I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks... - Page 3 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: "Its better with Squeeky." -eMa
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Idea Vault

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 3.00 average. Display Modes
Old 2012-04-10, 01:14 PM   [Ignore Me] #31
moosepoop
Captain
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


you can also have a hard cap on the number of super heavy units allowed. make it only pullable by specialized outfit leaders, etc.
moosepoop is offline  
Old 2012-04-10, 01:15 PM   [Ignore Me] #32
Pozidriv
Corporal
 
Pozidriv's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Imho a heavy tank (or superheavy) should be a more of a lineholder defensive type of vehicle, give the MBT's the offensive punch.

I just remembered this while reading this page. A game called Ground Control 2 had a nice idea for a heavy tank. It was just that, a lineholder.

It's side armours would swivel to the front and grant it extra front armour and made some nice hard cover for infantry (PIC INCLUDED!)

Pozidriv is offline  
Old 2012-04-10, 02:38 PM   [Ignore Me] #33
AlienTwentyFour
Corporal
 
AlienTwentyFour's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Originally Posted by Pozidriv View Post
*Snip*
(Ground Control for the win!)

I think NC should look like the MARV from CNC 3 Kane's Wrath.
AlienTwentyFour is offline  
Old 2012-04-10, 02:51 PM   [Ignore Me] #34
Bonius
Sergeant
 
Bonius's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Originally Posted by PlaceboCyanide View Post
How about if we define its purpose as: a high survivability vehicle designed for mitigating damage and focusing fire, rather than avoiding and scattering it. If they do decide to make a vehicle (class) such as this, and I really hope they do, I think this is what needs to be stressed:

1) Resource inefficient when compared to 1-3 man vehicles
2) teamwork/communication being absolutely necessary
- Many have voiced their disapproval of SOE making some of the vehicles more "accessible" to newer players, by letting the driver position fill other roles as well. This vehicle could be a solution of sorts by providing an opportunity for the many that want the communication-required driver is only driver tanks back.
- In order to further balance such a strong vehicle the fields of fire/view could be limited so that whatever the main armament is only has a 10 o'clock to 1o'clock line of fire, having other turrets follow similar restrictions would again, necessitate teamwork and communication.
3) I envision a vehicle like this being strong enough to make the enemy trip themselves up and not be so powerful that it is able to halt the entire advance of a 100 person outfit.
4) An achilles heel which would discourage rolling out a large number of these heavy tanks, but rather a mixed pool of all vehicles & infantry.
- Poor speed, turning/mobility comes to mind, making them primarily defensive and weak to more agile vehicles which can avoid their main gun(s).
If it's resource inefficient compared to 1-3man vehicles, it won't get used by the people able to use it. (Relating back to the "why not just 100MBT's?)

Limiting FoV/Area coverage on the guns would render it completely useless unless fully manned, again relating back to "why not just 100MBT's". The blindspots would also get exploited easily by the opponents.

The achilles heel you mention is already in place in the current metagame. Why would you want to put something that costly in a defensive position? Wouldn't the enemies just go the other way? (The heavy can't chase after them, nor can they engage them effectively).

With all the above points covered, I only see the heavy battle tank you are describing as a huge, costly and ineffective artillery platform. The only thing you would get in the end is a minor e-peen boost before you get blown to bits by enemy AV-vehicles/infantry.
Bonius is offline  
Old 2012-04-10, 07:33 PM   [Ignore Me] #35
PlaceboCyanide
Staff Sergeant
 
PlaceboCyanide's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Originally Posted by Bonius View Post
If it's resource inefficient compared to 1-3man vehicles, it won't get used by the people able to use it. (Relating back to the "why not just 100MBT's?)

Limiting FoV/Area coverage on the guns would render it completely useless unless fully manned, again relating back to "why not just 100MBT's". The blindspots would also get exploited easily by the opponents.

The achilles heel you mention is already in place in the current metagame. Why would you want to put something that costly in a defensive position? Wouldn't the enemies just go the other way? (The heavy can't chase after them, nor can they engage them effectively).

With all the above points covered, I only see the heavy battle tank you are describing as a huge, costly and ineffective artillery platform. The only thing you would get in the end is a minor e-peen boost before you get blown to bits by enemy AV-vehicles/infantry.
While writing my last post I was reminded of UT2k4's Paladin tank, which was allowed to create a forcefield in front of wherever its cannon was facing. Someone else brought up a tank with extending armor- I think that is the direction a Heavy tank should be going, not simply a 2x power MBT with a 2x cost. It should be a defensive vehicle that could hold on long enough for reinforcements to arrive and allow their teammates to dig in as well.

As for it being useless if not fully manned -- the person rolling out of base with a 1 man leviathan in UT2k4 deserved to get that thing destroyed, same applies here I think. As for blindspots being exploited - you mean like shooting a reaver in the rear? Other vehicles already experience this. Potentially (assuming it is made, and made in my design) the Heavy tank would have the greatest situational awareness, but would require coordination in order to capitalize on it.
PlaceboCyanide is offline  
Old 2012-04-11, 02:25 AM   [Ignore Me] #36
Bonius
Sergeant
 
Bonius's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Originally Posted by PlaceboCyanide View Post
While writing my last post I was reminded of UT2k4's Paladin tank, which was allowed to create a forcefield in front of wherever its cannon was facing. Someone else brought up a tank with extending armor- I think that is the direction a Heavy tank should be going, not simply a 2x power MBT with a 2x cost. It should be a defensive vehicle that could hold on long enough for reinforcements to arrive and allow their teammates to dig in as well.

As for it being useless if not fully manned -- the person rolling out of base with a 1 man leviathan in UT2k4 deserved to get that thing destroyed, same applies here I think. As for blindspots being exploited - you mean like shooting a reaver in the rear? Other vehicles already experience this. Potentially (assuming it is made, and made in my design) the Heavy tank would have the greatest situational awareness, but would require coordination in order to capitalize on it.
The core question (for me) is what shoes will the heavy tank fill, that other vehicles cannot? Again, you mention the heavy tank acting as a last line of defense, locking down an area for a last stand. The reasoning behind this is, in my opinion, flawed. IF you're in such a shitstorm and everything just went to hell - what are the odds that someone has dragged a heavy tank into the middle of nowhere? Why would you sacrifice x amount of time to bring such heavy equipment to a potential killzone, knowing that it will only be effective if things to terribly terribly wrong?

And if you're in a bunkered down position outside of a base, the base is already providing enough protection for the guys on foot. The heavy tank would just get instantly smashed to pieces by the assaulting forces.

As for blindspots being exploited - you mean like shooting a reaver in the rear? Other vehicles already experience this
What other land based vehicles lack 360/180 area coverage?


Again, what role would the heavy tank fill that other vehicles cannot?

Give me the complete concept.
Bonius is offline  
Old 2012-04-11, 03:01 AM   [Ignore Me] #37
PlaceboCyanide
Staff Sergeant
 
PlaceboCyanide's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Already answered some of these but ok

1) helping protect and prolong the lives of nearby teammates - to reduce casualties.
2) Why do you assume it would only be effective in a losing battle- enemies still shoot at you even if you're winning. Even in crushing victories you still lose some men. also- I imagine the high requirement for teamwork would be enough to entice many people to load up into one.
3) You say instantly smashed to pieces- didn't we just say mundo armor and maybe defensive abilities.
4) Many other vehicles cannot fire 360 radius unless they rotate their vehicle. The Heavy tank, with its many turrets or gunports would be able to fire in all directions- but its *main* source of damage being restricted in some way for the purpose of balance.
5) taking punishment in a way other vehicles simply can't contend with.

The role it could fill seems obvious to me - think what needs to be a concern if this idea does see the light of day is to not let it become too overpowered.
PlaceboCyanide is offline  
Old 2012-04-11, 03:17 AM   [Ignore Me] #38
Bonius
Sergeant
 
Bonius's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Originally Posted by PlaceboCyanide View Post
Already answered some of these but ok

1) helping protect and prolong the lives of nearby teammates - to reduce casualties.
2) Why do you assume it would only be effective in a losing battle- enemies still shoot at you even if you're winning. Even in crushing victories you still lose some men. also- I imagine the high requirement for teamwork would be enough to entice many people to load up into one.
3) You say instantly smashed to pieces- didn't we just say mundo armor and maybe defensive abilities.
4) Many other vehicles cannot fire 360 radius unless they rotate their vehicle. The Heavy tank, with its many turrets or gunports would be able to fire in all directions- but its *main* source of damage being restricted in some way for the purpose of balance.
5) taking punishment in a way other vehicles simply can't contend with.

The role it could fill seems obvious to me - think what needs to be a concern if this idea does see the light of day is to not let it become too overpowered.
1) How is it protecting team-mates? How is it reducing casualties? How will it do this better than a sunderer? What is the drawback compared to the sunderer? What is the benefit compared to a sunderer/MBT/Galaxy?

2) You mention it as being slow, require alot of resources, handle poorly and be used in defensive position. You rarely bring something specialized for defence when you're on the offence. Why would this vehicle be prefered over five times the amount of MBT's/sunderers/galaxies?

3) Big lumbering targets makes easy prey for any form of AV-weaponry. You can pump it up with all the armor you want, as soon as it gets focused it will get blown to bits - unless backed by a squad of dedicated repairmen .

4) I've yet to see a ground vehicle without a 360 or 180 degree of coverage.

5) I've understood the part about the heavy tank being a damage sponge. What else can it do, beside just sitting there?

There's alot of variables that are still uncertain with this whole concept. Would it be a cool thing to have? Yes. Is it a good thing to have? In my opinion, No.

Last edited by Bonius; 2012-04-11 at 03:19 AM.
Bonius is offline  
Old 2012-04-11, 04:23 AM   [Ignore Me] #39
DviddLeff
Lieutenant Colonel
 
DviddLeff's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


As I waited for my Indian take away last night I was reading through a book on tanks.

Main battle tank is just everyday tanks now, as a single weapon can and does knock them out of action.

Now in the PS world this does not happen; multiple shots are required so we have tanks distinguished by the amount of armour; Light, Medium and Heavy. However we know that there are no heavy tanks, so I do think that heavy tanks should eventually make it into the game.
DviddLeff is offline  
Old 2012-04-11, 11:22 AM   [Ignore Me] #40
moosepoop
Captain
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


the point is not more fire power, but that it is very fun being in a multi man vehicle.
moosepoop is offline  
Old 2012-04-12, 02:20 AM   [Ignore Me] #41
Bonius
Sergeant
 
Bonius's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Originally Posted by moosepoop View Post
the point is not more fire power, but that it is very fun being in a multi man vehicle.
I enjoy economic simulators and strategy games. Does that mean PS2 should implement a complete economics system where I can trade bonds on a day-to-day basis?
Bonius is offline  
Old 2012-04-12, 06:14 AM   [Ignore Me] #42
Bazilx
First Sergeant
 
Bazilx's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Originally Posted by Bonius View Post
I enjoy economic simulators and strategy games. Does that mean PS2 should implement a complete economics system where I can trade bonds on a day-to-day basis?
Yes! Create a new thread!
Bazilx is offline  
Old 2012-04-12, 10:16 AM   [Ignore Me] #43
moosepoop
Captain
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Originally Posted by Bonius View Post
I enjoy economic simulators and strategy games. Does that mean PS2 should implement a complete economics system where I can trade bonds on a day-to-day basis?
lots of people enjoyed gunning the bangbus even though it had weak firepower.
moosepoop is offline  
Old 2012-04-12, 10:30 AM   [Ignore Me] #44
Bonius
Sergeant
 
Bonius's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


Originally Posted by moosepoop View Post
lots of people enjoyed gunning the bangbus even though it had weak firepower.
You're completely missing my point. If they implemented everything that was "fun" (wich is 95% of the threads in this section) this game would, in mild terms, be an unplayable piece of poo and a complete waste of time. I'd rather play Postal or Farmville.

I know a few "veterans" (gz on missing the biggest gaming revolution ever by the way) would play it and claim it would be the best game ever released. They would also ensure the cash flow equivalent of three McDonald's meals a month.

Last edited by Bonius; 2012-04-12 at 10:32 AM.
Bonius is offline  
Old 2012-04-12, 11:22 AM   [Ignore Me] #45
PlaceboCyanide
Staff Sergeant
 
PlaceboCyanide's Avatar
 
Re: I know PS1 and PS2 have medium battle tanks...


So... your point is that another, larger tank is like day trading...
PlaceboCyanide is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Idea Vault

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:13 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.