HESH spam

I'd be down with paying for ordnance if it were more powerful. Seems like a reasonable middle ground. But I think one of the main problems with infantry/vehicle balance is rockets being free.

Ambushers and C4 Valks care to differ. C4 effectiveness is largely overestimated, but a few bad mechanics make it incredibly powerful.

a single brick doing 80% HP on a tank was never balanced and no you don't need 10 people to take out a tank, you can ether sneak up with 2 c4 bricks, pull a vehicle or get a couple of people to help you shoot at the tank with rockets.

btw those C4 bricks? they can be tossed so no they aren't really a melee weapon, you can keep whining about hesh but it's not as lethal as people keep claiming compared to weapons that are more effective and aren't whined about.

infantry AV is balanced the same way as AA, you need sufficient numbers to take them down, infantry are the most numerous unit, to let them use rockets that take off 50% HP would make tanks useless, two volleys and the tank is dead removing one of the few reasons to pull vehicles (ARMOR) will destory any reason to pull vehicles, they are vastly less effective at killing and earning exp and certs then infantry.

you are also forgetting that tanks have a rear armor weakness, that exists so if you use your brain you can deal more damage to them if they don't keep themselves aware of their surroundings on a regular basis.

infantry are more numerous then vehicles, vehicles cost resources to pull, infantry can be spammed regardless of how many times you die.

a larger infantry population is counterbalanced against a smaller vehicle population by requiring multiple infantry to take down a vehicle. if one infantryman can 1vs1 a tank at range anyone would be better to just pull infantry to fight you.

the problem isn't rockets being free the problem is the rambo mindset that a single heavy at range should be able to easily destroy a tank, infantry earn deterrence XP by damaging vehicles, just like they do air and the fact that if they can't instantly counter a tank they instead keep with the meatgrinder and whine on the forums for nerfs.

even if you don't kill tanks, by damaging them you are stopping them from shelling, they have to retreat and repair, just like air, i don't see people ******** about air when it's more effective then tanks.

i'll give you an example lets say a general knows the enemy has close range attack aircraft in a sector he has to attack and he has quad cannon armed APCs squads with fire control radar for attacking and destorying low flying aircraft and instead of deploying a good chunk of those APCs for the attack, he only deploys one squad and somehow expects that one squad to wipe out the entire enemy airpower in that sector.

when the attacking force gets smoked by enemy air, is the the fault of the weapons? or it is the fault of the one in charge of deploying those weapons?

if infantry fail to counter properly, they are to blame, not the weapons they choose not to use how they were intended to be use or the enemy units they were intended to be used against.

why do you think c4 is so popular? it's the only infantry only counter that doesn't require team effort to be effective.

You usually have both on your radar long before they reach you. If you do not move: Your own fault. And let's not forget: If you waste a valk and 2 C4 for a tank without of getting a reliable kill, then...well...you didn't pay less resources than your opponent for sure. ;-)

I always wonder why there is so much discussion about stuff that is not really happening often. Neither did fury wraith flashes ever have a serious impact on gameplay...nor C4 flahses(yes, there was a time when people complained about that)...nor lancer squads or C4 valks. While we have harassers all over the place, striker valks in almost any air battle with TR, vanguard shields winning about any 1on1 with magriders and Scatmaxes in almost every fight with more than 5 players involved. Don't discuss the "once in a blue moon"-stuff but the things you see all the time on the battlefield.

WRONG! Absolutely wrong. You would not win a single battle against me as infantry while I'm in an equally strong tank. You know why? Even if you would win the 50/50 game I could just some out and would then kill you cause I'm full health and you are seriously injured. All given that we are on a similar skill level...

And yes, infantry goes to the forum and asks for a leveled playing field. How dare they????

No they can’t. 3 lock ons to air is almost impossible by yourself so they can’t exactly deal with air reliably unless it’s with a lucky decimator shot or on a weekend ESF. Vehicles will always kill a HA solo if they are the slightest bit competent. The medic has straight up better weapons as they should and nano regeneration is like a weakened HA shield. Although the large mags of LMGS allows better farming.

please reread what i said:

the thing you don't seem to get is 1 infantryman and 1 tank are not supposed to be equal in combat power against each other, infantry are free and numerous, tanks are costly and more limited.

tanks are a force multipliers meaning they are more powerful per player in them, then the same amount of players on foot, you don't seem to understand that.

1 infantryman is not equal to 1 tank, 1 tank is not equal to 1 liberator.

a solo HA is not designed to be able to solo a tank at range, close range? possible good play by a HA can kill a tank with some well placed decimator shots

if infantry use basic numbers you can beat a tank at range with multiple heavies or if you are even sneakier use a HA to distract the tank while you sneak up with C4.

if a single infantryman can easily destroy a tank at range, there's no reason to even pull a tank, because tanks like aircraft and ground vehicles multiply the power of the crew hence the term 'force multiplier'. if one infantryman can kill a tank at range easily then the tank is no longer a force multiplier and is a waste of time and nanites.

No, that modification was all on Infantry complaining about it. If the developers had really listened to tank drivers, they would have given a base resistance that required a follow up be an AV weapon (3/4 classes that can use C-4 can carry them) before optional armors, at least to the level of burning to death, and then an optional armor that manages the C-4 resistance slightly beyond that but has little to nothing else going for it. To be fair to your point, two C-4 went from doing 60% HP overdamage to vehicles to doing exactly just enough damage to destroy a vehicle. The absurdly unnecessary amount of overdamage C-4 previously did after resistances is something I had previously questioned. Tanks also did get flanker armor, potentially satisfying the optional armor part, but interaction only skips past to the "followup with AV" part. The basic position is that this is just the usual usual - window dressing.

That's a good attitude to have, but it's not worth anything as a counterargument except as smack talking.

One player is one player...every single player wants to have fun...no matter if in a tank or facing a tank. There is no reason why tankers should have more fun than others.

Again, even if a tank were just as strong as an infantry player it would STILL be a force multiplier cause the player in the tank got twice the health pool since he can still leave the tank when it gets destroyed. That it's not enough of a force multiplier for you to have a 100% advantage is YOUR problem...for me that would be more than enough.

tanks are stronger right now then a lone heavy with a rocket launcher and you think if a tank were nerfed to have paper armor that 'bailing out' makes it a force multiplier? really? if a tank can't survive one infantryman's fire at range it's not a force multiplier.

if tanks die too fast nobody will pull them because 450 nanite investment that dies quickly at range to one infantryman? better off rolling a infiltrator with a OHK sniper rifle then pulling a tank. at least the sniper can kill, cloak and relocate and if they die they lose only time.

infantry are not and should never be 1 player compared to 1 player stronger then a vehicle, infantry are at the bottom of the food chain precisely because they are the free and common unit.

infantry have the largest role in the game, they earn more certs and exp per hour, they can engage in any terrain or base, they capture points and bases.

tanks are restricted to killing vehicles and infantry, vehicle cap points aren't enough to give tanks a role outside killing. people play tanks because they want fun, not because they are effective as infantryside believes.



meanwhile you cry about the occasional tank kill with your infantry entitlement argument that a lone infantryman with a rocket launcher should go toe to toe with a mutli-ton vehicle that is faster, more armored and packing bigger guns and expect to have a even chance of winning.

you are not rambo, neither is any other infantryman. if a tank dies fast to one infantryman at range there's no point pulling them, tanks are designed by the devs to take multiple rocket hits on purpose like real tanks do, you ether pull your own vehicle, use teamwork to hit it with focus fire to kill it or sneak up on it with c4.

any vehicle i don't care what it is, if it doesn't have the armor(tanks, libs gals), speed(harraser. ESF) or utility(fury wraith flash) to survive, is worthless as a combat vehicle and you want to take that armor away so you can solo rocket one.

when that tank isn't killing you very often, it's scoring kills on infantry at a lesser rate then each infantryman is scoring kills on other infantryman and it's not like it's killing the same people over and over.

the only thing tanks have to do in the game is kill and infantry are whining because 1/10 deaths is to HESH or less, when grenades, C4, mines and gunfire kill them far more.


try actually learning how to tank you'll realize that most of the time infantry are having fun and vehicles are mostly sitting there shelling because too many people don't want to pull vehicles and engage in anything aside from infantryside.

*I see the issue. Part of my post didn't get pasted in where I recommended that tanks get back thermals, get tank shells that fly faster than a thrown tennis ball, and get their shell damage reworked. Typing is hard.

It didn't make it into my last post because copy/paste is hard, but my recommendation was to make tank shells more dangerous to compensate. If you want to look at it from an infantry perspective then think grenades, not bullets.
And I guess technically with ammo as a limiting factor there wouldn't need to be a limit to the number of vehicles you could pull unless you were just going to roadkill everything.

These are very specifically for the classes that can already use C4 (therefore no infiltrators with these weapons). You would simply be trading in damage potential for a ~30m effective range with a low velocity weapon that costs resources to use. Most tanks don't get that close anyways so its more of an insurance policy than anything else. At any rate it's not like that would change things very much, Heavies are already one of the most common classes in the game.

Rocket primaries haven't been viable in this game in a long time, and I highly doubt a single shot version that does less damage will be more dangerous than a stick of C4.

To be honest I almost never see engineers on AV turrets (at least not living ones) but I'll take your word for it.

Not if the tanks are balanced accordingly. That being said, if a team of two Heavies spends an MBT's value or more in nanites on hard-countering a tank shelling their base, given equal skill levels they should have good odds of killing it. These would be specifically designed weapons for shooting slower vehicles at long range and relatively ineffective against anything closer or faster.

*If the only thing costing resources is ammunition, then pulling another tank if you haven't fired a shot yet would be free, no?

Is that when I take his Library Card or are we talking full Fahrenheit 451 here?

Never once have I claimed to be a tanker. I don't interact with tanks unless I can help it but I am not in the habit of dying to enemy tanks (friendlies are another matter). However I can read the comments from the almost weekly purse-slapping contest that inevitably springs up to get at least an idea of where things stand.
Plus I was bored, and who really cares, anyways?

Where would you like to see Vehicle / Infantry sit then? I'm just seeing what sticks to the wall but I'm the only one throwing mud, it seems.

Again, there will always be a reason to pull tanks. They have more firepower on long range, they are faster, they give at least some armor. You try hard to ignore all that cause it ruins your argument but that does not change that it's there.

The rambo argument is funny. You pretend that a tank has to be the way you want it to be based on your idea of what a tank should be. That your idea has nothing to do with reality(but is another Hollywood fiction like Rambo) does not come to your mind. And that tanks(or AV) in planetside have nothing to do with reality, is something you ignore as well. You got your picture of a behemoth that should be almost invincible and shred people....no matter how bad the experience is for other players. My point of view is not some fake realism but pure game mechanics. The number one rule is: ALL should have fun...nobody should get frustrated due to an unfair gameplay...and none should be forced to play something(especially not one sided).
Resources are just a crutch cause vehicles are too strong. Limiting their number does not change that they are too strong tho...and given that ASP and alert rewards(resource booster) increased the available resources and decreased the costs, the limitation is not working too well anymore. On top of that we got CAI, nerfed C4 etc.(about all AV gear) to increase the dominance of tanks even more.

Air anomalies force you to be in an aircraft to contribute to a win.
Alerts force you to play infantry to capture any territory to win the alert.

Nothing forces you into tanks tho... so I guess infantry need nerfing with this backwards line of thinking.

Air anomalies are temporary. So are alerts. You can contribute to air anomalies in a skyguard or any other AA(tho in case of infantry that is limited to Burster Maxes and maybe striker heavies in valks...lcokons will be rather useless given the height of those battles). Same counts for alerts. You may not be able to capture points...but to get from one area to the next people need to go through vehicle country, It may be about capture points...but you can't teleport from spawn to capture point in most areas.

How about a crazy idea: Let's switch it. Capturing only possible in vehicles. Therefor vehicles stand no chance against infantry. I know you would hate that more than me....cause standing at a point while waiting for it to turn sides is NOT the fun part of the game. That's just the objective to give people a goal beyond comparing KPDs....

Have fun with that argument. ;-)

That's an easy argument to win, because that's not the game we're playing. Went so far as to make a second game that we are apparently playing called Tankside 2 to justify nerfing tanks. Tanks only have a role in this 2nd made-up game in your mind. Talk about trash or what.

You failed before you even begun.

If it were true that there is always a reason to pull a tank, we’d see them literally everywhere. But the thing is, we don’t, clearly there are far more infantry than any other unit campy has already defended that there are far fewer tank kills than infantry because there are far far more infantry . But then we ask ourselves Why? Because they cost resources? No those are free. Because they’re destroyed easily? No, you’re parading around acting like they’re gods so that can’t be it. Maybe their weaponry isn’t as effective? No that can’t be it, this is hesh spam not hesh endangered species.

Ok just spit balling here, maybe because there isn’t always a reason to pull a tank when infantry capture points, deploy to any part of the actual fights the fastest, make more certs and get the most content out of the game while everyone else eats a shaft for playing.

It’s actually hilarious at this point.

Alerts are temporary but the effects last. For example, TO WIN THE CONTINENT ALERT YOU NEED TO CAP POINTS AND THEREFORE NEED INFANTRY BECAUSE IF YOU DONT YOU ARE NOT REWARDED NEARLY AS WELL AS WINNING.

See now that’s what we call the carrot for playing infantry, the stick would be that if you play with tanks during alerts you lo- oh wait damn, we’re actually punished for playing tanks. See tanks don’t nearly do enough to justify during an alert, libs can kill far more sunderers and prevent counter attacks over a much larger area than tanks ever could. See now tanks, are slow, deploy slowly as well. The only time you want a tank in those situations is when you need to pop 10 AA buses, but they also pour out infantry into which AP is not an effective counter against infantry with launchers as campy already posted and admitted that tanks take 100% of the damage from launchers, last time I checked, a tank losing more than 1/6 th of his HP hurts, 6 heavies can alpha down a tank and only lose one heavy in the process if he’s not wearing flak. 3 heavies still hurt a ****ton and reload quickly while in the bus OR BETTER YET instantly by using the rocket resupply bypass that many heavies do.

It’s probably from this stupidity of how powerful infantry actually is that they’re removing tanks not 1 shotting with direct hits next patch and also regulated the damage to AV topguns so mjolner did effective AI at close.

Also, if you’re going to swap tanks and infantry, you swap every downside that comes with it, bigger hitbox against other infantry, longer rendering ranges, slower weapons, no secondary, must turn slowly before moving in that direct (vanu are the only ones allowed to ADAD) infantry costs resources, no revives, no direct spawns, you weapons do not one shot tanks with the propper armors, you only have 3 primaries that are available to you and your topgun must be manned by another guy to force teamwork on you. I can keep ******* going but I’m on a phone because my monitor broke, will oppress and farm your *** later as a heavy main and not a tank, I hope that makesyou feel better. Chao.

people right now are whining about hesh which will have a radius reduction soon with AP made to ohk infantry once more, do you really think that infantry will sit back and not howl if you add resource costing shells that have bigger blast radius? making tanks free to pull but forcing them to pay for ammunition will only make them able to use their tank less and shift the annoyance from losing your tank to not having any ammo when you need it, why should the unit with the least role have to pay for standard ammunition?

we have a class system for a reason, the point is you can't be the master of everything, if you want to hard counter vehicles ether pull C4 as a light assault or play as a heavy, what you are asking for is more common ranged AV so almost any infantryman regardless of what they are doing can take a quick and easy solution to AV work "because they don't want to stop meatgrinding" for a minute or two

the game doesn't work like that i can spend 450 on a tank, that doesn't mean i'll have good odds killing an esf which is cheaper then me assuming we are equally skilled in our choice of vehicles. an esf can literally hover outside my weapon's axis and kill me this is before you consider someone with a liberator can kill me faster for the same resource investment as my tanks.

resources are a limiter they aren't an indication of what should have a good chance of killing what.

infantry cost nothing to pull, you can die 10 times in 2 minutes and keep playing? tanks though? nope whether you can play them or not is down to whether you have resources.

the best comparison would be like imagine two people approaching an ice cream van, the first guy is friends with the icecream guy, so he gets his vanilla ice cream for free(base infantry gameplay) and only has to pay for extras like topping(C4 medkits, mines)

meanwhile the second person is a new customer and has to pay for his chocolate icecream(base tank gameplay) and the toppings (convince someone to act as a gunner for his top gun)

if the first guy is out of money when he visits again he just gets his vanilla icecream with no toppings, if the second guy has no money the second time, he gets nothing.



infantry take multiple players to take down vehicles at range because they are free and numerous, vehicles limitation is their cost and downtime associated with not having enough resources, infantry are not limited by resources, you can play for a straight 3 hours as infantry if you wish no matter how many times you die, nanites for infantry centric play are just for some nice extras, for vehicle users those nanites are the foundation of whether they can play vehicles or not.

in other words your perspective is only from the infantry side which does not take into account the reality tankers face, i on the other hand play both aspects, so i understand how effective tanks really are vs what pure infantry players think and how changes will affect them.

tanks should be in a place where they can one shot kill infantry with AP and actually have sustainable objectives they can pursue, many infantry only players only cry for tank nerfs rather then trying to give tankers something to do aside from the occasional infantry kill between the few tank battles that get fought.

there aren't enough vehicle cap points, infantry can cap those which means there is no reason to try to pull vehicles to hold them, all secondary objectives in a base (generators SCUs) are in the infantry domain, where are the base objectives for vehicles? give them external vehicle only damageable shield generators and parts of the base they can shell and destroy to collapse specific routes infantry can take though bases.

the issue isn't the power vehicles have, it's that there's no objectives for them and there is never an objective based reason to pull a tank, in any situation you could pull a tank if you are a decent pilot you'd be better served pulling an ESF or liberator, because those are faster or faster and better armored while being able to destroy more enemy units with higher survivability.

I see tanks everwhere. There is hardly a fight in a hex without a tank around in that hex. The only reason we don't see them even more is that they can't get to the capture points anymore(check capture points that can be captured by vehicles and you gonna figure out that it hardly ever happens without a vehicle there).
About your other arguments: Yeah, you can not farm certs that easily anymore as tanks...but that's mostly cause DBG stopped you and cause infantry is is hiding in buildings BECAUSE of you. Getting farmed just ain't fun so people try to avoid that, you know?

To turn your argument against you: If liberators are so much stronger, why do we see much more tanks than liberators? It definitely ain't because either one is weak, that's for sure. ;-)

You did not really just say "6 heavies vs 1 tank...1 death at each side...that's fair", did you? I mean, really? Turn it around. 6 tanks vs 1 heavy...a death on each side too? No? Hmmm, I know someone who would cry bitter tears all over the forum if it was like that. But hey, as long as it's just hurting the others and ruining the game for them: It's fine and fair.

What's that about swapping all the other stuff? Who cares about bigger hitbox if you just don't die due to it? What do I care for several different available primaries if I anyway only use 2 or 3(the rest is just stuff that gets auraxiumed and then it can collect dust). Infantry would need no revives, they could simply repair themselves.
But that's just smoke screens. You wanting to make infantry like tanks just with a different look makes no sense cause then you would play infantry as the new tanks. That is not the point of my argument. My argument was that capturing point A is not WHY people play this game...so to claim that it is a huge advantage for infantry is just bs(And I pretty much proved that by giving you that "advantage" and infantry the advantage of tanks...one advantage for 1 advantage. And you tried to chicken out). Players want to compete with others(where killing is the ultimate competition result), and they want to do it with a mechanic they like. They do not want to get the feeling of getting farmed without a mechanic to avoid it that is fun for them. They want a leveled playing field(cause uphill fights are only fun for a certain amount of time before they become demoralizing).

It's easy to win...okay...and why do you fail then? I mean, that it ain't like that is obvious...that's why people complain. Is that the best you got? You come with a fake argument that infantry got the huge advantage of being able to capture points...I make that argument backfire(by simply switching that to your side) and you go "Shut up, I do not want to think about it. The game is as it is and that's how it has to be cause I say so. I win.". Impressive. No, really. You surely won a lot of debates in kindergarden. ;-)

It's easy to win because your argument is "BUT wat if tanks did have a role though?! gotcha!!!" When they don't. Your entire argument was "what IF we made vehicles actually important but then made infantry useless" as if that's how the games been for 6 years, which it hasn't. You argument is based around a fake game existing and going "what about" though, completely divorced from reality.

You literally had to make up an alternate time-line to try and justify your "side".

Oh, and to pretend infantry don't hold all the power in this is being a bad zergling. For example, look at this squad that just captured this base and tell me how useful those vehicles outside were, and how many vehicles were used in capturing it:

No but what else is new? If someone isn't complaining in this game then the servers are down. Swing the pendulum back and forth until you find your middle ground.

The ammunition would only cost resources on use. Ergo: you pull a Lightning and get insta-gibbed by C4 ---> you spent no nanites because you never fired a shot, feel free to pull another one.
I can pull a C4 Fairy 100 times, but I spend no nanites unless I press that '3' key.

This is an improvement for vehicles since the only time they are in a situation where they can't pull another tank is if they have already fired off all of their tank ammunition plus all of the ammunition they had the nanites to afford and can't afford more. Cost being arbitrary because I don't know how frequently you go through an entire loadout of ammunition, but it can be adjusted so that unless you are literally firing nonstop the downtime isn't too lengthy.

I am not requesting that every class get Heavy Assault-level AV capabilities. A resource-costing, short-range weapon that is only effective if fired in groups is not a hard counter to anything except maybe roadkilling Wraiths. It replaces C4 and basically trades raw damage for a bit of distance (think SMG-range, maximum).
You know the more I talk about it the more I think such a weapon might not even be worth it over C4.

Poor example, I specifically mentioned counterplay. Replace 'tank' with 'Skyguard' and see how that example holds up. I am saying that if two (or four, in this instance) players have an engagement in which one side has a brought a counter, then given equal skill the side that has invested in the counter should have the advantage. Equalizing resource cost is merely a video-game convenience.

A tasty analogy, but completely irrelevant as it is based on the Vanilla (heh) game which has no bearing on what I am suggesting.
In your example if both guys drop their ice cream 10 seconds after paying, the second guy still has to pay for a whole other cone.
In my example if the second guy gets a chocolate cone and takes one bite then drops the rest, he can go back and get another one minus the amount he's already eaten for free. Ice Cream Insurance.

Personally I have no idea why they lost OHK AP rounds, I believe it is coming back though. I was disappointed to learn that infantry could capture the vehicle points, if they can make an entire alert that requires aircraft then surely capture points for vehicles only would be acceptable.

It would have been nice for construction to integrate more closely with the pre-existing bases so they could have done something like what you are suggesting. Honestly putting in vehicle capture points could be made as simple as putting them in the common places where Sunderers will already set up to siege a base anyways.

Tanks are still piss-weak though. Started playing BF4 again last week and I was unprepared for vehicles I couldn't simply ignore. Although not being run over by my own team was a pleasant change.
Obviously in this game circumstances are different but still, some work can be done to the infantry/vehicle balance.

When you bought the notion that HESH is a HE anti-personnel round, the devs knew what you are.

This thread confirms it.