Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

1: NC

2: NC and TR

3: NC, TR and Vanu

[Toaster]

Clearly the tank changes are just a stealth nerf to AP Vanguard's AA role.

And a 3-slot MBT would obviously see heavy play- just look at the Harasser before it was nerfed into the ground.

Wasn't Hossin due out in may? What happened with that?

April.   2013.

At this point, no idea.  Originally it was Lattice that slowed it down, but who knows at this point.

[Jim Groovester]

There was also the Esamir and Amerish revamps that delayed Hossin.

[Rex_Nex]

So what do you guys think, is it better to go with a secondary tank gun that lets you kill the enemy tanks quicker or some that can kill the infantry better than the main gun? I'd almost like to say go for the anti-finantry power, but if you have proper support like DarkStar is suggesting then it's kinda redundant.

From what I've seen, stick to the AT guns unless you're VS. The AI tank guns seem to suck, its not too difficult to mow down infantry with the AT guns anyway. Plus the secondary tank guns really decide tank fights, even if you get the drop on someone, the tank with an AT secondary is going to kick the other one's ass.

[Flying Dice]

I'm a bit late on the whole tank "realism" thing, but here's my two cents:

1. It's an overestimation of the versatility of tanks. They were most dominant in WWII thanks to a combination of becoming a serious weapon relatively recently, one side developing good doctrine where the other didn't, and a large number of battles being fought in good tanking country--even with all of that, a combined-arms doctrine was still the norm, and continues to be to this day for a number of reasons which aren't depicted accurately in PS2.

2. In short:
-PS2 tanks don't rely on good coordination between the entire crew to operate effectively.

-There are relatively few AT weapons in PS2: low-damage dumbfire rockets; low-damage computer-guided missiles; low-damage AT mines; low-damage plastic explosives... and that's it. There are no dedicated AT vehicles (the closest you get is another tank with an AP cannon), the closest you have to a TOW Humvee is a Harasser with a Halberd mounted (which isn't even near the same thing), there's nothing that can kill a tank in one shot (despite there being a plethora of such weapons IRL, from a Molotov into the engine compartment to man-portable missiles), &c.

-PS2 tanks have absurdly good mobility and acceleration, further reducing the danger of operating in what would normally be hazardous terrain. PS2 armor can roll into tight quarters in a facility or a narrow mountain path without worrying too much, because they can always bail at 60kph in reverse at the drop of a hat, and there's nothing that can kill them before they react, except for a LA managing to plant all of his C4 on an un-upgraded Lightning without being spotted.

-The "realism" changes suggested sound like anti-fun, especially because they rely on a misguided representation of how things actually are. I'd advocate against playing ArmA if you're looking for "realism" in which tanks are nigh-invincible death-machines, because the first time a PBI lands a good rocket from concealment and you brew up without even knowing what hit you will probably be a fist-through-screen moment.

:|

[zombat]

So what do you guys think, is it better to go with a secondary tank gun that lets you kill the enemy tanks quicker or some that can kill the infantry better than the main gun? I'd almost like to say go for the anti-finantry power, but if you have proper support like DarkStar is suggesting then it's kinda redundant.

From what I've seen, stick to the AT guns unless you're VS. The AI tank guns seem to suck, its not too difficult to mow down infantry with the AT guns anyway. Plus the secondary tank guns really decide tank fights, even if you get the drop on someone, the tank with an AT secondary is going to kick the other one's ass.

HE on a locked down prowler is pretty good at killing entrenched enemies... or was until it was nerfed.

For every other faction I would say no as you need almost a direct hit to one shot kill a softie (except maybe the magrider?)

[Rex_Nex]

As to tanks, I dont think they're done right at all. From a gameplay perspective, they are very flawed, and it's basically a problem tied to the fact that every player can afford one because everyone has a separate resource pool. They should mean a lot more than they do, but at the same time, they shouldn't. They should be important resource dumps that people go out of their way to protect and maintain because "damn this thing cost 10% of our factions entire vehicle resources", not "lel lets pull a legion of prowlers out and camp this base, by the time they die we can pull more". If that were the case, I'd have no trouble with them being much more powerful. Having 3-4 crew tanks sounds fun!

I realize that's not exactly how tanks are supposed to be, but I just cant stand the status quo.

[Ozyton]

The main concern with having a faction-wide resource pool is... who decides who gets to pull what? You can't just have whoever pulling the expensive stuff because they could drive off on their own and get it blown up.

[zombat]

To use the WWIIOL example again: that has faction wide resource pools, what you'd find is that 10 minutes after the start of the battle you'll find you'll have no panzers or tigers to defend/attack the town because bad players will have gotten them killed already - some of them even being faction switchers that intentionally go to the other side to drain their assets.


So nope, they're bad

[Xardalas]

Could try to use a faction rank system. Allowing only those who are of a high enough rank in the faction to pull out the more powerful/expensive vehicles. Also have a timer set, so they can't pull out multiple strong vehicles in a row to just destroy the resources like that.

That'd stop faction switchers from pulling that shit. Well, at least with anything big.

[Aklyon]

That sounds at best like trying to justify changing the system badly. Faction switchers will just pull a million flashes and drain resources just as badly, but with the bonus of killing the resource collection rate at the same time since it would take longer to drain than with MBTs.

[zombat]

Could try to use a faction rank system. Allowing only those who are of a high enough rank in the faction to pull out the more powerful/expensive vehicles. Also have a timer set, so they can't pull out multiple strong vehicles in a row to just destroy the resources like that.

That'd stop faction switchers from pulling that shit. Well, at least with anything big.

Uhh.... WWIIOL also had rank restrictions on equipment, including infantry equipment.
And it took a long time to rank up

[Rex_Nex]

Yeah, I realize there are huge issues with that system. Even if baddies couldnt drain all the resources, you'd have the problem where suddenly most players won't be able to ever use tanks. Can't just take away that content from 3/4s of your playerbase.

[DJ]

Tank zergs are hardly a major problem in PS2.

[Aklyon]

Tank zergs are hardly a major problem in PS2.

Certainly not a big enough problem to mess with the entire system.

[Rez]

This is what I mean if I say they've ignored the logistic/strategic side of their game.  You can store massive amounts of resources and you can get the cd on vehicle spawning down to nothing and resources generate very quickly.  This kind of mechanic encourages people to just pull shit to zerg at the enemy in, instead of requiring you to use your assets wisely and play well.  It also makes it harder to balance things.  A tank, ESF, any kind of vehicle asset needs to feel both powerful and vulnerable.  Instead, they were all balanced around being played very, very aggressively and, for the most part, badly.  They can't be powerful, because everyone can pull one every 10 minutes and everyone can play one aggressively with few risks.

Tanks drive into dense built-up areas.  ESF are played as gunships that hover at 50 meters and have no-skill counters to their counters.  Harassers and sundies drive through infantry without a care.  The engie gun, taken alone, is absurdly strong, but that wouldn't be a problem if assets weren't so easily replaceable.  The worst kind of logistic problem you will ever run into is a drive from the nearest held base with a sundie.  The only way to run out of resources is to be hyper-aggressive or to not hold anything on a continent.

It's hilarious[ly sad] that lattice systems were slowing down development of things; it's a really, really shitty attempt to tack on some strategic play.  It's really shitty, because it's really just a zerg herding mechanic.  Go camp on a lattice square between your facilities and the enemy, because they can't go any other way.  If they want to flank your position with vehicle or facility spawn support, they have to cap an entire separate line of lattice, usually between 3 and 6 additional outposts.  How much easier and faster to just zerg at the objective until you win a war of attrition.

Return to adjacency cap rules and remove the idiotic lattice cap mechanics.  Add ANT's to supply resources and power to facilities, facilities pipe power and resources to nearby outposts.  Resource cap lowered to 550 across the board and you can only regen resources in areas that are being supplied.  Rebalance all vehicles to do more damage and have greater accuracy, make them slightly more vulnerable to their counters.  All of this is well beyond SOE's balancing and development ability; word is that the upcoming liberator changes have been wrought with dynamite.  Their response to most balance problems have been to hit the issue as hard as they can with the Balancing Bat.  Didn't they double the price for flashes because they screwed up balancing the fury?