Remove heavy tanks, and add more medium variants.

And stacking problems.

Because a few players having all the power is part of why skill stacking is a problem.

 

I dont like this idea at all i think they should stay the same and not be different. what a crazy idea! dont change it theres nothing wrong with heavy tanks exept the Power!/Defense now that should at least be lowerd just the power and defense thats all i have agenst Heavy Tanks.

 

Yeah, unless the other team has heavies, then all bets are off as to whats going to happen. Could end quick, last long, be fun, be gay, just like anything else.

If you dont want a single railheavy to wtfux your base, build turrets! Be a commander. If you cant, you deserve to lose, and removing heavies wont help you. Besides, fuck it, heavies are fun.

 

OMG LEARN THE GAME BEVOR YOU START TO POST

You dont srsly think turrets will stop a railheavy?

OH AND PLEASE READ POSTS bevor you post random anoying crap.

 

Yes and we all know what amazingly well thought out opinions you have don't we.

I really don't care whether or not you like it unless you can explain logically why it's good or bad.

 

Turrets are barely useful against light tanks and they are totally useless against heavies, even if spamming several. The whole "need 55 missiles" in order to take out even a heavily armored medium tank is just ridiculous, but from a gameplay point of view understandable - yet I don't think it works out at all in the long run.

Frankly it'd be better if tanks/vehicles were more fragile and cheaper, turrets increased damage-wise with each upgrade, increase turret upgrade costs and turret costs and have a minimum distance on turret placement so you can't place 2 or more turrets right next to one another.

Basically force tanks to keep their distance if they face defenses and only have them go in for the kill if they are in numbers or have cleared the defenses from a distance.

Course the problem with this suggestion is the fact that it would probably be hell to apply considering the way the whole current armor system works as well as weapon damage in general. With this suggestion it would hardly matter what kind of armor you have since missiles would chew through any kind with a couple of hits anyway, unless you were to change how armor works as well somehow.
One suggestion would be that armor absorbs a certain percentage of the damage and the rest of the damage goes to hull damage. Then have each weapon type, do different ratios of damage on hull and armor. Missiles for instance could be good against direct hull damage, but they're also easier to avoid. Explosive Cannon shells on the other hand would be more effective at stripping away armor before dealing damage directly to the hull. Plasma? Well, it would probably be poor on both hull/armor but do the usual overheating stuff.

Armor on the other hand could perhaps have different types of pro's and cons versus the different weapon types, in addition to their current abilities and drawbacks. Composite armor could then be the best and most expensive and actually have no real weakness against anything, making it truly worthwhile in the long run unlike now where it's just too expensive.

But in the end all the advantages/disadvantages would still only amount to only be able to take, say, 3-4 more or fewer hits before going down depending on the configurations vs what you're facing.

Anyway, ignoring everything said above, at the very least, I think it would be a really good step forward if you eliminated the "armor must go down first before you can apply hull damage" system that exists now. Armor should just absorb partial damage. How it's done in detail is in the end up to the devs.

 

I stick by nukes and rails being deleted.

 

I agree that nukes should go. Railguns could be reworked a bit somehow.

I was kinda playing around with the thought of railguns being a bit faster (projectile speed that is) than they are now, but bit slower rate of fire, and finally, the tank who fires railguns take some hulldamage with each shot fired off. In reality the frictional damage that railguns do to the barrel that they're fired from is pretty insane to say the least. Even if this is a fictional world (du'h), doesn't mean that the tech should be perfect.

 

Fuck Realism.

I say nukes and rails get removed, or rails become 2slots, at best.

I'd be happy if 2 NF meds could take on a rail heavy if they all had rails, because that makes meds a viable option.

 

Just throwing random alternative suggestions, nothing else

You've got a point though that 2 meds should win over a heavy - purely from a machine spec point of view.

 

Congratulations Chris, you win third prize, because you didn't realize that the thread had already gone off topic in places and I was giving a couple people some answers and alternative viewpoints.

But thanks to your's and Mayama's efforts of flaming anyone, be they slightly off topic or ill-informed, who posts, you've managed to only keep it barely on topic towards page 7 now.

While my post may have been long, the first half contained points towards rails and nukes that were mentioned by Empty, and the second half talked about other ideas from other people.

Since you're probably ignoring my post again at this point, I'll keep this short for the feeble-minded.

-2 meds should win over a heavy, and sometimes they do
-usually when I command, my base doesn't get rushed by heavies all that easily, if ever
-if i'm not commanding, theres a higher probability of the comm getting rushed by a heavy
-if heavys ARE rushing the comm, your team is definitely in question of sucking, and you're going to lose anyway, unless someone pulls off an 'epic' ninja
-from your original post, Chris, the fundamental reason for getting a medium, or heavy chassis, is to make the light, or medium chassis, obsolete.
-Now that definitely doesn't mean that a group of weaker chassi shouldn't be able to rape a smaller group of the more advanced, because sometimes they can't, and sometimes they can.
-Skill and teamwork will ALWAYS factor into gaming experience, no matter how many people are needed to properly use a 'super-heavy'...
-THEREFORE, get over yourself, cause the game will still evolve into skill stacks and the power over the game resting in a few experienced players no matter what
-you may have a few grace weeks before everyone gets accustomed to it, but its still gonna happen

 

Of course we'll always have skill stacking, but when's it going to be more of a problem? When the skilled players can get BFG9000s, or when they can get the same guns as everyone else?

 

IMO, armor needs some serious balancing to be anything other than what it is now.

Firstly, Buff Missile Turrets(damage, range and ROF should be changed for every level at extra cost) and possibly add a engineer buildable Tank trap (those Iron cross things you see at checkpoints in WW2 movies). the idea would be to stop a few tanks pushing through defenses and raping a base without some infantry support to clear defenses.

Next, remove rails and nukes, and balance the current 2 slot choices in both missiles and nukes to fit defined roles (which can overlap). Support, Anti tank and Anti infantry would be just fine.

Thirdly, Remove heavies as they are now. Replace them with "siege breaker" tanks (ultraheavies) with clearly defined driver gunner and troop positions. The idea is that these land battleships would commander-built and manned by quite a few people (6-7) and can spawn and/or carry troops. It would have specialty weapons (unchangeable) tied to each slot, covering all roles with a bit of an edge. The idea would be that 1-2 of these would be used with the whole team to break the stalemates that would happen with armor being tied down by these new turrets. The cost would be as to stop overuse and put defending and attacking team on even ground. The armor for this "siegebreaker" would be special in its resistance to turrets (and an ability to crush walls traps and jeeps) but it would be susceptible to infantry and somewhat to tanks. So the endgame would become more of a attack/defense senario with it succeding or failing and opening the dead and poor team to a counterattack.

How does this sound?

 

Six or seven seems a bit excessive as I'm not sure where you'd put all the weapons, but four or five would be OK and have an infantry escort.

If you have tank traps I don't think you'd need to buff MLs, I think they'd already be powerful enough, maybe make a tower mounted ML which is a bit higher than a wall and is more expensive + more health but other than that I don't think they need a range or damage buff. I don't want to invalidate conventional tanks, and I don't think making these siege tanks the only viable option is really that much fun, but the idea of a super heavy tank you could use with infantry to protect it and maybe some other tanks operating as well, that I like.

 

What about making heavys take up one additional tank slot? As it is now, if you can afford it, it is ALWAYS better to have 8 heavys vs 12 meds + spare res. The superior amount of heavies will quickly make up for the lost res by owning enemy tanks/buildings.
If you had the choice betwen 6 heavies or 12 meds it would be a much better strategy to build the 12 meds (this is all assuming the vechile cap is 12 on the server btw).
Just compare is to other strategy games where they use "population" to avoid the obvious strategy to greate a god-mode army and whipe the map clean.

 

BFG9000s weren't really that great.

 

In Doom 3 they were a joke. Doom1/2 however..........

 

You can rush on almost any map with one rail heavy into the enemy
base and unload your ammo til the cv dies. If the defending team doesnt
have some heavys to defend the cv nearby its usually gg.

I say that cause I played this version of the game long enough to
know what usually happens if one good tank driver goes nuts and
wants to end the round.

 

I thought he just griefed?

 

I almost managed to win the game by doing that once.

The NF had us pushed back to our base on cyclopean so I got a heavy and ran to their base, almost got their comm but overheated and by that time the enemy had mobilised a heavy and a couple of meds to kill me.

But it's silly how powerful one tank can be.