The Ultimate Combined Arms Thread (Tanks vs Infantry)

As an user of the AV MANA turret, I feel it is indeed OP. There are some arguments that can be made against this claim, like how vulnerable you are to infiltrators and ESF, but infiltrators usually miss once (if not several times) or hit the turret itself (which actually has a big hitbox) so they alert you of their presence, and in a short time friendly infiltrators can take them out. Or you can kill them yourself. I will go back to this later.

Aside from this, the turret is an anti-everything sniper platform, and the sniping becomes egregious if you have a mouse that lets you change DPI. Toggling to a low sensibility lets you easily and reliably hit targets at max render distance, which is aggravated by the fact that all they can hear (I have been on the receiving end of them) is a small noise, usually they don't even know where to take cover as they can only guess the direction of the shot. Couple this with how much damage it does, and I believe it vastly outweights the vulnerability it gives to the engineer manning them.

The other thing which is not that related to the tread but is still about AV turrets, is that they're amazing for sniping infantry. They are pinpoint accurate, OHK on a direct hit, and have some small AoE damage. Many, many times I have killed enemy snipers trying to kill me by using the turret itself, or farmed infantry from the landing pad of a tech plant, amount other similar scenarios.

--

Now the difficult part is how to nerf them, because I feel like the turret is UP if you use it at short or medium range, you're sitting still begging for the tank, normal infantry, snipers, basically anything, to kill you, it's suicide to use it close to the tank unless you think you can destroy it before it retaliates. The turret makes a very distinct noise and offers a bigger, easier target than normal infantry, placement is annoying (ground has to be flat, and the overall placement is wonky), and the turret itself can't turn much or aim downwards well, things that are not as bothersome when you're facing targets in the distance but becomes frustrating when you want to engage closer ones

I feel like the turret does a big jump from "very situational and a bit underpowered" to "overpowered" depending on if you're sniping tanks in the distance with it or using it at medium range. I think it will be better once tanks can actually render the projectile, and I also think the best way to nerf them is giving them a certain range in which you can steer the missile and after this range the rocket just continues on its way, like a lock on in the air when flares has been used.

I haven't been defending those who say they are not OP due to the render exploit.

It is not a well written thread, I've provided reasons why, you should take you own advice and read what I have wrote. Quite simply, the explanations you have given are not ones I agree with; there is no need to fly off the handle about that.

Video evidence of select situations is by definition, anecdotal. This is what I mean about your writing style and tendency towards exaggeration instead of an unbiased overview.

Again, that is where we disagree, I think combined arms means you do have to call for reinforcements of a different arms type to help achieve your goals. It is not me being asinine or rude, just that we differ in opinion.

Exactly, it takes two, and you chose to be one of them.

The courtyard thing is two different suggestions, nerf C4 and redesign bases. I don't still don't think the base redesign is realistic enough to outweigh the downsides of a C4 nerf, which is why I asked if there was more to it.

I'm not sure their aim is to lower the skill ceiling, just make thing accessible to new players. The reverse thrust hasn't happened yet, and we need to see how the Fuel Pods affects it as to whether it lowers skill ceiling or just makes it more specialised. Lock ons, well the changes are still coming, so there is good news about skill ceiling there.

Been ready for that since my first post in here

Found it hard to replicate those exact results but it did seem to do more damage when it swung in from the rear. Seems a bit weird they would do it just for lock ons, but maybe due to all the move code they are classed as a vehicle themselves like the phoenixes or something.

But in Planetside dedicated vehicle drivers were rare; in PS2 the world and his son can pull a vehicle and that is what is causing all the issues. Vehicles are far too common and easy get; due to this they have to be correspondingly weaker with more counters. Bring the Planetside cert system into PS2 and then you would see dedicated vehicle drivers back in demand.

i agree and in fact i said pretty much the same thing a few pages ago (along with some of my other ideas)

I'm sorry I didn't see your previous post but do agree with most of it; as I've posted before, the situation that armour finds it's self in now is a direct result of how it was used at launch. I'm not saying anybody shouldn't have used it as such, after all the game design allowed, indeed encouraged, mass vehicle usage and anybody that didn't do would have been hamstringing their EXP gain.

Unfortunately, instead of taking Planetside and thinking "right, lets keep everything that made the game work and differentiated it from the other FPS's of that time and improve it further", they actually said "Right the Battlefield series gets lots of players and Planetside was an FPS, so lets make a persistent Battlefield game and call it Planetside 2". The trouble is what we have actually got satisfies nobody; the BF, CoD crowd want it to be even more twitch based with less classes and less weapon/upgrades so they can show off their "skillz", and the Planetside players want more in depth game play with more options and strategy and less "twitch".

AV mana turrets are indeed quite broken. I have been guilty of pulling mine out and hitting vehicles from 800m away. Granted, it's kind of hard to hit moving vehicles at that range but they have no way of seeing me and I do a LOT of damage to them if I get the hit.

The C4 damage profile you made in your OP is a nice idea, but I don't want to make it impossible for LA's to ambush a MBT. Perhaps damage resistance from above but same existing damage from the sides.

The new Esamir is so hostile to vehicles, even I, as an infantry player, cringed. We have two extremes here, and I hope the devs make some changes to bring it in balance.

I've always felt bad for dedicated MBT drivers because it can be so hostile to use your vehicle in some areas - a few AV turrets that you can't see and poof - there goes your 450 resources. Strikers, lancers... (rarely phoenix), fractures, libs, c4, tank mines - the ways to die in a tank are quite vast and come from all angles. I am ok with that as long as MBT's and lightnings can still be relevant in the battle.

Combined massive arms is what makes PS2 unique and that balance is a delicate one. I hope to see further refinement to keep all three elements (air, tank and infantry) balanced and fun for all sides.

Good post Eskimo, I always love the pretty pictures and diagrams.

Vehicles have no business being in base fights. Sorry but constant tank shelling in constricted spaces like courtyards makes those fights incredibly unfun to play as infantry.

What I would settle for is really powerful vehicles that dictate gameplay OUTSIDE bases, and make the terrain BETWEEN bases matter by not allowing outfits to deploy around the map; and by forcing them to use that terrain to get to bases.

Lets see, 2 av mana turrets placed on the right rock on indar can lock down a 600m circle of the map.

You are able to kill any tank you see with in 10 secs. 10 secs, how are you supposed to get infantry to kill them within 10 secs?

Is not this the exact same reason they reduced the range on bursters? So they would not become the king of all AA. Is it fair that to have to use armor you need to keep a squad in a galaxy ready to drop on any mana turret nest. Its a sad and broken mechanic, and you say your not defending it but you were earlier.

Honestly I think you saw the part about mana turrets then started running your mouth, I think since you have gone back and read the thread a bit because your tone is changing.

Tl;dr Give it up you are so wrong, and you have been wrong for 6 pages

Good post.

Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

Mind you, even in your post, you noted that harassers were used to pick off your MBTs hard, which is exactly what I believe is the problem. MBTs will remain obsolete for as long as you have harassers in the current state - fast, maneuverable, durable, small, easily repaired hard hitters that are not easy to hit back. In comparison, MBTs are slow, big, and easy to hit. Yes, MBTs are more durable and can hit hard - when they hit, but they still fail short.

The SOE made huge mistake when it was decided to give harassers heavy hitting anti-armour guns. Instead, harassers should have been made into anti-light vehicle and infantry unit. MBT should be the king of a ground-vehicle based combat - sadly that is not the case. One on one, harasser will carry any day.

You can no longer do this SOE understood how broken that form of guiding was and removed it again because you could kill Tanks from the front in 2 lock on missiles. Like I said they kept this on the live servers for 2 GUs before removing it.

Well I wanted to start a purely constructive conversation at the end of my last post but it seems you are still trying to insult me and the people who helped make this thread so I cannot yet do that. You're the only one to think it's not a well written thread so far in the thread after 6 pages, and even those who have not agreed have not said it was poorly written, so I suggest you get over yourself and stop trying to insult my writing ability. Lets count the number of people who thought it was a good post or liked my post to your posts saying it was a poorly written thread. It's more or less you saying it's poorly written against the dozens of other people saying it is well written.

Video evidence is perfect for showing how a weapon can be used at its best , and is especially useful for showing a player unfamiliar to how powerful a weapon can be. For instance a dedicated infantry player or ESF pilot might not see why the AV turret is OP, but after those three videos I showed will get them going "OH Sh** that's OP!" I'm not going to show some noob trying to use the AV turret against a MBT from 50 meters away because that it an extremely bad idea and would not showcase what is OP about the AV Turret. If you're to arrogant to admit that the videos don't show what's wrong with AV turrets and HA Launchers, because that's exactly what they do and the videos do that very well, then truly you are a lost cause. Video evidence is an actual recording of the situation I'm describing taking place in the gaming world and I could easily show you many more videos as well to make it well documented regularly occurring situation regardless if the people on Briggs cannot pull of the same thing or not.

What more could you possibly ask for in terms of an explanation, I asked that vehicles not be able to farm spawn which is a massive plus in anyone's book when playing infantry. I asked that infantry be given more cover so they can easily flank tanks, which is how you would still be able to solo MBT's with C4. It's really that simple, you remove spawn farming entirely or make it not worth the risk, and give infantry more cover than they could ever hope for if you need flank a tank. Much like they have available in Esamir's Amp Stations and Tech Plants.

Combined Arms is not saying playing an infantry, "oh look a MBT I think I'll go switch to my LA and go C4 him", or "Look a group of MBT's I should go get a flash and drive up on a hill to kill them all with my AV turret or render them all useless. Combined arms would be saying as in infantry, oh look a heavily armored tank I should get some Liberators or ESF's or AP Tanks to go fight them. That's combined arms, because seeing an armored threat in the middle of fighting infantry as infantry and going, GOTTA GET MY C4/ AV Turrey!, is not combined arms.

You've not been ready for constructive posting since your first post, and still are not by saying I have poor writing ability which does nothing more to insult me.This was your first post

Here you are basically saying that AV Turrets are not hands down the most OP weapon in the game, which they are since nothing else comes close to the utility they have against tanks and they can OHK infantry and ESF's like a tank can, and you said that it only "Seems" so OP way because I play as a TR Tanker. At this point you had not admitted the AV turret was OP.

Nope you read through my post and pointed out something I had not covered, boy isn't that a nice change of pace .Well the thing about Harassers is that while yes they are a huge threat to tanks at the same time you can still fight back against them and a 2/2 MBT stands a good chance against a 3/3 Harasser unlike C4 coming down out of the sky, or AV turrets at render distance or Lock on's/ ESRL's with non rendering HA's. Normally I'm not run off by Harassers because I work in a armored unit and even going solo in a 1/2 V 2/3 Halberd Harasser I've won against them many times. If I can use my skills against something it's level of being OP goes way down in my book which is why it didn't make the top 3 in my book.

One of the biggest issues I see with the current "combined arms" balance is the fact that's there's no incentive to pull a tank to defend a base. I believe this was and is the root of all the problems with combined arms balance.

1. Attackers pull vehicles and attack a base.
2. Defenders(Infantry) don't bother pulling a vehicle.
3. They get destroyed by the vehicles and lose the base.
4. Tankers in their boredom spawn-camp.
5. The Defenders(Infantry) come to the forums to whine about the strength of vehicles.
6. Numerous AV buffs and vehicles nerfs.

This results in vehicles being useless in both the field and courtyards.

Just my opinion.

Great job on this post Eskimo; it is well thought out and informative and as a regular tank driver, I approve of you ideas.

I especially agree with your ideas on increasing the skill ceiling for C4 spammers. As someone who also almost has the Auraxian medal with C4, I will admit that it has been the easiest, cheapest, effortless, and almost gimmicky way of getting infantry and especially tank kills. Jump and hover jet packs, along with squad drops and beacons regularly gives infantry the jump and surprise factor on tanks, and inside of bases it is very easy to farm infantry.

Making C4 do directional damage, as well as requiring a bit more precision and skill in the placement of the C4 should make both sides happy. Infantry can still instagibb the tanks(as they seem to think is their right to do) and infantry; it will just take a bit more skill and strategy. Tanks on the other hand have a better chance of surviving the never ending stream of LAs, HAs, Medics, and Engineers that seem to just rain down from the heavens above; it will just take situational awareness and good driving.

I don't want to get to far into the current AV Turret discussion since you guys seem to have that covered but I will comment on it in the spirit of proving constructive ideas and alternatives.

How would you feel about a re-skin and an increase to the size of the turret? The turret will still have the same damage and flight characteristics, but it will just be larger, easier to spot, and able to be rendered at the same distance as vehicles. This may require making the turret absorb more damage since it is still a sitting duck. But making it have a longer re-deploy timer, as well as taking longer to get in and out of might balance it out. It can also prevent people from constantly popping in and out of the turret and avoiding death just to set up another turret 5 feet away.

Making it more visible could also be a nice way to "nerf it" without making it underpowered or frustrating to use. A reskin wouldn't even be necessary, like someone else had suggested I think the best would be to just put a shield on it like the AI version.

As always, great post Eskimo. Agreeing with all the points here, but specially the AV turret. I LOVE using it and racking up 10+ armor/sundy kills in 10 minutes, while being completely invisible to the poor soon-to-be corpses on the receiving end. Fortunately I'm often on the receiving end as well, and therefore well aware of how idiotically OP that thing is against all kinds of stuffs at long range. The only thing that could defang it somehow would be a range nerf. 400 meters, tops. Plus make it a little more ruberry to control.

It can't be like the AI version, it has to be weaker to tank rounds than that.

The AI version can take an AP round to its shield and not even blink. The AV version would get even worse if it got that kind of a shield.

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...l-against-infantry.81765/page-10#post-1065294

Divinorium, Jan 21, 2013

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?posts/1128347/

Divinorium, Jan 30, 2013


We were so young.... the game was SO alive...


In fact i was wrong.
SOE surprised me:

DIDN'T fix render problems.
Redesigned the DAMN BASE AND CREATED A FUTURISTIC COD INSIDE IT.
NERFED TANK.(the nerf i'm talking about in the quote was the HE NERF)
AND made "OP" AV weapons to make sure that tanks aren't effective at close/medium/range or even as a joke.

I was wrong here too. SOE had 6~7 MONTHS and they not only didn't manage to optimize or balance the game, but made EXACTLY what i predicted.

Well i don't believe in their capacity anymore, just like this.