More tanks

Because cities are civilian locations with civilian loot. If one city had nodes for every spawn table, then instead of players progressing further away from spawn and generally having no reason or opportunity to use top tier loot against nakeds (as in Russia) everyone would just rush towards and stay in this city hoping the random number gods generator would bless them with good loot before they get killed by a camper who randomly got better loot (as in Washington.)

I would see mostly tanks from the cold war given as aid or sold as surplus. Maybe some even older yet still serviceable tanks would be pulled out from storage and training, but I’m not near the large and excellent collections of armored vehicles in Europe and North America. The more modern tanks would be kept at or sent to more important places like borders and capital cities.

“Militia” is what we called “Ranger” back in 2.X (which never had a Russia or Germany update to confound the meaning of its term.)

I don’t think main battle tank = bad and old tank = good I just think filler content in general is a bad thing. I don’t need a dozen different textures and models for what are basically the same tank (and other similarsimilarly poor design choices) cluttering up my hard drive, and including additional stats like turret rotation speed just adds to the clutter, makes it harder to ensure that they’re all balanced, and creates a disconnect when players have gotten more comfortable with the specifics of one over the other too bad for them, because it would be “unrealistic” to have the tank they like in this area. If you want to use mods that replace the generic main battle tank with the appropriate model (or even subvariation and serial number) then more power to you, but those kinds of features shouldn’t be included in the base game. If however, there were an armoured vehicle that filled a different role than being an endgame military vehicle, I’d be all for it being included as a separate vehicle with a different appearance and different balancing features. I think it would be easiest to find a unique place for tanks that are lighter armored than WWII heavy tanks, super heavy tanks, and modern main battle tanks, because medium (and lighter) tanks are vulnerable to things that the former would be invulnerable to. For example in Alberta, Canada (the province where Nelson Sexton lives, and the first Unturned II map will likely be set in) there are outdated artillery pieces kept for avalanche control, which could threaten relatively lightly armored vehicles but would have little to no effect on the hulls of heavy tanks or main battle tanks.

The point was that this question (like your own) is completely open ended, and there is no right or wrong answer to it.

1 Like

This is very much opinion based, I personally much prefer it this way, it’s why I think that Washington is the best balanced map in the game, and that 2.0 PEI was better than 3.0’s. I see having one major big PvP hub with all the supplies that both attract higher gear and lower gear players alike as a great benefit, cities also make for the most fun and varied combat.

Campers aren’t really a big issue, and usually easily spotted. It’s easy enough to sneak around in Seattle, so I don’t see it being an issue in a theoretically even larger city. The combination of verticality and clutter just makes it the best pvp experience.

Russia’s very strict loot tiering was one of it’s biggest downfalls, IMO, as it meant that there was no real reason to go south after getting high loot in the north besides killing fresh spawns, often without risk from other higher tier players.
Other maps, particularly washington, or 2.0 Pei solved this by having loot areas all over the place, with civilian location inbetween military and militia ones, and having combined spawn locations, like the evac center on washington, or the airport/burywood in 2.0.

It helps making the core gameplay loop of get gun > fight people > get base > get more gun and fights less obvious, and making us think less about our concrete reasons to go somewhere, and leads to more dynamic and organic player interaction and combat, since people of all gear types will be travelling somewhere along the same lines.

I rambled a bit here and didn’t properly format, but I hope you get my point.

Having a military depot where vehicles and weapons platforms are mothballed would be quite a cool location, although it would require large changes to how locking works. Combining such a location with my hopes of moddable and repairable vehicles (aka you find chassis and then add wheels and other upgrades as you go along) would be a great location and a great pvp and loot hub.

You’re right on the money here. This is a game of mostly people armed with cheap hunting rifles. It doesn’t matter if it’s an abrams or a world war 1 tank, it’s gonna be strong regardless.

Sorry for the slightly off-topic here, it’s just a thing I really wanted to comment on.

@anon24515308 I understand what you mean about having many types of tanks, you really managed to convert me to that idea because you used my own plunge argument against me.
It really doesn’t make sense to have monstrous MBT, considering where the map of Unturned II goes.

Cold War tanks are also considered MBT, although I was not referring to them, you gave them a justification for their existence in the game, although I still don’t like the idea of WWII tanks.

Ok, I didn’t know that.

It’s an interesting point, but Unturned II will focus on survival and PvE. Not that it will end PvP, but in fact it will be greatly reduced as players will be more concerned with surviving the possible hordes than killing everyone else.

In unturned II, personally I hope it’s like Russia, but with a much more Hardcore North part than the South part, you’ll also have better items, so when they get to a more hardcore region, players will have to retreat to a friendlier region, and as ammunition and weapons will be rarer, it may not be worth shooting and killing novice players, as it may lack ammunition to fend off the hordes of Turneds.
This is just a very simple example.

I think it would be a grave mistake to make PvP less of a focus. Adding more mechanics is fun, but ultiamtely this is a pvp focused game.

But experience has shown that that’s not true. Even with more challenging zombie hordes, killing a player is fun and takes just a few shots. This is something that is true in all zombie media as well, once players find out how to deal effectively with zombies, guns will be used against other players. Your idea sounds nice on paper, but really just won’t work, since especially with the loot tiering it will take less shots to kill someone, since they’ll have jack shit to shoot back, so you can afford to be more risky.

This is blatantly bad and unfun game design that leads to KOS because of how easy and rewarding it is as a freshspawn to kill geared players, restricts progression as you don’t have evenly geared players fighting, so you can’t guns that are stronger than other guns to a degree (3.0 is a good example of this) and in general is just a horrible idea.

2 Likes

Except it works beautifully when executed properly, like on washington and 2.0 PEI. You can easily evade higher geared players, and due to how the map is setup you visit every place in a natural and organic pace. Tiering has the opposite effect, since the tired locations are easier camped and punish you harder for dying

Even if it does it would not just be lying around

More tanks would be nice but like all others say, this makes Unturned a tank game and I wouldn’t like to see a survival game being a warzone all of a sudden.

In my opinion at least, I would rather have variety but with a mix of balance: Each tank would be exclusive and unique to a map. A map would only have 1 tank and then the other combat vehicle to be like a missile truck. E.g, the M1 Abrams to be the one and only in a certain map while another would have something like a T-55 for Russia or somewhere else. Then if the possible other combat vehicle were to be added to the same map, it wouldn’t another tank but another combat vehicle like I said awhile ago.

But my best opinion is that tank variety like this should stay on the workshop so it may not make the base game or vanilla Unturned to be another World of Tanks game or a Battlefield game. UII’s goal is to improve upon the survival mechanics and not to create a newer and more detailed warzone like Unturned 3.0 already is.

PvP will be less focused, but for good reason, as unturned 3.0 is just a random zombie shooter (no offense, but unfortunately that’s it). A more hardcore and realistic game (not to the extreme) is what a good part of the community (at least of the forum) wants, including Nelson, who if I’m not mistaken, even confirmed it.

Not if we have better Turneds, imagine a horde with 3 mega zombies in the Unturned 3.0 style, we would have to use guns and a lot of ammunition to defeat them. So it still works in practice.

So what you are saying is that there would be both absolute state of the art military hardware and literal collector-tier armour just lying around in workable condition?

The tank models on each map should change depending on location. A Russian map should have T-90s spawning, while an American map would have Abrams, and a Canadian map would have Leopard 2s.

I don’t really think it makes sense to have old WW2 tanks spawning, but perhaps in certain locations as both a novelty factor, as well as providing a mid-game tank experience instead of keeping tanks as exclusively late game vehicles. WW2/early Cold war era tanks could be generally worse than modern tanks and overall not be the best vehicles, but could still be useful in certain situations. Overall they’d have a lot less armor, less advanced systems and features, and worse weaponry and speed.

4 Likes

Why would it need to be a “ww2 tank”? Why not a bulldozer with some armour parts on it, or some other heavy industrial vehicle? Stick a machine gun on it, instant badass apocalypse car. Old tanks from ww2 would be even harder to find than modern ones, hard to maintain, and just be completely weird and impractical.

The idea of being able to make your own custom vehicles, like that guy who made a makeshift tank, would definitely be cool!

2 Likes

Basically this:

The only thing I disagree with is not having tank models that fit the map. Honestly I think having only one tank that has the same stats is really boring and all MBT tanks can have different stats that make them unique. This also gives map makers more stuff to work with, and allow for maps that have say M1s going up against T90s.

Overall there are plenty of ways to explain it, like Harvest said. I’d be a massive fan of old tanks spawning at Militia locations that serve as a mid-tier armored vehicle. Depending on how vehicle customization works in II, perhaps your idea of a bulldozer being armored up would also be an option for an earlier game option.

This discussion has already gone very far but I’d like to chip in with my opinions on the subject.

  • Too much variety for the sake of variety dilutes the game experience and makes balance a nightmare. (See also: R6S.)

  • Conversely, having regional variations is good. As teh said, a thematically appropriate vehicle depending on the setting of the map, such as nationality-accurate vehicles, are the best, even if each nation has only one of each type.

  • As much as I love historical tanks, I think they’re still a huge stretch. Now, some of you have reasoned that historical tanks could act as mid-game armored vehicles that would bridge the progression gap to a modern tank, and with that point I’d also like to mention there are much more intermediate alternatives available to consider.

For example (emphasis on example, as there’s many possible alternatives), a personal favourite of mine that is quite likely to find in a war museum and also fairly reasonable to balance as an intermediate - a Universal Carrier. [wikipedia article]

This light armored fighting vehicle would serve a pretty versatile role in the setting of UII - it was widely used by British Commonwealth countries during WWII, making it very available for many of Nelson’s potential map choices (including Canada, and let’s be honest, a map somewhere in Canada is inevitable). It serves the purpose of an armored vehicle by shielding the crew from small arms fire, and acting as a weapons platform for both mounted and man-portable armament. The Universal Carrier specifically could mount a wide variety of munitions, from Bren machine guns to mortars to 2 and 6 pounder cannons.

In the apocalypse I’d imagine a Universal Carrier being quite useful for a mid-game survivor due to how versatile it is with offense and utility, while also providing several challenges such as maintenance/fuel consumption and being still inferior to many modern vehicles such as MBTs. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the Universal Carrier also doesn’t have a roof, making it easier to counter and not an invincible metal bubble. In the meta I’m sure this would serve as a downgraded but unique mix between elements of tanks and much lighter armored vehicles, which is a quite satisfying niche to fill.

Point being, we don’t need a full-on tank in the conventional sense to act as a counterpart to a tank. Remember that a wide plethora of other vehicles exist, even from an older background like WWII.

  • I also support improvised armored vehicles as long as they are reasonable. I think we can all attest to the absolute clusterfuck that U3’s vehicle building mechanics are, but up-armoring a bulldozer with sheet metal would be fair game.
6 Likes

All good choices, but let’s not forget about this :smirk:

1 Like

Not in workable condition. You’d have to make repairs.

You avrage joe can hardly repair WW2 tanks, let alone modern ones

Yeah but it would be a cool NPC mission “repair a leopard 3”

1 Like

It would also be “cool” to repair a nuclear reactor, but that doesn’t make it any more believable.

I think performing full maintenance of a tank, especially an antique one, should be far beyond what the player character is even capable of. Easier repairs, granted, are still possible (such as patch repair on armor plating, or fixing a broken fluid line) but you shouldn’t be able to fix a critically damaged turret ring or restore a broken main gun to full condition.

If tanks are put into UII, I’d like them to be somewhat weathered down and sporadically damaged in various componentry groups, but the majority of repair difficulty should come from when you get in over your head taking damage while actually using it - the parts simply aren’t around anymore and improvised repair can only take you so far, especially being an average person.

4 Likes