I really wish there was more infantry combat

The problem is base design, not how OP vehicles are. Its impossible to have a good infantry fight when there are like 897896897687 tanks shooting at all the little doritos on the map.

Consider yourself lucky. Maybe I need a better computer.

There will be more inf combat and epic battles when the servers merge but like all games, PS2 will find its way to the game graveyard at some point. With the amount of new games coming out all the time, it is inevitable that people will slowly move on to bigger and better things.

Stay near points. Avoid open ground. Don't poke your head outside of doors. Infantry aren't allowed out there.

I also think that all tanks should require a dedicated driver for driving and utilities and a dedicated gunner for gunning and map navigation. Far too often we see 1/2 MBT's spamming HE. IMO having tanks be a team effort to win, just like everything else in PS2 ( at least the intended gameplay of PS2) would cut down on the excessive vehicle spam. I also feel that all projectile (rocket) style ammo should cost resources whether it be planes, tanks or launchers. This would cut down on the massive spam and make people be more selective in how they actually use those projectiles. Those who don't will find themselves wishing they had thought out a better plan first.

Then what is an appropriate number? If the average vehicle has a 2:1 K/D ration there is one vehicle be it land or air for every TEN infantry. The number shrinks the higher the K/D is.

You didn't really read at all did you? His argument was that any capturable territory should COMPLETELY be invulnerable to ALL vehicle attacks.

Essentially turn every base into a bio lab. He was not saying have parts of every base be inaccessible to tanks. but all bases should be invulnerable to tanks.

I'd also hate to inform you but considering that PS1 had absolutely no bases besides towers and bases there are far more territories that have no access for vehicles than PS1 did.

So?

What do you consider "capturable territory"? It sounded like wanted he infantry only bases. That's the same as PS1.

Again, PS1, no vehicles indoors, anywhere, vehicles still needed. The attacking force needs vehicles to push the defenders indoors.

Not really sure how your quantifying that one. When it comes to having focused indoor infantry battles, PS1 stomps all over PS2 in that aspect.

That's because all the bases are open and infantry unfriendly. If the bases were anything like in PS1, we'd have A LOT more infantry fights.

Till then

Vehicleside 2

dealing with it ;_;

-Uhh I consider it "capturable" territory. As in the dozens of little outposts we have all over Indar? Again it's like you aren't even reading his post. "no interaction between vehicles and infantry" does not mean "combined arms"

-Ps1 does not have territories like we do here and the tunnel fights would be absolutely **** in a game with the game mechanics being as how they are.

-How so? There's certainly nothing like a PS2 Biolab in Ps1. I'm guessing you're a revisionist when it comes to PS1 since the infantry combat was the absolute worst aspect of the game.

I feel that more nuisance-style infantry to armor weapons should be made available to the general public.

Like, an under-barrel flack gun that can damage low flying, or slow moving aircraft (But doesn't do enough damage or ammo to kill armored aircraft without large platoons working together to do it,) with limited (See the "It doesn't kill liberators" clause) anti-ground vehicle capabilities too (But absolutely no anti infantry capabilities to mention.)
Infantry with it wouldn't be a hard counter to air, but they could be a consideration.


Then add a utility mortar that is like the Fury that goes on sunderers, and flashes, doing 1.5 X as much damage on a direct hit, having good ammo (7 per rank, two ranks,) but being single shot, and high arc. It would allow for weak, drawn out, support style weakening of armor without rendering infantry a hard counter to armor (But rather, rendering squads of infantry something to be wary of.)

Then add a low velocity version of the UB flack gun, Yadda Yadda. So infantry can support air units in killing other air units without really being a hard counter to air units.

Ineffectual soft counters are not really that hard....
But they would give infantry an excuse to appear on tank battlefields in combined arms.

Lets pull up the post that started this.

Your reply to that was:

My initial argument was against this post of yours. Making the base interiors, CY included, infantry only does not remove the need for vehicles. Infantry still need vehicles for safe transport to the base, to help hold the defenders inside, and to protect AMS Sunderers from enemy armor incoming from other bases. And as proof that this is true, I said "because PS1" where that basic scenario existed at every base. Your reply was:

I did read his post, he wants infantry only inside the CY walls as he stated here in an earlier post:

While I don't quite agree with that level of "infantry only", I think it's the current swiss cheese base designs that pushed him to desire an "infanty only" CY area. Regardless, even in the scenario where vehicles cannot enter the CY, it's still combined arms up to that point. The only thing really left to argue is:
How much of the game has to be "combined arms" for the game its self to be considered "combined arms", and how is that quantified? By amount of land space available for combined arms combat? By the amount of time spent in combined arms vs infantry only? Ratio of vehicle vs infantry kills? Lots of opinion/debate could be inserted here.

How can you prove this? Got any data to that suggests PS2/BF3 gunplay mechanics would not work in PS1 style bases? I would be totally interested to read any material you have on this. I am willing to listen. Got a logical theory that outlines the fundamental flaw that happens when putting those two together?

I meant that PS1 produced more consistent, and longer lasting indoor infantry battles, not that PS1's gunplay mechanics were better.

I'll have you know I played Aion several months back and your assessment is wrong. If players went to MMOs just to suffer through horrendous grinds then I'd say your more on target. There's grinding certs for a shotgun/Annihilator, then there's Korean MMOs, then Everquest, then EVE Online, and way past -that- is Aion. I'd start losing my hair if 1) I was still playing Aion and 2) I wasn't already losing my hair for the past couple of years.

Did you not comprehend a single word I wrote? There are a lot of people that find the 1000 cert grind a big grind. The thing is, people that hate areas like the Crown accuse people of going their for the cert farm, when that in fact is not true. I used Aion as an example to explain why people don't go to places simply to grind towards a goal, as it won't work for a majority of players. Most of the people fighting at the Crown are having fun.

There is load of infantry combat, are you playing PS2?

Make tanks (not sunderers) more expensive in vehicle resources. Yes?

Try as I might, I could not find a decent infantry fight that wasn't a farm last night. Unwilling to fight at cutoff territories, I found myself flying aroubd looking for a good fight, not a zerg smashing a small outfit. Bummer.

Same, it'd be great to be weaving through streets and skyscrapers in an ESF, trying to dodge missiles and flak

That's because no one is there, my outfit and I went there last night, and other enemies followed once they realized that there was a fight there. I think the big outfits should lead pushes to go to other continents, just put in orders chat "666th going to Amerish, come here if you want a fight" That would bring more people.

Bring back the old tech plants. You had prolonged infantry battles for those tech plants... no one really flies a lot of LAs up through the openings anymore these days since the vehicle bay shields go down FAR too easily.