Tank rear armour versus Pods

Gimpylung · 2013-03-26, 10:00 AM

I'm pretty sure rear armour on tanks was made weak so that other tanks and infantry had an Achilles heel to exploit. That's fine with me, I drive tanks and that kind of mechanic is perfectly acceptable.

Supposedly top armour is available as an option on tanks to reduce damage that tanks receive from aircraft. Unfortunately it's utterly useless as rocketpodders are exploiting the weak rear armour mechanic designed to give ground forces a chance against the tank.

It would be nice if damage from rocketpods specifically to tanks sensitive fat arses was reduced so that they can't make dust out of me in just one pass.

Maybe, modify top armour so that it also increases rear protection from pods specifically. That might make top armour a worthwhile addition to a tank again, it was only ever somewhat justifiable to use when libs were OP and the sky was black with them.

Corvo · 2013-03-26, 02:02 PM

It could be simply done by adding wide rear flaps to top armor.

If it should be done is an entirely different question. Attacking a vehicle from behind is a skill-based tactic. I don't fly very often as I generally prefer infantry combat over vehicle combat but from my experience in the VR training area I can tell it's a pretty hard thing to pull off. This game is already not very skill-heavy with too many random things to factor in and you are suggesting to remove one of the few skill-based factors.

I am personally with you on this one, but then again I'd support any rocketpod nerf just because I think we need more skill-based weapons for aircraft and more of them in general with distinct roles for each. Rocketpods shouldn't be the only viable thing when you are equipping your ESF. I expect many pilots will object to this though.

PredatorFour · 2013-03-26, 02:32 PM

Yeh attacking a vehicle from behind is a skill based tactic. Though , it takes little skill to achieve this. In a esf it is really easy to swoop past and hit a tank from behind, there's no skill involved really from an air stand point at least.

What they need to do imo, is give us the chance to cert rear armour on our tanks = problem solved.

snafus · 2013-03-26, 02:47 PM

With the current state of AA in this game if a ESF can sneak up on armor and achieve this shot they should be rewarded for the effort. With all of the potential threats to air that the game gives players atm why are people still having issues? I have an opinion on that and it is simply a failure to pull proper security on your armor assets. If you have armor you have to protect it and that means burster and skyguards on stand by watching all angles of approach. If you fail to do this air will be able to kill any armor left undefended as it should rightfully do. I don't get mad when a vanguard snipes me out of the sky I just accept he made a great shot and vengefully hunt his ass down. This is how the game works and there are ways to protect your armor it just requires team work and less QQ.

Dragonskin · 2013-03-26, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by snafus

With the current state of AA in this game if a ESF can sneak up on armor and achieve this shot they should be rewarded for the effort. With all of the potential threats to air that the game gives players atm why are people still having issues? I have an opinion on that and it is simply a failure to pull proper security on your armor assets. If you have armor you have to protect it and that means burster and skyguards on stand by watching all angles of approach. If you fail to do this air will be able to kill any armor left undefended as it should rightfully do. I don't get mad when a vanguard snipes me out of the sky I just accept he made a great shot and vengefully hunt his ass down. This is how the game works and there are ways to protect your armor it just requires team work and less QQ.

The whole point of threads like this is about 1v1. Team work anything has to be thrown out the door in these threads. Most people think that all things need to be equal 1v1 in all situations.

Anyway, I'm with you on this. I fly ESFs and I use tanks. If a ESF blows me up from behind then chances are there were no allies near me to begin with so grats to the ESF for doing their intended role... you know the whole air to ground missile thing.... that is supposed to take out vehicles instead of just farm infantry.

Good luck piloting a ESF in a heavy contested area and if you get blown up from behind in a heavy ally area then chances are he killed you and died shortly after due to bursters, lock-ons, AA turrets... So all he wanted to do is get 1 kill before he died.

As a tank driver you should be mindful of your surroundings. If you are really worried then buy a walker/ranger and have someone with you to watch your back. Otherwise I can't feel sorry for solo tank drivers. ESF pilots already have a pretty rough time with all the AA around and the recent nerf to their pods for infantry farming. At least allow them to do their primary function.

fierce deity · 2013-03-26, 04:37 PM

The solution to this is to add the option to cert into rear armor. It should not stop an esf that is determined to take you out in a 1v1 situation or a tank that managed to sneak behind you, but it would give you enough time to properly react.
I would also like to be able to be able to equip multiple armors(two would be fine as it adds defense without being overly OP) at one time. With that you could equip both mineguard, which is practically a must have, and front armor if you are going to try to push against an opposing tank column, place top and rear armor on your skyguard loadout, or any other useful combo you can think of.

Rbstr · 2013-03-26, 04:55 PM

I used to think it was a bit too easy.

Now that every object on the continent has 5 AA guns poking out of it. I'm not so sympathetic to the tanks.

ThatGoatGuy · 2013-03-26, 05:36 PM

If you are an intelligent tank drivers, you always run a walker on your second gun. That way, even if you are lone wolfing it, you can just hop in your walker.

Neutral Calypso · 2013-03-26, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by ThatGoatGuy

If you are an intelligent tank drivers, you always run a walker on your second gun. That way, even if you are lone wolfing it, you can just hop in your walker.

I tested it in VR. An MBT's walker has the same TTK an aircraft as a skyguard. (The Skyguard is just nominally more accurate).

So what are you waiting for? Put a walker on your tank unless you're running with a group that's already got AA!

Ghodere · 2013-03-27, 04:47 AM

So long as anyone can pull a tank at any time with no downsides, they must continue to be manufactured out of paper-mache. So long as a single ESF can do everything effectively with a single loadout, they must continue to be crippled around AA. Underlying design issues are handicapping the game and necessitating band-aid fixes that give the illusion of balance.

ringring · 2013-03-27, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by ThatGoatGuy

If you are an intelligent tank drivers, you always run a walker on your second gun. That way, even if you are lone wolfing it, you can just hop in your walker.

I do, it doesn't help. Not that in favour of the suggestion, I think being wiped out in a single pass is annoying but then there has to be annoying things in the game otherwise it would simply be bland, so I put up with it..

Personally all I ask for as a tank driver is to make the minimap work. The things that destroy my while driving never appear there and I'm speaking about the AT Turret in the main.

Thunderhawk · 2013-03-27, 07:14 AM

With the amount AA has changed over the course of the last few months and the fact that being able to hit a <FULL CLIP OF LOLPODS, EVERY ROCKET HITTING> into the back of a Tank requires you to be vulnerable to AA Flack from the many many different sources, makes this a moot point.

You need to think of the game as Force vs Force not MBT vs ESF.

Sorry but Planetside 2 was not meant to be a 1v1 game.

The amount of times I have had to turn and run half way through an "unload" to not blow up due to the AA gun on top of a Prowler, the AA MAX standing Next to it, or the Skyguard sniping me from 500 meters away makes me have this sort of opinion.

Don't have a bad night of being instagibbed by some ESFs that had no one shooting at them and then say buff tank rear armour.

I think that needs to remain as is.

HiroshiChugi · 2013-03-27, 07:56 AM

I'm with Thunderhawk on this one. Tanks, if any weakness at all, needs to be their rear armor. It shows that they aren't invincible and are actually destroyable. As a Dumbfire Rocket Pods user, I often find taht when I DO line up a shot, I RARELY ever am able to unload a full clip without being destroyed (except in VR

). Honestly, I think that some of these so-called expert armour drivers need to try out the rocket pods themselves and see what they are up against. I mean, hey, just trial them for 30 min. It's just half an hour of your life... :P

psijaka · 2013-03-27, 08:15 AM

I'm with Thunderhawk too; tanks should have a weak spot, and if an ESF sneaks in low and strafes their ass off then good luck to them.

And speaking from an AV MAX point of view, I am very much against people being able to cert up rear armour; tanks would just be able to charge in and overwhelm infantry without infantry cover.

PredatorFour · 2013-03-27, 08:23 AM

Fair enough then why don't us flyers get weak spots? or sundys even ? In the games current state every vehicle should have a weak spot if this is the case imo. You should be given the choice to make the weak spot stronger, but sacrifice another area.

My real hope however is that somewhere along the line they get rid of the rear weak spot and make it like the original planetside. After all the new AV weapons in the game the weak spots maybe wont be needed in the future.