Levelcap's opinion on the game state

Hey I myself live in San Francisco, and am not catching your drift? Would you like to clarify?

Former ESF farmer switches to infantry and finds out how much of a hell he helped create. News at 11!

And there are also LOTS of people who aren't happy with PS2. LC is only one of them. Instead of bashing his ideas in 'herpderp trololol'-style, how about you actually say why you don't agree with him in a constructive way.

Judging by the last bit of your post, you seem like someone who has a lot of free time. I fail to see why people can't just log on for 30min to an hour to have some fun. Just because you can spend countless hours per day on this game, doesn't mean other people can. People have jobs, kids and countless other responsibilties. They might not play as much, but they count too. Or to put it in terms SOE will understand, their money counts as well. I don't see why they should be punished for have a busy schedule, or as you put it they should 'F**K OFF TO BATTLEFIELD 3'.

LevelCap wants to remove the logistics of combat over large areas, i.e., ammo supply, field repairs and deploying spawn opportunities (sunderer, beacons, etc.). Hence, he doesn't fully understand the very concept of PS2.

Sad that there are so many people content with it. I was hoping after PS2's release we would see more of an outcry over the blatant Skinner box tactics, but apparently a lot of people think being a fan means never having a criticism.

Sorry, you used the word guild and prizes so I can only assume 1 thing. I agreed with that statement btw if you read my post again. Yes raiding gives better loot but it isn't a requirement to have fun. PS2's philosophy is basically "if you're not in a squad, you shouldn't have fun". A squad should make the game better, but not be a requirement for enjoyment.

This is wrong for 2 reasons. 1) Calling for help in PS2 is pretty pointless. How many times have you seen someone actually listen to what is said in orders? You can ask for help but you'll rarely get it. I know I've done the 1 man defense while spamming /re (didn't spec squad leader) to get anyone attention. The scenario has yet to end with the cavalry riding in from the sunset as I spend my last mag. Usually it ends with me getting camped in the spawn room and me remembering the good old days of the lattice system before I rage quit.

2) A lot of bases can't spawn air or tanks, so this is a moot point. Also this has a numbers problem. Again what if you only have 5 defenders (because no one in their right mind defends in PS2 because of the cert grind.....I mean metagame) and are being attacked by 48 man platoon. Heck even just a 48 man zerg will crush you. Tactics can get you far but eventually you will just be overwhelmed. Now I know people will say "but numbers should always win!" but my question is, is that fun? Is it enjoyable for anyone to take an empty base with no challenge? Just because thats how something should work doesn't mean its fun. I know I feel a 100x more satisfied after a hard fought battle.

There are large group of people that hate the Crown and even Biolabs but let me ask you. How do you feel after you captured the base? Against all odds, hours of fighting, countless deaths and kills and finally its yours. You out-played the defenders who had the home field advantage. I have seen more cheers in chat and voice after a long battle than I ever see at the end of a defenseless capture. Now as much as I defend the Crown I do have to admit every base shouldn't take 6 hours to take but shouldn't a base be at least an hour? This is supposed to be war and war is rarely instant.

IMO SOE should give us better defenses, better base layout and the lattice back.

As for vehicles. PS2 should be given 50/50 to vehicles and infantry. No one group deserves a bigger share of the pie. Vehicles get outdoors. If you get caught outside your base walls without a vehicle you deserve to be farmed. However courtyards and captures should belong to infantry.

Eh? BCP has already addressed these problems numerous times before LVL, including the influence system and cover for infantry. I know you guys hate him, but this is just sad

What part of his video did he say that?

Hey man, I voted for Tobuscus.

I agree with him that there are far too many options to attack. But then he goes on to say that outposts need satellites.

More cover for infantry, that I can agree with. Base design has been a problem since tech test, but SOE are far too stubborn to actually make it have some flow

Influence is an archaic solution that really doesn't have any place in the game anymore.

He understands the problems but I don't 100% agree with his solutions.

My own two cents on how to improve infantry

There is an overabundance of explosives in this game. I figure the less insta-kill scenarios, the better, so:

• Make flak armour the baseline for all infantry explosive resistance. I have always considered that HE grenades should be used to weed people out of cover rather than outright kill them, dying to explosive spam is never fun.

On the account of vehicle Zergs, I agree with Levelcap that just giving infantry more minute counters for vehicles does not always work. It just makes balancing even harder, therefore:

• MBTs should be multi-crew. They require more people, and there will be less of them as a result. Base armour should be increased to compensate.

I don't think it was evera good idea to allow every single person to pull their own MBT.

What seems more fair, 30 tanks vs. 30 infantry, or 10(15) tank that have to co-ordinate with their driver/gunner vs 30. infantry? He has a point that while huge armored columns may look cool, it becomes utter unorganized chaos in a battle with explosive spam. I'd much rather have 15 durable tanks instead of 30 glass cannons that can play a better support role.

Lightning should have been the solo tank from the beginning. Who would pull a lightning instead of an MBT given the chance? Skyguard is a good air deterrent, but that's all

It's not his fault that there is no place for infantry in this game. He is just making use of what the game gives him. Playing ESF/liberator is the most efficient way of playing the game currently, just look up the leaderboards if you think otherwise. I would be playing nothing but Lib/ESF if I had more than 15 FPS. Killstreaks and an absurd amounts of XP are just a click of your left mousebutton away. That's why bases have to be reconfigured to give infantry a real presence. This wasn't a problem in PS1, cause everything important was indoors anyway. So the obvious solution for PS2 is: Make that what is outdoors indoors! We don't want to keep the cluster****y nature of PS1 bases, so what we need are open infantry only zones. Therefore, cover cover cover. We need to talk about putting roofs above whole bases not just some little building.
We also need to talk about the role of air. Air exists to bomb tanks, not infantry. Why would a liberator start bombing a tank column when he can bomb a spawn room for quadruple the XP and a tenth of the risk?

What has become apparent for Levelcap after he stopped being a paid spokesman for them was apparent from the start for anyone with eyes to see. The multitude of fundamental flaws in this game is astonishing. By Patch 3 my willingness to think that the devs still have a grip on the situation has completely deteriorated.

It is sad to see how few are able to comprehend what is being said.

PS2 is a game of grand scale warfare, yet of warfare that has no real logistics, troops that teleport wherever they want and locations that change ownership every five minutes.

I at least would be more than happy if PS2 battles resembled more real life warfare. You know, defenders setting up defences, barricades, mine fields, ambushes... Attackers planning their attack, organizing their troops, co-ordinating reinforcements and capturing strategic objectives.

PS2 was great fun the first few days, when you just mindlessly ran from fight to another. But for me, that wore out soon after. No sense of accomplishment, no real co-operation. Just individuals and groups of individuals who spawn at various locations and fight for a moment.

Now everyone says "join an outfit, join a squad". Unfortunately that doesn't really solve the problem. It helps, but the underlying issues are there. And like it or not, the silent majority of solo warriors will make or break the game.

Even if you are still having fun, it wouldn't hurt to listen to those who have a different opinion. Otherwise you might soon find yourself having to entertain yourself on an empty server.

Also, fire the people responsible for the map design.

Heck, if you ask me there isn't enough logistics, it's so easy to get around with instant action/suicide, and everyone can spawn tanks and sunderers everywhere.

what does a kill matter? He'll respawn and be there soon.
Take out that sunderer? 20 more will take it's place.
Killed a tank in the tank zerg? No worries, he'll spawn a new one in ten minutes at a base only 100m away and in the meantime there are 49 other tanks still shooting at you.

The reality of the game is that this simply isn't happening. If you blow up a sunderer the fight is over. That's why sunderers in PS1 had cloak, so there was a) a real reason for infiltrators to exist and b) a whole assault couldn't be stopped by some nerd with a jetpack and C4.

About 70% of the fights I've been in past couple of weeks have involved multiple sundies.

In fact I know several outfits that rarely if every roll with just one.

and how would making its a game of 'pee a boo' sundy not just be a hugely gamey solution to this.

because it worked in PS1. If you have better ideas, I am sure the design team is all ears.

PS1 was a fairly different game.

I mean two major differences.

1) Combat was like laser tag
2) Player cap of a map, being 300 was the size of about one fairly large battle.

ps1 did it, might as well be a new kind of fallacy.

you know what PS1 also did, BFR's lets bring them back too.

HUEHUEHUE

fact of the matter is sunderers die too easily, infantry dies too easily, and the whole vehicle/plane attagé doesn't die easily enough.

BFR balancing at first was a mistake, and even if they were brought back I sincerely doubt the same mistake would be made twice

Why does it die too easily.

not trying to be a dick, its just theres a move in argument from 'they die fast' to 'they die too fast' im not seeing.

I think things are fine on that front, I think people get far too hung about about notions of a fair fight 'time to react' and 'skill'.

I think people need to learn to loose, frankly.

I'm just tired of people going on about how PS1 could do no wrong. It did, regularly. It has massive design flaws. It was not perfect and the thing Ps2 fails in all respects by not being alike 1:1