A serious concern about tanks. - Page 2

Baneblade · 2011-12-09, 04:12 PM

Well that depends on whether a tank can effectively mow infantry. If they can, then AV/AA will be the best loadout for general use.

EASyEightyEight · 2011-12-09, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Well that depends on whether a tank can effectively mow infantry. If they can, then AV/AA will be the best loadout for general use.

If the tank driver is spending shells on infantry instead of opposing tanks, that tank won't last for very long in the field.

And since hitting infantry with machine guns while riding in a tank can be problematic (in regards to the secondary gunner not being the driver,) it's possible, but unconfirmed mind you, that ammo from an MG atop the tank might have a small splash to it the allow for a little inaccuracy. Explosive tipped rounds if you will.

That, or they'll spew so much lead with the ever slightest loss of accuracy that they'll carpet a small area for the gunner. Either way works, as long as it makes the AI option optimal over shelling individual targets or the occasional group stupid enough to remain tight in the open.

Coreldan · 2011-12-09, 06:08 PM

It was said that Vanguard can one hit infantry on a DIRECT hit. That's a major difference to the AI-monster the turret was in PS

Erendil · 2011-12-09, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Coreldan

It was said that Vanguard can one hit infantry on a DIRECT hit. That's a major difference to the AI-monster the turret was in PS

That's the way that the Prowler is now and it's still an AI beast - even without the 15mm manned at all. And the Lightning's 75mm takes two direct hits to get a kill and I can clean house with that thing if I'm only going up against softies or MAXes.

Not bragging at all, but just pointing out that the MBT's will probably still do fine at AI with an AA/AV setup, at least at close/medium range.

Now, one advantage an AI weapon might have is accuracy and effectiveness at long range.

SniperSteve · 2011-12-09, 06:40 PM

Good at everything ==> Master at nothing.

I am sure things will balance out once we get some play-testing in.

Coreldan · 2011-12-09, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Erendil

That's the way that the Prowler is now and it's still an AI beast - even without the 15mm manned at all. And the Lightning's 75mm takes two direct hits to get a kill and I can clean house with that thing if I'm only going up against softies or MAXes.

Not bragging at all, but just pointing out that the MBT's will probably still do fine at AI with an AA/AV setup, at least at close/medium range.

Now, one advantage an AI weapon might have is accuracy and effectiveness at long range.

Fair enough, I have no experience on Prowler/Mag and very little on Vanguard and Lightning. I'm usually not inside an armor to begin with.

One thing they could use to balance it is slow turret turn speed as well, which would make hunting infantry harder as well. It's not like tank turrets turn instantly anyways

Traak · 2011-12-09, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by Mod

Also remember what area of the continent you are in. It could be one that is particularly hard for aircraft to fly around in and therefore you would actually be hurting your survival chances by fitting AA as secondary.

Describe, for us, please, what would constitute a place where it is "particularly hard for aircraft to fly around in".

Baneblade · 2011-12-09, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

If the tank driver is spending shells on infantry instead of opposing tanks, that tank won't last for very long in the field.

You can't have played PS very long if you don't know what mowing is.

Wizkid45 · 2011-12-09, 10:05 PM

I will miss dedicated vehicles like the Skyguard for AA, the AMS for mobile respawning (spawning in a gal is cool and all buuut) etc. I dont like the idea of the driver getting control of the main gun and the gunner of a secondary. If I wanted a tank like that I'd go play BF3 (which I HATE that setup btw). Way too much action in Planetside to leave the driver to gunning duties. Mag drivers only used the main gun if they were in a position that they werent going to take heavy fire, or if they had balls of steel!

BuzzCutPsycho · 2011-12-09, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by SniperSteve

Good at everything ==> Master at nothing.

I am sure things will balance out once we get some play-testing in.

LOL because that philosophy worked so well with the Lasher, right? By using the logic you're touting you create a situation where stacking multiple non-specialized weapons/units becomes far superior to using one specific counter unit. The "universal but not exceptional" balance sense has been proven to be such bull shit in various games that I don't even know why people still think it has any weight.

Examples? Let me give you some.

VS Lasher - The weapon was made to the point where it didn't need secondary fire and did general damage to both MAX units and Infantry. Turns out that when you stack a shit load of them everything gets mowed down and the need to switch to a AV weapon becomes irrelevant.

PS1 Plasma Grenades - Same as above. Who the fuck needs frag? That shit does more damage per application.

DOW2 Plasma - Turns out that an infantry weapon which can do moderate damage to all units is far superior to a specialized weapon that can do severe damage to a certain type of unit. It was because of plasma weapons that players would spam tac squads and mow over people with varied armies. For those who played back in Chaos Rising think back to Inferno bolts for CSM squads, same shit. General purpose weapon that when used in mass far exceeds specialized weapons.

Only an idiot would use a specialist weapon which can handle one situation very well over a weapon that can handle every situation reasonably well.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein"

sylphaen · 2011-12-10, 12:20 AM

Until we get an idea of tank armor/HP, I shall assume that tanks in PS2 are meant to be game for infantry engineers and air vehicles that enjoy the thrill of the hunt.

edit: btw, in PS1, the key balancing item for infantry-side vs. vehicles was jammers. If mosquitos could have been jammed as easily as ground vehicles, there would never have been as much infantry farming (or at least, those doing it would have been more skilled).

FIREk · 2011-12-10, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by basti

You will have other Tanks around you. Some of them AA, some AV, some AI. And you will need all three, because you dont know whats going to hit you until it actually hits you.

To be honest, I think we'll end up with all tanks being fitted with secondary AA guns anyway. Other than the resource cost, there is no reason not to equip one. Doing otherwise would simply be incompetent, unless you're in an uber-organized tank team with dedicated AV, AI and AA units, which is very rare.

A tank's main gun comes with a coaxial machinegun (I'm assuming the Mag and Prowler have these as well), so the driver will always have a viable AI gun.
The main cannon is typically best suited for AV and has limited AI potential (BF3 did this pretty well), so AV is definitely covered by default.
That leaves us with AA. Aircraft will always be the biggest threat for a tank, so there is absolutely no reason to choose a secondary weapon type whose functionality is already covered by the main gun+coax MG (AV+AI) over a gun that can add new functionality to the tank, and harm its most dangerous enemy.

You can always use the terrain to fight, avoid or run away from infantry or other vehicles. You can't do this against aircraft. If you don't have any AA capabilities, they will strafe you until you're dead, or until someone else gets rid of them.
But your teammates can be preoccupied, or whatever. Since the game gives you this option, it's always best to come prepared, rather than assuming that others will cover your ass. There is absolutely no reason not to take an AA gun, if only to piss off and scare away potential air threats, which would be invincible otherwise.

The only thing that can stop this from happening is for the AV turret to be cheap, and the AA turret to be exorbitantly expensive, resource-wise.

I only hope tank-mounted AA turrets will be nerfed to shit as soon as buggies with proper AA are implemented. At that point tank-mounted AA should only be useful for scaring away, not killing air vehicles.

CutterJohn · 2011-12-10, 03:16 AM

Originally Posted by FIREk

I only hope tank-mounted AA turrets will be nerfed to shit as soon as buggies with proper AA are implemented. At that point tank-mounted AA should only be useful for scaring away, not killing air vehicles.

Indeed. Only one AA weapon has ever been designed. In fact, it is physically impossible for there to be more than 1 variety of AA weapon. This weapon fills all niches, is effective at all ranges, and counters all targets equally regardless of their armor level, speed, or maneuverability. The only variation scientists have ever managed in this weapon is in the relative power.

ringring · 2011-12-10, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by LordHumungusXOX

I think it will open up the floor for more tank battles. That's what disappeared from PS1 with the BFR shitbirds and then the Reaver stealth armor buff(an nice fat "up yours" to the tard who placed that in game).

Sure, the Reaver was always a problem, especially to grunts, but the tank battles used to be stupendous. SOE sure cleared that right up with their silliness though. No more ground fights for you sir! You must turtle in your base or fly an aircraft!

This is overblown. Of course you can have tank battles even now. The only limiting factor in the size of them is the population.

Presently, if you want to roll tanks and you're worried about air you bring a SG too or a AA bfr.

Relating to ps2 however, to me this is simply about balance which we'll have to leave to the devs. I'm more concerned about the mechanics of driving and gunning a prowlie.

Graywolves · 2011-12-10, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by BuzzCutPsycho

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein"

I like that.