Broken tanks = more fun

Well, note, on the flipside of this... Is that you can't pull MBTs or Lightnings everywhere, same with Air... Only certain places you can do so. So on a defensive situation, you can't pull tanks to fight tanks at times. Air has the advantage because even at 'long range', you can get into an area faster than anyone.

In the end, you don't want to kill off vehicles from being useful in the situation. What you want is the ability to not have vehicles be the 'end all' in a base capture.

Biolabs point out the very kind of base capture fights. While people hate the fact it is in close, the important thing about a base capture is less about the vehicles, and more of who is willing to go in and 'hump up the hill'. Which means the attackers still have to 'bring' in the troops, but now people can't just sit in the vehicles, they either help out or just deal with other vehicles.

A base defense, any base defense, is about the ability of the defenders not only 'holding' the line, but being able to fight until it is literally no longer theirs. For those who insist on the 'you are camped, the base is ours', then base conversions should not require 'sitting' and waiting, it should just convert over. But in both Planetside 1 and 2... The time to convert over being long points it is about defenders trying til the base converts fully.

Dude, get over it. I used my tank as a meat shield and ran people over.
Actually, Sense the tanks were not working properly I believe I got more kills with it than I ever have before.
Just said, " **** IT GO!" drove behind a rock, 30 some NC were there. Ran about 15 over. YAY!
20 minutes later, See a VS sundy driving. Hey a cliff...,"**** IT AGAIN!" Bashed that sundy off the cliff. Rolled down with it having I think 6 people in it. It blew up. My tank survived. HEY MORE EXPERIENCE AND KILLS!

So, sure...keep them broken. Meat shields and ramming batteries pretty much.
Oh...wait..they are fixed after I was on for a total of 20 minutes.

i'm dropping in on this now...

To start, i play NC, the faction that requires a bit of skill to get a full grasp on, in this entire game. the only positive part to our entire faction is: damage, and armor. i'm going to touch on each major playing field, and why they are significant from a gamer's point of view, and also an open minded NC player.

all NC infantry weapons have sick amounts of recoil, but this is made up by compensating with sick amounts of damage per bullet, often coupled by fast firing rates, but this is both a blessing and a curse. if our guns fire faster, we experience even more recoil, obviously. i will often find myself sliding my mouse repeatedly down from the top of my mouse pad, to the base of my mouse pad, approximately 3 times before my clip is empty, but i will still end up with my target with 3 bars of health remaining because he had (VS) zero recoil and a sickly quick reload to pump a whole 'nother clip into me. and for the TR, it ends up being a bit more fair because our guns have similar mechanics allowing for a more even play-ground. for you plasma flingers, if you can empty an entire sniper clip, with "nill" recoil, into the same target, without bullet drop, you sir, have an OP sniper weapon, and it is as such, a crutch. remember, most players on VS are noobies to this game, so please try to move onto a different faction once you get a hold of this game instead of hoarding a ****** handicap.

when it comes to aerial vehicles, again, the NC deal with another give and take situation. our light aircraft is versitile, but is slow as molasis. this means that if anyone on the ground wants to empty into it, as it does a strafing run, they can do so with ease because they dont have to deal with a bird accelerating to mach 5 within .5 seconds. locking on is a bit easier to take down targets, sure, but only if you can stay zeroed in on the jet, and if it stays within maximum range. when it comes to dog fighting, we get boned. why? both VS and TR birds can get behind the Reaver quickly, and then we just cant shake you off our ***. that is, unfortunately, until we get shot down. our bird lacks manuverability, where both the scythe and mosquito have greater natural agility.

now to the real issue. when it comes to tanks, obviously anyone that's not NC will ***** and moan about our tanks. why? as a faction, that's our backbone. it doesnt have to be fast, it's a tank. it can dish out huge damage, it's a tank. it can take hits, it's a tank. yes, this thing is designed to be superior on the ground, no ****. if tanks werent designed to be hefty rolling metal boxes of destruction, our infantry would be grouping up under a cardboard box, shooting spitballs out of cut-out holes. this is where the TR and VS lack superiority, because it's only fair seeing as they hold superiority within the other two catagories. infantry zerging isnt all its cracked up to be, because you die, A LOT, which gets old and tedious. but put a guy in a tank, he can actually push the line and accomplish something. now if someone whines about NC tank zerging, then you're the pot calling the kettle black, because i've had my fair share of magriders swarming my ***, and prowlers clothes lining the rear line. both sides do it, it's just a quirk in this game.

since the recent patch, as of this weekend, it seems anything with a cannon on it, fires blanks. if you're NC, this includes: the Lightning, the Vanguard, and phalanx turrets. an entire regimine has been crippled, which just so happens to be the NC's backbone. but oh look, the magriders still seem to be able to fire their main cannons, and i've had many a prowler kill me with his main turret, post patch, so it seems the only thing affected by the patch is the NC, regardless if the other two factions cannot use their own lightnings. our tanks are litterally rolling exp, pretending to fight, but just waiting to be popped. i dont necessarily see how this is fair, but i hope to see it fixed imediately, because this affects the gameplay as a whole. if TR and VS need more of a handicap, then there it is. now they can just focus even more on the playingfields in which they already hold superiority. if it's not clear, i'm using superiority as another means to say advantage, it doesnt mean that i'm saying you automatically win in those areas.

for those that think this game needs less vehicles. there is a game EXACTLY like that, it's called battlefield 3, where all of the focus is put on infantry, with vehicles complimenting the gameplay. if you dont want any vehicles, then try out call of duty, fully focused on fps combat. planetside 2 seems to actually want the full combat "feel", where there are quite the amount of tanks and aircraft providing support to infantry. what's better, is that it's not as linear as "team A fights team B on (insert map name here)" for 15 minutes. this is a never ending battle on two fronts, and the borders are constantly changing, which changes the local battlegrounds so it's not as static as most other games, but that doesnt even include the other two continents, but rarely anyone plays on those since indar is where all the major action is being held. if you cant handle vehicles, either adapt, or just quit playing. there's other games out there for you. i enjoy planetside because i can combine aerial combat with ground combat and not have to wait and compete for the next jet spawn, including the fact that i can be within a 48 man platoon, coordinating to fight on an ever changing battle ground, rather than everyone running in every which direction, attempting to swarm the opposite team.

long story short, NC tanks have been crippled, the NC's "only" superior fighting force verses the other two factions. NC actually have to work to gain any progress, especially after patch. if you're VS or TR complaining about the recent patch, then screw you, you still have tanks that actually work, quit whining. if the amount of vehicles are too much for you, then either grab a heavy class and start shelling missiles out, or quit this game, because it's perfect with the versatility this game currently offers. if you're mad because you enter a vehicle, and no more than 30 seconds later you're destroyed, well then you're doing something wrong, or just had bad luck on that occation. i'll have moments where my reaver pops the moment i spawn it, or i'll be able to do multiple strafing runs before i'm focused and shot down, same thing applies with mass majority of my vehicles, **** happens, stop whining, play more, get certs, upgrade your **** and live longer, easy as that.

It's funny that on one hand people complain about losing people, and then on the other talk of neutering play styles.

What do you think those people who like to use vehicles are going to do when you make it virtually impossible to use them? All of a sudden go infantry and run around letting you shoot them? Sure, there are some out there that use vehicles to farm infantry... Yet, that is not all of those people. There are a good many out there like me on the infantry side, that want to play pieces in a big game of command and conquer. They want to be that pilot, they want to be that tank driver. They are not going to change their minds and all of a sudden fall in love with infantry in this game.

Might as well just set up some sort of mini games in the warp gate for them to pass the time between spawns at that point, no?

Imagine if someone told you to give up that engineer or LA. That there was a timer on it and that you could not play the infantry piece. How about HA? 80% of my game time is playing that class.. I sit here and imagine if I could not play the class. That people thought that there were too many on the field and started to look to limit that role... If I was reduced to playing a sniper or an engineer because they were more fun for other people to play against...



-The best path is right now like they have it. It is pretty balanced. Tons of rockets on the field. Tons of C4 and tank mines.. tons of AA.. all in it's place.

Combined arms does not have to be a ratio like these people want. It can be free enough.. already tanks can be taken in two hits.. HE or not. I can take out a Magrider with 4 stock rockets, they are on the verge of being cardboard. I never travel alone and always have more rockets at once than they can fire at us... we spawn in seconds when they do get us.

We infantry always have the numbers... always. When I look down that sight it is always more infantry than vehicles. I have never been in a fight where there was 100 of us and the tanks outnumbered us on their side. Never. When they got 30 tanks we at least have 10, 20, 30.. plus so many infantry that I cannot count them due to rendering. Unless we have lost the base, and our vehicles, and are being camped in a spawner...

That is why I sit here on this side of the debate with the vehicle guys I guess.

deffinetly have got to agree that this game is a lot more fun with less vehicle spam. i can actualy have good fights over bases and not be instagibs by some camping tank ona ridge or right outside the spawn room. much more fun and interesting. i still feel like you should cert into vehicles to gain access to them like in PS1. this helped lower vehicle spam and made the game diverse as not all players had access to all vehicles. galaxies where more useful and the game was just better.

well actually yes, i think you'll find a good chunk of the people in the tanks are only in them because its the easist farming machine, same as they were all in esf before the nerf, the majority of players enjoy the game and will play whatever is most powerful at any given time.

Me - I am not one to say 'screw' the vehicles.

My focus is that vehicles and infantry are all disposable assets.

What I don't want to see is things lopsided to the point where people think 'The way to play is use <this>.' People forget that when a position is being taken control of, it is infantry that has to hold it. Has to take it. Tanks and Air don't hold it, they support the infantry in defense or assaulting other defenses, but if the infantry is not there to defend or assault, it isn't really 'holding it'.

Base captures should be purely 'infantry'. Not just cause vehicles spam the crap out of places and should not make it easier for vehicles to do such, but make it harder.

As much as the vehicle people (myself included) don't like the lockons, I hate them more for the lack of information, knowing where they are coming from. The vehicle 'weakness' to them is within reason, but when people use them in large lots, the lockon issue is not an issue.

I don't believe that is the case. If it were, people would not be so passionate about just flying, or just tanking...

some people are, but ultimatly most people just want high k/ds

Not everyone in a tank LOVES being in a tank. Things aren't nearly that black and white, and for the record, there are FAR FEWER pure tank enthusiasts than foot soldier enthusiasts in PS2. If one group had to get the axe, guess which one that would be.

A player might enjoy being in a tank for a variety of reasons (nice change of pace or good for K/D and repair exp,) but might enjoy foot zerging it more. I'm one of these people. However, one tank can easily dispatch a disproportionate number of infantry, and as long as the default launchers are the crap they are now, taking on tanks is only realistically done with even more tanks. I don't mention rocket pods because like homing missile launchers, those cost certs/cash and come with the added caveat of learning to fly much unlike as though a paraplegic one-legged dog were at the stick.

Starting off, new players are actually horrifically under par for handling just about anything, much less vehicles.

Additionally, with the way cooldowns and resources work now, losing a tank doesn't feel like that big of a loss. Conversely, killing a tank doesn't feel all that much like a victory. Take it out, here come five more.

Infantry and tank balance needn't be 1 for 1, but infantry need a more solid and immediate means of engaging tanks to bring the balance. That means BR 1 newbs need a decent AV weapon, and the default launchers aren't going to suffice.

Alpha predators tend to be the dominant factor a lot of people gravitate to in a competitive game, and it can be costly if it's the wrong type of predator. First person shooter first. That's the group whom this game caters to, regardless of what other label anyone might want to put on it. It can remain mixed arms, but infantry do have to be the dominant force for the game to really make a mark on the FPS market. BF3 does mixed arms, but it also keeps vehicle numbers in check, because it's an FPS first. PS2 has to find a slightly more creative way however. As long as I can look out over Indar and see only tanks rolling over those hills instead of an army of soldiers like we had this morning running along side them, it stops being the combined arms game the tank jockeys keep using as a defensive argument.

Also, Because this apparently makes everything seem less aggressive.

are the tanks still bugged?

my prowler is still slaughtering in droves....
and this is even with 5 fps 90% of the time, when they fix the FPS yall are screwed!

Agree with OP. PS1 was an infantry game with vehicles. PS2 is a vehicle game with infantry. Today it wasn't though, and it was incredibly fun. Not many whined either, they just played and had a good time.

Suggestion: Please increase timers/resources for vehicles or add a cooldown on repair when you've taken damage (like take damage, you can't repair for 10 seconds), the latter would alleviate the stalemates and force people to at least back off instead of pounding away nonstop.

woooooooooooow!

You people on these forums have some real issues

OP starts a thread saying "im glad that vehicles are rendered usless", Than a couple people say "WHAT? this is horrible! we love the idea of a combined arms game! please dont petition to have the game turn into a COD MMO" and then all the BF3 converts come on here and start completely manipulating posts in order to prove a point that doent exist.

Cookiepiledriver is a perfect example of this.

Battledonkey says something like "i want you to have a game you like" and "i dont want you to be forced into something you dont like but WE (the people battledonkey is attempting to speak for) need a game too!" and cookiepile driver quotes "i want" and "i dont want" than gives some lecture about how battledonkey is "forcing his opinions down others thraots"

I mean really?!?!?! The point is explained over and over again yet these guys just dont get it! How can you honestly say that there is a need for PS2 to turn into an infantry based game. Infantry already dominates everything except wide open spaces.

there are 20 infantry only games for every combines arms game on the market, of those combines arms games, 90% (im looking at you bf3) are not true combined arms games. and all except PS2 are older or not supported enough to be playable combined arms MMOs for the masses. PS2 is barely cutting it.

All the infantry lovers need to either learn to adapt to a new game that you like, or go back to the game style you DO like, like BF3 and actually, i dont know, be happy?

I fly pretty much for two reasons:
1. The ADS sensitivity issue on the ground.
2. Getting bombed


Especially number two though. I often infantry around until that gets ruined again, and then end up spending the evening blowing up endless strings of Libs/MBTs. It's a little disheartening that you can never really make headway: Kill the same 2-man crew in two consecutive Liberators, then they pull ESFs and after they lose those it's back to a new Liberator. My efforts seem a little Sisyphean.

(Same difference with MBTs. They just keep sprouting up)

I think you're a little simplistic too, unfortunately. The best "combined arms" games are RTS, not first-person. In almost all those scenarios, tanks aren't actually stronger than infantry -- either because of their resource cost or because infantry can leverage certain terrain to be more effective.

3 players in Lightnings in an open field will murder three dismounts almost anywhere in PS2, a better balance would be 3 guys in a tank (driver, turret op, and MG gunner) vs 3 dismounts who can carry appropriate anti-tank weapons and can engage the tank in decent terrain using camouflage and concealment. Tanks are not as invincible as you think -- the Finns were crippling Russian tanks in the 40's by sticking logs in the wheels.

If you look at more simulator style games like Arma or Men of War, tanks are dangerous but surprisingly vulnerable. They are not glass cannons but protecting them is important. In terms of gameplay, PS2 is not a sim, but I think a lot could be done to improve the tank play -- give tanks more health, more armor, much slower repair, and a sequential damage model (mobility kill, weapon kill, hull kill).

Basically I think they should be rooks, not bishops. I think Company of Heroes did a good job of balancing as well as the Massive RTS series. I'd be curious to see SOE's design philosophy.

On the contrary, dear Mootar. It is not I who is obtuse, but you who is incapable of accepting the fact that SoE made PS2 to generate profit.

Profit is the reason beyond every commercial product ever made. It isn't to make a particular kind of game, or enhance the experience, but to make money. Competition, consumer demand and everything else drives production and game modification. If people want PS2 to become more about infantry than tanks, it will become so. If people want PS2 to become more about tanks than infantry, it will become so. If people want a true "combined arms" game, then it will evolve to become one.

You are nothing more than a drop in the sea of PS2s revenue. You cannot affect the outcome of the game and trying to argue that a game ought to be "so and so" is quite dumb and fruitless DUE to that fact that it's a vehicle for profits which are reflective of aggregate consumer demand, not YOUR PERSONAL DEMAND ALONE, NOT SOME IMAGINARY PARADIGM (whether advertised or not).

Maybe one day you'll grow up mentally and understand how the real world works, or maybe you'll wade in your imagination for the rest of your life. In either case, Vishnu bless you for what he failed to give you.

Leaving something broken is a terrible suggestion.
If you really like less tanks, then ask SoE for less tanks.

Broken mechanics that confuse people & frustrate them when they realize the gun/turret they're trying to use
does absolutely nothing is not the way to go.

Which takes us at last, to this: in order to generate maximum inclusion, hence players, hence profit, all play styles (dismount, veh, land, air) need to be viable.

The reactions to the recent tank exclusion (infantry is viable!) should take this into account.

Exactly. They have to please what they have, because I think they are in the diminishing marginal returns phase of advertising...

No more ******** twitter battles, just game development.