Incidently isnt this also one of the causes promoting Greyzone camping? the further away infantry can easily dispatch them, the further back tanks try to sit? bit of a catch 22 going on
I cant help but think it may be better to go the other way by;
Detpacks only disable or become AT troopers kit (make close range more viable). This makes the true natural predator Anti Tank soldiers, and not everyone
TNT to engineers only
At launchers and fausts range closed up a bit or lose accuracy fast over range
Do away with greyzone protection (bigger play area) so tanks have to get used to being closer and in the play area, or having infantry able to get close. This also makes paratroopers and rocket artillery a real pain for anyone camping.
Personally, I’ve never had any issues with grey zone camping tanks. But that’s maybe because I do play vehicles quite often and can easily bomb them /or snipe the with my tank.
I understand that from perspective of infantry mains they can be very frustrating tho. But that’s kinda what you get for preferring only one playstyle in combined arms game.
But I think it’s more of a bad map design. There just shouldn’t be possibility to properly see objective from grey zone.
I believe most noobs doesn’t even intentionally know they’re being protected by greyzone.
They just stop once they spot enemy and start shooting, that’s all to it. Because why would have they do something else? That’s their classic level of activity. They definitely don’t think too much about something like objectives.
Personally I’d leave TNT for everyone. Or give some other “touch” range weapon to destroy tanks (like satchel charge). It’s quite risky and can be easily countered by the escort infantry.
About escort infantry, give tanks exp boost aura or grant assists to everybody in the aura or something similar. So players have a reason to stick to the tanks and protect them.
Imo such solution would incentivice some more cooperation between tanks and infantry. Tanks get protection, infantry gets exp, everybody gets more interesting gameplay than “tank sits far away and shoots the objective”.
I can’t imagine that it would have any impact on a significant portion of the player base. It’s just a fairy tale that sounds good.
You can’t even get those same players to build rally points. Why would they care about some bonus aura from a tank, lol?
It would only increase gap between stacks and solo players. As this feature would be specially tailored for making stacks more potent.
Well, I just said it because I think this same kind of people would be crying even if there wouldn’t be any grey zone. And camper tanks would still be camping 100m from objective.
Why?
Exactly for this very reason.
They just don’t want to deal with playstyle that’s not in favor of theirs. And thus want to restrict it. Because even without no greyzone, they would definitely not be running to every tank to just destroy it with EP.
That’s why I am highly doubting the solving of greyzone issue is their real intention.
Also those bonus point for tank escort and stuff apparently been discussed before but it went no where I think (base on the respond I got when I suggested sometime ago)
Sure, i dont disagree, there will always by crying. But as long as everyones is in play and accessible to everyone, I dont really care if they are too lazy to sneak out 200 meters to tnt a camping tank (theres still all the other options plus new ones like rocket artillery and paras not being blocked by grayzone)
Probably yes. But that’s not a reason to not award teamplay.
With this logic we should remove reward for healing, repairing, ammo boxes, rallies etc.
Yes, it probably will reward stacks more than solo players. But so will every pro teamplay mechanic. Personally it’s a tradeoff I’m willing to make. More teamplay = mote good.
Also I guess there could be a modificator that all teamplay action rewards are multiplied by 0.75 when done to a group member.
Well, the only times I have ever Kamikazi’d is when the game is ending or if I am hit and already going down and close to the control point, but as far as I know I have never recorded a kill (other then myself) when doing so, even when the house is supposedly full of the enemy. I had assumed that Enlisted does not grant kills for doing it, am I wrong? When I am flying and getting absolutely zero kills I will bail out to fight from the ground, but that’s not Kamikazing anyone.
You would promote spawn camping in order to force tanks to do close infantry support.
I hate it, specifically because Tanks are supposed to stay behind infantry. Infantry support meant long range 1- 2 km support fire. There are exceptions like the British infantry tank doctrine, where Churchill and Matilda were supposed to drive just as fast as the infantry can walk, to basically have moving cover. Or Soviets doing Soviet things, where they close the gap and die. But in general that’s what I like about this games tank gameplay, it’s realistic in this way.
Because the real purpose of this system is to protect idiots from precision air strikes once every 40 seconds to 1 minute.
Rather than being used to punish players who use aircraft to attack enemies within legal limits
If you include the respawn interval in the calculation, you will find that the time between sorties is longer than the normal round-trip time for supply.
That’s why there’s no need to make more gameplay-impairing features to protect the emotional value of idiots and extreme discriminators.
There are always people who like to make excuses for their own incompetence and selfishness
When they cry loud enough, they can force the officials to modify the game to make it more boring and toxic.
Soviets certainly didnt use tanks that way, There is also countless battles where it’s a cluster fuck of infantry amongst tanks. Lions of Folgore come to mind, The Blitzkrieg into France with panzers outpacing their support infantry, The ANZAC infantry fighting off a panzer division point blank and unsupported in Afrika, the Red Devils doing the same in Arnhem to name a few