Some Thoughts on MBT's from a Veteran Tanker

[IMMentat]

slide could be fun, bit then it is down to momentum, friction and the level of control over the drift.
I can't see the magrider ever getting a driver turret, that would result in the drivier potentially trying to rotate a turret to aim and shoot while also managing acceleration, strafe and "facing" (turn) of the main body, oh and keep a finger free for the handbrake (or whatever).
That is a LOT for a driver to do against paper targets let alone moving enemies occluded by dust, weather (hopefully) and gunfire. 3-4 simultaneous buttons on the keyboard plus full use of the mouse-hand, not including minimap, situational awareness or voicecoms interaction.

The ability to "slide" could be a VERY interesting dynamic (high risk, high reward, terrain is not often flat enough to survive such stunts unscathed).
The turn rate of the magrider will decide how useful it is as a firing platform. (lack of response here = no damage)
The strafe and reverse velocity/momentum will decide how capable it is at surviving return fire (lack of response here = hovering target-practice).

What intersts me is the damage scaling for hits that land UNDER the magrider, its wide (though not wider than the prowler), its longer than the vanguard (though with pointed/tapered edging), so some shots are bound to land around and under the chassis no matter how close it ends up hugging the ground it rejects.

How much value/possibility will there be in "dancing" the magrider so that indirect hits become near misses that land under the vehicle. (Early on in the lifespan of BFR bridge battles the mag could weave through long range cannon-spam like a ballerina, intense but fun).

[Biohazard]

Originally Posted by Inq

Correct, thats one of the point's I was getting at. From a lore perspective even with new technology the engineers on vanu would not forget basic principles of tank design. Such as mounting the main gun at mid/high level on the hull/turret to allow the rest of the hull to remain behind cover.

Whoever made the design of the Magrider made it from an artistic stand point certainly not a combat effectiveness one. The design looks 'cool' but it does not fulfil its role correctly. The design would make more sense if the Magrider could fly not hover.

The design has merit as a tank, just look at all that sloped armor! The mag would dominate if they implemented armor slope into the damage model

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

With regards to that media stream, the tank appeared sluggish and pathetic suggesting it is not currently in working order and the discussion was about how to make it so.

And how do you know that it wasn't just the PILOT who was sluggish and pathetic? I remember the video in question, and there wasn't really a whole lot of maneuvering going on.

There's not enough information to debate this effectively. Wait for beta, see it in action, THEN complain, if necessary.

[Gugabalog]

There isn't a question of the tanks response, it's a question of the tanks acceleration which is a big part of agility (one of the VS's focuses). The acceleration is either on or off due to the nature of a keyboard key. It appeared to accelerate slowly which could be an issue with strafing, especially is one tries to circle strafe a turreted tank.

[ExquisitExamplE]

Originally Posted by IMMentat

slide could be fun, bit then it is down to momentum, friction and the level of control over the drift.
I can't see the magrider ever getting a driver turret, that would result in the drivier potentially trying to rotate a turret to aim and shoot while also managing acceleration, strafe and "facing" (turn) of the main body, oh and keep a finger free for the handbrake (or whatever).
That is a LOT for a driver to do against paper targets let alone moving enemies occluded by dust, weather (hopefully) and gunfire. 3-4 simultaneous buttons on the keyboard plus full use of the mouse-hand, not including minimap, situational awareness or voicecoms interaction.

I think it's well within the capabilities of a proficient driver, my update video in the OP demonstrates how such a system works to create a fluid and precise piloting experience.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Well, I'm rolling with AT, so we're gonna have more mags and sundies rolling around that you can imagine. We'll see how it performs in a "highly trained" zergy outfit

We're probably not even going to use armour anyway. Skip to gals and libs most likely.

[opticalshadow]

Originally Posted by Biohazard

The design has merit as a tank, just look at all that sloped armor! The mag would dominate if they implemented armor slope into the damage model

not to mention since he brought up design being the only insipration, you forget the tech on the tank itself


firstly it hovers, turreted tanks weigh more then non turreted tanks, weight could have been a massive factor in the produiction of a tank that hovers.

its main weapon is a high powered energy weapon. all curret tech values of this are massive in scale in comparison to a projectile weapon (save rail tech) its also possible that the entire length of the tank is needed to house the weapon, putting it on a turret could be non feasable or even impossible (like heavy artilary)

weight ditrabution in use, useing the above argument, the weapon might need alot of room, or be to heavy, the tank, which hovers, would be prone to tipping, now even assumeing it could remain upright while forward facing, its just as likely the turret, when turned, could either A tip as soon as it turns to an angle of unstability. or B, when fired have enough recoil to cause it to roll. even real world tanks during ww2 had this problem, recoil caused alot of tanks to never make production.

mixed tech, we havent seen the vanue actual utilize an empire specific equipment that would use "current tech" mechnisms. they may have not had the ability to mix two diffrent technologies in one tank.


from a strictly engineering stand point, any of these are not only valid, but have been real world reasons for various tanks since ww2 to not make it past the blueprints.

[Haro]

At this point, we're arguing particulars that we cannot really support without actually playing the game. Theory is great and all, but breaking down videos hardly substantiates these hypotheses.

The magrider could be totally balanced in it's current configuration. It may not have turret rotation, or a raised gun, but that doesn't necessarily weaken it if other areas can compensate.

1. We know it can strafe. It will likely be more agile, though slower, than the Prowler.
2. We know it can hover over water.
3. We can make a safe assumption that it has more armor than the Prowler, and more speed than the Vanguard.
4. We can make a fairly safe assumption that the main cannon will be more accurate, if it's anything like the Magrider in PS1.
5. Particulars on speed and more importantly, weapon strength, are unclear at this time.

It is entirely possible that these characteristics will work in a way that the magrider is balanced with the other tanks, or it could even be overpowered.

The lack of turret rotation is most likely a response to the additional characteristic that the tank has, which is its hovering and strafing abilities. Odds are, the developers do not want to give a Magrider a fully rotational turret so that it's physical capabilities, aside from the mechanics of speed, armor, and firepower, do not vastly outweigh the other tanks.

In other words, you don't want a tank that can physically do everything other tanks can do, while also having the additional abilities to hover AND strafe. If that was the case, I think the coding behind the tank (speed, damage, armor, etc.) would have to be lowered significantly to maintain any semblance of balance. In PS1, we obviously saw this with the profile of the Mag compared to Vannys and Prowlers, but with the new parameters of vehicles in this game, I really don't see it working out well, though that's just me.

But ultimately, beta is a few days away, so we'll finally see then. But any arguments on balance are purely speculative, with little to go on. But from a pure, philosophical design, I think it makes sense.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

If that is the case it should be fine.



Armor facing has been a given throughout this discussion. And as I said, from a design perspective if a tank is forced to have any side facing a threat that side should have the heaviest armor. This adds extra emphasis to the already emphasized forward armor.

Perhaps armor certs will address this by allowing people to redistribute/add armor to the front/sides/rear?

You make zero sense.

It's armor is probably within the same neighborhood as the Vanguard and Prowler. It might not be the strongest armor but it's likely within 300 HP or so, equivalent to a single Vanguard round maybe.

The fact that it will always be facing it's primary target is an advantage. Prowler and Vanguard can rotate their turret to engage enemies from any side but that means they remain vulnerable unless they rotate their vehicles as well which is extra effort and a risky maneuver. If the Strafe is a little slower then the cruise speed then this is likely the reason for it.

You are operating under a number of misconceptions. One, that the differences between armor levels will be extreme rather about 10% differences. Two that having a rotating turret is a serious advantage at all times. And Three that the Magrider's strafe speed is incredibly slow based on 5 seconds of footage where you see the Magrider ADADing in a typical infantry fashion.

Wait for beta for these kinds of discussions, ok?

Also I'll agree that having the barrel mounted higher on the tank looks better, but the barrel has to aim upwards as well and that would collide with the rotating turret which is probably why they didn't do that.



I give you the S-Tank

This is a Swedish designed tank built for defensive purposes only. Notice something a little unique? No turret. This thing was designed to be planted in a defensive position and hold it's ground rather then engage in active mobile warfare.

The Magrider takes this concept and improves it by removing treads and adding a hover gizmo which allows it the ability to engage in mobile warfare without sacrificing it's defensive ability.

[Gugabalog]

Originally Posted by Blackwolf

You make zero sense.

It's armor is probably within the same neighborhood as the Vanguard and Prowler. It might not be the strongest armor but it's likely within 300 HP or so, equivalent to a single Vanguard round maybe.

The fact that it will always be facing it's primary target is an advantage. Prowler and Vanguard can rotate their turret to engage enemies from any side but that means they remain vulnerable unless they rotate their vehicles as well which is extra effort and a risky maneuver. If the Strafe is a little slower then the cruise speed then this is likely the reason for it.

You are operating under a number of misconceptions. One, that the differences between armor levels will be extreme rather about 10% differences. Two that having a rotating turret is a serious advantage at all times. And Three that the Magrider's strafe speed is incredibly slow based on 5 seconds of footage where you see the Magrider ADADing in a typical infantry fashion.

Wait for beta for these kinds of discussions, ok?

Also I'll agree that having the barrel mounted higher on the tank looks better, but the barrel has to aim upwards as well and that would collide with the rotating turret which is probably why they didn't do that.



I give you the S-Tank

This is a Swedish designed tank built for defensive purposes only. Notice something a little unique? No turret. This thing was designed to be planted in a defensive position and hold it's ground rather then engage in active mobile warfare.

The Magrider takes this concept and improves it by removing treads and adding a hover gizmo which allows it the ability to engage in mobile warfare without sacrificing it's defensive ability.

What I am saying is that BECAUSE it's forward armor will always be facing the enemy it should have an even heavier emphasis than the standard MBT design. I have also already stated that it is possible that they may add certs that allow players to add/redistribute armor to the front or flanks which would allow for players to add this emphasis themselves.

[ExquisitExamplE]

Originally Posted by Haro

At this point, we're arguing particulars that we cannot really support without actually playing the game. Theory is great and all, but breaking down videos hardly substantiates these hypotheses.

Agreed, thankfully it won't be long now. Again, I've updated the thread with a new video, I suggest you all check it out if only to get an idea of how a hover tank from a different game operates.

[Blackwolf]

Originally Posted by Gugabalog

What I am saying is that BECAUSE it's forward armor will always be facing the enemy it should have an even heavier emphasis than the standard MBT design. I have also already stated that it is possible that they may add certs that allow players to add/redistribute armor to the front or flanks which would allow for players to add this emphasis themselves.

And I'm asking... Why? It's heaviest armor point will always be facing the enemy. If you increase that armor point and decrease the side and rear points then you are increasing it's area of disadvantage.

Against tanks this wouldn't be much of a problem unless you are outnumbered. Against infantry and Air, these things can maneuver into positions you can't, and hit you from directions you can't return fire from. Aircraft especially will ignore your heavy front and hit your tail without a problem.

I'm saying that the heaviest armor point will always be facing your primary target. Your primary target won't always be the only threat you are facing though. You need to think about the rest of the tank and if you are proposing that the Magrider gets even heavier armor then what it has now, you are asking for an imbalanced game.

You can increase the armor level by decreasing speed through side-grades. Throwing all the armor to the front (even if this was allowed) is ill-advised.

And this is how I'll always think of real hover tank combat...

[Gugabalog]

I like the highmounted turret for gameplay purposes, though whoever said it could be that the gun needs to be low cuz its too big or cuz of recoil made a good point too. I suppose it could be rationalized away for immersion as well. But yea. Can't wait til beta to start getting more informed.

[GhettoPrince]

It seems to me, just going from videos, that PS 2 tanks are nothing like PS 1 tanks, instead of a juggernaut that will only go down to half a dozen people with anti vehicle weapons or a minefield they seem more like something that is supposed to be move with and be supported by a squad.

It looks like it only takes 4 or 5 solid hits to pop them this time around, whereas PS 1 tanks needed upwards of 40 rocket or AV hits , way more if they had shields up.

[opticalshadow]

Originally Posted by GhettoPrince

It seems to me, just going from videos, that PS 2 tanks are nothing like PS 1 tanks, instead of a juggernaut that will only go down to half a dozen people with anti vehicle weapons or a minefield they seem more like something that is supposed to be move with and be supported by a squad.

It looks like it only takes 4 or 5 solid hits to pop them this time around, whereas PS 1 tanks needed upwards of 40 rocket or AV hits , way more if they had shields up.

its also worth noting that hugby stated that balence was no where near right from what we saw in videos so far (such as the one gameplay vid where max units were about as tough as teh rexos around it)

i imagine that thoughout beta we will see a varied amount of tank balences before we even out. i cant imagine theyll make them fall to a handfull of AV given the amount of players that will be there at launch.