Aircraft vs infantry is out of hand

Its not just the infantry AA weapons are not very good

Its the lack of cover vs splash damage weapons


If you look in the back ground of the above image you will see there is more then 4 trees in a single area which have wide canopies that stop aircraft from seeing infantry/skyguards and as a bonus its not Hossin (I think its Cyssor, but I could be wrong).

Me? Tanking the piss? Never.

Kettle calling the pot black here. The game is clearly unbalanced in this regard and vehicles are largely treated as disposable killstreaks/powerups rather than a new and different way to play. My opinion is that players shouldn't magically get massive combat advantages at what is as close to no cost as possible. I want a fun game for everyone, but most vehicles are only fun for those whom are in it.

Deaths need to be as fun as kills in an online competitive FPS like PS2. If players only get enjoyment out of victories they will not enjoy the game. As is a player is more likely to have fun in a shootout or ESF hoverduel or whatever than they would being shelled as infantry by an HE tank or from a Banshee too far to even retaliate. Thus is why I feel that my opinion is the correct one.

No, I think you've just jumped the gun and strawman'd me. Inside every vehicle is an infantry in the literal sense, yes. But if vehicles and infantry were balanced against and with each other two tanks would be fighting as tanks. It would the exact same sense as two light assaults fighting each other as light assaults when either or both could just as easily be another class. They're LAs because they want to be.

Likewise, players would fight in their vehicles because they wish to play in that particular playstyle while not gaining an unfair and noncompetitive advantage.

There is so very much wrong with the game's current design. Could fill pages of threads just listing everything. Even on just the bugs and "features!" But in a supposedly competitive game there is no competition between infantry ground forces and A2G air power. Even ground-based AA struggles to kill air. They cannot compete on the same level purely due to their design and not the skill or competence of their operators.

That's a good one. "Just be careful." Back in the elder days gone by HE tanks could fire into a tower and kill with every shot. Ever seen that one video of the HE prowler just firing into the same place in a tower? And how about the lack of walls on Easmir? That sure went over well. Chokepoints? Open ground? Exposed bases? All are massive and often mandatory killzones for infantry now, it was flat out ridiculous when every single splash radius was significantly larger and more lethal.

Point being infantry cannot just "be careful" around enemy vehicles and especially not against air.

And furthermore, why should infantry be forced to use vehicles, but vehicles should not be forced to play as infantry? I want players to be able to choose how they play and not be penalized or championed for which screen they look at when they press the big green button.

Umm, excuse me sir...This here is my lancer and it loves to eat ESF. I personally get more kills with it than the striker, not sure how it fares with the rest of the player base though.

I get what you mean though. When I go back to my NC I just feel naked without my lancer or striker now. GODSAW can wreck libs and valks, but there simply isn't any good option for ESFs. Probably wouldn't even play NC anymore if not for that thing.

Another thing I found ridiculous is how dumbfire launchers don't 1 shot an ESF, except for the decimator. If you hit one of them with that slow glob of a rocket, they should be beyond dead. Really dumb balance right there.

Kettle calling the pot black would be me being conceited yet calling you conceited.
I dont consider my own personal view on how the game should be designed to be king of opinions, you seem to.
What i do however consider king is the developers intent for their game, i play it how they intend, simple as that.

Dont 'back in the day' me m8, i came from closed BETA, i knew the days of zepher destruction, of shredder splash damage.
I knew the days of prowler HE massacre, forget seeing the vid, ive been on the receiving end and the giving end, and you know what, the game was just as if not more enjoyable to me back then.
Again you seem to think that your opinion on 'back in the day' is supreme, its not, hence the conceited part of my last post.
Strawman....funny how calling something a strawman has actualy become a strawman argument now...it wasnt, it was a damn good point and you know it.

Theres nothing wrong with the games design, seriously, there is no gold standard set of blueprints for how a game should be designed and played, this is what im trying to contest.
Is not like a mathematical equation, there isnt 1 sole answer and the rest are wrong.
Youve obviously missed what im trying to say.

Many people like the game, exactly how it plays now, who are you to try and take that away from them?

And no, no1 is forced to play vehicles, no1 is forced to log in at all.
Again, to repeat for the millionth time, this game isnt infantry only, you need to be able to use and partake in all aspects of the game in order to have a complete experience, if you dont youll suffer.
If you dont like the game since thats how its designed, then dont play it.
If you want to play infantry only, dont complain when you cant simply go wherever you want, its dangerous outside.

Besides, the amount of times ive seen my empire lose Eisa (the only tech on Esamir = quite important) because they refuse to leave their vehicles.....
Their probably saying at that point, 'why should i be forced to leave my vehicle to resecure the base'.
What about bio labs, man those infantry are really forced into vehicles there.....
Scared Mesa?
Theres many bases where having too many vehicle users will lose you the base, but you refuse to see that, it doesnt fit with your 'infantry are victimised' mentality.
Try attacking the crown with a tank zerg, see how far you get.
Mekala Aux Compound, The Bastion, Split Peak, all those basses you will suffer if you have too many vehicles when attacking or defending, and those are just off the top of my head.
There are many places you simply dont take you vehicle, its just too dangerous, i guess vehicle users should start complaining about that.
Youre never forced into a vehicle, but youre forced out of it if you want to capture or defend a base, even the 'vehicle capture points' arnt really vehicle cap points, their universal capture points, because you know we cant limit infantrys ability to cap a point can we.

And i prefer the game stays how it is, people get punished for being narrowminded and blind to their surroundings.
Again, why should it change just for you, instead of staying the same for the people who do actualy enjoy it?

Yes, exactly. In saying "why should [the game] change just for you" you're outright saying you see me as a solitary minority. Rather than consider the possibility that many other players dislike the terrible imbalance you assume the majority of players agree with you. The game wouldn't be changing for a single player, yet you consider yourself so correct in your beliefs that without thinking you automatically assume that yours is the popular opinion and that I alone differ, despite the thread's very existence suggesting otherwise. Hello, Kettle.

So have I.

If you enjoyed getting murdered by someone when neither of you even knew of the other's existence then more power to you. Call it new-age optimism. But this is a competitive game, where we are supposed to be able to compete. These days, most players don't share the sentiment and for good reason.

Funnily enough, it's not an opinion to say tanks had bigger and much more lethal splashes and that Easmir had no walls, nor is it an opinion that bases in general were much more open and that infantry fared considerably worse in these conditions. It's a given that more powerful vehicles with conditions which favored vehicles were more powerful.

No, it was a terrible point based off something entirely different. The point isn't to make infantry better or vehicles weaker, but to make them equal. Equally good, equally bad, semantics. Not important as of yet. The choice should be that of a playstyle and nothing more. Players should be free to play the way they want without being locked out of a fight or trapped in a spawnroom.

Obviously there isn't a single right way to design a game, but every game has flaws. We're here to rally change to these subjective flaws, one thread at a time.

Who am I? I am here to try to make the game better as much as I can. Who are you to say that players wanting change are wrong? --The Pot

Many players play only tanks, only ESFs, only MAXes. Why aren't they punished for abusing force-multipliers? They only play a single aspect of the game, yet are if anything they are rewarded. Where's the balance?

If players aren't leaving their vehicles to capture the single point, they would not try for the point as infantry regardless, even if they had no vehicles to begin with. In bases without infantry-only ways of getting to points vehicles can and do totally lock down points, there areas around and between them, and spawnrooms.

In techplants even the tunnels from spawn can be blacked and watched. In the Crown tanks can hold every point but A simply because infantry can drop down from the pads above on to the roof. But that's where the air comes in. If vehicles somehow cannot totally secure a base alone after the point has been taken they're in a dome biolab or they're woefully incompetent or massively outnumbered.

Again, why should the game continue to cater to narrow-minded kill-focused objective-disregarding players and not the players interested in holding objectives and competitive play? You're being conceited as ****.

Honestly I think the solution is simple. The vehicles are too cheap. Make them more expensive and wallah. How do you make them just expensive enough? Gradually.

You could double the nanite pool and double the time to get nanites. Increase the cost of everything by 25% and you have the perfect blend. At least I think anyway.

Let's imagine that tank AP weapons had a 5m insta-kill AOE and heavy damage up to 10m, HEAT 7,5m insta-kill AOE and HE has 10m insta-kill AOE.

It doesn't matter at that point anymore how much teamwork you've got, infantry is screwed and incapable of functioning properly in any base where tanks have even a slight capability to fire into the base.

"Yarh, but you have to ask for friendly tanks to back you up!".
First, should your friendly tanks actually back you up then infantry is still incapable of really having any enjoyment whenever any tank has the time to fire into the base --> we need to look at the balance between infantry and tanks.
Second, the game cannot be balanced around everyone having the same amount of vehicles and infantry available. If attackers become the attackers by taking the field, they have a vehicular advantage. It has been proven time and again that it is nigh impossible for the defenders to gather enough of a vehicular force (even from the next base) to counter the attackers. It takes too much time, effort and has too much risk as the moment the attackers realize there's juicy targets gathering up there they'll immediately pound the gathering vehicles to dust. And in all that time you are gathering the infantry get pounded as well --> We need to look at the balance between infantry and tanks.
Thirdly, by looking at the balance between infantry and tanks you are looking at not just the balance within one faction, but the game as a whole. Therefore I am looking at a more complete picture than you. You assume that because I am talking about infantry and tanks that I am looking too small and because you look at the entire faction you are looking at the right scale, but that is absolutely horribly wrong. I am looking at what actually happens in the game, I am looking at what is needed for the game to be enjoyable regardless of you playing infantry, tanks or aircraft. This means I have to look at the entire picture. If they were to add someting to infantry you have to know how it affects the gameplay for everyone, not just the infantry themselves.

Let's turn this around, imagine that tanks are almost incapable of defending against infantry, but tanks are the only one's that can capture points. Are you really going to say "hey it's all fair because everyone has access to infantry"? Or are you finally going to see how ridiculous your idea's have been so far?

That is not even 1% of what teamwork is, and just because you say "but teamwork" does not make it fun or balanced. Again, see the example of super-powered OP tanks above.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wait, you're serious?

Bwhahahahahaaaaaaaaa

Sorry but tanks do not tank as a team. I sometimes do it with friends, but it's a gem to see anyone do more than stand around and lob shells.

Even if what you say is true, it's not how the game is played by 99,99% of the players in the game. Also you cannot balance a game based on more advanced gameplay, you have to balance it based on the average gameplay. Since the game has for all intents and purposes zero encouragement to do any teamplay, the amount of teamplay you can expect is also zero. This is why even in the most advanced outfits you'll see that "everyone zerg this spot" is the most effective method of "teamplay". Now in my outfit we did do a lot of more advanced stuff, but the effort required vs the gains was so absolutely small that it was usually more efficient to just dump everyone on the point and go from there.

I love this kind of reasoning, "Because we did good, everyone must do the same". Also how do I know you aren't lying your butt off? It wouldn't be the first time someone did that and considering how off you've been about half a dozen things the likelyhood that you are lying to prove your point is immensely high.

"Because it never happens to me, it never happens".
Good joke man, good joke. Also yes now you are lying. At best you might say "because I died to a tank I prevented getting farmed by changing where and how I fight", but considering the design of most bases this means constricting yourself to specific paths and giving the attackers an advantage as they have an easier time predicting where you'll be coming from and throwing up chokepoints.

I don't call anything a solo excretioner. Also considering I auraxed almost all my Lightning guns as a solo Lightning with no backup behind enemy lines and I had little to no problems with C4 or dealing with hostile tanks (or a Phoenix), I would say that your entire reasoning is crap. Defending against C4 alone is easy as all hell when you combine the basic infantry-level situational awareness with things like simple movement once in a while.

Because tanks are much easier to use but give far more power. I know.

Nope. But on that subject, PS2 is about playing what you want. I've been an advocate of making vehicles, infantry and aircraft be similar in power but different in playstyle, and removing all their costs. This way a tanker can play tanks, infantry and aircraft can all play whenever they want and resources are re-allocated to temporary/one-time boosts such as different ammo types and such.

Because you are not thinking about balance but assuming I want infantry to curbstomp vehicles at every turn?

I never said I wanted infantry to be wielding a Titan AP canon, I said I wanted them to be wielding resource-costing weapons that give infantry a way to go toe-to-toe with vehicles. You can have various types, for example the C4 way where you buy it upon spawning and then lose the resources only upon usage and resupply means going back to a terminal. Or you can have a one-time-buy that costs resources upon buying but you lose it upon death and can resupply it at ammo packs, just as two easy examples. The cost, range, firepower, ease of use, spread, ROF, magazine size, alternative capabilities (useable against aircraft and tanks for example) all change the weapons power and capabilities. So a short-ranged anti-tank grenade-launcher with a small magazine and slow ROF (a lot of hyphens there) would be either very cheap, very powerful or both.

Now I explained that, but if history is anything to go on you'll still assume that I want infantry to basically OHK tanks. Previously people jumped on my mention of C4 for example and said "Yarhg you want a grenade-launcher that fires C4-strength grenades for a 2-hit kill on tanks! Ya bastard!". This is wrong, and I would like to ask you to pull your head out of your anus before you make a similar comment.

And keep in mind that while I'm advocating infantry to have resource-costing AV firepower, I'm also advocating tanks to have more incentives to fight in CQC with things like co-ax guns and secondary+teritiary abilities fired off with for example the space, C, X, B and Ctrl keys so that vehicles will also have a more engaging time when going up against infantry. Again, I look at the entire picture, not just vehicles like you do (while you claim that you look at the entire army, bullcrap!).

Because your reading comprehension is too low to see that I never asked for that.

Hey why don't you look up why of all armies almost none really use anti-tank missiles mounted on tanks. Even Russia, leader in tank-fired anti-tank missiles, barely uses them. Once you've found the answer, you have also the reasons why these aren't used on tanks. I could just tell you the answer but you'll just ignore it then.

Also because gameplay is more important than realism. But by all means if you want to mount everything on a tank "because it is realistic", then it's only fair if the game is made more realistic than just allowing you to mount everything on the tank: You'll have to pay realistic costs! And do realistic maintenance! And have realistic damage on components of your tank! So if a .50 cal damages your tracks you are going to have to get out and do half an hour of repairs or have an engineering vehicle pull it back to a garage for more extensive repairs! Sounds like fun right?

I hope you aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, because then we'll never cut anything again.

Right back at ya, minus the good idea's.

^ I think that's the longest wall of PS2 forum text I've ever seen (and I won't read it xD).

However, the gist of the post is that Air is too strong and since CAI this is simply not true for Air or Vehicles.

for infantry mate, for infantry !

Air is too strong with regards to infantry (ie infantry has very little counter and what it does have on paper is rarely used at all ((I'd say for legit reasons)))

Ohhhhhh, ya infantry is too strong since CAI - ya that's true.

Don't waste your time arguing with these infantrysiders, they still think that attackers have all the advantages in a base assault lol.
Most of the people on this forum are just ****ters.

Plot the distances from a spawnroom to any of the given capture points in a typical base and compare the distances traveled from popular sunderer deployment locations to the same points. Most bases favour attackers inherently.

But if that's not obvious enough there has never been a siege which favored the occupants trapped inside because whoever has control of the land outside a base has all the tanks, all the sunndies, and all the air. If you can't grasp how this might be an advantage there is nothing left to be said to you.

This doesn't even relate solely to infantry, idiot.

My deal though is, that just makes it a game where offense is better than defense. So higher populations will generally win. If you want to defend your base then you've got to get sunderers quickly to their base and take a point. Then they can't take yours and the battle just turned around on them.

Is this a good thing? I think it could be just the way it is. I'm not sure citing game layout as a reason for imbalance in vehicles and infantry is appropriate. Either we talk about how they are balanced in a 1v1 fight or we talk about the higher level meta. But they should be separate things or we confuse ourselves over what progress is.

Unfortunately higher populations generally win as is. Defenders are supposed to have the advantage of defences but all too often there are large gaps in walls or garages for sundies or whatever with nothing existing for the purpose of base defence. Attackers almost always have the advantage.

If there are sundies on the next base on a point is held it's no longer a defence.

Base layouts are definitely one of the many reasons why an imbalance exists.

But I disagree, this is not a good thing under any real circumstances in my opinion. And furthermore, things should be balanced both for 1v1s and in the overall fight, both at the same time. Almost nothing in PS2 in limited in who can use what and for how long/how many times. If something is balanced in one aspect but not the other, there is still more work to be done.

All of those are inferior to defender advantages of:
Instant back-up Via redeploy.
Indestructible spawn points.

A single LA or lightning tank isn't gonna lock down a spawn room, but it will kill a sunderer. Attackers are extremely dis-advantaged in this game. That's why sieges of bases that favour defenders instead of attackers like say howling pass, Bio labs, 3 pointers are incredibly easy to stop.

Wanna attack the bastion? Get ****** at this defender haven. Attacking The octagon? Hope you out-pop the enemy. Attacking Howling Pass? Hope you drove your sunder up into the base as anywhere else is easy pickings for both infantry and defender vehicles.

My point about separating concerns is for the purpose of brevity and tasteful criticism on this forum. We need to separate the issues to make it clear what needs to change and what needs to happen in order to maximize our chances of being heard. If we complain about too many things at once then it's just static that won't get through.

I feel like the OP is to blame for this. We need to specifically state what we need to change: are the ESF's imbalanced towards infantry? or is it just the base design? is it the power dynamic or the sheer volume of air strikes occurring? is it the power dynamic of the infantry? or is it just the lattice system?!...

And if it's a number of these things or more what is the priority? What is the biggest thing making this go bad? I think we should take more time to think about exactly why the experience is off and what truly would make it better. One of the last things we should mention is base design and topology as a problem. I think if that is seriously a concern then you might as well find a new game. That will change last if any of these changes will be considered.

Redeploy and Join Combat both dump players next to sundies just the same. SCUs.

It will only kill a sunderer no one bother to protect, and even then it takes a bit of time against a good upgraded sundy. And that's only if a player can get to the sundy or a firing line.

For as many bases good for defending there are more that are designed to be attacked. The main base on Hossin during unstable warpgates for example. The Bastion? I don't know, I don't care what it's called. Two of the three points are way off in the distance where they have safe sundy-size parking spots. And the bases on Easmir with a point way up on a hill, with a garage next to the point building? And then there's just plain AMP stations with external staircases for going up onto the walls from the outside.

Well if you'll allow me to be cynical for a moment our chances of ever being heard are slim to none here on the forums. Our efforts here are almost entirely in vain, with practically no developer or even company acknowledgement of the forums very existence. The only DBG member to ever post here outside of patchnotes is Roxxlyy, and he/she seems to rarely read anything that hasn't been reported. Even then, I'm skeptical.

Anyways, simple ideas are for simple problems. In my opinion the more comprehensive we as players can be about our opinions and personal gripes about game mechanics and balance and whatever the better.

I feel the OP as vague as it is doesn't require too much more explanation. Air, in general for a variety of reasons, is dramatically superior to infantry. Not only is AA overall way too weak and ineffective, but A2G AI is overall way too effective. Libs, ESFs, even Valks and Gals with their high health pools pose great threat to infantry. Base design often leaves little to no cover from air while also creating obstacles capable of easily breaking locks. In places like Hossin the tree coverage only provides cover for air not the ground, due to the height of the canopy in most places as well as the opening over actual "non-natural" terrain where plants cannot grow. To be honest, these things are somewhat of a given do to the age of the issues.

Likewise, the main priorities while still a matter of opinion are largely to do with the incredible differences in TTK between supposed AA and air-based AI weapons. A lock-on can take almost a minute to kill an ESF alone if certed against them while a Banshee has a TTK of half a second. Libs are almost unkillable as infantry while having potentially three guns capable of very rapid to instant kills on infantry with Valks having health to soak damage for close up attacks.

I think all parts of the problem should be listed and considered when thinking of potential changes. If a weapon is powerful on paper but cannot function unless used in a specific terrain it may be less effective than current options for example.

And it's all true.

You want a shorter version?

Imagine if tanks are extremely OP, then the sentiment of "but you have to look at the faction and call in teamwork" does not work as regardless of teamwork or not the tanks will be ruining the enjoyment for infantry.

Trigga looks at a faction and thinks I look at infantry seperately from tanks, but I look at all factions at the same time, I look at how there are stages in each attack in-game, how they develop and how to counter them. None of what Trigga said is going to be applicable for the average player.

Trigga tries to do the good old "but because I can do it everyone can" routine. But you have to look at what the average player can achieve, not what special snowflake #2.000.000 can achieve.

Trigga tries the lame excuse of "use teamwork" to justify any imbalance. It wouldn't matter to him if tanks shot orbital-strikes, because the other team can use it too so it's all fair game right! Who cares about interplay between different sections of the game and how one thing can ruin something for everyone?

And naturally Trigga tries to paint me as if I want infantry to insta-kill everything. I don't want infantry to be carrying a Titan AP, I want infantry to carry a resource-costing AV weapon that gives them a chance to go toe-to-toe with tanks. You can make it use the grenade-system where you pay resources after you've used it and use a terminal/respawn and you can have weapons you buy and lose if you die and respawn. As for "if infantry can carry it why not a tank?", tanks can carry ATGM's but even Russia the leader in tank-mounted ATGM's doesn't use them much on tanks and there's a good reason for that. Go find out for yourself what reason that is because if I tell people they just ignore it. Also there is this thing called "game balance". A tank could carry 50 repair-guns in it's chassis that just trigger automatically in sequence to keep it repaired all the time. But that's not balanced for the game and not fun either.



And for those morons who call me an infantrysider, how many times must I come with idea's like co-ax guns and secondary+tertiary weapon systems fired with for example Ctrl, C, space, X and B for tanks to make them far more skillful and interesting to use? Are you guys really so daft that you just edit those idea's out with "nope if I know he said that he's not an infantrysider and I won't have an argument"?

Your argument is there should be an equality of damage and defense between aircraft and infantry. Why would you want that?

no

(in case you're wondering, no that is not my argument).