Broken tanks = more fun

Well he is and in all honesty he should be, because those are his personal preferences. He has no obligation to cater to others' interests, but... neither do the rest of us.

If PS2 remains a "combined arms" game, then so be it, but if it were to evolve to something more infantry-centric, then you really can't blame people for preferring something you don't. It's vapid to argue about preferences. So there might exist many alternatives, but not like PS2, not on the same scale. The limitations in sheer player numbers, style etc. make PS2 unique, even in that category if it were to occupy it.

The point is.. you like what you like and I like what I like and Joe likes what he likes. None of us are going to affect that, but.. you can affect the developers decisions by making/not making purchases more than anything, or even possibly whining on the forums about mechanics.

World of tanks has Air vehicles and infantry?

I was amazed when I stepped outside of a base and had a huge infantry v. infantry fight. It was awesome. Vehicles need to be less spammable for sure. Do something about this, SOE!

ok see, we were talking about one thing, and you changed it over to another to prove a point, and your making yourself look silly. I want a combined arms game. WOT, and flight simulators DO NOT have that. the OP was calling for an infantry FPS which DOES NOT HAVE THAT. I was pointing out that other games provide inf only service. If i want a tank sim, i play WOT, if i want a flight sim, i have a plethera of games to choose from. If i want a combined arms game, i only know of one: PS2. the argument you made to make me look stupid, is the same one im using to discuss the fallacy of the OP. Reading comprehension man. its good for the soul .

Also, i didnt play vehicles to farm infantry. in fact i play infantry MUCH more than i play with vehicles. when i DO play with vehicles, its to kill other vehicles. i cant stand farming. But if I DID want to farm, its been proven over and over again, that getting in on the inf battles is the way to do it. playing inf renders a TON more points than killing inf with vehicles. its just harder to get a hgh K/D which i care nothing about.

Im aware of this, and you and I agree on this. My contention is with the attitude of getting RID of vehicles. I have no objection to anyone wanting to shift their importance, usability.

Soon they will have a game out that is what you are looking for. It is called Defiance. No air, no tanks. Some Humvee type vehicles and 4 wheelers will be all you have to deal with in that game. Or, there will be Firefall.

Cool, can you show me where the good tank vs tank fights are? Or satisfying air vs air fights?

so your entire argument is that we should all be selfish little pricks?

sorry, but i believe in helping my fellow man, and trying to better a community, and not myself. im sorry if that doesn't fit your mold. care to reply to my other post as well?

Why ?

If you want to play aircraft => Simulator since 30years. I think there's few who can please you.

If you want to play infantery => stay on planetside

If you wanna destroy infantery who're not able to replicate => buy a cheat, that do the same thing.

If you want to shoot from ground to air => Planetside 2 got 2 weapon like that, and they're awfull.


FPS means First Person Shooter. Not anything about tank/plane simulation. It's just an add. So, I repeat myself : PlanetSide 2 is the only one real MMOFPS; why did you blame us for wanting it to be inf based ? Since wolfenstein fps means infantery. With BF-like, they've had vehicules. But they're secondary. You cant have 32plane or tank in same time; so that avoid a lot of spam.

So... if you want tank and air, just to doom inf without difficulty, then buy a cheat and play inf; it's the exact same thing.


I understand it's funny to blow up 3guys with only 1 HE roquet. But seriously... we need 5roquet to put you down when shootin in your back, you need 1 not to far of us... It's just unfair. Realistic, yes. But unfair.And if you're going on the realistic side, I would like to prevent you to do it. I doubt that in future we dont get a better AP gun than a rocket launcher. Something smaller, faster, stronger, who can be deadly to heavy armored vehicules.(Like emp. But an emp dont freeze your screen few sec has it's in game; it blow up electronical composants).

I couldnt even get my main to work at 90 degrees; tried it.

You are missing the point, it is not about peoples personal preferences.
If I play CoD, I don't whine because I can't fly aircraft, I go and play a game I CAN fly in.
If I play BF3 I don't whine because I can't have huge tank battles, I go and play a game I can have tank battle in.
If I play Fifa, I don't whine because I can't score a touchdown, I go and play Madden.
If I play PS2, I don't whine because a combined arms game actually has combined arms and I can't run around like rambo without someone dropping a tank shell on my head.

Everybody has personal preferences in terms of playstyle, but it only the footzerging windowlickers who constantly whine if anything impacts on their playstyle of "HERPruntothenextbasewhilebunnyhoppingDERP".
If people don't want to play a combined arms game, or think their personal playstyle is the only one that should be valid, then they should go and play a game that suits that playstyle, instead of trying to turn PS2 into MMO CoD.

So. Much. Irony.
So. Much. Hypocrisy.

/explodes

PS2 Is not disign for 100vs100 tank/air fight, as soon as you can put 2 tank on a bridge, not more.

Tank and air are needed. But need to be more rare and less deadly vs inf.

PlanetSide 2 is a PlanetSide 1 sequel.

Say what you will, but this means it should take the exact same niche, as PlanetSide 1. And Planetside 1 followed the rule of infantry being the queen of battle. Otherwise they should've named it differently.



Giving tanks higher versatility than infantry removes the whole "combined" part from "combined arms warfare".

1: Lock on rocket launchers: baby-proofed killing machines. extremely effective, especially with groups

2:Buster maxes: require some skill, but can easily out DPS ESF',s and will kill libs fairly fat. the use of intelligence renders you pretty impervious to anything that flies while establishing a very clear no fly zone.

3:AA turrets: similar to maxes. less effective as you cannot move, and are thus known to your location. equally as effective as creating no fly zones and require no support in the ways of ammo or repairs.

4: skygaurd: similar to turrets, but with the mobility to spring traps, and keep your enemy looking for you. not as viable as the max, but will easily hold off aircraft trying to harass your convoy. with numbers, skygaurd will create a moving no fly zone

thats 4 options, and they are all great.

as per the rest of your post, it seems as though we are playing 2 different games. not only are vehicles VERY easy to kill IMO, but you equate them to cheating, which does not compute with me, especially with all of the HA's floating around.

to answer the question "why?". because its what we want, and its the only thing we have left. you guys can play a dozen different games. sure none of them can support 2000 players, but what do you really need that for? a 64 player BF3 server will keep you occupied with good infantry gameplay the entire round. you wont WANT more people. is pretty chaotic.

I agree with the majority of this thread. I don't want vehicles removed, but I'd like to see their costs significantly increased, along with the cool down beginning only after destruction of the vehicle. There was a battle that went on at the Crossroads this morning for over 2 hours. It made finally taking that base feel that much better in the end.

Why the ruckus?

The bugs will be fixed.

Tanks will be back.

And OP will continue to be farmed because he is running out in a open field without support instead of abusing lock on rocket spam like 75% of his fellow infantry.

I'd be ok with this.

But then all rockets would need a res cost associated. And a nerf from the current ******eded spam that is currently prevalent. On top of this would need to raise C4 cost and the medkit costs.

Probably would need to nerf max timer and cost too.

Yes. But "run to the next base....." atm is done by tanker/Aircraft. Not inf. Vehicules allow you to switch of base faster. And, they're much more design for attack than defense.

I want to play a combined arms game that has Infantry/Air/Armor. Is that what World of Tanks let you do? That is all I am asking. Where is there a game where I can play as infantry and see 30 tanks clashing while air cavalry swoops in from the skies. If World of Tanks is that game I will have to check it out. It sounds like it is just a tank game but since I have never checked it out maybe it is not what I think it is and is actually a combined arms game.

Do not get lost on the FPS connotation. Can you get into a tank and shoot things from a first person perspective? Get into a plane and do it? Then it is FPS in my book. If this is not good for you maybe we can get a new term. How do you feel about MMOCAG? Massively Multiplayer Online Combined Arms Game..

So far there seems to be only three of these things out there. Battlefield 1942, Planetside 1 and Planetside 2. Does anyone know of another out there? I can rattle off 50 FPS infantry centric games, yet I am having trouble coming up with any but those three and two are ancient and quite dated.

I can't say I've EVER run into a vehicle resource problem in this game. I am unsure what they're for to be honest. Everything is basically free to spawn at will.

The more memorable battles I've had is 100 vs 100 infantry with about 5 tanks and 5 air on each side.