"infantry shouldn't have to worry about vehicles"

Hey guys,
there is a good thread going on over the up coming changes to Esamir. I just wanted to start one to ask how you guys feel about the statement Kalyper had said when talking about Planetside.

"infantry shouldn't have to worry about vehicles"

My main love for this game is the hectic large combined arms battles. Not - infantry only combat, though I do love fighting on foot.

thoughts?

I personally am upset/worried how this thought is going to change the future of PS2.

Well on one hand there desperately needs to be a hard counter to the much maligned tank zerg.

And on the other hand its a shift back towards PS1, where every base was effectively infantry-only.

I'm almost certain that statement was taken out of context, because I cannot imagine a context where it would apply to Planetside.

The hard counter to tank zerg is A.) Pull your own tanks B.) Pull ESFs C.) Pull ATGMs, D.) Mines E.) AT MAXes F.) All of the above.

Ground/air/infantry ... 3 parts of the game that absolutely MUST interact. Infantry is core gameplay, and shouldn't feel like they are being "farmed." That does not, however, mean they should be insulated. This is the hard part of balancing, it's what the devs do.

It's incredibly complex, and they never got it right in PS1...mossie and reaver farming, hello? The problem is with F2P, you really have to keep your player base placated. I hope they figure it out. The complexity is exacerbated by the disparity in player skill that comes with a game like this.

I disagree with it. I want to see harmony between air, ground vehicles, and infantry, where each one affects the other. If your side doesn't do anything to counter enemy ground vehicles, your infantry should have to worry about them. If you don't counter enemy air, your ground vehicles and infantry should have to worry about air bombardment. Of course, balancing in this way is obviously going to be very difficult, but I would take heart if I only believed that they were trying to go down this route, instead of taking short cuts and easy options.

In fact, even if the only option were to make infantry only areas, why couldn't it be in the form of better base design, with large, well protected indoor and underground areas? To just slap a wall and a shield dome around a base seems like sheer laziness.

The comment is and isn't taken out of context. Yes it does apply to planetside so it is in context. But each of these topics that I've seen people keep leaving out that it applies to base battles and the dome. It does not apply to everything in between (and to my knowledge, anything smaller than a main platform).

Very concerned. Perhaps if the lattice system weren't being implemented at the same time it wouldn't be so bad, but vehicles are going to be railroaded into attacking these bases and have no other option but to abandon their vehicles (which isn't exactly in the spirit of PS2) or spend the next five minutes going to the next lattice lane over. I play this game because of vehicles, if I wanted to be in an infantry only fight in a tiny map (which is essentially what the walls create) I'd be playing a different game. Perhaps if some bases only had a wall or only a dome it would be reasonable, but having both on large and small outposts is just ridiculous. It completely defeats the purpose of vehicles, why would you even have an open field tank fight if advancing your tank line literally does nothing?

I think that his statement is being shifted beyond what it really means.

All they are trying to do, is make bases more about the in fighting inside the bases... Which makes some sense, I don't really think a tank should be able to roll up to the central computer core to take a base, why would you put a computer in the open like that?

So, in the field it's all about Aircraft/Vehicles. In the bases it's all about the infantry. Everyone should be able to Contribute one way or another, and I don't see domes changing that. Vehicles outside the base will still provide a very real service to the infantry trying to secure the base, imagine loosing all exterior support (Read: Sunderers) because someone attacked the exterior with vehicles while your squad was trying to fight it's way to the point. That would be bad.

It's a ridiculous comment. The whole draw of game is the very fact that you can engage in combat via infantry, land or air. They take that aspect away...what's the point of sticking around? I won't have one..

There already is - INFANTRY.

Just last night I saw an entire wave of magriders destroyed in about 10 seconds by infantry who were ready and waiting for them. There was really no escape for the tanks. They had NO CHANCE.

Of course foot troops should be the core of base assault. But rather than putting a wall and shield dome around a base, thereby effectively taking vehicles out of the equation altogether, why not design bases that have tighter outdoor areas and more complex indoor areas, with covered walkways, tunnels, even underground areas that cannot be accessed by vehicles? To make it so that vehicles can still play some role in base assault.

Seriously this. Coordinated infantry with default AT launchers can hose down tanks but good. Coordinated infantry with guided AT launchers can devastate tank columns as soon as they come in range. Tanks are much more survivable since the armor buff but they're still extremely vulnerable to infantry ambush.

I dont worry about vehicles. I send rockets at them.

This guy is a noob and needs to be ignored.

There already is - AV mana turrets, AV MAXes, ESRLs, etc... they absolutely wreck tank zergs like tanks are made of tissue paper! And Bursters/lock-on-side wreck air. Infantry has no need to fear armor/air, its quite the opposite these days.

Of course if people decide to hide in spawn rooms, you can't respond to the incoming threat and then you get owned by a tank zerg. That's just lousy/no strategy on the part of the defenders, and of course they lose.

And why do people feel the need to regress PS2 back into PS1? Its going backwards, PS2 should be new and improved in all ways, not a PS1 clone with nicer graphics.

But what your saying is effectively

A.) What they are already doing: if you look at the esamir base design, they look like blocky bases that are isolated from the outside (Which I thought made some sense in an exterior tundra setting like Esamir), and they are Capped with that shield.

B.) Will allow vehicles to play about the same roll as they will play with dome shields: Again, going around and clearing out enemy vehicles/Sunderers/Aircraft/etc.

We could use some underground areas, but "Complex interiors" seems to be what they are already Doing, from what I saw of the FNO.

If he means that like:
"There should (Almost) always be a way for infantry to get out of a situation with good teamwork, skill, and coordination.", great. Perfect, as I see it that is the way it should work.

But if he means it like:
"Vehicles should only be a nuisance to infantry, not a major threat.", then I suggest running away from this game as quick as possible.

If i want an infantry only game i play COD or any game else. PS2 is a combined arms game and the new bases with shields over it are just an overkill. We don't need that. It's fine how it is now. The new bases on Indar are good. The new bases on Esamir are not.

I agree vehicles should be a huge threat. Lets hope the changes dont feel like a separation of combat.

Personally I already think infantry dont really have to worry about tanks. Once you get inf up to any serious number going anywhere near them with a tank is suicidal and unlike other tanks, they dont really have a serious response to them. Thats why you see tanks lining the hills around bases yet never actually going near them. You physically cant.

All of the infantry can carry AV weaponry except the infiltrator, HA always do (especially TR) and most dont take AA because the MAX is strictly better at it. Any good LA always carries AV in C4. If anything infantry based AV is too preverlant atm. I would support the idea of these base shields but bases are already really an no go area for tanks unless its already as good as taken.

Very well put sir. As a tank being my most used vehicle - I agree that getting close to the buildings is suicidal - as well as, a lone infantry and obviously joint efforts can easily take tanks down.