In case you were wondering, DBG screwed us over once again.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by HAXTIME, Jul 14, 2015.

  1. HAXTIME

    You recently announced you intended to make the Striker more viable against ground vehicles, you asked the player community for feedback on what we think should be done.

    This sounds good, doesn't it? Finally, something happens to a weapon using which most people were better off throwing sticks at their enemies. DBG listens to their community!

    So, time has passed, and numerous people gave numerous opinions, several posts very detailed and thoughtful. All these popular and well laid out feedbacks focused on one. single. thing.:

    Make. it. long. range.
    This was suggested by several non-TR players as well. While waiting for something that TR is in desperate need of to arrive, the daredevil showed up on PTS notes.

    Once again, in the Striker Buff thread these were the most popular comments:

    Of course, DBG listened to the community spit the community in the face, and replied with this cesspool:
    • Increased damage to ground vehicles
    • Increased initial speed from 50 to 60
    • Increased max projectile speed from 180 to 220
    • Increased projectile acceleration from 0.75 to 1.25
    • Vehicle stealth no longer prevents rockets from seeking
    [IMG]

    You, DBG, in all your glory, managed to significantly buff the Striker's capabilities against air, despite TR's desperate need for a long-range infantry based AV weapon, and despite stating it countless times that TR does not need an AA launcher. You also made it marginally less useless past close-range, and made it slightly better for close-range berserking, once again, despite TR's desperate need for an infantry based long-range AV weapon.

    Of course you, DBG, were hilariously incompetent to touch the blatant CoF, or introduce a mechanism to increase accuracy at long range. This is the exact opposite of what most players of your game asked, and the exact opposite of what is sorely needed.

    Thank you once again for your zero knowledge about the state of the game, ignorant pricks, we'll make do with Engineer AV turrets and C4. My comrades, at least - count me out.
    • Up x 16
  2. HadesR



    Are you classing MAX's as Infantry ?

    Because outside of Raven's NC also don't have a " standard " infantry long range AV weapon and even Raven's are what ? only 350m now ?

    So what kind of Ranges are you thinking about ?

    Note: Lancer needs it's huge range reducing , not other factions getting the same deal ..
    • Up x 2
  3. Collin

    300 meters? we wish to have a AV weapon which can hit a barn in a straight line over 100 meters
    • Up x 4
  4. SwornJupiter

    Makes me wonder if they even play their own game, or are so wilfully blind to the fact that their are GAPING HOLES IN THE ACTUAL GAME.

    Thanks for making TR completely useless against armor zergs.
    • Up x 1
  5. WTSherman

    Well, technically those changes do extend the range. Higher min and max velocities plus a higher acceleration will give it a flatter trajectory plus make it easier to aim at targets further away. It just probably won't extend the range by very much.
  6. SwornJupiter

    The main issue TR has with both the striker and fracture is, that past 100m, SHOTS DONT LAND NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE YOU ARE. Dbg has not addressed the single most crippling issue of the Striker. Raw DPS means jacksh*t if your shots dont even land on the target.
    • Up x 1
  7. HadesR


    So what you really want is an Empire specific long range AV .. As you already have AV that extends to the ranges available to the other factions ( Lancer not included in that comment ).
  8. Collin



    ?
    • Up x 3
  9. Simferion

    May I ask the reason of a CoF for a rocket launcher which does such a small amount of damage?
    • Up x 1
  10. HadesR


    The OP want's long range AV while you wish to have an AV weapon that can hit over 100m ..

    Well you have both .. Just they are not Empire Specific , and outside of the Lancer and it's stoopid range, TR's range options are on par with every other Factions ..

    So " TR's desperate need for a long-range infantry based AV weapon " isn't entirely true , and should be " TR wants a Empire specific long range infantry based AV weapon " ..

    A little pedantic maybe , But it goes hand in hand with the hyperbole
    • Up x 2
  11. WTSherman

    The MANA AV turret and Ravens have the same range. SOE capped the range on Ravens quite a while ago, back before they changed to DBG.

    So he was saying that you do have an infantry AV option that can cover the same range as Ravens, it's just not Empire Specific. Though on the upside, it has infinite ammo and doesn't cost resources to replace.

    The Lancer is the exception because the only infantry AV that can reach out as far as the Lancer is the Archer (which is also NS). And while the Archer's damage per magazine was actually pretty similar to the Lancer's last I heard, it fires so slowly that it's really only a threat to MAXes.
  12. Taemien

    Give the zerglings a long range option. It won't affect alert wins.

    Last tracked alert on Connery had a pretty close fight (35%, 34%, 29% territory).

    Orion gets 1153 kills (wasn't its .75 ADS removed? still getting the same numbers... weird how I called that a while back).
    Prowler* gets 905 kills.
    Magrider and Vanguard together got 589 kills.

    *Lightining was highest number of kills, 1107, but being NS, that number is inflated.


    Lack of Long Range AV option is NOT why TR is losing alerts. But if they want it, give it to them. Then these threads will stop popping up.
  13. HadesR


    The LMG changes are still sitting on PTS .. No date on when they are moving to live
    • Up x 1
  14. Taemien


    Thought they made it in by now, oh well I don't play VS often.
  15. teks

    This is the OP to the striker thread
    Now, instead of suggesting how they could buff the striker several people basically said "Turn it into a lancer."
    Since the thread was about buffing the striker, not redesigning it from the ground up, these posts weren't considered, thus daybreak is a failure.

    I'm sorry, but if we make all ES weapons the same, what's the point of ES weapons. Think of how they can buff the striker which could help it have its own role rather then mimic the role of another weapon.
    • Up x 2
  16. HadesR


    I think due to all the VS fueled Reddit rage where .75 ADS isn't an advantage unless you try to remove it, they are letting them simmer on PTS for longer than normal.
    • Up x 3
  17. GaussOP

    We have the best AA MAXes because of lock-down. Why are we getting more of something we absolutely do not need?

    Ah well, I guess it is one year of straining and tedious guerrilla tactics for us just because we don't get the guns we need. I hope that the server TR population won't keep its currently dropping trend and I hope that more SLs and PLs just don't call out the BS and join VS or NC.
  18. Imp C Bravo

    I don't think you guys want the Lancer. Sure it has insane range -- but I think it might be the lowest DPS weapon in the game. At like, less than half of the second lowest! :eek:
  19. iller

    DBG did the right thing. Making any of your Rockets "Long Range" goes against the entire Playstyle of Terran Republic which would further water down Faction differences. And TR Engineers already have lots of other viable long range AV options shared with the other factions. ...in Addition to the only "tank" that doubles as a pure Artillery Siege platform. NC's AV Launcher (phoenix) meanwhile, stops dead at 280m's and is nearly impossible to hit dodgy ESF's with. Maybe the striker isn't as fun, but faster velocity/accerleration will make the striker "feel" longer range than it currently is.
    • Up x 1
  20. HappyStuffin

    Guys guys..we all know the people in charge of this game don't play the game, care for the game, or listen to us.

    They do, however, read and pay attention to other non-official forums - looking at you, Reddit.

    Any PS1 veterans remember the dev Spork? That guy was awesome. He actively engaged with the community and told us what was happening. He never treated us like sloppy seconds and simply locked threads because he didn't feel it was productive anymore. He talked it out with us.

    And that's what we need now. Active participation from someone in charge. Someone who can give us feedback with tangible results from discussions that originate from these forums.
    • Up x 1