How Long Should MBTs take to be Destroyed?

[Phellix]

Whoever voted 2 shots from an enemy tank, you're fucking nuts. get out.

[Meriv]

it was a misclick
lol I am not the only one to have voted 2 shots ok I would go for 3 from the NC one, 4 from the vs 5-6 from tr.

just 3 because i think being a tank doesn't allow you to make mistakes, just like infantry do you do a wrong step? You get yourself killed soo making tanks stronger would just let them.go careless.

P.S. Got quite high influence from Wot from where I am sick of the inverse proportion beetween tank weight and driver brain.


Edit: this in a tankvstank situation, versus infantry I would greatly improve how many shot they can receive

[Khellendros]

I think tanks should be tough, on the whole, but it is hard to say right now what the exact balance should be. Infantry should not find it easy to kill a tank, it should take good teamwork.

If a tank needs killing, get your own tanks or airpower there. This is combined arms warfare, not merely infantry vs tanks.

[FPClark]

4-6 from the front 3-4 from the sides 3 from the top or back. (Being able to sacrifice fire power for survivability too)


From an infantry eye I really dont wanna see OSK C4 on the ground...(Maybe only make it OSK if you have a small few second setup time where it sticks on the tank.)

I also dont wanna see a single Infantry being able to deal with a tank. Do damage to it? Sure. Kill it? Nope.

[WorldOfForms]

It took 40 infantry AV shots to kill a Vanguard in PS1, and it was balanced. If you played the game as a tank driver, you'd understand why.

8 shots to kill, let alone anything less than that, is ludicrous.

In beta, tanks are going to get hosed in seconds and the devs are going to have to buff their armor like crazy.

Or, there's some factor I don't know about and I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

[NEWSKIS]

Originally Posted by FPClark

4-6 from the front 3-4 from the sides 3 from the top or back. (Being able to sacrifice fire power for survivability too)


From an infantry eye I really dont wanna see OSK C4 on the ground...(Maybe only make it OSK if you have a small few second setup time where it sticks on the tank.)

I also dont wanna see a single Infantry being able to deal with a tank. Do damage to it? Sure. Kill it? Nope.

This I would say is about right, but I wouldnt go any faster or vehicle fights will last for like 10 secs.

As for the c4, I'd say make it take one c4 loadout to do it. That way its viable, but not too easy.

[Phellix]

Having the TTK on a tank be small would make them essentially useless in planetside's scale, although this is thinking to PS1 when everyone had the possibility to carry AV weapons. I haven't kept up with what all classes can carry AV but it should be more than 4 shots at least, the fire rate of most vehicles are fast, assuming you made every shot you could take down a tank in less than 10 seconds with just one person which seems wrong to me.

You gotta think also, this is PS2, It's hard to compare it to any other game that has tanks in it just because of the shear size of how many people are gonna be shooting at you.

[Turdicus]

I think the numbers might be a little more simple than they should be. Tanks should be able to kill other tanks relatively quickly, probably something like 10 or 15 seconds of direct frontal hits from a standard tank cannon on average would be my ideal. Larger AP cannons would be less, plus shots from the flanks and rear would decrease the time even more given the situation. The point here would be that a flanked tank is a significantly less effective tank.

Infantry AV weapons would be far less effective, for obvious reasons. The point here is for handheld AV to behave like it does against aircraft: it isn't meant to wreck the planes, but scare them off and destroy them with sustained and numerous fire. Flanking a tank with handheld AT should do enough damage to scare the crap out of the driver and killing a tank should only be possible with either a large period of time or multiple AV weapons firing.

Just what I think anyway =P Maximizing driver responsibility and teamwork sounds like a worthy goal. Keeping the rear and flanks safe and focus fire are two tactics that I would love to see rewarded in this game.

[SixShooter]

I agree that it should be a bit longer than it is now. The problem with the poll is that you really can't narrow it down to # of shots because there are just way too many variables considering firepower, armor, customizations and certs and empire.

[Meriv]

Originally Posted by WorldOfForms

It took 40 infantry AV shots to kill a Vanguard in PS1, and it was balanced. If you played the game as a tank driver, you'd understand why.

8 shots to kill, let alone anything less than that, is ludicrous.

In beta, tanks are going to get hosed in seconds and the devs are going to have to buff their armor like crazy.

Or, there's some factor I don't know about and I'm wrong. But I doubt it.

ok got armor value but how many infantry were killed trought the action? (too know the killing power, and in tankvstank?)

[kaffis]

How long does it take to kill a MAX?

Because that's essentially what driver-gunned tanks are.. outdoor MAXes.

[Meriv]

Originally Posted by Turdicus

Infantry AV weapons would be far less effective, for obvious reasons. The point here is for handheld AV to behave like it does against aircraft: it isn't meant to wreck the planes, but scare them off and destroy them with sustained and numerous fire. Flanking a tank with handheld AT should do enough damage to scare the crap out of the driver and killing a tank should only be possible with either a large period of time or multiple AV weapons firing.
.

I think this is the most important concept

[Revanmug]

Originally Posted by Bags

Six is still way too short. That's shorter than in PS1, and PS2 will have many more tanks because anyone can pull one.

And this could be a problem. Making a 1 person vehicule, accessible to everybody, too strong might give some aweful result. I mean, there is no real trade off to get one rather than being on foot since you don't need a main gunner.

Also, nobody seem to remember that tank will have different damage modifier on where the hit land. I can't see infantry standing in front of tank like another tank might do...

Originally Posted by Turdicus

Infantry AV weapons would be far less effective, for obvious reasons. The point here is for handheld AV to behave like it does against aircraft: it isn't meant to wreck the planes, but scare them off and destroy them with sustained and numerous fire. Flanking a tank with handheld AT should do enough damage to scare the crap out of the driver and killing a tank should only be possible with either a large period of time or multiple AV weapons firing.

I can't agree with this. Someone will be scare if said person doesn't know how dangerous it is or because it IS dangerous. If everybody know that only a very substain AT infantry can take them out, why the hell would they be scare? Do your job and pull back when getting low or even simply ignore them.

Seriously, if AT infantry take so long to kill a tank, why would someone waste their time doing this when they could simply take a tank themself? No themwork require to use those and several several time more effective.

[Phellix]

Originally Posted by kaffis

How long does it take to kill a MAX?

Because that's essentially what driver-gunned tanks are.. outdoor MAXes.

MAX's can't go outside? News to me. Those E3 vods lied!

on a serious note, those two can't be compared, at all.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Revanmug

And this could be a problem. Making a 1 person vehicule, accessible to everybody, too strong might give some aweful result. I mean, there is no real trade off to get one rather than being on foot since you don't need a main gunner.

Also, nobody seem to remember that tank will have different damage modifier on where the hit land. I can't see infantry standing in front of tank like another tank might do...

That's true. But I don't want a bunch of tanks that drive up, get shot at by 5 people and explode.