Jump to content
Caliell

DEVELOPERS PLEASE HUMBLY READ MY SUGGESTION FOR TANKS!

Recommended Posts

I think maybe loader should be in vehicle to allow it to "auto"-load, but in return, the loader could constantly get to man the machinegun by the hatch. Otherwise I think it would be too boring to be a loader. It's a game and is supposed to be fun after all. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if loader shoots from a MG while sticking out from the hatch, then he will live for only so long, just like open-top MRAP / Technical gunner. That makes him not such good a firepower addition.
Which means, that if the main purpose of the loader is to provide some passive bonus, that means he will have to sit locked in inside and pretty much do nothing but to look around. Which then makes for an arguably fun gameplay for him.

To summarize - there is nothing really in a way to add loader position with said features, but the fun/benefit of playing those is not that good in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Houndeye said:

if loader shoots from a MG while sticking out from the hatch, then he will live for only so long, just like open-top MRAP / Technical gunner. That makes him not such good a firepower addition.
Which means, that if the main purpose of the loader is to provide some passive bonus, that means he will have to sit locked in inside and pretty much do nothing but to look around. Which then makes for an arguably fun gameplay for him.

To summarize - there is nothing really in a way to add loader position with said features, but the fun/benefit of playing those is not that good in my opinion. 

Just like in real life. :-) 

But I agree. You have a valid point. Maybe let all tanks autoload but make place for a loader manning that extra mg. And maybe speed bonus if he is inside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Houndeye said:

if loader shoots from a MG while sticking out from the hatch, then he will live for only so long, just like open-top MRAP / Technical gunner. That makes him not such good a firepower addition.
Which means, that if the main purpose of the loader is to provide some passive bonus, that means he will have to sit locked in inside and pretty much do nothing but to look around. Which then makes for an arguably fun gameplay for him.

To summarize - there is nothing really in a way to add loader position with said features, but the fun/benefit of playing those is not that good in my opinion. 

First of all that type of survivability depends on the driver and so far I've seen MRAP/MAT-V gunners seem to have good survivability as long as someone is not sniping them from above. There is no problem there, otherwise MRAPs would of not been of the good choice as fire support for rushes.

 

Techies without the gun shield are different story on the other hand. But those are Rebel techies. 

 

I don't get it how is it "arguably fun gameplay for him" when all you do is sit in the tank and do not contribute to anything but the passive bonus? That's like saying it is fun to be 87 year old in the nursing home with sarcastic nurse that does not listen to your requests. In either case Loader's 240B position is realistic and it will provide good compromise between being close to realistic and if it will provide passive reload haste for the main cannon, will be fun.

 

Maybe there are people who enjoy sitting buttoned up in the tank and do nothing, but I would think that majority of people enjoy "being part of the action" and being 240b gunner/loader sounds like fun to me at least, regardless of consequences of snipers and such. This shouldn't be an issue since gunner's basket and/or ballistic shield tend to be adequate for such position regardless that you say loader's survival will be short (which is simply untrue due to the simple observation of MRAP gunners vs Techie gunners and MRAP gunners are vastly less killed due to full 360 degree directional protection of the basket). The only time that I see loader die in such situation is only if the tank crew is acting recklessly, which isn't the game or tank's fault. That would be player/operator's error and therefore deserved death.

 

The only valid argument I see in the whole thing is "infantry to vehicle users ratio" which is kind of redundant since typically people who run dedicated vehicle teams tend to be in their own dedicated vehicle squads and avoid running with infantry, doing their own thing regardless of any level of "Encouragement" by the game and developers for "More infantry Squads."

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2018 at 9:35 AM, fuzzhead said:

Thanks for the well put together post.

 

I too would like to see eventually a Loader M240 on the Abrams, but I don't think we will ever make the Commander or Loader position mandatory in order for the vehicle to function, just giving it more effectiveness.

 

Part of it comes down to - how large do we want the tank battles? 3 tanks vs 3 tanks with a 3 man crew each is 9 players vs 9 players... Add in an IFV or two and a couple APCs, a couple Logistics Trucks and a couple transport helicopters, and now we have about 20 players in vehicles, which is about the upper prefered range in a 50v50 scenario, as we always want there to be more infantry than vehicles.

 

So with tanks requiring 4 (or 3) players, that really locks in the vehicle to infantry ratio, and then we may have to force less tanks, so 2v2 instead of 3v3. 

 

Tanks are going to be pretty awesome and will continue to be refined just like all the other systems.

50v50 confirmed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be ok if the loader was an NPC doing the bidding of the tank commander?  And he could be instructed to use the gun and be shot and couldn't be replaced again til a return to base?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, XRobinson said:

Would it be ok if the loader was an NPC doing the bidding of the tank commander?  And he could be instructed to use the gun and be shot and couldn't be replaced again til a return to base?

I can surely understand tank gunner and commander , but in my opinion ( becuase of the player count restrictions ) we should make the driver and the commander be the same role , allowing the driver have acsses to both the commander turret , and even the mounted small machince gun on the top ( using the gun / commander camera turret with the mouse while still drivering with the keyboard ) , and loader should be an "npc" that tied to the tank and he can't leave it . 

Becuase it is not a milsim , people are looking to do alot of stuff not just being the spotter , or controlling a turret , i think that 2 man MBT are the sweet spot to keep tanks fun for everyone .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, L0cation said:

I can surely understand tank gunner and commander , but in my opinion ( becuase of the player count restrictions ) we should make the driver and the commander be the same role , allowing the driver have acsses to both the commander turret , and even the mounted small machince gun on the top ( using the gun / commander camera turret with the mouse while still drivering with the keyboard ) , and loader should be an "npc" that tied to the tank and he can't leave it . 

Becuase it is not a milsim , people are looking to do alot of stuff not just being the spotter , or controlling a turret , i think that 2 man MBT are the sweet spot to keep tanks fun for everyone .

I wonder if you have a 100 person server then how many NPC's can you have in addition to player controlled characters? In theory the NPC's for tanks would only be seen when shooting mg from tank outside hatch.  And just be tied to the tank.  So, depending on how many tanks on map simultaneously is how many NPC's there would be for tanks anyway.  Probably not a big deal for server to handle extra NPC's, but will reserve for coders to say what if any extra handling or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Just like in real life. :-) 

But I agree. You have a valid point. Maybe let all tanks autoload but make place for a loader manning that extra mg. And maybe speed bonus if he is inside. 

Thats just giving the advantage to the Abrams vs the T-72B3.

Give him an autoloader that the tank dose not have,give an extra MG for a loader that the tank dose not have,and give an speed bonus becouse the loader is inside.

 

 

Edited by Bahrein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Bahrein said:

Thats just giving the advantage to the Abrams vs the T-72B3.

Give him an autoloader that the tank dose not have,give an extra MG for a loader that the tank dose not have,and give an speed bonus becouse the loader is inside.

 

 

Got a point. Though I was actually thinking rather instead of speed "bonus" , a speed penalty in case of no loader so to speak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Actually it is rather strange to have an MG for the loader in real life in most situations. Basically, if the loader is hit, the tank is practically out of action!

Its not strange its non-existent the only MG besides the gunners and the on top of the turret one was back in the ww2 where you had 5  guys in the tank and the 5 guy was the radio operator and he had a place nexst to the driver like in the car and he had a MG there.

Guys are suggesting it on here just because the loader role in the tank that exists in real life would be boring for the player playing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Actually it is rather strange to have an MG for the loader in real life in most situations. Basically, if the loader is hit, the tank is practically out of action!

There is actually pretty good reason why loaders have 240 on their side. - for the very same reason why some service members are issued sidearms. In the sense this makes Abrams perform better in situations if Abrams is being overran by infantry, or the main cannon is out and you need fire superiority to defend the tank. Furthermore gamewise T72 already have advantage that is better than Abrams extra gunner. It have low profile, therefore better at being placed behind such things as sandbags or defilade. As for loaders passive haste or penalty isn't it one and the same in the sense? Abrams having 20 penalty without loader or slower default reload without one? Which also brings to the point realismwise . No, if loader is killed or wounded Abrams does not become suddenly useless without one. The gunner can perform both duties as nessesary obviously at slower rate but functionaly none the less 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caliell said:

There is actually pretty good reason why loaders have 240 on their side. - for the very same reason why some service members are issued sidearms. In the sense this makes Abrams perform better in situations if Abrams is being overran by infantry, or the main cannon is out and you need fire superiority to defend the tank. Furthermore gamewise T72 already have advantage that is better than Abrams extra gunner. It have low profile, therefore better at being placed behind such things as sandbags or defilade. As for loaders passive haste or penalty isn't it one and the same in the sense? Abrams having 20 penalty without loader or slower default reload without one? Which also brings to the point realismwise . No, if loader is killed or wounded Abrams does not become suddenly useless without one. The gunner can perform both duties as nessesary obviously at slower rate but functionaly none the less 

You mean gunner has to climb out the hatch and load and the commander shoots? 

 

Better then the commander loads I'd say. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

You mean gunner has to climb out the hatch and load and the commander shoots? 

 

Better then the commander loads I'd say. 

 

 I was part of armored regiment, while not the tanker myself I sat in Abrams before. One time as part of OP duty as .50 gunner with the tank surrounded by concrete barriers. There is enough room space for the gunner or commander without climbing out to switch out spots just fine. In fact turret of Abrams is way roomier in comparison to anything Russian counterparts offer. The funny part, I am Russian myself (immigrant who served in US Army) and sat in T72 once as well. Now talking about claustrophobia? T72 is the most claustrophobic experience I ever felt. That's not the experience in Abrams tank that have enough space to move relatively free while wearing body armor.

 

If you are talking about tank commander taking over and manually firing from his sights and gunner switching to loader position its not that hard. As for two gunners on the top of Abrams? With CROWS you don't really load since the ammo boxes tend to be larger while loader's 240 operates just like any other or in game 240B.

 

Here is the video from the gunner of Abrams  

 

Start at 0:37 you will notice the gunner standing.

 

Here is inside of T72 (regardless of series, the amount of space is the same).

 

 

Start at 1:44 and compare it tot he first video. You will get the idea of what exactly does it mean moving around "relatively free" and being "encased in cramped steel box"

 

Abrams have enough space to move around with relative ease. Easy "enough" for the gunner and commander to switch positions.

 

As again 240B on Abrams is akin to the sidearm issued to an infantryman or a shotgun for the breacher. It meant to be as back up weapon and/or weapon of the situation. 

Regardless gamewise, I believe it will be fun and balanced since it will allow for that loader to plink at sneaking RPG guys around the tank at least on one side of the tank, while the commander cover the field of fire on the other side or searches for target.

Edited by Caliell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×