Tank beats... nothing.

[XT inc]

It is well and truly about the balance issue, You cannot just say balance issues aside because they are the only show in town. No one wants to play a games where people roll up in a real tank and lay hat on them because it is s realistic war machine. This sure is fun watching our shells ptank off the tank while it lobs heavy shells at us rendering our buildings and innards liquefied.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Well, it's a little crazy, but bear with me on this one....BECAUSE THOSE ARE GAMES AND NOT REALITY. Turns out fun is just more important then realism. It's very counter-intuitive.

 

[zehydra]

I know what you mean, especially with Battlefield Bad Company 2... However, all weapons in that game are tweaked in order to provide balance to gameplay. Realism is sacrificed for gameplay. Which is a good thing; it should never be the other way around.

 

[FalloutJack]

If your invincible war machine was actually invincible (and this is assuming that you haven't engaged a cheat code), then it wouldn't be as challenging.

 

[philosophicalbastard]

Snip

Have you considered you just suck with tanks?

In most single-player games you always need to find some special rocket launcher to take down an enemy tank, even then it still takes a few shots. And in games like Halo it takes about 20 clips of non-explosive ordinance to take down a tank, by the first clip you should have blown them to hell and back twice already.

Tanks are very powerful, but not indestructible.

 

[ultrachicken]

Look, what I'm trying to say here, is I'm sick and tired of getting into a tank and being shot out of it, or having it explode after seconds of fire from just normal guns, you don't need anti tank weapons, you don't need another tank, just normal guns. The thing a tank is designed to protect against can defeat it in seconds. its getting rediculious and it makes me wonder if developers know what real tanks are.

As has been said many, many times before, invulnerable tanks kill balance. The person inside the tank may have a blast, but that's at the expense of everyone else.

 

[Kitteh]

New call of duty idea: you get one life. if you die, you have to buy the game again. and it's still $60 so you better be damn careful.

 

[WhatHityou]

if you ever played chrome-hounds and was killed and are trying to kill a vs with your infantry gun, that would explain how unimaginably overpowered that would be.

 

[jyork89]

An M1 Abrams is hardly invincible. A RPG round to the treads will often disable it and there have even been cases where heavy machine gun rounds to critical points have rendered them inoperable.
A realistic game would make rounds that hit certain areas harmless, yet on the other hand rounds that hit certain critical points disable the tank instantly.

 

[Ashil Tokhai]

You sir! have obviously have not played Arma 2 or her expansion packs (The military simulator) or if you fancy WW2 Red Orchestra

Games have to be balanced, so that's why they make tanks the way they are in games like Halo for example (games where it is not ment to be realistic but ment to be fun)

 

[Ashil Tokhai]

An M1 Abrams is hardly invincible.

A bunch of my friends in the states came back from Afghanistan and from the stories I hear?
I would have to 100% agree with you (cause if I didn't I would just be lying to myself)

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

The only thing wrong with tanks is that stupid feature every game has which allows players to instantly exit a burning tank. I can waste several rockets or shells on a tank, and the other player can press F and instantly get away, leaving a burning husk on the battlefield that prevents new tanks from spawning until someone cleans it up; no one is stupid enough to get in one. God forbid I'm in that usual 20 foot killzone required to reliably even hit a tank with rockets that would turn around in midflight and hit me if fired at a target more than 50 paces away. The play could exit the tank, turn, and fill my antitank ass full of SMG rounds for all the trouble I gave him.

As for their armor, it's fine. Tanks still decimate infantry. If you put yourself in a position where players who have specifically equipped themselves for an antitank role can kill you, you rightly deserve to stare at the respawn screen. In many games, players have to sacrifice their equipment to take on tanks, so they should be able to destroy them.

 

[captaincabbage]

For balance within the game, duh.

 

[Triple G]

Yeah balance and fun over realism. Putting such a thing into a game would do nothing but cause endless frustration in the player base, especially in multiplayer.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Wrong to everyone in this fucking thread so far. That "tanks should be as stable as wooden shit house cuz balance" ideas of yours come from playing bad fucking games. Ever played "Red Orchestra"? The tanks are realistically tough, <you need only like 2 bullets to get killed and even if you have a rocket luncher it's gonna be tough against a tank and it will probably kill you. But tanks can still lose against other tanks and the tank battles are realistic for WWII measures (you fight at distances up to 1500 meters, you got scopes just like in real life, and so on).

 

[The Lunatic]

Because it's just not fun to get killed constantly while some guy in a tank destroys your spawn for the reason of only "He was the first to get to the uber-machine."

 

[ksn0va]

Game balance trumps realism

[/thread]

 

[Jewrean]

For instnace, modern body armor is almost impervious to small arms fire. But how dull would Modern Warfare be if you were invulnerable? Or if you shot an opponent and nothing happened?

That happens anyway.

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

tanks are easy to kill for the same reason snipers cant kill tanks (which they can with armor piercing incendeary in the right location) and its because of balance. if the tank was as powerful as a tank actually is then the game would just be a game about who gets to the tank first. if you want realism you cant leave anything out because everything has a counter: tanks have tankbuster landmines, landmines have sweepers, sweepers have snipers, snipers have drones, drones have SAMs, SAMs have artillery, artillery has fighter jets, fighter jets have aa guns... in order to make everything real you have to add way too much stuff in order to make a game balanced and even when you add everything the game is still unbalanced. if you noticed, everything i mentioned has more than just the one counter (sniper can be taken out with artillery as well) and so the scope a game would need would be larger than any game could possibly hold. fun gameplay is more of a priority than realism because people play games that are fun, not realistic, they have movies and documentaries for realism

 

[the clockmaker]

No, I think this could work, like a proper insurgency game. One side, the coalition, is tasked with patroling a map, and are given all the latest kit, armour and air. They, by dint of better training, have higher accuracy and the ability to issue template orders. However, they are tied up with heavey ROE and there are a bunch of civvies on the map.

The other team, the insurgents, have old AKM/74s, IEDs and bolt actions. They have no armour, no air, and no ability to issue orders except over team speak. However, they look exactly like the civvies, have no ROE and have fantastic positions pre marked on the map for them.

That would be the bast way to balance a proper M1A1/centruion/LAV/Leclerc/Merkava/Bradly whilst still being fun.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Balance? If we made these games that realistic, then we'd be waiting for airstrikes to take those beasts down. And of course, having indestructible planes that can't be shot down without SAM batteries on hand would present another bit of difficulty. These games are meant to be fun and competitive, not real world combat simulators.