[Suggestion] Armour piercing rounds for infantry weapons

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Trysaeder, Aug 13, 2013.

  1. Trysaeder

    Takes the 'ammo type' slot for weapons.

    +25% (or some other number) damage against ESFs, light armoured vehicles, MAXs, nanoweave armour and heavy assault shield. Otherwise does normal damage to infantry (to the 500 health portion of them at least).

    Weapons using AP rounds always use their long reload time. Small amount of bullet drop is added.

    The current ammo types are pretty straightforward. SPA is a no brainer for CQC weapons and HVA is too situational to be worth its penalties.

    The aim of AP for infantry is to give normal infantry a slightly better chance against the biggest infantry farmers and to give players a way of evening the playing field against people who stack nanoweave and shields. Overall, it forces them to take cover for longer and makes them slightly less effective at range.
  2. UNSCSpartan051

    Give it a slight increase to VISUAL RECOIL NOT COF, and it'll actually be quite good. Although i would prefer a reduced magazine capacity and maybe 5-10% longer reload than only using the long reload as that would remove the need for early reloading, and would be painful with weapons like the SAW and the EM6.
  3. Cinnamon

    Not enough down side. Would also need to be balanced by something like a reduction in damage against "soft" targets otherwise people would just use it all the time as a flat upgrade. Personally I just want to see anti material rifle added for the MAX. Light assaults running around with armour piercing carbines is I dunno.
    • Up x 3
  4. Kn4ck3br0d37

    In it's current form it would probably be considered OP but I'm all for more intresting ammo types.

    Also this part gave me an idea:

    "The aim of AP for infantry is to give normal infantry a slightly better chance against the biggest infantry farmers...."

    You know there's been a lot of whine coming from tankers about infantry being too powerful versus tanks. What if this could be applied to tanks? Imput a defensive cert called reactive armor that would affect infantry-carried RL and Engi AV-turret but not the guns of other vehicles, land or air.

    It could work something like the regenerating reactive armor would either block a rocket every 5 - 10 seconds, or maybe block every other rocket by exploding, causing the projectile to be destroyed/deflected (kind of like how it works IRL) and then regenerating (THROUGH THE POWER OF NANITES!) to block more infantry rockets after a while.

    This would leave tanks as still potent VS eachother, even more so because you couldn't take front armor or such, but would drastically increase their staying power against infantry.
  5. Bill Hicks

    So basically the heavy overshield, which slows the heavy way down and makes him glow should be weakened by some ammo type?

    Ok heavies should get bullets that drains abilites. So if you get hit by a heavy you lose the ability to repair, heal etc.
  6. Phazaar

    Not enough downside, and no purpose for this. You want to give infantry defense against the things farming them? Well, they've got invincible spawn fortresses, walled bases, AA MAXs, Strikers, Lockons, Demicators, C4, tank mines, small arms (which are already more than viable enough against Harassers and ESFs), Flak armour, Nanoweave, Resist Shields etc etc etc. They -really- don't need anymore help.

    And that's before getting to the real crux of the problem: why are you even able to easily destroy AI vehicles with infantry, surely you should require an AV vehicle such that vehicle combat is a necessity, instead of an unviable option... So let's tack onto that list Skyguards, MBTs, Lightnings, Harassers, ESFs, Liberators, and then see how we're doing, eh?
    • Up x 2
  7. Trysaeder

    ERA is a good idea and I'm surprised that they haven't implemented some form of it.

    I think that you could alleviate infantry rocket spam by making them destructable. A single bullet from anything just forces it to explode, indirectly buffing the accurate machine gun type secondaries. A sight for the secondary gunners that highlights rockets could also be made.

    The bonus % should be changed before more downsides are added in my opinion. SPA is already nearly a straight upgrade for any sort of indoors fight but people seem to be okay with that. It's effective a 15% faster kill rate in that range.

    I'm hoping that the original 25% I listed is suitable as a real value though, as everything that AP rounds are good against is a magnitude more durable compared to infantry, no

    Maybe LMGs would lose 20 rounds or half their magazine for equipping this, on top of the handling drawbacks.

    Like SPA and HVA have no effect on the heavy shield. Both of them can kill 14-20% faster against all troops. 25% faster against ONLY the overshield is much weaker in comparison.

    They already have that. It's called dealing death. Their ability reduces the ability of others to do the same back.
  8. Eclipson

    I want AP ammo for my MCG, so I can turn it into a hand held Vulcan.
  9. deggy

    Please no.

    We don't need any more ways for infantry to kill vehicles. There are already too many.
    • Up x 2
  10. Ganelon

    It's questionable whether the complaints are valid or not. Mainly because it's very likely that said tankers already killed loads of infantry before being taken out.
    There also tends to be an issue in this playerbase about vehicle users wanting infantry to be incapable of killing them.
  11. Arkenbrien

    Perfectly agreed. Av turrets and C4 needs to be nerfed before even considering something like this. 1000 certs for the AV turret, 700 certs for 2 C4, 200 for 1 C4, but only 100 certs for AV ammo? AV is common enough. Although I agree in theory that yes, AV ammo would be cool, tankers don't need to worry about even more ways for them to die.
    • Up x 1
  12. DeadliestMoon

    Already suggested this. Check the link in my Signature.
  13. ronjahn

    No, no, no, no, no, and no.

    Infantry have rockets, which are armor piercing rounds. As others have said there are already far to many infantry AV options. Group a few together and you have an effective(IMHO an OP) option against tanks. If infantry get AP rounds, then every MBT and lightning should come equipped standard with a Kobalt machine gun mounted next to the main cannon to give the tanks a chance at fighting at the already swarms of infantry that can destroy them.

    My AP vanguard is not made for infantry, but when my opponent refuses to fight in armor and constantly amass giant AV infantry zergs instead, you might understand why tankers might have a problem giving them more AV capabilities.
    • Up x 1
  14. ronjahn

    Here is how a majority of my tanks fights go:
    Arrive at base.
    Kill 1-2 tanks.
    Run away as they grab 20 friends to try to c4 and rocket you.

    Once I have destroyed the major threat to a tank, ie. all the other tanks, I shouldn't have to run away in fear of being Instagibbed by whatever means the infantry decide the use. Add AP rounds to infantry and you now have the ability to suppress and hold off a tank with small arms fire, which is a huge nerf to tanks and a giant hit to immersion and reality.

    Infantry should fear tanks, not run directly at them without fear in hopes of a lucky OHK. They shouldn't have the ability to take pot shots at them and prevent all vehicle advances.
    • Up x 2

    Anyone remember that Magnum ammo from BC2? Man that was an awful decision in terms of game balance. Though I'm all for new types of ammo. There just needed to be reasonable downsides added to it to retain the variety within the game. Then again, I'm guessing it's safe to say that implants are eventually going to fill the roles that different ammo types could do. So there wouldn't be much left that they could give us' for free' in the form of ammo types
  16. Trysaeder

    MBTs, lightnings, sunderers, liberators and the like are not
    I don't know where everyone got that impression from.
  17. DeadliestMoon

    And that's the problem, no one wants to feel powerless against something. Tanks against Infantry is unfair.
  18. DeadliestMoon

    No, C4 does not need to be nerf. In fact I think LAs should be the only ones that have access to them. (Medics with C4 doesn't make sense) You do realize that Infantry needs a coordinated assault in order to take down one tank right? That's not fair, it's perfectly reasonable considering that it's tanks but still, gameplay wise, it's unfair.
  19. ronjahn

    Drop podding infantry equipped with unlimited amounts of c4 and tank mines is unfair. 3 heavies being able to effectively hold off multiple vehicles is unfair. AV mana turrets shooting from render distance and beyond is unfair. 1 ESF instagibbing a tank who he happens across is unfair.

    An armored tank killing infantry sounds correct and fair to me. And please don't play the infantry is powerless against tanks card, because that is simply not true. Infantry are equipped with multiple options to defeat a tank. And the second a tank driver chimes in you immediately want to say that tanks killing infantry is unfair?

    You say no one wants to feel powerless, but with the current state of infantry AV options, an AV tank is powerless against infantry unless the driver and gunner are amazing shots. Traveling with a squad does nothing for a tank since most players simply ignore infantry when a tank is in play and start the drop pod /LA mad dash to c4 it.

    Giving infantry the ability to suppress tanks is just over the top when you consider the already available AV options.
  20. Zenanii

    just let us jam C4 into our rifles and be done wit it.