How many suggestions

Optimally Id say from the resources 1 and from your wages 1. This is for the total amount of players. Still have to take into account not everyone gets a tank every game. Some people will get 4 tanks some 0 but it balances out

 

I'd like to say this.

Most of the issues regarding tank limits have been created by you, so saying that Dev's aren't paying attention when you are the one creating the most topics about it is kind of creating evidence then pointing at the evidence you created saying "IT'S A BIG DEAL BECAUSE THERES A LOT OF POSTS ABOUT IT"

However, I do sort of agree about this. You are barking up the wrong tree though. Tank limit is server specific, ask Creeper to trial it for a day with less tanks then get feedback from people who usually play on if it was more fun or not, that or host a PUG and get old players opinions if they like less tanks or the current number. Complaining to devs with little evidence isn't going to do much, especially when it's the server dictating it. Evidence about it being more fun or increasing the combined arms feel will be more beneficial for your cause then simply saying you have a solution. Trial it out and run it all by Creeper and see if he's willing.

Edit: This could also be map specific. Map's like COD do NOT need 20 tanks.

 

Most of the suggestions fixing tank limites have been created by me, most of the sentiment and the oppinion of people saying there are too many tanks or tanks need to be fixed arent by me. Theres a difference.

 

Limiting tank limit won't help much, but I agree it will help some.

What needs to happen is infantry needs to be viable. Turret spinning speed will help with this. Make heavies have a long turn time, but make their weapons extremely deadly to infantry. This way, when infantry want to counter a heavy tank, they have to run and avoid being aimed at, so infantry can sneak around and target the rear side of the tank where the turret isn't aiming. We need to do more for getting the infantry a roll at killing tanks in their blind spot and a turning speed would help with that immensely I feel.

Personally, I feel like 1 tank and 2 infantry should be how it is, but that might change gameplay WAY too much. It would require a complete tear down and revamp of every single script.

 

How about multiple types of ammo on a tank. This would enable a tank driver to choose from what is researched - HE, ER, Bio Canon, with an added delay when switching ammo.

Load an armor piercing round and fire once every X seconds, but it does huge damage on a single shot, get the right ammo for the right enemy armor or shoot it in the rear, and one shot blows it sky high. Switch to regular rounds with a switch delay incurred then normal fire power. Most tanks choose their ammo based on who they are shooting against.

To have a turret with machine gun- should require a second person in the tank to utilize. The tank driver fires the big gun, and has slower turret swivel, but infantry gun is fast swivel. 50 cal should be able to clean up jeeps. And although this is way different than we have now - it is more realistic.

Another cool thing would be that a tank has varying levels of damage. Hull or turret damage is non-repairable. But otherwise it could be repaired and re-used on the field if done over say a minute or two. Track damage would keep it from moving, but it could still fire. Hull damage would kill everyone in it. Turret damage would enable the occupants to exit.

And an enemy that drives their tank into your base could be disabled, repaired and taken by the enemy to use.

Engineer would need to have a skill of Tank Repair Kit. It would be very useful to carry an engineer as a gunner in every tank.

And when will jeeps actually be used to carry Tank Killer stationary guns, and MG people killers? Kind of like a turret that can be moved by a jeep, but requires a unit to occupy to aim and fire.

So much more - but probably out of scope for what could be done.

 

Honestly, I've never liked the tank combat in this game. Infantry combat is fun, because it's actually somewhat dynamic. People die and revive and respawn and outflank and whatever with some degree of regularity, whereas tank combat is for the most part
On a chokepoint map [e.g. Slaughtered]: Go with your team, park your tank, fire a bit at the enemy tanks while making sure to rotate your armor, when low on ammo/armor run back to the safety of your lines and repair, and rinse and repeat.
On an open map [e.g. Duststorm]: Drive around and destroy refineries, engage in tank battles occasionally whenever you happen to run into them, but always retain the ability to run away and repair/rearm (because the map is so open), and maybe toward the end of the game, get caught up with your team against theirs in one or two spammy large tank battles (although most games on open maps end for a bullshit reason nowadays, it seems, anyway.)

To put it in another way, two teams of tanks with optimal research and whose drivers follow this optimal strategy will reach something of an equilibrium and stalemate forever until one side gets bored and rushes. What I propose be done (although admittedly, hardheartedly and without too much consideration) is that all tank weapons be buffed by a fixed amount and all tank armor hp be reduced by a fixed amount. In essence, make tank combat more lethal, so that each and every shot will actually count - more similar to infantry combat.

 

I agree so much with you. Thanks should just take more damage from other tanks. Add a negative multiplier to tanks and gg done.
Too bad security wont do it. We dont need to convince anyone else but security to make this happen honestly.

 

careful, you might upset them since mentioning anything about balance is clearly seen as a personal attack on the devs.

 

When I play this game, I picture a better and more dynamic Red Orchestra 2. I love the tank combat in that and I wish it could be mimiced here. Tanks MATTER, they can camp and destroy an entire team but its easy to lose them if you aren't careful. They are more of a support tool rather than the end all reasoning.

This game would EXCEL at combined arms combat and I think thats what needs to be focused on to make it go anywhere. Combined arms is fun for all because every role feels like it matters.

 

I can't speak for the frontline infantry point, so I'll concede that, but I mean, to be fair, that's a PUG, where people actually know what they're doing (not saying that's a bad thing, of course - but still something to take into account), and it's Homeland. Homeland is one of the combined arms maps par excellence, because although it's choke-pointy and small, there are a bunch of ways for infantry to do damage while still avoiding tanks. A wide open map like Duststorm or Mvalley only has one or two infantry zones, which makes combined arms infeasible, and a chokepoint map like Slaughtered or Canyon doesn't have enough hiding places/ways to avoid tanks to make combined arms enjoyable for the infantry. The relative balance between the usefulness of infantry and vehicles in Homeland is actually why it's one of my favorite maps - because it's so accommodating of a variety of play styles.

 

I'll take your word for it, but I've basically always had similar experiences to Lazybum's.