further differentiate from HEAT. Meaning AP ignores angles or get's less reduction from angle, while HEAT weapons only deal good damage against flat surfaces.

This could be woven into the current 45%/50%/120% damage received model with the rear spot getting buffed up to 70-60%. It should still be a weakspot, but no nearly as strong as it stands right now.

The angling reduction should be calculated first and should range from 100%-50% damage received, meaning from totally flat angle till something that should have bounced. This should count for all chemical penetration, meaning every Launcher and every HEAT rounds.

The Lancer and AP rounds work different and should get a bonus in this role so it should be 100%-70% damage received.

Let's put that in an example.

A vanguard stands at 45° towards the shooter, let's say a Decimator round fly's towards him. The game checks for the angle, which is 45°, let's say this reduces damage by 25%, resulting a reduction of the 2000 damage into 1500.

This 1500 damage than calculates for the next layer which is the actual armor, in case of the Vanguard this would mean 62% reduction. Reducing the 1500 down to 570 damage.

So instead of receiving 760 damage if it would have been a flat angle, you receive 570. This way the Lighting would not need a health buff and the new 3-seated MBT at best an increase to 5000health.

It would promote better aiming/positioning, while giving Tankers a more "active" role to reduce damage. And AP would get a good boost in it's major role.

Fantastic thread and some good suggestions.
Have my like. In fact, have 3 of them.

That's the problem with rocket resource cost IMO.

I think that removing ammo box restocking is a viable option however. Though I would like to see equip terms added to Gals (Actually, I want an equip term on gals anyways... along with those shields they used to have when they were G-AMS.... though, without the AMS of course)

A flash (w/o Sunderer) terminal on the back while deployed would also be cool... though now I'm really going off-topic.... but since I am... ability to transport a lightning or 2 would also be sweet

This proves that this thread is full of civilians trying to teach sony about proper militaty tactics. Infantry is called the Queen of battle because its related to chess ( yes, that analog game ) Infantry can move anywhere and do anything. schooled.

People are saying that infantry is too dominant against armor. This is due to infantry learning to adapt to vehicle zergs. but the problem is that tankers and pilots have not adapted. They got in the game, got boosts and certed out their vehicles and exploited the bad terrain and base design. The funny part is that these pro drives and pilots told us to use cover, to ambush, and use out anti air. We did and now they are whining. Lets be honest, all the early high ranks and players from the previous game were all vehicle spammers. They got complacent and spoiled.


Sony knew they were going to have near empty servers with 100 BR pilots and drivers. They had to nerf vehicles and give us more AV options. these nerfs were very slight. combined with a part of the playerbase that adapted and the others who didn't

I just read most of the thread, and there are some very good suggestions. But I feel there are some arguments rising from a difference of opinion on what tanks are supposed to be and do in on the battlefield. As such I would like to propose my own vision of what roles tanks could fulfill in this game, how the current AV weaponry influence this and what could be changed to promote a certain role over another. This post is very similar to a post I made previously, so my apologies to whoever has already read that one.
Quick disclaimer: I’m only BR30, most of what I’m about to say does not come from first-hand experience. I don’t have any relevant degrees or certified knowledge on these matters. Consider this a personal pondering and nothing more. In addition, English is not my native language so please forgive any errors that have slipped through the spellings check.

The role of tanks

Okay, as mentioned, we first need to determine what tanks are supposed to do and what their roles are in this game.
Possible functions of tanks in this game:

* Destroying exterior defences
* Sieging a base
* Defending a base
* Hunting
* Escorting between bases

Destroying exterior defences:
By that I mean destroying base turrets, possible infantry on the walls and other stationary forms of defences preventing access to the base itself. Currently, this role is only of relative use. Small bases have very little of these (although the new base layouts on the test server indicate they want to change this). Bio-labs are not applicable to this. Amp stations have hard spawns so close that it is easy for infantry to spawn there and take over this role (there actually way better at it, but more on that later). In Tech-plants this by far the most useful, as the bas e turrets can fire at the surrounding areas fairly good.

In addition to not being very useful often, tanks are actually quite bad at this. With the exception of the base turrets, most defences on the walls and buildings have an insane amount of cover against ordnance. Because terrain is indestructible, Heavies can easily skyline approaching tanks (Skylining = standing near the edge of a raised surface so that your body is forming a silhouette against the air behind. Shots too low will hit the barricade, dealing no damage, and shots too high or to the side will miss completely, also dealing no damage. Only direct hits can actually hit you.) Skylining infantry is more vulnerable to enemy infantry than enemy tanks.

The bases are in fact designed as to not support his function. That’s why there are AV turrets but no AI turrets aimed outwards. The idea was to make infantry do the assaulting. Personally I disagree, as assault should be a combined arms fight while the base fighting should be infantry-centric. Tanks can be used to effectively destroy enemy tanks in the ‘courtyard area’ should any be used as defensive measurements.

Sieging a base:
By that is meant shelling the ‘courtyard area’ to limit or prevent enemy movement inside the base, possibly preventing reinforcements coming from the spawn to the cap-point. A very effective tactic in smaller bases and Tech plants, not applicable in bio-labs and amp stations due to tunnels. Spawncamping is just a very successful version of this tactic. It is sieging the base to the point that ALL movement has been prevented. Several improvements have been made (and new base design continues this trend) to prevent this tactic from becoming too effective. As such it is becoming increasingly difficult for tanks to do this.

Defending a base:
This includes preventing enemy infantry and sunderers from approaching or entering a base. An effective but very difficult role to use because of the limited chances to pull it off. Small bases can’t pull new tanks so any tanks must be brought in from somewhere else BEFORE the enemy gets there (improved battle flow will hopefully make predicting enemy movement easier giving outfits a chance to prepare such a defence). Tech plants and Amp stations can do this with Amp stations being by far the best known example (think several on the inside tanks aimed at the gate). This is part of the opposite side of ‘Destroying exterior defences’ and attack tanks can be used to destroy defending tanks.

Hunting:
Whether hunting a deployed sunderer or that damned Engi-AV turret, hunting is all about using your speed as a vehicle to quickly close in on a known enemy position (outside of a base) and destroy the target. Vehicles are remarkably good at this thanks to their speed. A single tank running amok amongst the infantry spawning around a sunderer is also counted amongst this. I will also consider intercepting an approaching enemy out in the open to also be hunting.

Escorting between bases:
Whether the tanks themselves are the transport or they are accompanying a sunderbus, the principal is the same here. Tanks are used as a means to safely escort the infantry from one base fight to the next. Tank battles would occur when opposing tank escorts encounter one another or tanks are send in with the purpose of intercepting such an escort. Sadly this has become very rare indeed for two reasons:
1) In my opinion, this is mostly due to map design. With a few exceptions (mostly on Esamir), most bases are very close to one another. So close that stationary defences of at least one base will be able to contribute to this fight. Think about the range of Engi-AV turrets, base turrets lock-on rockets and so on. In addition some infantry zergs will simply run from one base to the next rather than ‘wait’ for tanks and sunderers to pick them up.
2) Which brings me to the second point: those very same infantry zergs, rather than being vulnerable being left in the open, will decimate pretty much anything they encounter. We’ve all seen the groups of Heavies and Lights charging at the enemy tanks rather than taking cover. This is of course compounded by the fact that should they die, they can always respawn at the nearby base they just came from.
Tanks have become exceedingly bad at this role. The battle sunderer, sunderers full of heavies or just a plain old foot-zerg will defeat a tank column in the open. Firing from long range is difficult because bases are so close, map design and Engi-AV turrets and long range AV weaponry will easily outshoot you at that range (if they don’t fire from even further out).

Anti-Vehicle weaponry

If we’re going to tank tanks, we also need to discuss anti-tank weaponry. Simply saying Anti-tank weaponry is a large generalization and will not do this conversation any good. As such I suggest three distinctions:

Short range:
C4 and suicide running engineers with AT mines. The key to this weaponry is too close the distance between you and the tank, with an effective range of less than 6 feet. The huge trade off is the massive amounts of damage these do. In addition, these also cost resources.
The primary role of these is to make tight enclosed spaces inside a base to be very dangerous against tanks. They greatly discourage tanks from entering the base itself.

Medium range:
These mostly consist of dumb-fire rockets. Very powerful but tends to miss at longer range. It is the balance between range and damage. Their function, I think, was intended as a base defence role. Using the rocket-launchers to force the enemy armour (and sunderer) away from the base and to function as exterior defence. Using the defence structures allow the HA to get close enough to use his rocket launcher effectively, using his damage without sacrificing accuracy.

Long range:
Lock-on weapons, the ESL’s and the Engi-AV turret. The idea behind these is they all can be countered or have a powerfull drawback to compensate for their large increased effective range. Lock-ons can be flared or IR smoked. Phoenix rockets can be shot down (that was the idea at least). Engi-AV turret leaves you stationary and cannot be used to quickly pop from behind cover. The lancer sacrifices in damage and a required sense of timing. The role of long rang weaponry was intended to give the Infantry at least a fighting chance against tanks in the open and to prevent a single tanks from taking on entire squads.

The complaints: (a.k.a. why do people have such a huge difference in experience on this matter).
I think the large discussions and threads on tank balance stem from people seeing tanks active in very different roles. People facing a successful ’sieging’ tank will experience spawncamping. While the tank drivers trying to intercept an enemy foot-zerg or go hunting will face massive amounts of long range rockets. The balance between tank and infantry is very dependent on location, situation and role of the tank.

For example, C4 will quickly destroy your tank, but the LA needs to get very close indeed to pull it off. So the question becomes is the C4 too powerful or is your tank just not supposed to be that close to the enemy base? Could the LA do the same to you if you are out in the open? What tank role are the game designers trying to promote with this? In case of C4, I think they wanted to reduce the amount ‘sieging’ inside a base while at the same time not influence any other role.

Another example would be the latest Launchers. I would consider all three of them to be long-range AV weaponry. The lock-on distance of the striker is very far indeed, the phoenix can fly 300 meters and the lancer is basically a vehicle sniper. When fighting inside a base or very close to the walls, what is the most effective launcher? What weapon would you pull to deal the most damage at that range? What tank role are these weapons meant to counter? And how do they do this? In this example, I think the primary role would be to counter ‘hunting’ tanks sent to intercept the infantry. Or as a means to counter ‘defending‘ tanks without getting too close to the walls.

In the end, the entire tank versus infantry discussion comes down to what role we want tanks to play in this game. Currently, many people find that tanks do not perform well at any role and as such feel them to be weak, or more precise ‘useless’.
* Destroying exterior defences, defences are designed specifically against tanks and infantry is much better at taking them down anyway.
* Sieging a base is enjoyed by no one as it is an option reducing tactic.
* Defending a base is inefficient from a logistic point of view and enemy infantry can out-range stationary targets.
* Hunting is very difficult since the introduction of very powerful long range AV-weaponry. Tanks in the open will lose such engagements.
* Escorting between bases has become obsolete as the infantry is more dangerous than the tanks escorting them.
What’s left is long range sniping which would not be able to kill infantry fast enough to influence a combat. Yes, you will have a very efficient K/D ratio and resources usage but, unless you manage to destroy a sunderer, you won’t actually manage to contribute in any meaningful way.
Good, now we have a baseline of possible roles of tanks. Now comes the question of course what role would you like to promote or discourage?
An example of the battle flow as I would like to see it would be:
The convoy approaches the enemy base and starts taking out the exterior defences with the aid of the now embarked infantry. With the outer defences down, the infantry rush in while the tanks stay outside to protect the sunderer as spawn point. After the base is taken, everyone loads back up in the busses or tanks (not wanting to be caught out in the open) and the convoy moves to the next base.

Let’s break this down to the individual steps and role of tanks.

Approaching the base and ‘Destroying exterior defences’.
To encourage this, would require tanks to have a more important role to play in this part of the assault. Currently infantry can do this better than the tanks can due to the presence of AV turrets, the lack of AI turrets and the presence of skylining infantry. So we would require some base defences that are vulnerable to tanks (shells) but more resistant to infantry (rockets), a form of flak or chaff comes to mind. Ideally some AI turrets on the outside. I don’t mind the skylining, as this would force the attacking force to combine arms between tanks for one part of the defences and snipers / light assault for the infantry on the walls.

Infantry rush in and tanks stay outside to protect the sunderer.
This is already being sought after. With improved lay outs, reduced changes to fire inside the base and powerful short ranged AV weaponry (such as C4) tanks are forced to stay outside. As the game progresses I hope more people will find out that sunderers armed with mine guard, AI secondary weaponry and deployed in an more open position are very safe to suicide runs but not to ‘hunting’ tanks. Sunderer drivers can really only choose one thing to defend against and it is up to the defenders to adapt. Once they do, tank drivers will continue to have a function even outside a base as they start to protect the sunderer against ‘hunters’.

After the base is taken everybody loads back up.
This can only be encouraged by making a dangerous zone between bases. Have infantry out in the open be very vulnerable. For this I would buff the splash damage of tanks back up. Yes, they will annihilate infantry, but only if those same infantry are in the open. Cover and Fire-and-forget rockets greatly even out the playing field in courtyard areas. In addition, the danger zone between bases should be longer. If we consider the current bases to have fixed locations (redesigning a map would be a tremendous amount of work) the only way to do this would be to reduce the safe zone around bases by decreasing the AV firepower of infantry on very long ranges (I’m looking at you Engi-AV turret and ESL’s). Look at the movies of the OP, there all about Long-Range AV weaponry, their effective range is farther than the tanks can actually respond.

All this combined will hopefully bring back the idea of combined assaults on bases and tank battles in the open (as one side tries to catch the transports where they are vulnerable and the other is protecting them).

Your concerns and suggestions:

I highly disagree with a resource cost on rockets. I understand the desire to reduce the power of Long-range AV weaponry, but this will also greatly reduce the use of Medium-range weaponry. These are mostly used as a base defense weapon, thus greatly reducing the chance of defending. Consider the snowballing effect this can have on a continent mostly captured by one faction. They’ll have the resources to pull tanks, while the defenders will not even have the resources to defend themselves against said tanks. It would become a one-sided route. A losing continent will be abandoned even faster.
I mostly agree on your suggestions regarding tanks. With the exception of two points:

For one, I kind of like the many different ways to destroy a tank. As each have its own use and most importantly its own effective range. As a result they affect different roles of the tank. With different weapons it becomes easier to influence tanks into specific roles or discourage other ones (think C4 versus ‘sieging’). I think this critique stems from the fact that Infantry currently have a counter to every role, which I think was never intended.

On directional damage, it comes back to where you want your tanks to operate. If we consider inside the base to be infantry-zone and outside the base to be tank-zone, directional damage works surprisingly well. Inside a base, it becomes easy to flank tanks, thus discouraging tanks from getting close. Outside the base it is far less prevalent, unless they manage to flank you on a grander scale. And if they manage to actually outmaneuver you on such a scale, I think they should deserve the bonus damage as it stimulates tactical maneuvering. Basically, I think it mostly discourages tanks inside a base, where they shouldn’t even be anyway.

Also be very careful with any change to resource costs, as there is always the chance of snowballing. Although I hope that once continent locking comes in the game it will partially solve this problem.

You can apply the saying to more than just chess, the saying from Queen and King from Chess was back from the times of Horse Cavalry. Since Horses could not effectively go everywhere, while Infantry, like you said can go everywhere.

This has not changed, Tanks or airborne Cavalry like gunships can't go everywhere but in more places than before, while Infantry can go inside houses and City's. That's why the modern saying is projected mainly about Urban areas. And because you still need boots on the ground to kick down doors.

I myself was with the mechanized Infantry and our APC's and Tank's follow with us, everywhere we go. They escort/support us till we reach the door that needs to be kicked down, something horses are not able to do.... Your support now follows you into the City, that's why the old saying is no longer 100% correct.

Wait so let me get this straight lol...

1. Infantry suddenly adapted to tanks when tanks had their splash radius nerfed ridiculously low and their splash damage nerfed?

2. Infantry "adapted" when right after that nerf they were given a unlimited ammo and unlimited respawning turret that shoots missiles from 900m away and glitches through base shields?

3. Infantry adapted when they were given sniper laser cannons that have speed that makes it basically point click?

4. Infantry adapted when they were given camera guided rockets that let them shoot tanks behind cover from 300m when the tank is also behind cover?

You didn't adapt at all, you were given broken low skill cap toys that completely destroyed vehicle combat . After this post it's clear you are super biased and or don't want Tanks to be brought up to par. Furthermore, Colt and I never made these ludicrous L2P statements you suggested. Using cover is a valid suggestion since most infantry run out in the open AND THEN try to shoot at my tank even to this day! I can't understand the sheer untactical minds of most infantry I come up against. During the rare times I go up against a tank as an HA I ALWAYS use cover so I don't die...

Wow this was a really great response and I think you nailed the issues down to the wire.

Personally I don't mind if tanks have limited to no entry where the points are in main bases, that should be up to infantry. They should still have a courtyard defense roll to an extent but it should come with risks(like c4 which is already a problem at tech plants and AMP stations. I do definitely agree that tanks need to have their escorting role and hunting role back to a major level. Tanks best roles used to be out in the open between bases, but this is actually where they are most vulnerable now as you had stated. I mean everything you said made sense. However there were a few minor things I disagreed with.

1. The ESRL's are short, medium, and long range with the exception of the striker due to it's 5 second lock on. The Phoenix can be camera guided shot up close very effectively as shown in the videos I posted. The Lancer can fire all it's ammo in a very fast succession to be effective close range rather than charge up. I see the VS use the lancer on me all the time up close and it is effective. The ESRL's are all straight upgrades from the default launcher. None of the ERSL's with the exception of the Striker can be countered, and only the striker has a true big downfall which is it can't be dumb fired and can be countered by current tank defensive measures.

2. My resources idea would only be implemented on the Lock-on and ERSL's rocket launchers, dumbfire launcher rockets would always be free. This way low skill cap weapons cost resources to use, but if they run out of resources they can still spam the default launcher which is good short range for everyone, and good medium range for the more skilled user. I also suggestion buffing the dumbfire launcher's speed to make this viable.

Other than that we basically agree

Who said I want infantry tactics shut out? Do NOT put words in my mouth. I hate that. I just said no lone infantry player should be able to kill a tank. And they shouldn't. You're not Rambo. You're not Master Chief. You can't run up and 1v1 a goddamned Main Battle Tank being crewed by a minimum of two players. They require teamwork to run the tank, you should require teamwork to bring it down. It's fair.

I always hate the "skill" argument. There's no skill involved in driving and gunning. There's a potential for skill, sure, there's potential skill for EVERYTHING, even ******* lock-on rockets. But do 99.9% of players use that skill? No. No they don't.

Since beta, I have asked people who opposed crewed tanks to show themselves driving and shooting in the opposite direction through an urban environment. Because they always went "ha, yeah, I can do that you're just bad". Not once did they ever pull through. Turret instability is a factor, but the primary reason people don't move and shoot is because they can only move in one direction, the one they're shooting in. You can't drive east and shoot north west. You can't go full reverse, shooting the guys in front of you to clear the path as rockets pelt you. You just can't do these things because you'll run into a rock or something. The only time tanks move is when they're out in the wide open and there's nothing for them to hit. It's simple limitations of asking one player to do everything.

Also, I love. I ******* love. How you conveniently ignore that Lightning's have HEAT turrets, same as MBTs, which do almost the same damage as MBT HEATs. You can three-hit an MBTs rear and proceed to two-hit infantry. The only difference from the MBT gun is one extra hit to the rear to kill them. A heat Lightning is no different than a rocketpod ESF. If anything it's better because it requires less hits/ammo to kill infantry and tanks. It's got a lower profile and can make use of terrain for cover. Rocketpods were super powerful in the past, that day has long since past, stop making them out to be these exceptionally powerful doom weapons.

You want ideas to work, you dismiss cooldowns and resources. But how can a spammer spam if he can't even shoot? Two seats, driver and gunner. How can that lone player be a threat in an MBT if he can either move, or shoot. Throw in a 10 second delay to hotswapping and that means if he's shooting, and starts getting shot, he's guaranteed to die. If he's moving and gets shot, he can't return fire. It's the crew requirements more than anything that limit spam. High resource costs, timers, limited spawn locations, these just compound it and make them even more limited.


Also, if you continue to conveniently ignore key aspects of my posts that prove your points wrong, I will just ignore your entire post. "Hurr HE or AP on lightnings, what is HEAT" "Hurr ignore the limited spawn locations and crews that limit MBTs". I can't stand bull like that, keep it up and I wont even indulge you. If you want to refute points, you can refute -ALL- my points.

I agree with this. Every class should have the option to carry a weapon that damages tanks. But that damage should be proportionate to that classes role. A medic aint gonna be running around with giant explosives capable of severely damaging an MBT. He might have something to tickle it, to contribute to the team bringing down the beast. But his bag is full of medic tools.

I also feel like these weapons shouldn't be standard. Say that medic wants a weapon that can harm tanks. Well he has to forgo grenades then to fit that. Specialization within the class is needed too. You can either go "let the heavies take care of it" and focus on your role, maybe carry a medic station that can deploy an aoe heal (better than infinite aoe heal special ability). Or you might be afraid of tanks and want something to fight back with. You forgo the heal terminal and equip some C4, now you're a weaker medic but can damage vehicles. You need to decide what is more important to you. Me, for example, I'd go with the medic station. If I see a tank I run around rezzing people it kills, let the heavies do their job.

But another player may want to be able to engage that tank, even if it means being a weaker medic, so he'll strap some c4 to himself and pretend he's in Iraq.

I don't think AV weapons should be so default as they are now. There's no downside to carrying C4 other than the initial cert cost. Same with rockets. AV weapons should be a conscious choice. Sure every class can do it, but you have to give up something else in order to do it. I think that should extend to HAs as well. AA, AV, or AI. Can't do everything, you aint a supersoldier, so choose what you do want to do.

Ok. Well, Totally irrelevant: But strapping C4 to a squadmate is a VERY medic-like way of killing a tank.

Putting the "Dick in Medick."

Lol, if a medic kills himself his whole squad loses him for reviving and healing. What a waste

No, I said, Strap your teammate with C4: That way, you can blow them up, and revive them in the flaming wreckage.


Think like the WW2 anti-tank dogs.... Except not trained to kill friendly tanks.

Lol, that would be such a huge exploit and would piss off every ground based vehicle user to no end.

It would be like the BF3 C4 Trolling montages all over again.