The Ultimate Combined Arms Thread (Tanks vs Infantry)

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by EliteEskimo, Aug 15, 2013.

  1. Jachim

    How can you say not having vehicles for defense doesn't improve gameplay? Are you claiming that as it stands right now there are no problems with sending waves after waves of infantry to attack a point with no support from any of the other force multipliers because of the ******* walls everywhere that this is IMPROVES GAMEPLAY??
    • Up x 1
  2. Tristan

    The whole idea of a 'Dedicated Front Line Tanker', or a dedicated anything really, is a silly concept and your whole post is tainted by that silly concept. I think a lot of your issues with the current tank gameplay (and some of them are legit issues, don't get me wrong) stem from the fact that you believe you should be able to be in and be useful in your tank at all times.
    • Up x 2
  3. EliteEskimo

    Yes that's the whole point I'm trying to make Tristen. You should be able to be useful in your tank in some form at all times. You are able to be useful as an infantry class at all times in some form, pilots are typically able to impact all bases or at least their surrounding substations. Tankers should not be left out as they are a staple of any true combined arms force. A dedicated front lines tanker is someone who is playing with their tank as a true MainBattleTank which plays alongside infantry, so it's really not that silly of a concept.

    A true combined arms game should allow you to specialize however you want to help your team the best way you can as you see fit. I can literally impact just about every single base on Indar with my tank in some way, and even bio labs I can help protect the substations. I think it should be that way on every map.:)
  4. Jachim

    This is a tired argument 'well C4 is solo friendly so wah solo mbt's wah'

    a) you assume I run a tank solo which I don't. It still does the same amount of damage and gives even more score when 2 people are in it
    b) you don't know what hypocrite means go look it up plzkthx
    c) C4 can be used over and over the C4 fariy can just drop pod in, or hell waste air resources to drop a GAL on the MBT, or a plethora of other stupid things that they shouldn't be able to do to get close to the MBT and kill it with 3 button clicks and a quick upload to youtube showing how 1337 they are
  5. Jachim

    It's silly to play the game how you want to? Okay, you shouldn't be able to be a dedicated sniper or dedicated medic or dedicated HA then. You MUST change it up or they'll nerf you into the ground and make you useless!
  6. Vastly

    That's not what I said. Vehicles are the first defensive line to fall so once the fighting reaches the base there are no defending vehicles left. They have to counter-attack from somewhere else, which doesn't happen for a variety of reasons. If you just failed a vehicle defense, are you going to have the resources to mount a counter-attack? Would you even want to risk trying without your own counter-zerg at your back?

    Exactly right. A game where one side has force multipliers and the other has none is a pretty silly game, at least for one side. We've had tankers complaining how they're "forced" into farming infantry and infantry have no fun at all trying to fight infantry while also getting pounded by tanks, ESFs and Liberators. Which is why people have been complaining about the state of base defense since the game went into tech test...

    Like it or not, defending is half the game and needs to be enjoyable rather than a chore. Without it, the game would be little more than endless ghost capping.
    • Up x 2
  7. Thrustin

    It goes both ways, you're bringing up the same points over and over again as well. You leave me no choice as to respond with the same...

    If you're being C4'd as a two man tank its your own fault.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm stating that your beliefs are that everything in this game should promote team work, whereas driving a solo MBT does not, and that is the exact definition of hypocrisy

    C4 is a one time use, tanks have infinite use. I think your mixing something up there mate. Your second point concerns the issue with the drop pod system, not C4 itself. Your third point is stupid, as they've wasted way more resources than you have and success is not even guaranteed.
    • Up x 3
  8. theholeyone

    And pilots pay a price for that, ESFs can be instagibbed by decimator rounds. Liberators have rubbish flares, and take a lot of damage from flak and any other AV weapons. If you want a strong tank, its role needs to be specialized, so it should not take part in all aspects of the battle. If you want a multipurpose tank, then it should be weaker to ensure tanks do not dominate.

    As Vastly said, they are a force multiplier, so need combat downsides to keep the game fun for infantry.
  9. Aesir

    To chip in on this ...

    MBTs first of all are armored weapon platforms designed to primarily engage ground targets in hostile environment in support of Infantry and Air, in most modern Armies they have become the bridge between Infantry, Air and Support(Arty/Strat Bombing). Their presence should be a threat to everybody on the ground in the area.

    So Tanks should be able to take a pounding, which MBTs can in PS2, this is covered, we are not complaining how sturdy Tanks are. What Tanks in PS2 desperately need is a role and purpose, alongside the tools to fulfill that purpose. We got nothing to do in the game other than camping spawns and this is only because we can take a beating but not because of our weapons.

    MBTs should be what the HA is to the Infantry, only as a Vehicle. Which is a general fighting platform, purely build and designed to fight head to head. They are no snipers, no flanker LAs, no supporting Engis/Medics, their main role is to exchange blows with whatever is in the way.

    I happily would lose all the solo capabilities of my MBT if I would get slightly more mobility, stabilized weapons for my gunners, a standard point defense weapon(LMG) in it's own slot and do nothing but cruise my gunners around. It worked in PS1, it kept Tank numbers low because you needed 2-3 Players to use one and their power because of this requirement was very well rewarding the teamwork of those 2-3 Players.

    SOEs decision to make MBTs solo able added the entire issue of spaming Tanks to the game ...

    But I'm getting offtopic again ... tell me one thing that you think Tanks do so good that is not spawn camping that you think do they so good that we need all this giant arsenal of Infantry based Anti Tank weaponry? There is none, because Infantry and Air can do the exact same things just as good or better with added utility of their own ...
    • Up x 2
  10. zib1911

    This is a a pretty weak answer man. Ok so if I run a 2 man tank i should be able to farm the holy crap out of infantry and then its their fault because I am using teamwork.

    See how it gets out of context when you start choosing what is acceptable and what is not?
  11. Ronin Oni

    Tankers forgetting that old school PS1 tanks were still limited to not being able to affect the actual facility fights, only securing the outside (it was the courtyard then, but then the fights went underground whereas PS2 the fights are above ground, so you're walled out instead)

    Balance is FINE.

    Wanna be useful? Quit sitting outside waiting on the point to flip and move further forward to block any armor reinforcements or support AMS's from reaching the base.
    • Up x 1
  12. Thrustin

    It is their fault. You don't spawn in a base being shelled by tanks, let alone let yourself get farmed.

    But I see my point is not coming across as clear as I hoped, let me elaborate:

    If you are in a two man tank, you have 4 pairs of eyes watching your tank. If your out in the open, the likelyhood of you getting C4'd drops to almost 0. If you are near a base, then expect someone trying to C4 you. And with an attentive gunner/driver set up, a MBT cannot get C4'd.
    • Up x 1
  13. theholeyone

    I agree with the need for more of a role and purpose than sundy escort. The problem with sundy escort, is only one side is attacking, so your escort ends up shelling infantry and spawn room since they have nothing else to fight.
    So how should SOE encourage tank vs tank in that situation, because it is definitely possible, just rare. Well Eskimo wants to force it to be that way, where tanks are the most viable counter to tanks and infantry has a lot harder time; the downside with that is, infantry is the main and starter class in the game, having them ground to dust by superior units is not good for overall game fun or longevity.
    I'd prefer segmentation like the base design on esamir so infantry alway has a place to do their thing but struggle to advance without tanks, but even that has problems where the tanks are not engaged and aircraft just used to get to the next base.
    Another option is just add in tank only capable bases, crude, but I think it would be effective.
    The ANT system will hopefully give tankers more of a role also, which tbh, is about all we can hope for in the near future.

    Funny you should make the HA distinction, because HAs are subject to OHK by explosives and sniper fire for which they can not effectively return. So I would say that currently an MBT is the HA of vehicles.

    I think it has gone too far to change the MBT thusly, but the addition of a similarly equipped HBT could fill such a role.
    • Up x 1
  14. asdfPanda

    With regards to AV mana turrets, SOE needs to fix the hit registration bugs so that engineers manning the turret can be reliably sniped.
    • Up x 2
  15. Thrustin

    In fairness to them, in PS1 you did have a sort of meta game where you had to defend/destroy NTU Vehicles, in addition to sunderers. Something which PS2 lacks.
    • Up x 1
  16. Vastly

    I believe it does. It was classed as a vehicle for this purpose a long time ago. The issue is it's the same size as an infantryman, therefore too small to see at range. They could still be spotted if you knew where to look. However, the thing which didn't render, which made people believe the turrets themselves also didn't, were the projectiles. The upcoming change to make them render will be a huge nerf IMO. I know they won't last long as soon as I know where they are.
  17. Vastly

    Unfortunately, it's a pretty weak meta IMO. Bases are defended because the resources don't exist to attack. Which includes the resources to escort an ANT into a sieged base. There's little reason why you'd even want to try when you could just counter-attack instead. The number of times I saw defenders refuel a base under siege in PS1 was zero. I heard it did happen occasionally though, although by air drop and a refueling bug.
  18. MarlboroMan-E

    You may well be right, when I flip on my thermals on my mossie, I can see maxes and turrets. I don't know how far that is, though.

    For the sake of realism (yes, I know, why talk about realism in this game) missiles SHOULD render on launch. Almost all modern ATGMs give off a noticeable smoke signature on launch, it's only reasonable that there should be SOME warning on turret missiles.
  19. EliteEskimo

    What makes you think my outfit's Armor task force doesn't already do that, we do. That still amounts to waiting for something that could happen but is not guaranteed to happen as apposed to being in the courtyard of a base or having some sort of impact on the base and getting to be a part of the action. There is not always tank that tries to defend the base you are attacking, and a lot of times people just spawn inside the base and try to push out. If the base is walled of tanks don't get to be a part of the action unless our infantry have lost the battle inside and are being pushed outside which is BS. Sometimes it's a struggle to find an actual battle on the outside of the base, and going away the base without support from air and infantry forces is currently somewhat suicide with the range of AV turrets, ESRL's, and Lock On's.

    The biggest issue with Sunderer support is that sometimes not only do infantry not use Sunderer's because the bases are so close to eachother, but the bases are so close in some cases that the time it take Sunderer's to get from one base to the next is insignificant. Protecting ANT's will no doubt add a role, but there is no set date when ANT's will come out so we could try to make bases more tank friendly and spawns more tank unfriendly to create a deeper combined arms relationship between tanks and infantry, but remove spawn farm situations. Tankers don't have fun spawn farming, infantry don't have fun being spawn farmed. Solution is to get rid of it all together through better spawn design.
  20. Aesir

    You can snipe back at Snipers using battle rifles or accurate LMGs(God Saw/TMG50/etc.), though not as effective but they still can. And using FLAK you can survive any explosive that is not a direct hit except C4, meaning Frags are not an issue, AP mines are not an issue, only RL direct hits are, which is a HA weapon anyway. Using their shields they can survive and outlive head to head gun engagements. The HA can fight back against everything at all times in the Infantry warfare.

    HA is the general purpose Infantry fighter, which is why I think that they should have to specialize either into AI or AV and not be both ... But again this is offtopic.

    Back to the main point ...

    The problem with Sundy escort is that Infantry does not use them for transport, all Sundys are is a spawn location and than there are the tools Infantry has at it's disposal to destroy said Sundy, long range AV mana turret snipe, droppod suicide, ESRL/Lock On attacks, good old dumbfire Launchers, C4, AT Mines+Sticky, AV Grenades and so on. Defending/Attacking a Sundy is important, since they are the lifeblood of any Assault on a contested base.

    So if you say Tanks should escort Sundys, than they would need to be the best tool against Infantry, since Infantry is the biggest threat to Sundys right now. What many PS1 Vets seem to forget was how fragile Infantry was in that game, 1 Vanguard round could easily kill 3+ Infantry in a single hit. Tanks were the hard counter to Infantry in the field because of powerful weapons, strong defense and medium to high mobility.

    Many than will bring the argument that PS1 bases had most of it's Infantry fighting going on underground, completely outside the range of Tanks. Which is true and I won't deny this. But in PS1 Tanks always had something to do because the defenders brought in their Tanks from a safe base to destroy the attackers mobile respawn options, which were defended by the attackers Tanks.

    So while Infantry fought over the inside of the base, Tanks were still fighting over the outside of the base because the defenders tried to relieve their base from the outside with Vehicles. The main task of Tanks in general in that game was Vehicle supremacy but also Infantry suppression. Infantry had very little tools to hunt Tanks and most Infantry AV weapons were meant to take out MAXes inside bases ...

    Infantrys only true weapon to counter total farming by Tanks were EMP nades to disable close Tanks to force them to retreat or get slowly pummeled to death by Infantry AV without the option to fight back while being EMPed.

    But this was also when MBTs required atleast 2 Players to truly function ... The Lightning only had a fraction of an MBTs firepower or durability, because it was the one-men-tank and thus way weaker.

    edit. And because MBTs are solo able in PS2 ... it seems all they are is just another Lightning with an additional gunner seat ...
    • Up x 2