There is a link between the rise of "infantryside" and the downfall of the games popularity

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Scr1nRusher, Jul 26, 2016.

  1. Lemposs

    Because the current balance is infantry is heavily out performing vehicles in 1v1s, pure infantry pushes back combined forces with no effort and the current meta is running across fields with no cover and looking at vehicles and they explode. Sure and ESF pilots are the lowest SPM, KPM and KD in the game...
    • Up x 1
  2. SLK18

    I agree with this post. There needs to be more emphasis on the vehicles. It is something you earn and spend, therefore it should feel like a fun step up from the zero cost leg game.
  3. fumz

    Honestly, what game are you guys playing? The suggestion that either armor and/or air is weaker than infantry is utterly divorced from reality.

    There is no one shot rocket launcher.

    If your tank keeps getting torn up by infantry, the problem isn't that infantry is too strong; the problem is that your positioning was bad. Code won't change how one approaches the game. Suggesting that strengthening armor or air ... as if there weren't already enough farmers... would solve the population problems of a 4 year old game is crazy talk.

    When 50 guys are all shooting at your tank... move behind something so that they all don't see you standing still right there.
    • Up x 2
  4. PlanetBound

    Maybe PS2 should be like the Battlefield. Charge $$ for the game and allow mods and hosting on your own server. That way anyone with the resources and desire can have it their way.
  5. Hegeteus


    The reason why I chose Canister Vanguard(Canguard) is simple. I use it because I like empire specific things, especially the Canister and I can make a meaningful impact with one. It's a combination with AP cannon that finds it's place in almost any fight.

    You can say it was to pad stats all you want, but the truth is that the Canister equipped on my Vanguard has seen much more intense situations than forum bobs and joes can or will even imagine(let alone witness for themselves). There's a cannon against armored targets, Canister against soft targets and they're used appropriately as such. I don't understand what makes it statpadding :confused:
  6. LaughingDead

    Ever get into a position in which you have to clear out tanks and vehicles but can't because infantry?
    Look at that sentence closely. Cannot. Move up. Because. Infantry. I'm not a tank slaying god but all I would need is 2 coordnated heavies (including myself) to deck a tank, all infantry classes except infiltrator can deal with tanks, sure heavy light and engie and max....ok maybe just not medic do it effectively but...ok no, 4 out of 6 can effectively do it and one is going to get a buff to do it even better, this is ridiculous how untanky tanks are, 2 c4 done, 4-8 rockets done, tanks mines done, any aircraft done, two harrassers flank done, other tank getting alpha damage on your back or even your side done. If tanks are being pushed closer and closer to a pure AV role then why even let infantry affect them at all.
    It's not even that it takes a few shots to kill a tank, it's a combination of infantry being able to take on everything with no consequences or resources lost but as soon as you pull a tank you are just wasting time, earning less certs for a support vehicle that only gives you certs for killing other vehicles while being numero uno on the drop C4 here piñata. The AI support is lack luster at best and you lose the ability to even try fighting other vehicles.
    Pull a tank in a 48-90 whatever fight and tell me exactly how long it lasts, what you killed, how many certs you earned in the timespand; I will join the same exact fight as a heavy only heavy and guarantee I earn more certs with less resources spent in the same timespand.

    Don't even start on how easy it is two get 2-3 heavies to instagank an ESF with lockons. Air can be dealt with, easily in fact, all it takes is 3 guys with lockons to make a no fly zone for esfs.
    • Up x 1
  7. Exitus Acta Probat


    It doesn't take 3 ESF to "instagank" 1 heavy:rolleyes:
  8. AxiomInsanity87


    I barely tank because in confrontational combat, it sucks. I 9/10 will pull a battle bus with crew because it is better at tanking than a tank lol.

    I think tanks need enough hp or armour to be left with 25% hp after 2 c4 and here's my outfit http://ps4eu.ps2.fisu.pw/outfit/?name=TRC you can go through each character (mines TerranAxiom) and see that i and my outfit are not vehicle centric at all. We largely ignore tanks, destroy tanks and every vehicle centric player we've had ends up quitting unless they are a battle bus centric player. Vehicles just can't stand up in the situations we get into and so are pretty pointless. It's kind of stupid how an ifv>mbt I reckon.

    We use vehicles often but not in any serious play. Why waste nanites when tanks snd vehicles in general can simply be ignored most of the time?. I would love tanks to be more dependable.

    I think all the vehicles are in a good spot for survivability except mbt's, and I am mainly infantry and saying that.

    They're great for farming randoms though :rolleyes:.
    • Up x 1
  9. AxiomInsanity87


    This topic should come with free topical cream for the buthertz lol.
    • Up x 1
  10. The Shady Engineer

    Right, so suppression, something ANY aircraft except maybe the Valk will be infinitely better at doing than an AI tank.

    Except I was talking about anti-infantry primary cannons, not secondaries.

    Even then you are aware that your Canguard is going to get chewed up by any 2/2 MBT set up for dual AV, maybe even a 3/12 armored bus with furies.

    Way to get defensive about the statpadding part too. Throw vague condescending remarks about "ive seen some **** maan" all you want to rational your choice but you know what you're doing, I know what you're doing and everyone else knows what you're doing when you're pulling AI on armor- you don't care about being useful for the fight, you're there to farm.
  11. Hegeteus


    What's the use of literally all tanks to be outfitted in the same exact way? I use my tank to the best of it's abilities and let friendly tanks do the same. There's not always a guarantee of there being huge amounts of enemy armor anyway, while there's always infantry to deal with.

    Your last part makes no sense... I'm done with these half arsed posts now
  12. The Shady Engineer

    What's the use of literally all MAXes to be outfitted in the same exact way with either dual AI or dual AV instead of mix and matching the two?

    Good. I thought you'd be rational and give out actual arguments after reading your first reply to me. Instead you came back with this defensive nonsense.
  13. Hegeteus


    What did you expect me to reply? When people here make their judgements, they can never be swayed or argued to change or consider them. This is what leads to threads being bloated out of proportions while never being constructive and there's no point trying to post anything sensible
  14. The Shady Engineer

    Our initial exchange was about HE primary cannons and their role in an ideal combined arms meta. I expected a response similar to what LaughingDead posted. I don't agree with him but at least I see the train of thought that lead him to those conclusions.
  15. fumz

    Combined arms, remember? If there's a stalemate as you described above, the solution isn't to make your tank stronger; the solution is to make you a better thinker. How do you forget air in a thread ranting about combined arms because infantry is too strong?

    All infantry classes can deal with a tank if that tank has positioned himself poorly.
  16. Call-Me-Kenneth

    the biggest hit to the game was the HE nerf, that was terrible.

    don't get me wrong the damage was WAY too high, obliterating a room with a HE round was obviously dumb...

    what happened was that they tackled the problem all wrong, instead of reducing the damage which was the problem they left the damage as it was and they made it irrelevant by lowering the splash range.

    now days people pull a HE Vanguard and after 10 minutes they just abandon the vehicle and if you ask they will tell you: "its bugged" the point is that the splash damage is so limited that it doesn't even match the gfx. they don't even consider the devs intended that to be, they assume its a bug.

    losing HE was the WORST thing that could happen on this game, it made infantry exceedingly powerful and changed the dynamic of attacks and defenses. and to make matters worse, as usual, people just don't want to give in. they would rather have what they consider fun, winning effortlessly, over what is actually fun, which is struggling to win, being forced into creative strategies and coordinated gameplay to achieve a common goal.

    HE should definitely not be what it was, but it cant continue to be an inferior AP. as it is now that is what it is, you cant kill unless you aim to the chest. the splash should definitely cover an entire room, but the damage should be negligible maybe less than a 1/10th of a shield bar per hit at max splash. the result is that now HE is not a kill tool, it becomes a deterrent, a ticking clock that people have to deal with before it reaches critical mass.

    Xp wise its probably just as rewarding as it ever was due to the constant tagging.
    • Up x 1
  17. Jolanar

    I have been saying for a long time that they should put some big, open plains with the occasional rocky cover and a capture point in the center that only vehicles can capture. Or create an objective-based capturing system that requires vehicles. It would create a whole new dynamic where pulling a tank is actually worth it, and you don't re-deploy every 5 damn seconds and lose your 450 certs to rush to the next zerg of infantry.
  18. Scr1nRusher



    The only reason why people used HE was the splash damage.
  19. dahazeyninja

    The biggest issue with PS2's "combined arms" balance has been, and always will be, the way that infantry and vehicles are forced to interact with each other as a result of the base and terrain design. The game completely fails in at least 75% of bases to separate infantry play from vehicle play in any meaningful way, something even PS1 did from what little I've played, and what people who have played it have told me.

    In PS1, vehicles ruled the outdoors and dominated infantry especially at long ranges. This wasn't an issue, because once you actually arrived at a base, the majority of the infantry fighting occurred in sealed off buildings where vehicles had no influence on the fight over the main objective, the control point. From what I understand, infantry were also more powerful against vehicles at the close ranges like the outdoor areas at bases as well.

    Compare this to PS2, where the majority of bases are extremely open, and it is very easy for vehicles to directly interfere with the infantry fight over the control point. At many bases, it is currently possible to just drive vehicles onto or into the control point area, which begs the question "What even is the point of Infantry at these bases other than to hop out of their vehicles to cap the point and then hop back in?" Even at bases where it's not possible, or very difficult to drive a vehicle onto the point, often times it is still possible to park your tank up on a hill that is higher terrain that the base itself and simply she'll inside because the vast majority of bases require infantry to run across open ground, and all the buildings in this game have permanently open doors and windows(another difference to PS1). Many bases even require infantry to run across roads to get from the spawn to the point.

    If the game did not favor Infantry, we would be in the opposite position currently. Infantry would have very little meaning at the majority of bases, other than hopping out to cap the point.

    In reality, PS2 still isn't "Infantryside" as many people claim it to be. The optimal strategy in PS2 to this day (you can see this in Miller's Server Smash matches in the second Season) is to pile as many vehicles as possible into a base, and farm the infantry before they can even get near the point. People say the way to beat this is to pull back to the next base and pull your own armor to kill theirs, but with the current length of base timers (especially 1 point bases), and the fact that every player pulled out of playing infantry and put in a vehicle is one less player who actually has the ability to capture the point, it is still virtually impossible to defend against.

    The population argument goes both ways as well. I know myself and many people I know would have quit this game long ago if vehicles were still as powerful as they were towards the beginning of the game. And in the end, infantry players do make up the majority of the games population, and are a massive portion of the people who play video games (see the success of Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc.).

    Yes, Planetside is a "combined arms FPS", but combined arms shooters don't work well balance wise without some form of limitations on how the different aspects interact with each other. Planetside 1 did this by separating the two from each other, and easily defining what ruled where. Battlefield does it by simply limiting the number of vehicles on the map at any given time. Planetside 2 does neither of these things, and as a result, was forced to majorly mess with balance in order to create even a semi-enjoyable experience.

    TLDR: The problem has always been that the game does not limit the way vehicles and infantry interact with each other like other combined arms shooters (including PS1) do. As a result, the devs are forced to mess with the infantry vs vehicle balance, and you end up with no one really being satisfied with how it turns out.
    • Up x 2
  20. Scr1nRusher



    Good post.


    Also you brought up a very important point on how Bad base design has been the root of these issues, and any balancing is working around that.