Possible nanite based counter for Air/Armor zerg

This game was build with the idea that things bought with nanites are a force multiplier.

Buying an anti-tank weapon with nanites should also give you a force multiplier. And if the balance was ideal a 450 nanite tank would on average be destroyed when 450 nanites worth of infantry-based nanite AV was expended, with a 50/50 chance the infantryman is killed beforehand.

Other balance options would also be possible, such as the infantryman having a 25% chance to succeed but a vehicle kill would cost less nanites to compensate. This would have it's uses for example for an AV grenade-launcher with shorter range.

But I guess that since you immediately think I want a pistol that OHK's tanks that you won't listen to any word of reason.

As some have pointed out earlier - there are plenty of counters to zergs if you use your brain and/or teamwork. One of these counters - a classic - can be described as:

• Equip LA with upgraded drifter jets and C4 **cost: 1000-3000 certs**
• Redeploy at nearest base with an aircraft terminal and pull a valk/ESF **cost: 250 - 350 nanites**
• Fly to the airceiling above the zerg **cost: 1-3 minutes of travel**
• Parachute down to a hostile stationary tank and C4 it **risk: 10-30 percent chance of failure**

This counter is appropriately balanced, not only does it require commensurable nanite/cert costs, but also investments in time. It would not be fair if a vehicle it took 3 minutes to transport could be destroyed in 30 seconds of infantry planning. In fact the no-brains, kill anything, anti-tank weapon you describe should require more nanites than the tank costs.

Well I'll be darned! A whole of three methods based on more time and skill than the opponents you attack who require less than half your skill to get similar results? We dont need more variation after all! Lets remove the Valkyrie, it was extra variety and we already had alternatives. The Harasser? Same thing! What about the new SMG line? All superfluous variety we dont need, they should never have been added! The new Carbines, rocketlaunchers, AR's, LMG's, NSX line and all the other weapons that offered variety and alternative playstyles shouldnt have been added as well! Such an eye opener! Lets shut down the forums because 99% of the idea's here are going to add that!

Number of links requested: 7
Number of links posted in 2 different posts: 0

After all, if it's so easy to find these numerous threads with weapons crafted and designed, why didn't you when explicitly requested to provide your evidence of their existence? Show. Me. The. Receipts.

But Mr Nvidia, how much better are these new cards your selling? Can we get any benchmark other than 1 & 2?

The continuous power creep of infantry. Since you bought up C4, what's the worst that could happen if you make the detonation time near instant? What did possibly go wrong? I'm sure nothing bad happened because of it, right? It was to deal with those ****** vehicles anyway, I'm sure there was no repercussion on the infantry side of things...

You have options. Like C4 to grenades to tanks to noseguns to maxes as you have put it. The cert system was explicitly designed to let anyone do anything, from aircraft to infantry to tanks to even useless stalkers. It's a shame people would rather ignore that and just use their preferred domain only instead, from HESH ****ters to infantry-siders to Sky knights.

A good all rounder, good at everything exists, but you're not gonna like it. It's called HESH. There was no repercussions from making that too good at most things.... right?

There already are many hard counters to tanks:

Landmines :2 of these will kill a tank that isnt specialized in anti mine, this is probably the easiest way to kill a tank
Light assault C4: you can kill a tank before his client even registers you near him
heavy assault: if you've ever played heavy you'll know that you can kill a good 4-5 tanks almost effortlessly unless they are sitting across the map trying to snipe, which in that case they are almost no threat to an even slightly competent player.
Archer: My absolute favorite thing to do in this game is getting on a hill with an archer and sniping tanks, despite peoples claims that its not effective Ive killed quite a few vanguards and harrassers with my archer and its even good for shooting down ESF's
any class with C4: not as effective as light assault but unless the guys turning his turret every 10 seconds you can easily walk up to a tank and C4 it without being noticed, especially easy on magriders since looking around requires turning the entire tank
literally anything in the air: rocket pods, tank buster, dalton, zephyr, airhammer. It all shreds armor.
rocklet rifle: Not the strongest AT in the game but 2 or 3 LA's can effortlessly kill a few tanks with minimal risk to themselves.
explosive bolts: equip the crossbow on an infil and walk behind tanks a few shots kills them and they wont even have time to react.
pulling your own armor: god forbid you have to give up infantry side for a couple of seconds.

You should really look at your definition of "hard counter"

Also what is missing from this list is a reason why nanite-based infantry AV should not exist. All you did was make a list of current infantry AV and imply that this is enough. But the reason of "enough" would also mean thay again we would never have gotten new Carbines, LMG's, AR's, shotguns, the entire SMG weapon category, new rocketlaunchers, Harassers, topguns, Valkyries, Sunderer abilities, ESF wingmounts etc. The game would still be at it's launch weapons selection with just upgrades to mechanics, features and performance.

Funny how no one claims "enough" when a new topgun, vehicle or AI weapon (or AV weapon capable of AI) is introduced but when you ask for an infantry AV weapon suddenly its "enough"...

Firstly get your straw man out of here, if you can't even think of a slightly decent argument then dont respond at all. Secondly I never said it shouldn't be added, I just mentioned that there is already so much in the game what does the one he add bring that we dont already have, he literally just suggested a lock on rocket that every class gets which indirectly is nerfing heavy since one of his main utilities is his rockets, and I know he said it could only be engineer but thats still giving another class heavies utility and engineer already has an entire arsenal of AT: landmines, archer, mana AV turret, I think they can even get AV grenades now.

And back to my main point, why waste dev time and resources on something that adds nothing to the game, if you want a lock on rocket play heavy, if you want a rocklet rifle play LA, if you want an archer play engineer just because you dont want to play heavy isn't a reason to add rocket launchers to every class.

Starting with hypocracy eh? Calling something like the Archer or Rocklet Rifle a hard counter is laughable, and claiming you can kill 4 to 5 tanks as HA easy unless they are sniping distance is a massive red flag that you are lying your rear end off.

Which is very shortsighted, and again that kind of reasoning would mean we wouldnt have any expanded weapons and vehicle choice compared to launch "because something similar is already available".

And because the OP had a bad example the entire idea is bad! Such genius reasoning! By that reasoning everything you say is bad as well but lets just ignore that shall we...?

Why add something that adds nothing? Because the person who is convinced it adds nothing has either no imagination, doesnt understand or maybe just lies because he's afraid of actual nanite-based weaponry that would threaten his precious farm machine?

Okay, Moving past the growing list of personal attacks from both sides of the alleyway.
---
I'm not impartial on this, so take both parts of the summary with a bit of salt & pepper.

We have for:

• -- Nanite vs Nanite - rather than perceived free vs nanite.
• -- Nanite-Option not reliant on a vehicle pad - without reliance on operator failure on part of target.
• -- Helps counter easy farm by vehicles, against infantry.
• -- Establishes a infantry-available nanite-price, meaning free infantry-options are not the only option, when vehicles are absent for spending nanites to kill nanites.
• -- Allows infantry to be touting expensive weapons, for eliminating nanite targets, without any of the advantages the normal spending provides.

We have against;

• -- Could be considered a waste of developer time
• -- 'Eliminates value' of Vehicles, due to Nanite-Options(?)
• -- More easily spammed
• -- 'Already existing' with Vehicles
• -- provides more easily spammed nanite options, in an easier to transport form

I personally, find if the Weapon isn't instant-death -- and involves skill, and priced accordingly, it would work.
Yes, present infantry AV works, to an extent, but the argument of "it's free, so spam it", doesn't help with the number of AOE, and rapid-TTKs available, let alone that spawning a vehicle isn't always available - nor practical.
As not always is pulling a vehicle going to even get a result; not always are they available either -- So nanites sit there useless.
Unless the Enemy allows an C-4 Fariy to get close, or is ambushed by one, all AV available, essentially waits on mass-usage & the operator of the enemy vehicle going in too deep.

With a price attached to the weapon , unlike vehicles, it's impractical to spam shots, as Ammo could even be nanites per shot fired - in addition to packing it; While 10 infantry could use one, much like an MBT, you aren't going to be spamming for long.
This means, the weapon while not brutal by itself, could have more effective stats -- such as higher velocity.
As it's priced with nanites, one way or another, while not eliminating a tank by itself, it would provide a better but nanite-priced option to handle the vehicle; Which gives the Vehicle, to eliminate his opponent's nanites, by taking out that infantry.
Whom have the same fragility as they always had; just a slightly better gun, making them more valuable to kill (could add an EXP bonus for nailing an nanite-launcher equipped infantry), as it would delete their nanites.
Just as if you killed them in a vehicle , or a Max unit.

If you attach EXP bonuses to killing users of it, you also give rewards to Vehicle Operators that take out these more heavily armed infantry, making the risk & reward for both sides, more interesting.

If you want stats, for a hypothetical variant, sure. But recall, I just generated these in literally a minute.

• Add 150 velocity to the shot, reduce drop by half, but introduce a damage fall-off.
• Full-damage at 150 meters, dropping to 50% at 225, 25% of damage at 250 as max range.
• Use the baseline damage model of a Decimator for the full damage, with a 5-second reload, 1 shot per clip.
• Stores 5 Rockets as the full magazine you can carry, at 225 Nanites a rocket.
• Yes , 2 rockets equals an MBT in price. You stockpile these up, over time. Not expected to sustain their use.
• No lock-on Capability, just dumbfire per usual.
• Add, a 50-nanite Cost to deployment with the Launcher: so baseline min cost is 275 nanites to deploy with 1-shot only.
• Full load cost, is 1175 nanites total, to regain your full 5 shots, and deploy with the Launcher.

I hope, just that even, is a nice start to consider.
And no, I didn't check or test if that is even cost-effective.
It's easier to hit with it, and prevents it replacing armor as feared, either way.

Even the most adamant vehicle defender claims that you need 3 to 5 HA's to beat up one tank, the whole "teamwork against a lonewolf" argument. Yet here you are claiming a single HA can beat up 4 to 5 tanks?

Just looking at stats like these:
http://stats.dasanfall.com/ps2/item/4008
http://stats.dasanfall.com/ps2/item/85
http://stats.dasanfall.com/ps2/item/3105
http://stats.dasanfall.com/ps2/item/50560

You can see that vehicles easily outpace infantry. They kill more infantry than infantry kills tanks. But wait there's more: Vehicles always have their main gun "on" when you are inside, lowering the KPH and such. You switch your LMG out for a rocketlauncher only when you need to, so the timer is only ticking when you are actually using it. Yet vehicles still easily come out on top?

You are lying and attempting to create an argument by insulting me, grow up.

Yeah you've made it entirely obvious this is a case of "It killed me so it needs to be nerfed" the exact behavior expected from someone who mains NC. and it really should go without saying a massive armored vehicle with a cannon larger than a person kills better than people can kill them, I WONDER WHY THAT IS. And even with vehicles being stronger you can easily beat them by playing their weaknesses. Tanks first of all have horid range and its been nerfed to the point where the laughably bad range of the magrider is now the norm for the other 2 MBT's, this makes rockets and of course the archer much more effective at taking out tanks because while you're firing at them you'd have to be quite incompetent to actually get hit. secondly they have very limited field of view, a tanker can be mindful of his surroundings but if hes looking behind him every second then the surprise attack is going to come from the front. Rocket launchers even got buffed so now they can carry like 15 rockets, thats enough to kill 4 MBT's without needing more ammo.

This game isn't the hand holding experience you want it to be, if you want to beat armor divisions then instead of crying on the forums try actually learning how to counter them, plenty of people do it with great success.

No, nannies aren't a real resource. Back in the day when performance got u resources (unless you owned key bases) they were a thing, but not now.

Power-creep? Infantry? Yeah, sure buddy. That's why so many other weapons are significantly more effective against infantry universally while infantry's weapons are largely only effective against themselves. That's why tanks get HE cannons for every target and why Flak doesn't stop direct hits on AP cannons anymore, because we all know how common that happened. Power-creep isn't an issue with infantry in PS2.

You mean like C4 used to detonate? I think you'll find only infantry are harmed by instant detonations while tanks are almost entirely unimpaired. Infantry see brick fall, they die --> see brick fall, they might just get outside lethal blast radius in the detonation delay, or they might die. Tanks see bricks fall, they die --> see bricks fall, can't aim high enough or fast enough before the delay passes, the bricks are stuck to them so they can't run, they die.

These things are different methods, not different options. If a player wants to fight vehicles as infantry he'd basically have to hope they massively overextend into effective range, otherwise they can be just entirely unkillable without another vehicle.

It's a shame players choose to play in the ways they enjoy? The true loss is forcing players in to roles they don't want to play to have a fighting chance. And before you say "vehicles are forced into the infantry role to capture points" no one has to capture points but everyone has to fight.

HE is imbalanced because of the nature of the weapon. Not only is it negligibly worse at AV while significantly superior at AI but also is completely free to fire an infinite number of shots while also granting the player a massive increase in speed, health, armour, and range on top of the greater firepower. A dumbfire on a normal infantryman especially if it costed per shot would be in nigh every way inferior.

Are we even playing the same game?

Please consider kills per minute rather than kill death ratio. Infantry are far more efficient killers of infantry than any vehicle in the game.

Infantry can go from zero health(dead) to full health(revive) with the help of a single medic which is far faster to take a tank from on fire to full health using the repair tools of the driver and the gunner, 2 repair grenades and a repair sunderer...options that use nanites while a meditool is free.

A medic can revive a group of infantry far faster than a vehicle can kill that group. I've had my whole squad wiped out by a coordinated vehicle assault, only to revive them all and still advance to the objective in the time it took for those vehicles to repair and come back.

Infantry can get into the best infantry farming choke points that vehicles can't(except for sometimes the harrasser). The highest K/D ratios earned by every person in my outfit involved either a heavy and a medic on a choke point or a MAX and engineer team. My highest KPM and K/D in recently was B point that the Crown.

When I see a bunch of enemy vehicles around, I NEVER think that those vehicles will stop a base capture. I only see them as cert point pinatas that distract from the actual objective.

Vehicles contribute more to creating entertaining youtube videos than they do to the actual objectives of the game.

Every "farmer" in a vehicle knows that the certs are in farming other vehicles, not in infantry. Even though there are far more people on foot than in vehicles, infantry are worth far fewer certs per kill and typically take as many shots to kill one with splash in its current state as it does to kill another vehicle with armor piercing.

The only effective vehicle left that can get into the infantry fights is the kobalt harrasser, but the need to constantly retreat to repair after rushing in and running over infantry means I don't really have an impact on the actual flow of battle. I'm more trolling the enemy than I am impeding their advance.

The combined arms in Planetside is a joke compared to what it used to be. Right now, the vehicle gameplay involves just getting that sundy to the next enemy base and protecting it from other vehicles trying to kill it. You have no say in trying to protect it from other infantry since the walls and sunderer garage also protect the base's defenders from vehicles.

I know a lot of vehicle players can corroborate what it's like to roll up on a friendly base under attack. You kill any other vehicle threats to yourself, then you look for enemy sunderers, then once they're dead, you drive away and hope that the defenders can resecure.

Of course you can bypass all this by attacking a base with a platoon and relying on hovering galaxies instead of sunderers.

You remember the deploy shield on sunderers? It was supposed to stop a lone player from killing a sunderer in order to promote teamwork. You now have the rocklet rifle which actually allows any light assault to kill any vehicle by himself. Even in an MBT, I fear rocklet rifles more than I do enemy MBT's or dalton liberators.

The air to ground game is like that of a harrasser. Rush in, troll the infantry or vehicles, and try to get out before they can kill you with AP and lock-ons. You know you'll get a few easy kills, but you also know that in big fights they'll all be revived and gone before you get back on station.

because you would need to reload on a terminal, adding further limitations such as having access only to one missile by default
and only getting more via missilebelt, meaning if you go full AV you have to invest your suitslot into it ..
since your ammo is super limited means your shoots need to totaly count .. maybe add higher reloadtime than the standartlauncher
launcher could be dumbfire or laserguided like engineer AV turret or masamunelauncher
say a missile has a cost between 75 to a 100 nanites

how could damage roughly look like with such a launcher ?

just as example

flash instantkill
harrasser 1 severe fire, 2 kill
lightning 1 severe fire from the back, 2 kill
mbt 2 kill from the back, 3 kill from anywhere else
sunderer 2 kill from the back, 3 kill from anywhere else

esf instakill
valkery 2 kill
liberator 3 kill
galaxy 3 or 4 kill ..

otherwise WIB (whatever is ballanced)

theoreticaly you could also create heavyhitting grenadelaunchers with naniteammo that may use your grenadeslot as a limitation in which case you lose access to frag and classspecific grenades and only get more through a grenadebandolier and/or resuplying from a terminal ... generaly this is more the PS 1 way of things .. you could even add a MAX ammo terminal were if you stand neer it either access it like a standart terminal or have it work like a engineer ammobox but at the same time loosing nanites per tick for that kind of resuply ..
again just an example ..