[Suggestion] Attack vs Defense

There seems to be this notion in online gaming communities that if you are defending, you can't attack, and if you are attacking, you can't defend. What is wrong with you people?

Let me give you an example of what I am talking about, and yes, I am about to make a game comparison that are in two different genres, but the point still stands. In Valorant, you rotate between attacking and defending. Now, the usual player plays aggressively when they attack and defensively when they defend. However, there are times when the other team is better at one or the other than you are, and therefore you lose due to that mindset. For instance, they may be better at defending than you are at attacking, but then their attacking may be worse than your defending. If you decide to attack them even though you are an attacking, you will lose. Therefore, you should switch up and play more defensively. Basically, put them on the attack, in what could very well be their weakest skill. Then by time the teams switch and you are now defending, you have a point advantage. The thing that happens when you don't listen to this sort of reasoning is that you lose and the losing team baby rages about the loss.

Its the same here in Planetside. Why on the fields of Amerish would you ever, after losing a base because you defense was garbage, decide to go back to the next base and defend, when you could be spawning vehicles to stage an aggressive defense? Why in the name of Higby himself would you, who just lost an attack, think it'd be a good idea to attack again and get wiped?

Planetside isn't all about the numbers you have, but more about how you play with them, how you set up your team to play. This is just a very basic presentation of this concept, solely talking about attacking and defense, but what about the different aspects of them? Why not take some time to think more about your strategy when you play this game, and the next time you get locked in your spawn room or all of your sunderers get wiped, why not think about what you personally did wrong, what your team did wrong, and what you can do next time to make it better?

This post reads like you had an argument with someone and are yelling at the entire forum about it.

I dont understand the complaint. People are constantly switching attack and defense. The attackers attack and finally force their way through a chokepoint, usually the first act then is securing it and defending before using it as a staging ground and moving on. Similarly a defender using his chokepoint to hold off attackers and then push through and hope to push the attackers away is pretty much the standard MO of how fights progress (outside of outfits and large platoons that shut down fights in their entirety).

As for the parts about "why would you ever...". Well because there arent many alternatives available, at least not effective one's. Except a few places like Quartz Ridge versus Indar Excavation theres often too little time or safe terrain to build up a vehicle force able to deal with the attackers.


People have thought about strategy and tactics in this game and it has been tried before. Countering enemies with your own vehicle force? Especially in the beginning of the game people tried and tried, only to run their resources dry. The point: they did exactly what you simultaneously loathe and encourage, they attacked with vehicles, lost, then attacked again. Because the attackers, by default, have won the vehicle battle and could place sunderers. Thats what makes them attackers. And if you were defending and didnt have a vehicle? Well pulling one will meet the same effect: you have to fight the default vehicle superiority the attackers enjoy.

This is why we are at the worst situation right now. You have the players who try to play the purpose of the game (shooting at one another to achieve an objective). These players will do failing tactics over and over again because its more about the push and shove of all the people you play with.
And you have the players who try to play the game for some of the goals it has erroneously set: capturing the bases and continent at all costs. These players shut down fights, grief players, try only the easiest tactics and strategy with the biggest gain.
We need to reimagine the goals of the game. It should all center about the one and only thing that matters in the game: players fighting other players with as little restraint as possible. Capturing bases, the continent, resources etc all should facilitate this, not encourage players to avoid it.

I didn't have an argument. I just read a dumb post that caters to babying players, and we need much less of that.

Thats not my point at all. Of course after you clear an objective, it affects how you play. Thats true of any game. Once the attackers get the point, they have to defend it. My point is to be choosing how you play before you have cleared an objective, or rather, to create a new objective that determines how you play. For instance, if you lose an attack on a base, most people then decide to do another attack in an attempt to get the base, when you could let the other team attack while you stage a defense on their way to your base. By doing so, you create a new objective and a reason to fight outside of the base.

There is almost always time, save for when they are almost on the way in a Galaxy or Liberator. All you have to do is spawn vehicles from the deployment screen anyways. 30 seconds and you can be ready. It just takes people to recognize the fact that they are insane. They do the same thing every time and expect a different result - to win. Then they need to change that mindset and work together. And play for picks. I still haven't figured out how the damage models in this game are so good that, if you have an area where the enemies are going to come through and you have three tanks waiting, you can hold a choke point against vehicles coming one at a time and not insta-gib them.

Yes, so don't attack with the vehicles because you just lost in an attack with vehicles. Set up a defense with them at a place where you think the vehicles will come. Take a repair sunderer, fill it up with some Heavy Assaults, Engineers, and Light Assaults, drive to the ambush, and support the vehicles. Its better to take infantry along with the tanks when you think you are going to lose so that your tanks have support from different angles without those ones being wiped by more oncoming tanks. My point is that you have more options than to try the same one that just made you lose.

And if you are defending and don't have vehicle superiority? Well, instead of trying to attack the point or clear the vehicle terminal so that you can spawn a vehicle which will ultimately get wiped, why not instead go out through the back of your spawn, move across a flank, and work on "point defense" or "zone defense" so that you have a new position you own and can attack from? Defend that point as a defender and continue to push your defense forward, stopping when you lose too many men, maybe moving back to regain some footing, whatever you need.

Thats the point of a war. Its not "erroneously set". Thats the objective. Capture the base and continent at all costs. Its not to simply fight players, but to win. Thats the goal. You can set up your own minigoals to have fun, but the main goal is to win.

This does not work. Because you can set a goal to buy a vehicle and get to the field, but if no one else does then your new objective and reason fail even before you begin. This is why you have to have some basic knowledge of what others are doing and have to create a "new" objective that supports the general doings of your allies.

Also you kinda need to have perseverence in this game. If you give up and find a new objective every time you fail once you will only succeed at a Ghostcap or if you run with a Zerg. This makes your suggestion useless.

Its not the people not pulling vehicles that are insane. Your suggestion has already been tried again and again, but it does not work outside of a few specific bases.

I mean you even ignore the spawn delay between spawnings. 30 seconds gets you 3 or 4 vehicles if people are in a queue to pull them? Thats not enough to stop the enemy vehicles most of the time, and you wont even be in position by then either since the vehicle pad is usually the most exposed and with the worst cover to start combat and fight off any attackers. Worse is if you pull from the spawnscreen, since the auto-drive will happily dump you on any mines placed there. If you want to talk about doing the same thing and expecting a different result then this idea is it. Theorycrafters always come up with this one and pretend its not been tried before, and it FAILS. it sucks as a strategy since bases have such horrible designs and it takes more effort from the defenders to organize this than it takes the attackers to build up their own vehicle force.

"Use tight high level teamwork to combat something that requires virtually none".

Good suggestion man! Totally doable despite it taking more time, skill and effort to pull off effectively! And if you are unlucky it does not even work and your infantry is vaporized and your tanks simply get into a shootout which they are most likely to loose due to usually less vehicles available on the defender side.

You are going down a path that has been tried and which has failed miserably time and again. Its not new, and saying others are insane for not trying a tactic which will almost always fail is insanity itself.

Stop blaming others for failing. Why dont you actually try these for a month and then come back and tell us how "effective" they were.
Although I think that you would be in need of convincing someone else to do this for you, since you seem to lack the basic skills to fight yourself out of a wet paper bag.

But this isnt war, this is a GAME. its aim should be around entertainment. This game's core principle is having players fight each other, but goals and mechanics were added that contradict it and have degraded the game.

Seriously "but realism" arguments? They are only used to justify anything you dont have any actual argument for.

There seems to be a misunderstanding. This aint a one person job. Thats the reason I suggested it here. For a group of people to change their mentality, not just one. One person against 5 tanks, yeah, no. But a 3v5 with tanks when you are holding a "choke point", in an ambush, and playing for picks? Its doable, especially since, as you said, the other team isn't coordinated.

In your posts, you keep talking about skill against skill-less tactics, but thats just the way it is. You should formulate plans and tactics against skill-less tactics so that you can actually stop it. Then it forces the enemy to adapt or die. Its that simple.

I'm not blaming anyone for failing... And I have tried them. I have tried it solo, blown up some sundies, or at least dropped the bricks on it before dying. I have tried it solo and gotten to the back entrance to the point, taken a few guys down, ran away while they were confused, redirected their attention to me as I watched my team at the other side trying to come in, and we got the point back before it was too late, even though vehicles were hammering down on us. I have tried it with a single squadmate and we got all the way to their sundy, despite the bridge being a choke point and they had vehicle superiority and flankers of their own. On that same occasion, we tried it with a random and blew up all of their sundies, the three of us, except for one, which we got smoking. We walked the random through our whole plan, and he didn't say anything, but he cooperated. Honestly, if we had better voice comm systems and visual commands too, we could communicate our thoughts and ideas with randoms a whole lot easier. It should really be in the game, maybe locked behind a level requirement so that noobs don't just spam it. Maybe level 40?

My point is, I am speaking from experience. These things work if you try it and adapt.

A game about a global war. It is entertaining as is, and if you want to be more entertained, try to win with your own squad. Like no, the goal is not to simply fight each other. Its to win and conquer. The mechanics do not detract from that goal. If you want to fight each other and simply fight each other, be my guest. But the goal is to win the continent, not just fight on it. If the goal was simply to fight, you accomplished that the moment you redeployed into a battle. So yeah, I will compare it to WAR, as that is what the GAME is derived from.

This is the problem. Even with teamwork you require the environment to be right just to equalize your chances against the attackers. That is neither fun nor fair unless you are a masogist.

This is a stupid sentiment and a worse argument. This boils down to "it is like it is". But its a game, justifying bad gameplay this way is stupid since you can change the game to make that gameplay better.

Every time you have nothing to justify your point of view you do this, "nah its just the way it is so just accept it". No, the whole point of making a discussion on a forum like this is to look for a way to improve it, not to say "no" because you are incapable of defending your own point of view.

You are, constantly.

I happen to know something of your capabilities, and no you did not do any of this. At best its an extreme embellishment of cherry-picked events while ignoring every time you failed. I would believe a story of "I tripped and died while exiting the spawntube" more easily than what you told me above.

You are speaking from fantasy, not experience. I try to adapt constantly and I have tried your fantasies, they have way too high a chance of failure to work.

Do you have any intelligence? PS2 at its core was build for the sole purpose of getting players to engage with one another in firefights. The capturing the bases was at the core motivation to get people to fight. The design goal was not to capture the base, but to make sure players fight. Later on the devs, without understanding this, dumped the continental capture mechanic on the game. Even that they never understood, even today they are still looking how that system has to work properly. The reason for that failure is once again the fact that it is not designed around the core principle of "make sure players fight each other".

You are delusional. You dont even understand the simple premise of the game, misunderstand the purpose of some of the mechanics and justify yourself with the weak "well I will compare it to what I want".

Adapt. Play better.

That is the way it is and the way it will continue to be. Devs cannot and will not balance everything out. There will continue to be metas that are skill-less until you decide to care enough about the quality of your craft to take away any exploitability in the game and make it play fully as you intend. That won't happen, because players view themselves are better than the devs and require that they be catered to, so when you didn't start off with an unexploitable product void of skill-less but effective tactics, you can't take them away for fear of losing player count. It takes not caring about player count to change that.

Secondly, no, thats justifiable. Accept the game as it comes and change with it. I will continue to say to adapt because its possible to adapt to these tactics, especially when you see it coming. There are no doubt things that can be changed to negate the effectiveness of skill-less strategies, but if you don't apply skill to a situation to combat that, then you will always be conquered by the skill-less strategies.

So no, I'm not saying to not change it, but that is literally the way it is. And its absolutely stupid of you to think that I am saying to not change something when I am saying instead to adapt and change with it because its all you can do for now.

Fine. Let me say it clearly. I don't blame you for being bad at strategy.

No duh it didn't work every time, especially since I mostly play alone, but the times I worked with someone, it eventually worked, and it was fun doing it. Like thats a stupid point to make. And those anecdotes I just said are true. We really did that. I really did that. The only reason I remember it is because it worked, and it made an impression on me as to how you should play the game.
And no, I am not embellishing it. It happened just like that. I can remember which base these things happened at if I went ingame, because I can't remember the names, and I can tell you exactly what was happening, where it was happening, and why I made X, Y, or Z decisions.

And you must not be trying to do what I say the right way. I'd say its a 33% chance of having something positive happen, at least. The chances of positive things happening increases with player count and cohesion. I'd take those odds over a 100% chance of losing by banging your head on a wall doing the exact same stale push into a death zone.

You are gonna have to give a timeline of all of this, because if all of this you are talking about was at a very early model of the game and the continent capture was implemented within a year or so of the game gaining traction, then that makes your point invalid. Also, thats stupid reasoning. "Capturing bases was designed to get people to fight." No, it was giving players something to fight for. It gives players a reason to attack and a reason to defend. And it looks to me that the continent capture system works at intended. Gain enough territory before the time limit expires, capture the continent, get rewards. Simple.

Also, this talk about a goal is pointless, because the goal, if nothing else, is to create an experience, which is the same for all games, something for you to waste time on and give over some money so that your experience can be better.

Yeah, I will compare it to what I want, because what I want to compare it to makes sense. Its a war. Thats the lore, thats the design, thats the whole point of the title "Planetside". It is quite literally a planetary war. And in any game, the goals are to win and have fun. So if players don't feel like trying to win, they will play to have fun, but that doesn't mean that someone who plays to win can't have fun if they lose, ya see? So no, I understand the premise. Maybe you don't. You are here to fight for your faction and win the continent by winning bases over and over again, and you are to do it any way you see fit.

I already do, that is why I know your idea's fail. Also its very hard taking the advice of someone who is more likely to die tripping over a spawntube instead of killing an opponent, but claiming that everyone else somehow has to play better.

Again the skill argument? Coming from an infiltrator main....

post stats at least so we can all have a laugh

I don't care if you say that my ideas fail if they work for me or have some sort of success in a solo and teamplay environment.

I don't care about your KPM, KDR, VKDR, or SPM if you can't win the fight. Seal club some noobs with an easy strat for all I care. At least I'm not dying to and complaining about the same stuff you are dying to and complaining about.

Also, how would my stats prove if a plan succeeds or fails? Also also, I don't care to prove myself to a person who complains about cloaked vehicles of all things. If you were complaining about the Renegade, no cap, I understand. But simply the Wraith cloak being too OP? Lol. Maybe stop getting ran over and I'll take you seriously.

You don't care about skill yet skill is your main argument. Yeah ok buddy you definitely have a valid argument there.

Maybe once you get good you'll be able to get dedicate some time to make fair assessments of the game's current state and how to improve it.

Thats a dumb way of saying anything because its so vague. "Skill" is not my main argument. I don't care about how skillful or skill-less a strategy is. Unless it is unbeatable, you can still do something about it, and sometimes, its just a you problem. Sometimes you are in your own way. Deciding not to work with people because you think it will do not good. Deciding that since it will probably do no good, its automatically a developer problem. Then the developers have to deal with you crappy people. You decided to give up when there are valid ways of conquering challenges that just require you to think and play differently, completely differently.

Thats why I don't care about stats, because they don't show how you think, only how you perform on a numerical scale. It doesn't factor in the situations that lead to X, Y, or Z. It doesn't factor in how you truly play and your goals. It only factors in numbers, and while numbers don't lie, they don't paint a picture. They are just numbers. So again:



No, I don't think I will show my stats, smooth brain.

Wrong, they mean something if you know how to read them. That's why they're here. You flank, you're aggressive? Higher kpm, maybe less kdr. You're good? Decent accuracy + kpm + 1v1 on most weapons. You suck? Prolly won't have decent of anything, likely playing infil or vehicle a majority of the time, with no spectacular stats for those either. Those numbers reflect on how you play lmao. You lie to yourself in denial to accept the fact you suck - you probably do know the truth though, which is why you hide those meaningless stats despite calling out others for lack of skill.

So yeah don't show your stats, we already know you're bad. Don't even comment, especially about skill lmao, you have 0 credibility.

How do you know they work for you? You barely have 100 vehicles kills total! You barely even tested it! I got more vehicle kills trying this out over and over and over again trying to find a way to make it work and get out of the bad spawnroom gameplay but it. Doesnt. Work. It is a failing strategy that can only work in specific situations. Most of them will at best increase your chances but still leave you the underdog.

Nah man it must be cuz you're not as skilled as him lmao

Thats not a complete picture, thats a general assumption of various possibilities. The way you are putting it is an inference based on a playstyle or general trait. If you take simple stats, you are left with a general assumption of various possibilities. Not only have I repeatedly shared my stats here (even Demigan has them and is looking at them every time he makes a post about my stats), but also they don't matter all that much when talking about a strategy when your stats take into account ALL of your playtime and not just a portion of it.

So no, I'm not hiding them. I have already shared them. And yeah, you guys are skill-less in general. I don't care how much mechanical skill you may have if your general thought process and decision-making show you are skill-less. I don't care how well you can aim or how many kills you have or what your KDR or KPM is if you can't make logical and rational decisions outside of shooting people, regardless of the method you use to it, be that almost solely 1v1 engagements or seal clubbing. Thats the reason why you hate Infiltrators so much! Its because you can't make rational decisions to avoid dying to them in whatever way you deem cheesy, and its exactly why I can.

You measure success by solo stopping a zerg or popped sunderer? Well, I measure success by gain, goal, and possibility through action. Its not necessarily getting a kill that determines whether your plan is successful. That result sheds light on what you needed to do differently to get the kill or what more you needed. Therefore, if I am able to do things solo and get some limited success, be it getting all the way to their sunderer or even putting C4 or tank mines on it, but not being able to blow it up, then it was a successful plan had I had another person with me. Or if my teammate has not killed another person which led them to respawn and see me getting close. Thats how I measure whether or not it was a good plan - if there was anything that could have made it work with a few different decisions. A general plan or idea enhanced through trial and error and decision making.

They don't. You just don't know/refuse how to interpret them.

By all means don't make any effort to post them again lol


If I was just using 1v1 I'd have lower kpm...seal clubbing? On emerald maybe there's enough bad players to say that. On connery? Lol the servers boiled down to the last tryhards and cheese spammers. Pretty hard to seal club.

Not only you don't know how to read stats, you've come up with some twisted argument of how you're more skilled by having worse stats, experience....basically worse anything than anyone else on the forums. And because we're better than you at challenging ourselves - and succeeding, somehow we're less skilled/experienced than you who spends half your time doing nothing camping in a corner with your stalker cloak and the other half in a cloak shotgun flash and has very little experience even in those things you main.

The reason why many people dislike the infiltrators, vehicle vs infantry, shotguns, flails, nukes, etc is because they lower the skill ceiling. Most people play the game to have fun, improve and fight other skilled players. Dying instantly out of nowhere from a person who's simply using broken mechanics does not feel fun or fair. Even new players seem to get that. The only reason you like infil and have no issue dealing with them is because you're one yourself. Easy to avoid the fight when you're literally INVISIBLE doing nothing. While I agree it is the smarter thing to do: avoid the fight, only attack damaged/distracted targets, it's pathetic, not skilled when it's in a video game. Unlike you I've got the infil aurax + the infil weapons aurax, so I've spent more times using them and dealing with them than you ever will. That's why I'm familiar with how to counter infils and can point out it's just unfair cheese. Same with a2g.

But no, I'm guessing you and your handful of kills now better.

I mean...yeah that's kinda the point of the game and stopping/delaying zergs by yourself or even with a tiny squad requires some skill and experience.

What gain lol? You know we can also see how many bases you've captured/defended right. 'Possibly through action'? Lmao. So you play a fighting game...just to avoid the fighting. Sounds skilled to me. Doesn't sound like you suck so hard the only class you're capable of playing is exactly that: a class designed to avoid the fight, surprise people by coming out of nowhere with invisibility and killing them in one shot before they even see you uncloak on their screens.

Not only do you not accomplish anything, you think you're skilled while doing nothing!

https://libredd.it/r/TikTokCringe/comments/ot95k8/you_cant_even_get_out_of_the_brother_zone/

I think you're competing with this guy for the title of most down bad person ever. 'Placing C4/mines on a sunderer and not blowing it up is fine because if you had a friend it would've worked'?? Man wtf type of **** is this? You're so bad you're imagining kills and then telling US we don't know how to play??? That's wild.

You know like most people we measure a plan's success by it's success. We're simple people I know but usually if a thing fails we don't call it successful. Sure it can be a step towards elaborating a successful plan. But lol you're on some next level high if you think failing to achieve a kill/anything amounts to a plan being successful. Also you're acting like these are extremely complex situations only you're able to understand, we don't bother doing things such as killing spawns - we don't know how to formulate a plan....

Well wrong dude I've blown up more vehicles that you ever will, using flanking routes, dropping on top of them, pulling a vehicle myself, etc. Only difference between you and me is that I generally succeed and get the kill, capping the base, clearing the room. That actually helps my faction. If that makes me less skilled than you who repeats things that don't work in the hope of maybe stealing a kill one day...idk what to say. 'Had my plan worked it would've worked! Success'!

You suck dude don't ever make an argument about skill again.

I don't play Stalker and I don't even have a Wraith Renegade Flash...

Dying instantly is the same in most games, and its due to you being picked as an easy target and getting killed or someone just took a good shot at a hard target. Take your pick of which one you are. Most players do not hit the head on their first try, so if you die after they have missed you or hit you in the leg, you are probably a moron. And I don't have a problem with this because I'm able to assess what I did wrong, unlike you, who feels that the blame should be placed elsewhere. Its a mutual blame really.

And no, its not because I play Infiltrators. In fact, I haven't been playing Infiltrators that much. I've been finding Light Assault really fun, along with trying to tank mine sunderers as an Engineer. And as I have been playing these non-Infiltrator classes, I'm able to say the above statement.

Skip if you don't want to read a story. Just two days ago, a good Infiltrator and one more on my level tried to kill me. The good one was using a CQC BASR. I was running down a hill and I think my teammate was shot at, so I saw the blip on the map. I then noticed that there was someone staring at me. I didn't know it was an Infiltrator at the time, because a different guy was also shooting. Well, I immediately swerved, and his shot hit me in the leg and didn't break my shield. I used the approaching hill as cover to flank while he and his teammate watched my spot. I killed his teammate, but I couldn't find the Infiltrator, that is, until I heard his decloak and he shot at me some more. To get to the point, I just kept swerving his shots and he wasted 3 mags on me, 15 shots. But he kept repositioning and I didn't have a long range weapon to really take him down, so I took a few shots, dodged his, and kept trying to get away. I decided to run down that big hill on the base with the bridge next to it, on Indar, and he only was able to get one good shot on me that broke my shield, but I was fine.

The next dude was when I was running to the next base. I get shot, not a headshot, and I turn around while moving erratically, and I think I see him because he skyboxed himself. He takes a few more shots at me but I break LOS with him. He should have repositioned, but he didn't (as most snipers don't do), so I flanked him, stood behind him, V-6'd him, then blasted him. He respawned semi-close, tried to snipe me from a new position, I used natural cover and LOS breaks to close the distance, got up to him, ended him. This was all as a HA btw. He got me the next time when it was a 2v1. And guess what? Thats perfectly fine.
You may die instantly, you may not, but its about how you make yourself a target. In ANY x+1/x, you are destined to lose, yet you may not. But in a 1v1, you are typically on an even playing field. The only Infiltrator I have a problem with are Stalkers, because you can't find them without a Darklight.

It requires circumstance and opportunity too. So no, its not reasonable for you to measure the success of a solo strat or small squad strat against odds that you would mathematically lose and deem it as a failure when you were destined to lose in the first place. Increasing your chances is where you should be aiming.

I don't understand your jumps to conclusions, but ok? Not only does that contradict your prior quote, but you also really hate Infiltrators on an unintended mechanic that only happens at very opportune times. And there is more to "gain" than just a base. You need to gain a foothold in that base. You need to gain an advantage against the enemy. My point is that whatever that "gain" may be, thats what you are searching to acquire.

I think you are kind of stupid. The way you word a quote or paraphrase has to have the same wording or meaning as the original quote. By saying "placing C4/mines on a sunderer and not blowing it up is fine because if you had a friend it would've worked" is really dumb because thats not what I meant and it misinterprets what I said. No, I meant placing the C4 or mines on a sundy and not GETTING to blow it up because you died. The thing is, if you had someone to help you, you were very likely to have blown that sundy up since a single grenade would you have set off the mines or C4. It also could have bought you time. Maybe you would have both died earlier to your teammate getting spotted. Those scenarios aren't even a jump in logic. Those are the most likely outcomes. So yes, for you even suggesting something so stupid, you have earned the right to be acknowledged as someone who doesn't know how to play. Is English your first language? If not, I understand your confusion, I guess. But if it is, sheeeeeeeeeeeeesh.

You die to Infiltrators and complain about them. You're probably a pro at that too.

I don't care if you are better at me at aiming or you have played longer than me and gotten more rewards than me. If you think that changing your ideas on how and why you attack or defend is dumb because attackers attack and defenders defend and if you lose, you suck, you may be one of the dumbest people on these forums, and thats not even considering the crap you have posted. Legit, stop gloating. This post is specifically for people like you who would rather leave when you are losing than do something to delay or prevent the loss. This post is specifically for people like you who can't think outside of the box for strategies on how to deal with common problems without developer intervention. I'd tell you to go cry some more to the devs to fix the oh so broken Infiltrators, but I don't want to hear any of that nonsense either. Yeah, I played Infiltrator and only joined Planetside because I was interested in the Infiltrator class. Yeah, its my most played class, but thats because I play snipers in every game. Yeah, I get to kill people in one shot and they probably won't see it coming, but thats their fault for doing something either so dumb or being so tunnel visioned that they deserved to get blasted for it. And yeah, people generally don't like my ideas and I treat you people as stupid when you actually have some experience in the game, but you don't actually use that experience to benefit how you think. You are stuck in a box and that sucks the joy you get out of the game. Every time you die to something you view as skill-less, all because you think you are so skilled, you are so pressed. And for what? Are you skilled? Ok good, you are skilled, but you are still dead. You are still dead regardless of skill. Maybe if you were more skilled, you wouldn't have died. Or maybe you just can't accept that every decision you have made in your life lead you to that point, eating a bullet and sitting on the respawn screen. Maybe you can't accept that had you done something differently or they did something differently, there would have been a different outcome. And maybe you just don't want to accept that some blame could be put on you for the outcome because you view yourself as oh so skilled and good at the game. Well I don't care how good you think you are at the game, because eventually, I'm going to kill you. No matter how many times it takes, I'll eventually kill you. And I'll be fine with how ever many times I die, because I'm not stuck in the illusion that I am good at everything or something. Therefore, I won't be mad when I die because, simply put, it happens. Its not solely one thing or another in this world dude. Its not always black or white. A lot of the time, its grey. If I die to getting sniped, guess what? Its the Infiltrators fault for killing me and its my fault for dying to him. If I lose to a zerg, guess what? Its their fault for zerging me but mine for not preparing for a zerg earlier on. If I die to the same vets over and over again, guess what? Its their fault for killing me, but its my fault for dying. Don't you see that you aren't always right? Can't you attempt to see things from another perspective?

k lol

English may not be my first language but it doesn't take Shakespeare to know this is ridiculous. So you call me out for misinterpreting what you said....then repeat exactly what I said? You waste your time and resources, accomplish nothing - because dying/whatever stops you from blowing up the target after you've placed your consumables gives you the end result of ... nothing. So yeah you can imagine getting the kill or whatever if you had the help of a babysitter or what. But at the end of the day, that's pure imagination, pure fantasy: you've accomplished nothing. You've tried, but got not results. And you can fantasize all you want, you didn't help your team by not blowing up the spawn because you died. Or wait, you prefer if I used the phrase you didn't get it to blow up. Big difference, yet it changes nothing of the outcomes. We're not playing imagineside 2. Anyone can dream about being good or what would've/could've/should've happened. You're so bad instead of getting kills/results, you imagine they would've worked and give yourself a pat on the back claiming success. That's down bad, outright insane. I shouldn't have to break that down for you any more.

Ok lol the players better than you are idiots for not noticing the invisible guy 100m away sniping them while they're engaging 3 other dudes. You're real good dude. It's almost bizarre you suck at playing any other class.

Everyone's stupid but you....sounds like something an idiot would say

Oh I know how the game wants me to play - few weeks before I quit I even started maining A2G and using infil more and more. Too bad I prefer some competitiveness from my games. Not fun when I already know I've won before even engaging, and I don't even need to use any sort of skill to win either.

No one said they're good, I said I'm definitely better than you cuz you suck, and so you have no right to call out others on their skill level. Dude you imagine your kills. I can't even get over that lmao.

You're fine with dying cuz you're using the cheese. But when people die to players like you it's an annoyance, there's little interaction or opportunity for a fair/fun engagement. It's just 'DINK' oh they finally got me at 100hp with a bolt from 300m away. Fun. Time to respawn. Step out the spawn, a volley of hesh, a2g and more sniper fire because most the bases leave open areas from the spawn to the point/nearby buildings for bad players to steal kills.

Yeah you wouldn't get it cuz you suck, but most vets dislike that sort of stuff - which is why it's not allowed in most scrims - and noobs absolutely hate it unless they're the ones using it.

You're comparing apples to oranges. I've died to some of the best players on the server, sometimes a dozen or so times before killing them. I've even gotten tips from some, tried to understand how they were playing, fix my mistakes and it helped me overall improve. Those engagements, even though I lost, felt really fun, and was an experience that pushed me to grow and become better. And when I started killing those players a couple times in a row, and even with stuff like the patriot flare gun, I realized I improved. You don't wonder why players who are better than you'll ever be call out this stuff? They don't need a lesson on how to counter it - they've done it more and better than you. They're calling out the fact it's not fun. Why don't you change your perspective a bit.

When you vs stuff like infils, maxes, vehicles, orbitals, flails, ai turrets, pain spires, shotguns to an extent - it's all so one sided, with little/no skill involved, you take nothing from the engagement other than 'oh they still didn't balance this yet'. Sure you could take up those playstyles and become the cancer you dislike, thrusting yourself into boring gameplay because there's no interaction, no skill-ceiling, no competition. It's not your fault for dying to something you can't react to or even see. It's not your fault for not being able to outrun/outdps a banshee, even in a AA max. Not your fault for not being able to kill a vehicle when you place C4 directly on it and it blows up with 0 dmg, or flies back into your face and kills you.

Whatever man you do you, if you find the game's fun atm then that's great, you're one of the players our devs cater too. As for the rest, a majority of the playerbase, it's safe to say the game's become unfun, to the extent it's unplayable for some. I guess it's good for some people, they'll have less skilled vets to die to, and they can learn lessons from automated base AI turrets or vehicle, and infil snipers killing them at every fight.