PTS Update - 04/18

After reading through this, I'm not looking forward to the changes.

I agree that base construction needs to be fixed (would rather use base construction to have the option to either spend time fortifying a captureable base or move on to the next instead of what it currently is). I also think that some weapon balance changes should be changed again / undone (there's nothing wrong with a no-splash projectile face-hitting infantry and instakilling the tatget as infantry merely needs 10s to respawn and does so for free and as it's accurate targeting; if you want to stop that make weapons more inaccurate outside their intended range (which goes both directions: too close and too far); AP weapons should increase in damage at longer ranges if they should be long range fire support, not just receive better projectile travel speed; ESF damage taken and faster rocket launcher reload time could snowball really fast; non-lock-on launchers can just peek and shoot in less than a second; I'm also worried that aircraft might not be useful but haven't seen actual anti infantry weaponry being tested there etc.)

BUT

You're all so used to either render distance camping or handling all threats on your own that you fail to understand that vulnerability means that you NEED support and that's where infantry comes in. Infantry is now needed alongside tanks to protect them, specifically from the back. The only issue is: Why even bother ?
Now that tanks are merely a fire support role instead of a punch though role they need some work to cover more tactical relevant roles, like infantry transportation, maybe additional vehicle systems (not just turrets but vehicle-vehicle support like infantry classes support each other) could also help as this was one of the initial problems: Pull a tank, it's powerful even with just 1 person inside already and doesn't need an actual crew to operate at full potential.
There'd be nothing wrong with powerful vehicles if they need some crew for operating at a certain potential and cost a certain amount of nanites, it's just about balancing out the options and firepower per choice people make.
The harasser is already a good example of vehicle crew teamplay: driver, turret operator, engineer; could be the pattern for other vehicles.

I'd like to see C4'ing vehicles being nerfed in favor of using C4 to breach base walls at *cracks* spots or to use more interesting game mechanics, like having a HP bar shield terminal inside the defender base, allowing light assault to jetpack over, C4 the shield terminal, disable the shield for everyone to get in and such things. In short: More varied, better, interesting base design.
Shooting out of spawn rooms needs to die as well just like only one spawn room per base in most cases and nothing relevant in-between spawnroom and capture point(s), like ammo dispensers, hackable shields, windows to open / close / lower etc.
The structures a base exists of should also have a function each and not just be there and that's it. It wouldn't be wrong if specific bases also had specific equipment to use inside them, like dropping containers on enemies (despawn then, respawn later), energy knots which allow to drain energy from some systems to power others, pipelines transferring gas that can be shot at certain points to create flame walls (until any side engineer repairs them) etc.

As a Comet user, I'm scratching my head over this change. I guess being within 100 meters of a vehicle makes sense, if you want to end up underneath them more often than usual.

Also, I guess making a slow projectile even slower just adds to the fun, right? I think you're underestimating how much value speed has on a projectile. A longer flight time means more time for repairs, more time to shoot back, and more time to move out of the way.

Question: Are we supposed to be Anti-MAX MAXes after this change? Can we get a cost reduction as well? Maybe 300 instead of 450?

Likely far too many issues with construction IN the actual lattice bases.

Well, you needed maybe what 2-5 minutes to spawn that tank, and by the time that tank is destroyed which takes multiple infantry & multiple hits, you already have the nanites back.

Every aircraft can dodge a dumb-fired rocket like a figure-skater can spin basically, unless you're flying a Galaxy.
- Which means you generally lack a ****.
And every aircraft can literally just kill infantry within a second, beyond a valk unless they are giving haircuts.


Why would infantry bother indeed. That tank's anti-armor weapons can kill anything that gets near it, the main guns can as well, and both can be operated for whatever comes up by a single operator, but thankfully not at the same time.
Unless they have a Gunner.
But creative idea sorta? Support-vehicles could be useful, assuming they aren't monsters by themselves or stack (IE Repair sundy balls)

C-4 requires a light-assault or a dolt-of-a-vehicle-operator to actually work.
And can be stopped easily by either moving a meter, using the Turret, main cannon during their approach, during the act...
Or just getting out of the tank, and putting a bullet into the free-floating LA's head.
Add in radar, and you can't be ambushed without farm-visioning yourself.

Spawn rooms have spawn shields, so you can't as easily camp the only exit for defenders in the open, without them being able to shoot back.
And still, campers will HE, and guard the poorly designed areas around the spawn rooms.


Other than that: Fancy concepts. Dynamic battles based on whom disabled what , when, giving engineers & infils a nice job inside bases beyond direct combat.

THE BUG OF HIVE THAT EXPLODES, AND DOES NOT KILL THIS YOU DO NOT SOLVE.

Vanguard JA IS STOLEN BECAUSE IT HAS PROTECTION IN THE FIGHT IT WILL STILL PLACE MORE HP. GO FALLS.

THE GAME IS PLANESIDE? OR ncPLANTSIDE?



AIDNA LITTLE MAKES AN HIVE I KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND DO NOT GET A KILL!

STILL LITTLE I MADE A HIVE I KILLED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND DO NOT GET A KILL

CHALLENGE YOU MAKE A VIDEO X1
Vanguard X Magrider
Vanguard X Prowler
Prowler X Magrider
SHOWING HOW MUCH OF DAMAGE EACH DOES IN 30 SEC
DIVIDED. BUT HOW DO YOU ADVISE NC Vanguard "Health increased from 4000 to 6000."
GAME ON THE PLACE TO BE COMPETITIVE, NOT WITHOUT ALWAYS VANISHED FROM THE NC.

Planetside 2 ... Rekt...

Well it looks like Flak Armour will give much stronger benefits than before.

Flak Armour Maximum Effects
Current- 50% Explosion Damage Resistance
New- 50% Explosion Damage Resistance and 20% Tank Direct Damage Resistance

So combined with the nerfs to Lightning damage, what does this do against infantry wearing the new Flak Armour?

Viper
Direct Hit- 305 damage to infantry, meaning that it takes three direct hits to kill an infantryman.
Indirect Hit- 125 damage to infantry, meaning that it takes at least 8 indirect hits to kill an infantryman. Keep in mind that the Lightning only has 6 rounds in a magazine...

AP
Direct Hit- 730 damage to infantry, meaning that a 100mm AP shell no longer OHKs an infantryman to the face.
Indirect hit- 250 damage to infantry, meaning that you need 4 such hits to land within 1m of an infantry target.

HEAT
Direct Hit- 610 damage to infantry, meaning that like before you could no longer get a OHK with a direct hit. Just even less powerful now.
Indirect Hit- 250 damage to infantry, which is pretty much the exact same damage profile as AP now (same splash and inner radius). It's just slower. Yay.

HE
Direct Hit- 985 damage to infantry, which means that the "best" anti-infantry weapon the Lightning has access to can no longer get a direct-hit OHK versus infantry.
Indirect Hit- 525 damage to infantry, meaning that you need 2 hits to kill. A 100mm HE shell. Seriously.

Pretty much with both the Lightning nerfs and the infantry buffs, a Lightning will be incapable of killing most infantry targets with direct hits if they are wearing Flak Armour 4. I cannot even begin to describe what a garbage change this is.

Using one design pattern for all tanks is most likely a mistake.
There should be tanks ranging from multi-crew heavy tanks with good armor and damage output BUT those require a crew to operate any bit well (other stations manned buff each other) as well as single operator paper tanks acting as fire support as well as something in-between the two extremes. Serves everyone. Also maybe give up the idea of gun turrets alone on vehicles and think of what else could be there.
Maybe the game also needs dedicated tanks acting as tank destroyers: No turret, can aim up / down but has to turn left / right to aim at moving targets, extra armor vs tank shells but more vulnerable to infantry RPGs in the back.
Vehicle-vehicle support also needs to be redone. Vehicle support auras don't need to be nerfed to the ground just because they stack but should rather remain useful as they are and simply not stack instead as that's a snowball creating multiplier effect. Otherwise make 2 distinct versions: One that doesn't stack and is useful and one that's worse but stacks. Allows individual balancing. You could then even decide whether or not these 2 versions interact with another or not.
Maybe the game also needs a tank pull cap, like an infantry to tank ratio for a faction, like 8:1 or something, depending on tank type, maybe an additional total tank cap depending on faction strength.
Maybe nanites shouldn't refill to the cap while the vehicle created by them still exists but only to the cap minus that what the still existing vehicle is worth in nanites. That way destroying vehicles would mean to get rid of them for some time.
Maybe it's time to allow vehicles to change their gear just like infantry can instead of standardizing certain things.
In any case a tank shell to the face should always kill infantry, to the body depending on range and weapon. Add shell spread for inaccuracy or time to aim if you don't want infantry to be killed so easily. The true proplem aren't well placed projectile hits but area effect damage when it comes to farming infantry. No to low area effect tank shells can't really keep infantry inside a spawn room any bit better than generic bullet weapon types.

Edit: How are the C4 drops doing with the new design ? How is it with AV mines ?

As general feedback, I'm supportive of these vehicle balance changes and hope they represent an over all desire to keep tuning the game systems in the future.

On to some suggestions.

If the heavy assault's rocket launchers are getting faster reloads it would sure be nice if they got tuned so they were a two shot kill on infantry. Would make for more dynamic close quarters interactions and give the heavy a reason to switch to pistol to finish off surprise infantry targets.

I'd also like to see a balance pass on some less (perhaps under tuned) weapons like the Rebel and the Blitz. It would be fantastic to see new weapon attachments, things like smart or 'active' suppressors for sniper rifles that maybe lower your shield amount but dont have issue with bullet drop.

Also it would be super great if the phoenix got a dumb fire mode...pretty please?

Also it would be SUPER great to get a WQHD and 4k hud scale setting, my mini map on my WQHD monitor is super tiny

-Karl

Uh.. if you're going to give infantry a better survivability rate and plenty more ways to destroy vehicles, why nerf the ohk for main tank rounds, fury, and other G2I weapons? I would have settled for just the latter, but really, both?? That's overdoing it.

Light armor ground vehicles and in some cases heavy ground vehicles have enough death rate with physics in this game. The lightning, especially the harasser may as well be made of paper at this point.

Don't forget the range limitation keeps you from shooting UP as well, which means air is going to have a bigger advantage, which again, puts ground vehicles at a bigger disadvantage.

isnt this what we want? hard battles with alot of vehicles ? or you just want to basic all day normal battles like few vehicles for no reason / pointless fights? i rather prefer to attack/defend PMB bases.

I play infantry 90% of the time and I have to say that these vehicle damage nerfs are simply horrible. Playing around with the resistance modifiers is probably a good idea as they were pretty confusing, but lowering the damage of the vehicle mounted weapons vs. infantry into oblivion is incomprehensible.

Regardless of the positioning on the realism scale, tanks (and other armed vehicles & aircraft) are supposed to pose existential threat to infantry. That's their one defining attribute. These changes will make them essentially toys, and utterly break the power dynamics of the game. Please do not proceed with them.

personaly i welcome some of the surviveability from AV weapons against infantry (inbefore "duh you are codfanboy" - shutup i like playing with vehicles aswell ... ESF controls are still trash though)

though there is stuff i find questionable even though some of it is "first pass"
example duster as i thought that it was more a anti infantryweapon than AV ..

there is a lot of kneejerk reacting in this thread and while i ( and likely many others) haven´t had a chance to test the whole changes i don´t think the changes will hurt vehicleplay as much as people think as it has been said that vehicles also get to be made slightly more surviveable

it is a way to differenciate weapontypes further pottentionaly allowing loadouts to be used for specific roles imo than being just allaround effective .. the reality of this remains to be yet seen for most people ..

remember they havent yet fully looked at air vehicles so the next pass may answer your concerns about ground vehicle disadvantage ...
though i agree with the physics of this game being absolutely horrendus ... i can´t count the times of having a ant or lightning being flipped by a small rock or bumb ..

you do know that biolabs will be changed to have PMB´s on them ? ...

As much as I read through all the posts about how this patch is "THE WORST PATCH OMG UNISTALLING RIGHT NOW" and I do agree some of these changes are pretty bad (A tank shell to the face not OHK-ing enemies sounds pretty bad), the devs are still working on it and most of these will either change or be fixed around to make it, if nothing, a simpler version of what it is right now (the devs are working on balancing the game WHILE making NEW people have an easier time playing this game and TBH, the damage reduction system is confusing as all heck).

The big recommendation i will say is to balance Infantry's anti-vehicle weapons with this change to make them weaker then an tanks anti-tank weapon.

Another recommendation is to balance Infantry in an Air to Infantry situation. It already takes 5-7 rockets to kill a unit not sporting flak or heavy shield but if it really takes 8-10 rockets to kill a ground unit I am gonna be salty.

the biggest thing i will say to devs is if your gonna balance one system (like damage reduction) your gonna have to balance ALL systems with it, AKA: if you want to make tank V tank more "fun and balanced", you'll have to balance tank V infantry/tank V air so people don't get salty, like HALF THE PEOPLE THAT RESPONDED TO THIS THREAD (You know who you are).

The MASAMUNE has been nerfed too much. If it comes to Live in its current state I will just go back to using the Decimator. When you hit a MAX with 8 rockets or 2 bursts it leaves him with around 5% health.

It doesn't make sense. It used to do around 75% and was one of the only weapons to fight against max suits especially NC. I could understand a reduction to around 60% but 42.5% per burst or whatever it does now doesn't make sense to me.

And the next update talks about new benefits that will come to max armors soon. I hope its not buffs to Flak armors like the Infantry has received otherwise it will take around 4 Masaume bursts to kill a max. Currently it takes 3 bursts.

I also want to add that this is an "NSX" Weapon. I thought it was meant to be special in some way?
I would guess that it was bought for real money by quite a few players as well. Not to mention that new players paying out 1000 certs on it thought they were getting a good weapon.

Ah, for those PMBs, the vehicles are literally just blasting a wall for all eternity, if infantry can't enter the base.
It's not fun for the vehicles at all, it's hell for infantry, and slightly annoying for aircraft.

Like PMB battles aren't these grand battles where vehicles finally have fun, for most people.
They are slugging matches against self-repairing walls, automated turrets, and several defenders most of the time.

And quite literally, if a Bio lab is able to be nuked by a PMB, this means infantry & vehicles must first complete a PMB grind fest, then bio lab grind fest... with more PMBs during the entire process...
Imagine needing an hour to begin an attack on a Bio Lab, which in of itself can take an hour.

After all. The PMB bases are not the classic "Hard" ... they are shoot a wall, praying the base runs dry.
Or infantry manage to destroy the repair modules, so any damage actually means something.
Or Pray aircraft decide to simply decimate the base for few certs rather than just slaughtering ground units.

I rather not have to attack a PMB just to attack a Bio lab.

Not all of them if I recall.

Time to finally hang up my shotguns?