Jump to content

Should MBTs have their passenger capabilities removed?


Pushwall

  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. a



Recommended Posts

This is a CJfeature that I kept because I didn't see it as harmful. But without it we might see a resurgence of actually using the transport vehicles for transport (specifically the APC) and make snipers more useful since infantry will have a harder time hiding among tank legions?

 

For the record this is only the Light, Medium, Heavy and Mammoth Tanks that it would affect; I'd most likely keep passengers for the Ranger, Minelayer, Ore Truck and Mobile AA Gun since they all have limited field presence anyway, I intended for the Minelayer/Ore Truck to double as a "better than ST in either speed or toughness or both, but still can't defend itself and can't taxi a team" transport for both teams, and all except the ML clearly have visible passenger seats :v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, heavily armored vehicles for example; Mammoths, Meds, Heavies, MAD tanks, etc. should not have passengers, as they provide little to no strategic importance to the team, other than a beefier transport for an engineer/mechanic/medic/hero unit. (in turn could make mechanics OP again if 2 mechanics are in one vehicle, they both take turns repairing, OR could stack the mechanic's passive repair ability)

Light tanks ESPECIALLY make it a little OP for transporting infantry like tanya or engineers, as they are more armored than a ranger, have a good amount of firepower, and are just as fast, if not faster than a Ranger. I still dont see many APCs being used by the Allies, unless there are Hinds or a nice opening for infantry to be snuck through (Complex/Ridge War/sometimes Zama) on another note, the Soviets should get some sort of APC as well, but have it be more/less armored, and have a normal PKP or DSHK machine gun on it, just to give soviets a way to mass transport their shocks into a field of allied tanks so that they can completely ruin mostly my their day.

NOW...... Phase tanks, are a little iffy.... ORIGINALLY they were meant as stealthy allied transports/guerilla warfare units. I do think that, with the heavy nerf the Phase tank has gotten (where it is visible on radar, making its stealth capabilities almost useless against smart players) it would be nice to see the phase tank get at least 1 passenger (RAlism) so drivers could get anti infantry support from tanyas/volkov/flamer (if the soviets could "Test Drive" a phase tank), get snipers to a nice forest area to set up their tent and campfire without being seen by other infantry or even vehicles/airborne units, OR! they could get a mechanic to give them a nice little slap across the engine with the repair wrench every now and again if they get into a firefight and need to retreat. (it'll definitely increase the survivability of a phase tank by just a little bit if the 2 man team is good enough).

AGAIN, thats my opinion on transportation in APB.

Edited by MPRA2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the soviets need an APC type unit, especially one with any speed. Imagine a slew of up to five shocks or kovs just zooming into a base?!? No br0. Soviets have the slow thing going on because they have heavier firepower and higher survivability. A slow APC wouldn't make sense either.... That being said, I could see maybe taking away the passenger from the Allied MBTs (little tanks) but leaving the option for the Soviet MBTs. Their tanks are larger anyway (moar seating!), and I don't see it as a definite advantage that unbalances anything. It would just make the gameplay more unique in my opinion.

 

Opinion, feel free to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah there's a reason Soviets only get the ranger on lowest-tech maps. They had the ranger available on every map for a short time in testing, during which shock/kov rangers were the gods of all units, even with a bunch of nerfs to the Soviet ranger making it move only as fast as a minelayer, having worse handling, and having the rate of fire of the current APC with none of the advantages that balance that out (of course all of that got reverted as soon as it was made a low-tech-only unit; now the Soviet ranger just has the exact same advantages/disadvantages compared to Allied as the Kapitan does vs the Captain). A soviet APC would bring that up to 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No extra seating to Allied MBTs, let allies use the ranger or APC.

 

I would like to see it in Soviet tanks though. The heavy tank now is essentially the same as a medium tank in terms of damage output/health/price, but with slower speed and harder time to hit a target (need to get both shots in). Giving it an additional passenger seat could make it a "heavy" tank. It shouldn't be too bad in terms of balance, given Soviet tanks are slow anyway and they don't have mechs.

 

I also want to add that the intent of Soviet tanks are to get to the Allied base, and they often encounter mines in the way which an extra engineer passenger could help them detect and destroy.

 

Allied tanks don't have the same issue. You won't encounter mines unless you are trying to infiltrate buildings, in which case you usually won't do it in a med tank.

 

Lastly, I still think giving the APC a horn would help it rallying passengers and get used more.

Edited by Einstein
Merged
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with MPRA2 on MBTs, but not the Phase Tank as a Tanya chariot.

well...... Mines+Flamers bro..... any smart Red would do that against Tanyas, besides........ Tanya Light and Tanya Rangers are pretty much the same thing as Phase Tanyas.

as for the APC thing for soviets, it kinda applies to the soviet tanks too...for example: gather up 3 or 4 heavy tanks, thats about 6-8 shockies all in 4 tanks... That rush alone could obliterate an entire allied offensive with no hassle.

Edited by MPRA2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as for the APC thing for soviets, it kinda applies to the soviet tanks too...for example: gather up 3 or 4 heavy tanks, thats about 6-8 shockies all in 4 tanks... That rush alone could obliterate an entire allied offensive with no hassle.

 

Beta rushes are rare. Can't balance a game around the off chance that someone comes up with an OP plan and convinces his team to go through with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think size should play a relevant role. There is no reason a Mammoth Tank shouldn't be able to 'fit' a passenger (Yes, I'm well aware real world tanks have crews of several people, but this is a game).

 

But beyond that exception, I do think transportation should be delegated to vehicles designed for that; 5-player capacity Supply Trucks, APC's, and Chinooks. Which then leaves two exceptions: Single passenger Rangers for the Allies, and single passenger Mammoth Tanks for the Soviets.

Edited by Raap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe passenger capabilities should be kept for all vehicles. I haven't see transport vehicles roles diminished, as ST and APC rushes are still something to look out for when defending. Add the fact the armour/ammo replenishment that MBTs don't have for their passenger.

 

It certainly helps infantry survivability climbing into a MBT, allowing you to help fight more should your driver push forward, or to allow you a safe retreat home should your driver reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of a counter argument to my previous post perhaps, but I also believe consistency is important so that (new) players don't get confused. Why can they enter a Ranger but not a Light Tank? Perhaps for that reason - and it's a solid reason to be sure - all vehicles should perhaps enable a single passenger, or none at all besides for dedicated transportation vehicles. The problem with the latter is the lack of an armored Soviet transport, and the lack of an Allied air transport (unless the Allied Chinook becomes a standard unit, and I'd be fine with that).

 

Perhaps if we had a way of more clearly informing the player if a vehicle can hold passengers such as an icon for crew size on the purchase icons, as well as icons on the targeting HUD highlighting occupied and unoccupied passenger slots (little human figure icons below the vehicle health bar). Then consistency concerns would be resolved, and then you could proceed with delegating transport to a limited set of vehicles.

Edited by Raap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of a counter argument to my previous post perhaps, but I also believe consistency is important so that (new) players don't get confused. Why can they enter a Ranger but not a Light Tank? Perhaps for that reason - and it's a solid reason to be sure - all vehicles should perhaps enable a single passenger, or none at all besides for dedicated transportation vehicles. The problem with the latter is the lack of an armored Soviet transport, and the lack of an Allied air transport (unless the Allied Chinook becomes a standard unit, and I'd be fine with that).

 

Perhaps if we had a way of more clearly informing the player if a vehicle can hold passengers such as an icon for crew size on the purchase icons, as well as icons on the targeting HUD highlighting occupied and unoccupied passenger slots (little human figure icons below the vehicle health bar). Then consistency concerns would be resolved, and then you could proceed with delegating transport to a limited set of vehicles.

Three big green arrows above the vehicle when you target it should appear if you can get in. If this doesn't work, then something is broken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A bit of a counter argument to my previous post perhaps, but I also believe consistency is important so that (new) players don't get confused. Why can they enter a Ranger but not a Light Tank? Perhaps for that reason - and it's a solid reason to be sure - all vehicles should perhaps enable a single passenger, or none at all besides for dedicated transportation vehicles. The problem with the latter is the lack of an armored Soviet transport, and the lack of an Allied air transport (unless the Allied Chinook becomes a standard unit, and I'd be fine with that).

 

Perhaps if we had a way of more clearly informing the player if a vehicle can hold passengers such as an icon for crew size on the purchase icons, as well as icons on the targeting HUD highlighting occupied and unoccupied passenger slots (little human figure icons below the vehicle health bar). Then consistency concerns would be resolved, and then you could proceed with delegating transport to a limited set of vehicles.

Three big green arrows above the vehicle when you target it should appear if you can get in. If this doesn't work, then something is broken.

 

 

That tells a player very little. In fact to me it means "I can approach this vehicle as it has a green arrow pointing at it", and I wouldn't initially affiliate the arrows with passenger slot availability.

 

A lot of things in the game are very counter intuitive, and if the HUD was more easy to enhance, a lot of QoL improvements could be made.

Edited by Raap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a CJfeature that I kept because I didn't see it as harmful. But without it we might see a resurgence of actually using the transport vehicles for transport (specifically the APC) and make snipers more useful since infantry will have a harder time hiding among tank legions?

I'm going to have an off opinion here but I have to say i rather quite like the feature. In the past month of so i've been playing it has been very helpful because in all honesty, the only time it's been used is when i am in a heavy tank and it gets destroyed then i hop into someones mammoth or the like. Now why this is important..

 

When your tank gets destroyed you're 80% of the time out in the battlefield so you have 2 options, continue the fight and run towards the enemy or run back to base. Both suck.. but being in your comrades tank heading towards the enemy base after battle is convenient and helpful.

 

Honestly I haven't seen anyone do a Tanya medium tank rush or something of the sort.. it's good food for thought but with such a small player base already it has not become a problem in my playing experience. Now if it was Gamma or beta days where 30 Plus players were common, I could see select players getting tactics developed and using this to their advantage.

 

Like I said, it's a helpful feature that is blessing convenient. It would be very overpowered in the RTS world but this isn't the RTS realm we are playing in. We can't just click an infantry unit and tell them to run 10 minutes then they get killed and its fine. We have to do the slow running (Shock Trooper) ourselves and well.. you get the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well hey for the next LOLmap I could always do "RAlism to the max" mode. Where only APCs get passengers, only rifle soldiers can drive, V2s kill buildings in 1-3 hits, artilleries have the same range as tanks and half their current health pool, and airborne helis are immune to everything except aa defenses, rocket soldiers and mammoths... oh yeah and soviets don't get rocket soldiers. I'm sure the army compositions on flying maps will be real diverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the removal. Volkovs popping out of mammoths to fire a salvo and then hiding to reload is infuriating to deal with. Same with shockies who are losing in infantry combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh yeah and soviets don't get rocket soldiers.

Technically they got them in Multiplayer. If you want to be a true Singleplayer experience, give the Soviets the APC, the Allies the Chinook, and the Soviets the Phase Transport (Yes it is now a hidden Volkov transport! Think Soviet Rangers were bad?) along with doing that.

 

Or alternatively, for the truest Multiplayer experience, give the Soviets Tanya instead of Volkov. Screw faction diversity.  :v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or alternatively, for the truest Multiplayer experience, give the Soviets Tanya instead of Volkov. Screw faction diversity.  :v

 

Tanyas that don't have to worry about AP mines. Fun.

 

In any case thanks for reminding me about this thread Bayonetta! Support for the removal of passengers and restoration of personal space seems to be overwhelming, so I'll get on that for the next patch.

 

I wouldn't initially affiliate the arrows with passenger slot availability.

It was a thing in Red Alert and it was a thing in Renegade...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case thanks for reminding me about this thread Bayonetta! Support for the removal of passengers and restoration of personal space seems to be overwhelming, so I'll get on that for the next patch.

The only thing that should go into the next patch is des' input for the APC.

 

Lastly, I still think giving the APC a horn would help it rallying passengers and get used more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In any case thanks for reminding me about this thread Bayonetta! Support for the removal of passengers and restoration of personal space seems to be overwhelming, so I'll get on that for the next patch.

 

 

 

Would the Mammoth at least get to keep its passenger seat? That tank is huge and Soviets could use an extra engineer ride-along to help with mines. 

Edited by des1206
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If soviets keep their ranger then there is no need for a mammy bus...

I still think soviet chinook is all they need tbh.

 

Soviet rangers only exist on the low-tech maps though. This is because in the pre-release testing, a high-speed armed transport turned out to be ridiculously OP with even one shock trooper/volkov inside, never mind two. Many attempts were made to nerf the Soviet ranger, bringing its speed down to that of a minelayer, its attack power down to that of a rifle soldier, and eliminating the passenger slot. And even then it was still too good, so I decided that screw it, this unit just shouldn't exist in fulltech unless the Soviets steal them from the Allies, which still prevents them from amassing an army of volkovmobiles unless the Allies are very incompetent. (And now as a result, on the maps the Soviet ranger is available on, it's almost equal to an Allied ranger again.)

 

If Soviets need a fast one-man/two-man transport in high-tech games, then the minelayer certainly delivers that, being almost as fast as a ranger while also being a little tougher. Armed? They can just transport a shock/kov for that. For what it's worth you can also lay mines around the area your infantry are going to control to deter a Tanya defense. People never suspect forward AP mines unless the ML is driving straight through their base and trying to killwhore.

 

Would the Mammoth at least get to keep its passenger seat? That tank is huge and Soviets could use an extra engineer ride-along to help with mines.

Engineers can sprint faster than the mammoth tank, being a ride-along only helps to protect from artillery/sniper fire. Frankly snipers could stand to be more useful and I already threw Engineers a bone against artillery by giving them 50% resistance to indirect explosive damage at the start of Delta. Maybe this could stand to be increased further, and maybe for all infantry and all explosive weapons except grenades?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...