Possible nanite based counter for Air/Armor zerg

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Nuggz, Aug 24, 2018.

  1. Nuggz

    I forget which thread I read it in but someone mentioned an interesting idea for a semi-expensive nanite cost yet effective infantry counter for armor and air...

    I imagine this in the form of a weapon usable by multiple classes that costs nanites to pull and reload, say 1.5-2x(possibly more) the cost of grenades to limit the "spammability" of them. It wouldn't be reloadable from engi ammo packs and it should have fairly limited ammo capacity, say 2-3 shots at maximum but have high effectiveness as its payoff due to cost and limited uses. It should lock on to both air and armor but be non-dumbfire (possibly a little longer lock time than a normal lock weapon).

    In many situations armor/air can attain a disproportionate advantage while surrounding more than a few bases... A couple on Esamir come to mind where HESH tanks sit up on a hill and spam like crazy and its even worse when the enemy holds the air at the same time.

    It might also be nice to see this as an engi only weapon (instead of multiclass) to give the class more usefulness than it currently enjoys. Might also be an interesting idea to give the item a "decay" timer, meaning it must be used within a specified time from spawning it or the item will lose effectiveness so it can't just be carried around as a "just in case"...

    Basic idea is a nanites for nanites way for infantry to counter vehicles w/o letting it be too overwhelming. Something short lived, effective but expensive.
  2. JDS999

    Annihilator?, flail?, returning to previous base and pulling air/armor? using ur brain and teamwork? sometimes spawning and running directy to the point isnt the only way to have fun.
    • Up x 1
  3. Demigan

    It's obvious to see that vehicles are way more powerful than infantry. This is why bases need to segregate infantry from vehicles so infantry can have a decent battle. In bases that allow vehicles to shoot inside they are often dominated by them, even though the visibility often only allows a few vehicles to fire inside.

    Therefore, giving infantry tools that cost nanites and allow them to go toe-to-toe with vehicles is a perfectly wonderful idea. If properly executed the walls around bases can be removed and you can have vehicles and infantry duke it out like they are supposed to. Do it right and you can even give tanks that tanky feeling by adding co-ax guns and several abilities.

    But hey you can go use teamwork against a lone-wolf vehicle who requires less than 10% of the skill an infantryman needs just to operate.
    • Up x 2
  4. LaughingDead

    Here's a thought: How bout, if you MUST be playing infantry, a squad of 7 heavies, focusing one target at a time.

    Or OR, coordinated armor that picks off the herd until there isn't a herd.
    • Up x 2
  5. Campagne

    Ah yes, the old "coordination for thee but not for me" mantra. Because that has been proven to be an efficient and reliable means of correcting issues. :rolleyes:
    • Up x 1
  6. LaughingDead


    It's coordinated armor verses a single infantry? What exactly are you proposing.
    • Up x 1
  7. Campagne

    There is no coordination in armour. Just because a bunch of players are doing the same thing in the same area does not mean they are in any way cooperating or communicating.

    If one HE tank can kill one infantry that's fine, but one infantry can't kill one tank without extra help and effort? This is one-sided and unfair, and is what nanite-based weaponry seeks to avoid.
    • Up x 2
  8. Nuggz

    obviously some people missed what I was saying.... Most infantry counters to vehicles are underpowered unless used in fairly large groups with coordinated fire on specified targets... Air deterrence is extremely ineffective due to short repair times, so you drive an ESF or Lib away and its back in 30 seconds to continue its pounding. Then the moment you pull enough anti-air or anti-armor you lose effectiveness against and/or awareness of infantry. Certain battle areas convey an advantage to infantry versus armor but not many.

    Yes, yes I'm aware you can attempt to fall back and pull armor of your own but often "smart" armor zergs will cover the vehicle spawns from the bases nearby so you end up having to drop back even further costing more time. Time you don't really have when you're trying to save a base.

    Possibly this weapon could even be only usable by the underpopulated faction (say a combined 10% less than the other 2 factions) giving them a bit of an edge to fight off massive population imbalance at odd times of the day... it would need to be expensive (possibly close to pulling a max) and limited on ammo to prevent overuse. Launchers would be more sustained anti-vehicle damage while the nanite weapon would be more like an instant high yield expenditure of nanites.

    To put it in other terms the current model of anti-vehicle dmg performing fully like a DoT makes fighting vehicles slow and unrewarding and your only recourse is to spam hordes of rockets or pull vehicles of your own... A more DD option might be nice if it was costly enough to make deploying it something not spammed.
  9. LaughingDead


    Ah so it's fair to assume that every single free infantryman should be able to kill a tank by equipping a rocket launcher that costs nanites ahead of time when nanites mean almost nothing to infantry already.

    I mean, there's almost no coordination in infantry either, it's just a mass of people simply shooting near one another, no communication at all, maybe that's your problem with AV interactions with infantry.
    • Up x 2
  10. Campagne

    More or less, yes. Nanites mean nothing to everyone. It's genuinely difficult to run out of nanites if a player is at all careful. Check pads, don't walk/drive into traps, don't suicide, don't run out of resources. :cool:

    Exactly. There is little to no coordination in any faucet of PlanetSide 2. So why should infantry require it to fight vehicles when no one else does? Solo AV is totally worthless. Giving it a cost to limit it's usage (so that it cannot be pulled continuously despite its disposable nature) can make it less so and give players a real chance to fight back.
    • Up x 1
  11. LaughingDead


    As you've said before, there are far FAR more infantry than tanks, the ratio of tanks to infantry is reflected in the damage models of the weapons, you're not supposed to 1v1 a tank because if all infantry could 1v1 a tank there would be no point in pulling tanks. It's simple math.

    Why pay for something in advance for the potential of doing good when you can simply pay for something only when you need it. That's like super insurance.

    And if nanites mean nothing to everyone why even base it on nanites. You're trying to treat it like a limitation factor without crediting as a limitation factor. Time is a factor. If, hell, just 2 heavies could stop one tank why would you pull a tank, that's just time you could've spent being a heavy and only really worrying about the AV game when you want to.

    It sounds more like to me that you simply want an easy out whenever you have to deal with the macro of the game when you step out of the infantry sphere, **** those people that want a possibly pseudo realistic game, let's just give everyone nuke launchers and fatmans. Orbital strikes even. See how long the game lasts then.
    • Up x 2
  12. Campagne

    There are more infantry than tanks, but there are more infantry kills from tanks than there are tank kills as infantry. The ratio doesn't work and from an actual gameplay perspective it's completely unbalanced. Not to mention lower pop fights where tanks and harassers and such can be almost as unkillable as air.

    Because that's how every other consumable in the game works, upfront costs. Frags, mines, medsticks, everything. Even vehicles and MAXes are single-time costs for unlimited usage until death and/or destruction. Free ammo and repairs to boot.

    I'm all for just plain removing nanite costs and re-balancing everything around being totally free, but that's even less likely to ever happen than expensive AV weapons. The restrictions do impact consumables though, kinda. Can throw 15 frags one after the other out of a spawnroom window so it's not like the limitation is massive but it's there in principle. Point being, the limitation doesn't stop consumables from being spammed until the point of excess, just like vehicles.

    Why pull a tank? Well assuming it wouldn't be for the speed, armour, health, range, power, or anything else maybe because the player just wants to drive a tank around for a while.

    Sounds like a strawman, actually. As I've said in the past, everyone should kill and die to everyone else. I want tanks and infantry to fight each other, not have one side bash the other without risk of death or any skill requirement. If anything you're the one who wants one side to always be stronger, not me. I want a fair and balanced game where skill is what matters, not how many nanites each player has spent. Vehicles should be a type of playstyle, not a force-multiplier.

    Now that you've sort of brought it up, what about the Space Nukes(TM)? ;)
    • Up x 1
  13. TR5L4Y3R

  14. LaughingDead


    It completely ******* works.
    If every single infantry you see had the power to remove a tank 1 for 1 then no one should ever be in a tank, sunderers would never be in play and the only things that would ever matter are what kills infantry effectively without dying because that would be the meta.

    To say that infantry needs to kill tanks as a 1 to 1 ratio is akin to saying that maxes should just be infantry as well.
    • Up x 1
  15. DeadlyOmen

    A squad of 40 can put down 120 AT mines.
  16. Campagne

    I obviously disagree. Nanites shouldn't just directly equate to power, and especially not in a competitive setting.

    Players would be able to choose if they wanted to play in a tank or in a plane or harasser or as infantry. No one should be any better or worse off just because they chose a certain type of playstyle.

    Not at all, MAXes directly equating to infantry has a whole host of other implications and balance issues. :p But it is akin in saying MAXes shouldn't ever be able to dominate fights by simply spawning.
  17. LodeTria


    Isn't that what these weapons are though? Nanites in exchange for power? it's even in the thread title.
  18. Campagne

    Well, sort of yes, sort of no.

    They're more powerful by default but have a cost to somewhat limit their usage so that players don't just adopt them over the current set of launchers as soon as they have the certs to unlock them.
  19. LodeTria


    Can you give me a scenario in which I wouldn't just take these superior AV weapons when I have the nanites?
    Why would I be better off taking the decimator instead of the AK-8000?
  20. Campagne

    If you were to need a rapid-response weapon always having a Decimator can be more reliable. Depending on how the weapons would be implemented the Deci could be used for much longer and for free, and could be reloaded from an ammo pack, whereas a nanite-based option might have a set number of rockets and/or might cost per rocket or some such thing. Decimator or especially lock-ons might not require as much skill to use as the nanite-based launchers depending on implementation.

    They could also be very narrow-focused and niche weapons whereas a Decimator is great against everything. A dumbfire with a higher velocity than a Decimator but special damage type which deals significantly less damage against ground and infantry targets while maintaining the Deci's damage against air and in particular ESFs, for example.
    • Up x 1