[Suggestion] Changes for TRial on the Test Server?..

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by S0LAR15, Jun 4, 2013.

  1. S0LAR15

    I know that the focus of the coming GU11 is a QoL update. However, I've played enough of the game now I feel I can see some over-arching stat changes that I would like to suggest for the test server. This is not a QQ thread, if these things don't change soon or in the further future, I'm not going to be overly bothered by it, this is simply my observations of the game's most cheap/abused/OP kit, and how some small changes could improve the game for all skill levels including new players.

    • 10% reduction in MAX and turret flak damage.
    Right now the game has a weird relationship between AA and A2G. I fly a fair bit, and I pull Flak MAXs regularly too, AND, honestly, despite some of the stuff you read on here, I think it's not too far off. I'm not sure what the plans are re: changing new MAX abilities to not affect NS weapons, like the bursters. (I recall reading that they wouldn't, but that's not the focus of this point) But, if we consider default bursters, I think a 10% reduction in damage could be worth trialing on the PTS. I know there are dome's coming, and in this sense, since ground units, infantry especially, is being given a reprieve of sorts in the key areas of the map, where infantry are most essential, I think it may be necessary to give a small survivability buff to air units in other parts of the map where they will have to spend more time. For infantry players reading this shaking their heads, this will not translate directly into more power as would a say a damage buff for rocket pods/zephyrs/daltons etc, but simply allow air units to survive what will likely become a far more enriched AA environment outside domes, and 10% is hardly a large step to try.

    • The Engineer Mana AV turret needs a reduced effectiveness.
    There are many routes to take with this thing, but right now, it is simply maddening that it can be beyond render range and be pounding vehicles who will have no clue where it is coming from, much less where they can escape to. Options include, a straight damage reduction, damage fall off, limited guide by wire range, limited ammo requiring resupply, as well as making missiles render if it is possible to do this easily. I don't know what this thing needs specifically without seeing some changes tested for real, but it does need something to make it less abusable at range, and less damaging than a MBT cannon, considering its lack of resource cost, ease of fielding, and relatively low risk use.

    • The striker/annihilator desperately needs the old projectile AI back.
    Right now it is impossible to dodge these lock ons at all. The only way they can be blocked is by flying behind a nearby meatshield galaxy, which is not what you had in mind for bringing the Galaxy back into the game I'm sure.

    [The second point which needs to be looked at much more closely later on, is the total damage it deals as shots are pinged off in quick succession. I don't think you can make two steps at once and measure any real changes, so the first one to do would be the projectile AI/bug (w/e it is.), a later suggestion would be to look at the fact that the striker is pretty much a straight upgrade (damage wise) to every other lock on launcher including the dedicated AA and AG lock ons. This doesn't make sense in the scope of intra-faction balance, but also comparing to the VS and NC launchers, which have not become the most used launchers in real situations (i.e not indoors, not for MAXs, not a in your face rocket/etc).]

    • Anti-Personnel mines changed to deal ~90% of default infantry HP.
    I know infiltrators and Engi players will be quick to remind us that they put lights on them. Well yes, but this is separate to that, as is the bug that stops them rendering, or sinking into the floor. Obviously if that could be fixed it would be great, however the damage these mines do to default infantry necessitates flak armour, for virtually all classes. Even with nanoweave 5 apparently giving twice the HP buff it is supposed to, it is not competitive with flak armour(and this is not due to Frag Grenades, people hardly use those compared to mines and C4, certainly true for me and many players I know). Looking at other FPS games with mines, none have had the scale PS2, none have the mechanics to replenish One-hit-kill explosives like these mines, or potentially dozens of players placing multiple mines EACH. PS2 also has key capture points placed in enclosed environments, where mines are normally concentrated, as opposed to being spread around or used to cover snipers flanks, further concentrating and exacerbating the effect. I can't imagine anyone is going to want to watch great play being cut short by a mine, or the ease of pro defenders spamming mines round every corner...... Simply they need to less effective. If I was being bold, I'd say they should do even less than I've suggested, but small steps should be the route to go.


    I think that just about covers overly effective/abused features that really dampen the game, and imo, frustrate the development of a tactical meta in many scenarios. The striker is the only faction specific suggestion, though it's issue is due to the AI used in lock on rockets, which also appears to be in use for annihilators, if fixing one, fixed the other, then it is as non-factional.


    As why I decided to post this now: I watched the latest MLG war report (below) with Higby on it today, the only one I've seen, and I have to say, though I didn't consider PS2 an eSports title, I'm actually excited to try it in this capacity. To those who don't think this will add anything to PS2; well, those people existed in League of Legends too, and even they admitted they were wrong when eSports and real competition took full swing. Likewise, MLG could be really good for PS2. That being said, there are some glaring issues that real "pros" won't bother with, (unless you're putting up stupendous amounts of money) and also which will bemuse and eSports spectators. Seeing great play axed by something with a cringingly low skill mechanic will definitely turn off FPS eSport viewers and quite likely general eSports fans too, with these spectators being vital to success in MLG and beyond (I'd love to see PS2 at a grand stage like Dreamhack or the IEMs).



    tl:dr = These are some changes for a better game imo for competition and for viewing. Certainly, providing reasoning for keeping these things as they are is harder than for changing them down a bit for trial on the PTS, not the live server.
  2. bodmans

    shouldnt this be in test subforum?
  3. S0LAR15

    I might post it there too. but I want to see what people feel of it generally.
  4. Kevorkian

    AV turret should just have effective range reduced, not a damage nerf. I disagree with AP mines, 100%. I die to them some, but they serve a purpose and are far more visible now, when they're not glitching through the floor, which needs to be fixed.
  5. S0LAR15

    1. Why not a damage nerf, the thing does more damage than a main battle tank cannon? Does that make sense for the resources and effort involved in each?

    2. I expect people will hate the AP suggestion but seriously, what are they for? For outfits of 100+ to gum up bases for eternity? Or to cover a flank for a sniper or Engineer on a turret? The scale of the game means there are loads of these hampering roles that would otherwise be much more useful like infiltrating and LA flanking, or anyone leading a charge through a doorway/round a corner.
  6. Kevorkian

    AV turret is stationary and super easy to kill, assuming its not outside render range. Easy to kill is the tradeoff for the damage it provides. The only problem i see with it, is its range being too great.

    AP mines are annoying at times, but hardly a problem worth addressing.