5 simple changes.

They would be more devestating due to the fact they are much more potent weapons. Fury and Bulldog aren't as effective at suppressive fire as say the marauder or ppa and canister would be devestating. There are some places I've seen sundies that are almost impossible to uproot until the sundy itself runs outta ammo. Armor which is at least my primary way of smashing enemy sundies efficiently cannot get to alot of places that sundies can. For instance you can get a sundy in a room in one of the quartz rifge buildings, its almost impossible to dislodge. I fear adding AI secondaries for it would make it worse. Just my opinion though. DBG might like your idea, but personally I have to say I don't.

Just things that I would like to see lol. My own personal opinion. I don't care that much about this, 90% of my playtime I'm encased in an armored shell. If you hit me with a mana turret 8/10 you'll have a tank shell hitting that turret in a few seconds.

ES AI secondaries would "complete" the Sunderer arsenal and give ti ES flair.

Also since ES AI sunderers are harmless to Armor, this leads to counterplay.

give it*

No. We're already playing Steamrollside, we don't need to make territory capture more steamrolly. This would negate the strategy of cutting of territory which is already too hard to do with lattice, and would make it not worth it. So we'd lose yet more meta in the game.

You can't make all simple changes in a game that lacks so many features. Sure there's a lot of low-hanging fruit they haven't put in, but there's a lot of non-low-hanging fruit that's lacking in the game and almost demoralizing to think about.

We shouldn't be bored at a base facing just a capture timer. There should be plenty of things to do for both defenders and attackers.

- We need more generators and shields to hack/destroy
- We need ammo towers to hack
- We need base enhancements to install
- We need base enhancements to destroy
- We need more base turrets, and subpar AI on those turrets
- We need ghost capping prevention on A-B-C+ bases against single players
- We need further relaxation of lattice through temporary lattice connections such as through new ANT construction or a Sundy utility.
- Destructible base sections that can be destroyed and rebuilt opening up new avenues of attack.
- Further ANT construction buildings that expands the battlefield outside of facilities
- Ground Control features: more deployables, deployable cover, deployable status QoL, etc. Again making every inch of ground a battlefield
- Non-Deploy Zones should be something that can be put up, and hacked down.
- Base data mini-map & HUD denial/acquisition, i.e. generator status, combat medic presence, capture timer status, base mine detectors, etc. etc. etc. ETC.!
- Air & Armor siege capture mechanics when a base is at stalemate (bases that are actually more defensible.)

lolwut???????


This change would make cut off bases faster to capture.

It would encourage cutting off bases & amke it so your not wasting time & manpower over (for the most part)empty bases.

Oh I see your point, it's the attackers that caused the cut-off bases in the first place.

I still disagree to anything that speeds up base captures. We're playing zerg Streamrollside already. We need it slowed down with advanced mechanics, strategies, and meta.

The "waste of time and manpower" is a benefit strategy enjoyed by the enemy. I don't want that taken away from the enemy's meta. Again, cutting off territory in the current lattice system is difficult to do, and it should provide that "waste" benefit for those who achieve it.

1/2/3 I like (altho personally, for #3, I would prefer a "Cut off bases can't go capture other nearby bases"

#4.... why? I mean I get it as a continuity thing... but, tbh I don't think I've even noticed you CAN'T get them for MBTs... so, does it matter?

#5.. uhmm.. I'm not to sure about that -- Unless it was some sort of nerfed varient like the harassers have, or it locked out gunslot2 (so that sunderer slot 3 had no gun, only slot 2)... because having 2 PPA's (or Mara, OR Canister) on a sunderer would be broken as ****.

No im not your ignoring risk to reward factors. Things that have no risk involved should have large limitations. The spitfire gets treated like grenades and claymores because it has the same risk factor involved. Its complete crap compared to them but thats because it never runs out of ammo and can be repaired and can be up for a much larger period of time and the trade off is size squishyness and piss poor damage. Im not saying the dumb thing would be OP if it had a 10 second cooldown im saying that it would be better than it deserves to be. balanced doesnt equal good things dont have to be good.

Yes, and you can do 12 OHK's with a semi-auto shotgun. Just because you can does not mean it actually happens or should really be taken into account.

Nothing perfect about it, when a Spitfire shoots it hits. Nanoweave extends the TTK but people don't usually take that into account in infantry fights when talking about TTK.
Also, what does "fighting back" have to do with the Spitfire's TTK?

My argument: "if someone tries to knife your turret, shoot him while he's vulnerable"
Your counter: "can you do the same to a mana turret"?

It doesn't have a lot to do with eachother other than that they take the same slot. Mines and healthpacks take the same slot but other than that they share no similarities. Spitfire and MANA turrets have more in common, but they still have massive differences in usage and abilities.
So yes, you can't do the same to a MANA AI turret that's shooting you. But there's a difference, as you don't expect to be able to knife anyone in a direct firefight, regardless of them using a turret or not. Try to knife a Spitfire while his owner is right there.

The MANA AI turret is an AI turret. The Spitfire is specifically named "a replacement for your Anti-personnel or anti-vehicle turret". It can engage in an AI role, but that doesn't automatically require it to be a killing machine at it. It's a support weapon, that much has always been obvious. And it simply can't be more powerful as it would become unbalanced quickly.

No, that's the actual feature you propose.
Here's an example of how you work:
"Let's put all anti-infantry mines on a cooldown. This allows you to rebuild AI mines due to it having a tried and tested (and balanced) cooldown that's already been in use since the game came out".
But what would it really do to the game? AI-mines on a cooldown would be spammed everywhere by infiltrators and engineers without restraint. Having flak armor would become a requirement and most of the game would revolve on who can place mines the best (TR's Claymore would probably win most of these) and who can find and destroy the most mines easily before entering rooms etc.
And that's the nuance you miss.

They have been part of PVP FPS games, but not PS2 which was build on every single bullet, vehicle and tool being a result of player action, not an automated system.

Also, I did test it for a short period of time to check how useful it would be, and how OP it could have been. With people even then clamouring for spitfires that rival Carbines it could have spelled massive disaster for the game.
And even if I hadn't tested it, would it have mattered? Would it have made a difference for the discussion? No, and that's part of why it was a personal attack: you tried to undermine my arguments by throwing something irrelevant into the mix.

Yes, and I think I have a much better narrative when it comes to how to keep the game balanced, thank you very much. I think I have also proven this many times over as well.
Also, the whole "does not fit your narrative" works the exact same way for you. So what do you want to accomplish with this argument? It's basically a personal attack again aimed to make me less credible rather than my actual arguments.

Wow I'm suppress that people actully are going for the splitfire being on a cooldown idea, thats something I been asking for but when ever I make a post asking for the splitefire to be on a min cooldown timer, everyone on the forum and mother and there sister and their brothers would jump on and tell me that its the worst idea since hitler decide to gas the Jews.

I find the following to be quite funny

Friday 2nd October 10:00
VS Spitfire Kills 1153
PPA 218
PPA-H 242

VS are better off using Spitfires to suppress infantry than bothering with PPA's, ok so that is an extreme cherry picked day, but on average the Spitfire generates more kills than the "uber" PPA or PPA-H

Canister-H same day, same time 2216
Canister 525
NC Spitfire 516

Marauder-H 2584
TR Spitfire 570
TR Marauder 319


And we all know how deadly the Spitfire is...

I'm all for the PPA(ground) getting a buff.

The nerf hammer was hit a tad to hard.

Bump.

1-3 are simple but effective.

4-5 are rational additions to current vehicle arsenals.