Everything is nerfed. Why was the vehicle gameplay ruined?

You're mostly doing it right then. People should play all aspects of the game, we wouldn't have as many ******* here on the forum then. I really don't get the people who complain about something being OP, like ESFs, but then don't pull any themselfes. You HAVE to use every tool the game gives you to really understand, how it works and how it can be countered. I fly ESFs and I gun for Dalton-Libs, it's really tough going solo against a decent lib crew, but you should also try it from the other side. It's NOT easy to hit an ESF-pilot who knows what he's doing.

If air annoys you, pull an ESF yourself and learn to fly. If you don't want to do that, don't complain that your zeroskill lock-on crutch isn't a hardcounter and a single Skyguard only deters aircrafts. AA when massed denies ALL aircrafts in a 500m bubble.

It's easy to assume AA sucks because it can't secure kills. And while that's true, AA effectively ends air's impact on a fight, quite often from the spawn room. That's why infantry is the clear meta. I think I've seen you around Connery, unless there's another guy with a similar name, so I think we're
at the same fights. Maybe you stick to small fights on off continents where air is absolutely OP? You admit to being a bad pilot, so maybe gun for my Lib or Valk some day and let's farm some infantry in meaningful fights. Please prove me wrong.

NO. GO TO BED.

I think his point is that while air is no doubt powerful, its usefulness if you are trying to actually capture a base is far more limited.

1: why not?
2: its barely 19:00 here
3: I'm a late-night person and professionals determined that my rythm lies around 01:30 to bed and 9:00 up again. I still have 4 more hours to go!

A minority become good at something in game > Uses said thing to great effect > People killed by thing complain > thing nerfed > repeat

We already have dildars that give everyone radar hacks. We do not need more intel devices.

It really depends on the base. On some bases, air will just obliterate anything that attempts to cross to the point.

On others, it's less effective.

In one sentence: you can't kill anything with AA but it doesn't suck because it can scare air away from the spawn.


Next sentence: come gun for me, we'll farm tons of infantry in huge fights.





Yes I'm working on my alt on Connery. No, I like to challenge myself, I often bring the spawns to start the "meaningful fights" and I stay back often alone defending the counterzerg. I don't ghost cap off continent in puny fights like certain outfits do. Infantry is the clear meta because it's cheap in nanite cost, and that's usually what flips a point. If the focus of planetside was vehicles, then the bases would be adapted for vehicle capture, and vehicles would cost little resources to pull.


There's many people who we'll say got 'inspired' by my name. My main VS alt on Connery is exactly the same as what I put on the forums, feel free to message in game if that amuses you. Not quite sure what I have to prove wrong, you contradict yourself every other sentence.

Actually not a bad point. What about we first add a bunch of counter-intelligence devices? Items and abilities that create false radar signatures, false heat signatures (or wire-frames) and moving holograms to attract fire? Also a few items and abilities that can black out certain area's so radar coverage and enhanced vision equipment stop functioning for a while?

I just put it that way because it'll be harder than you think. After 1 or 2 passes you'll be chased out of the fight by busters. The Zypher takes 3 max damage indirect hits for a kill and the Duster two. So unless you find a large group that doesn't scatter, you're talking 1-3 kills before you have to fly off and repair, and likely start getting lit up by flak as you start your next approach. Infantry is simply more impactful, at least in big fights.

Thermals were introduced into the game early because most other first person shooters with vehicles had thermal as an option. The gaming culture today frown upon the use of thermal weapons and kids today say it's to cheaty.

That's probably the reason they got rid of thermal. The devs probably just follow the gaming trends and adapt the game to those norms.

I understand the part of the game being fun for everyone.

But that should come from making counters more effective.
Why no make the engineer anti tank turret stronger? Something like a TOW that could actually know down a main tank with 1-2 shots.

Make also G2A lock ons stronger.
Make the cockpits of aircrafts vulnerable like Battlefield.

But what I see is that their solution is just to keep reducing the damage of everything.

Higher TTKs = Trash.

I prefer infantry combat like in other games when there is low TTK.

Their decision to just make vehicles trash was bad.
My team was of about 5 people, now they come back and see that now infantry is OP and all other stuff was nerfed
and is just a shadow of what it was in 2012-2015

lol guys I found a pro lib pilot who doesn't use the dalton

Because then 2 engi's would team up and mow down entire vehicle columns in quick succession. Going to the extremes does not make it better.
Also it would make solo anti-tank turret gameplay excessively powerful. Right now you can place a turret, get on, fire, get off, jump around while the tank is forced to destroy your turret before you get on again, deploy your next turret, get on and fire before your enemy can destroy your turret and kill you. And that is assuming he's in a readily visible.

Why should G2A locks be stronger? They should be altered so they are actually useable rather than timesinks for the player to be vulnerable, and faster times between shots rather than more damage per shot, and no fire-and-forget bullcrap anymore.

Having a vulnerable cockpit would be nice.

Extremely high TTK versus low TTK is trash. But longer TTK's overall isnt trash immediately. For example the game Renegade had very tiny infantry targets even from infantry perspective and the basic weapon took maybe 3 seconds of continuous bodyshots to kill someone. This made the game a lot about accuracy and less about spray&pray. Low TTK's encourages spray&pray as players can simply hope on the hits that will kill a target. And both styles can have their merits.

The devs did choose the wrong path with nerfing everything since the beginning of the game. However if infantry had gotten the lower TTK against vehicles necessary to deal with vehicles it would mean that every battle is ended in 2 or 3 shots in unfun engagements for either side. Rather than continuously modifying TTK they could have looked at mechanics and utility use. For example if the tank turrets got a slower traverse rate to make it harder to react to flanks or tanks could be slowed down by infantry AV or similar to give infantry the time to kill a target before it gets away. It would keep a more stragetic gameplay without it becoming a OHK fest.

I prefer higher TTK's, especially in an MMO FPS. It means that a single flank with an LMG cant just mow down everything at a Sunderer in a few seconds but requires more teamwork.

1: are they trash though? Base design still requires walls to segregate infantry and tanks just to give infantry a chance to have a good fight. True tanks arent the ultra-easymode tanks of the past but why should they be like that?
2: how come infantry is OP now? Infantry AV against tanks was even nerfed!

Are we still talking about farming helpless Infantry? I also never claimed to be a Lib pro. I fly them alright, but ESFs are my thing.

you can thank wrel for vehicles being useless in the game, that's his primary focus, bloody horrible dev

What game are you guys even playing thinking air is to powerful? ESFs in particular are a joke in a2g. Especially the PPA on the scythe that thing is hot garbage. The splash is extremely low damage, the projectile moves slow and that same projectile obscures your target on the ground.

My squad routinely destroys ESFs just by shooting them with our rifles. 5 infantry that aren't super clumped will kill an ESF head on 100 percent of the time if they just shoot it. And that is without help from any other real AA source.

Throw in a lockon launcher, burster max, sunderer walker, harasser walker, shredder liberator w Walker or misslies, enemy ESF, or base AA from any other four adjacent bases and that ESF is going to die even faster. All of these things can shoot that plane at the same time and half of them can be fired from behind a spawn shield. So you can blow that ESF to hell when hes just hovering trying to get cap points on an already won battle.

The weapon loadout design is also pants on head stupid. All vehicles suffer from this problem but its the worst in the air. Any of those ESF that equip A2G weapons are just point pinatas for another ESF that has any of the default cannons on it. Double plus bad if you pick one of the secondary weapons besides afterburner tanks.

Imagine if you will that as an infantry you pulled heavy assault to deal with some tanks, but if you pulled that loadout you didn't get a primary weapon and you walked slower. That is the design of the air 2 ground loadouts on the ESFs atm and its really not great.

All this proves is that the pilots you fight have the competency level of a peeled banana. I mean, good for you, but that is not the case for everyone and as such not the benchmark for the overall performance and balance.

While its very true and hilarious that lower skilled pilots will fall to this more often, very skilled ones go down to this kind of fire regularly enough to make it extremely effective. I mean all the A2G ESF gun mounts in the game need you to be pretty close to get effective fire, making it an easy shot for even an average shooter. That always gives your prudent infantryman the opportunity to put a mag into them.

Most players grossly underestimate the amount of damage their rifle does to an ESF. Try it out sometime. Get your outfits best pilot and take a small squad to a corner of the map somewhere and have them face off. You will probably be surprised.