DETAILED PS2 SITREP (Summing Up All the QQ and PS2 Issues)

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by carbonite, Apr 8, 2013.

  1. lootandshoot

    First off let me say this i love your post and anyone who turns this into a normal fourmside 2 post should be shot. I think that the game needs MUCH more diversity in Armour and a cooler anti rpg system is and it also protects against HEAT rounds which would make AP more of an necessity to kill tanks using it.
  2. Konfuzfanten

    Just no.

    You are removing/nerfing the only thing that makes the HA the HA. The heavy shield is there to compensate for the class not having access to repair, rez/heal, stealth and jumpjets. With a useless shield why would anyone use the HA over the LA, since you would have:
    LA: 500/500 shield/health, best RoF, CQC and accuracy weapons (carbines), and jump jets.


    HA: : 500/500 shield/health, medium RoF, CQC and accuracy weapons(LMGs), okeyish anti-vehicle option that you no longer can use vs infantry. And then an extra shield, that for some reason should do jack ****...

    Another thing, the main MAX counter right now is HA, one of the main reason why is that we got our shield so we actually can take some hits before dying. Nerfing the HA is an indirect buff to the MAX.

    The HA is "Designed to combat the surge of instant nanite-assembled vehicles, their presence on the battlefield poses a serious threat to tanks and infantry alike. Their custom Reinforced Exosuit armor configuration is responsible for their ability to take hits that would kill other soldiers"

    And just to be 100% clear:
    I dont even use the NMG, i and a lot of other HA's uses the better resist shield.

    And what about the engi? Its as good at taking down vehicles as the HA is...
    • Up x 2
  3. TotalNoob

    GU07 Patchnotes:
    • NC get all of the above.
    • Fixed some descriptions for TR & VS weapons.
  4. carbonite


    My problem with the zerg is how it plays out currently in the games current state. It makes defending outpost - for players that actually try an defend - a night mare, and rage inducing. As I stated previously I have no problem with organized units that run armor/mechanize brigades and regiments. My problem is this crew of people who are like, (WE GON STEAM ROLL ALL THE WAY DOWN TO DAT DER WARPGATE BY SPAMMING AS MUCH ARMOR AND EXPLOSIVES AS WE CAN MUSTER). There is no strategy, organization of planning in that. And in turn the zergers easily steam roll and win because they have the numbers and fire power to beat defenders into submission.

    As Zapon pointed out the new lattice system will have an effect on this, for no longer will zergs be met with improper resistance.

    Planetside 2 can still achieve its epic scale without players having a wall of armor rammed down their throats. We should not let shear scale and size blind us in making a game which should be balanced.


    I am so torn on this. Should Heavy Assaults have shotguns or should they not. Unfortunately I think they should, sole reason being every class needs a legitimate viable option in CQC. However, Heavy Assaults should not have access to SMGs.


    You do know Heavy Assaults. just like every class in the game. has access to Restoration Kits and Medkits.

    For your personal knowledge I use Adrenaline Shield cause I roll in kill streaks. Currently Resist shield just dosen't feel right. Back in Beta, however, Resist Shield was the ****.

    If you had read the entire Class post you would have noticed that I pointed out that both the Heavy Assault and the Engineer are the most played class in Planetside 2. In turn, I was requesting that anti vehicle capabilities be better dispersed among the classes, in addition to, firearms also be better distributed.

    I am going to go ahead and call ******** here. Heavy Assaults primary thing is to engage and destroy vehicles. NMG (Resist Shield, and Adrenaline Shield included) should protect Heavy Assaults solely against explosive ordinance of all types (anti personnel mines, grenades, and explosive projectile ordinance). It should not absorb/mitigate small arms fire, for this interferes with the TTK of small arms a little too much. Personally if you are a boss Heavy Assault you could deal with infantry without popping NMG over shield. However a lot of us cannot, in turn it has become a severe crutch for Heavy Assault players. My suggestion may nerf over shield when it comes to small arms, but it would buff it in terms of how much explosive damage it can take/sustain/absorb/mitigate.

    On a side note, in my OP I clearly stated that if removal of small arm damage absorption/mitigation was too much, then the over-shield should just be reduced in its capability to do. However, its resilience against explosive ordinance would be increased. That is not a nerf, nor a buff.

    I have died too as Heavy Assault, it doesn't make NMG anymore balanced. I have killed a Heavy Assault with only a knife, and a pistol, that doesn't justify NMG being able to absorb/mitigate small arms fire to the degree it does currently. Moreover, I am not whining, I am simply making suggestions that I think would make Planetside 2 better. If you do not agree with something, say you don't agree, why, and leave it at that.

    Going into this post I knew my suggestions for Heavy Assault where going to receive flak, especially in regards to the over-shield ability. I feel as though a couple of you only read the first line and stopped.

    As good players, who skill levels are above average, we must not let that blind us in critically analyzing something and seeing if it is or not fair, or working in an intended manner.

    NMG in my honest opinion should provide Heavy Assaults with the ability to sustain untold amount of explosive ordinance. It should not absorb/mitigate small arms fire, as it does currently. However, as I stated in my OP, if removal of small arm damage absorption/mitigation is too much, then the amount of damage absorption/mitigation the over-shield provides should at least be reduced.


    I see what you are saying here, however I feel as though the NS Annihilator is gimped in its ability to lock on. But maybe you weren't really referring to the NS Annihilator as much as you where to the individual G2A, and G2G launchers.

    Personally I prefer my straight dumb fire weapons. However if you are gonna have lock on weapons in a game, they need to lock on and not take 3 years to do so. I stay away from lock on weapons because of the time it takes to lock on to vehicles. In turn its hard for me to combat air, but I am slowly becoming a master of dumb firing those sly ESFs.

    I will admit my launcher suggestion may not be the best most fleshed out things suggested in my OP, so lets take another crack at this. Projectile speeds for the pure dumb fire launchers (Default and NS Decimator) should be increased. The Anti Air launchers can be left as is, if the bulk of us agree they are good in their current state. The Anti Ground launchers can receive a lock on time decrease, as well as flight trajectory change (top down). The NS Annihilator should receive a decrease in lock on time. And the Empire Specific Launchers can maintain their current standing.


    I am not entirely sure if your statements stem from me not explaining things clearly or you just being caught up in your hysteria over me suggesting a Heavy Assault tweaking. If you read my entire statement you would have seen that in regards to the grenade launcher I really wasn't whole hearted in going through with this. Reason being, MAXs are getting grenade launchers in the MAX revamp. In turn, I felt that if the MAXs grenade launchers are viable (not under powered) giving Heavy Assaults a grenade launcher would create an over saturation in grenade spam, which would be adverse for all infantry across the board. Furthermore, I eventually suggested that Grenade Launchers should probably only be given to Light Assaults - which essentially would buff that class.
    • Up x 1
  5. carbonite

    This was bad conveyance on my part. That first statement of mine was primarily aimed at MBTs and Lightnings. The thinking behind it was that if you gave MBTs and Lightnings the tools to deal with various threats simultaneously but severely restricted overall ammo capacity, it would force vehicle commanders to be selective and strategic in what gun they used on each target. Obviously if you have limited ammo for your main cannon you would save it for more severe threats like another tank, but use your coaxial to deal with surrounding infantry.
    To be honest my goal isn't really to make vehicles or classes swiss army knives but to give them appropriate tools for dealing with certain situations, and rounding out each vehicle variant's capabilities.
    I see where you are coming from here. maybe either the Bomber variant or the more extensive Gunship variant is given to the Liberator. However, I do not think the Liberator should get both. For I would like to let the Galaxy have an offensive variant that players can cert into.
    This is an interesting concept. Personally, I wouldn't mine seeing implemented but I think there could be some issues with this - just cannot put my finger on it though.
    Understood and agreed.
    I see your point here, but I think there is a work around - someway - so that Ammo Sunderers can stay in the game. I really like Ammo Sunderers - coming from the advent driver of one.
    Cool beans.
    This is exactly what I was suggesting.
    Yeah the whole mine thing was just an idea I threw out there for the hell of it. Your more non lethal vehicle entrapments sound cool though.
    Valid point. However, Engineers do place mines on routes to and from outpost. So you are driving a battle bus with 12 players and you hit two mines. That's instantly 12 kills for an Engineer all because you rolled Blockade armor instead of mine guard. Yeah, that will roll over well with your passengers and outfit commander.
    Um bro, I was suggesting that it have more turret options - as in another gun option for the current turrets on the sunderer. Furthermore, to allow the people inside of the Sunderer to defend it I suggested port guns.
    The Galaxies Repair and Resupply is all one certification. The same would apply to the Sunderer. I think its rather unfortunate that currently Sunderer drivers have to bare that trade off, when they could be providing both simultaneously for their comrades.
    This was something I threw out their to work in conjunction with the Galaxy Bomber variant being able to drop mines on a pathway. However, this idea is obviously not a wise feasible idea. But in all honesty, try driving off road in a Sunderer on a continent as hilly and cayonous as Indar and tell me how many times you commit suicide.
    You could have at least provided some suggestions on how you would revamp it, or if you even think it needs to be revamped, instead of just shredding into my ideas. You do know its up for revampment on the Road Map, right?
    • Up x 1
  6. carbonite

    Cannot wait.
    Whoops. Flaressss...........thinking
    LMFAO! I think SOE will do a lot better than that.
    I know I have suggested a lot of things. Some being pretty in depth thorough borderline overalls. But when you look at the road map a lot of my suggestions tackle things that are unscheduled with the exceptions being this months Battle Flow/Base design, and the MAX revamp. With that being said, I by far do not expect these things to happen overnight, but instead SOE to take these things under heavy consideration as they work on these revampments and do finally schedule and implement them.
    Again, thank you guys for reading and responding please keep it up.
    P.S. Did anyone hit the link to read my MAX weapon suggestions in depth? I know a few of you did, but I am not sure if I conveyed that properly?
    • Up x 1
  7. WalrusJones

    In reality, a grenade launcher-type weapon would belong to all of the underutilized classes.

    With the HA, Inf, and engineer getting around 20K people.......

    And light assaults/combat medics getting roughly 12k, and 8k respectively......
    Both should get access to grenade launchers, really, as both are HIGHLY underutilized classes.
  8. Finli

    I look forward to everything in your post being ignored so they can release more shotguns and explosives.

    So far, support for this game has been disappointing.
  9. Gorganov

    I totally agree that adding variants to the existing vehicles is a great idea! It would add so much depth to the game. Also having secondary firing modes for the Tanks is something that i was surprised hasn't even been brought up. Look at Battlefield for example. All the vehicles have 2 firing modes for the main weapon, with the secondary given various options to suit different roles, allowing for specialization or versatility. The anti air had a gatling gun and close range heat seekers, and the IFV had the armor piercing rounds along with the option of a TOW missile OR Coaxial. This game NEEDS these options IMO. This is set in the future and the weaponry is somehow less advanced that what we currently have IRL.

    However, I'm not a fan of requiring a minimum of 2 people to operate tanks, perhaps giving that option to the owner of the tank is a better idea. I also think infantry are find the way they are, perhaps a few tweaks would be nice. Also adding things like hackable doors and other things that specific classes could excel at would be a great idea.

    Another thing I would like to see in this game could possibly be radar drones, laser painters (for marking high priority targets) and perhaps artillery that certain classes can spot for .
  10. Shockwave44

    Severe crutch? Who are you to decide that?

    First I want to know what your name is in game and second, the HA takes a ton of small arms fire just trying to shoot the rocket launcher. I have no problem dealing with tanks hitting me because they usually don't and I keep my distance. However, HA's are very exposed, especially from snipers, when firing so the NMG is essential.

    If I don't agree with something, I'm going to say exactly what I think.

    That's a cheap way to say my comments should be dismissed. I could say the same about you.

    Oh I see, trying to make the HA's feel bad. Nice tactic.

    This is only about is your 1 vs 1 encounters. All you're doing is just making the HA's the tanks problem now. I'm sure they're gonna love it when it takes 5 tank rounds to kill HA's. Yeah, some balance.
  11. Konfuzfanten

    And you didnt answer my question:

    Why play a HA, when a LA will be a superior combat class? The only roll of the HA will be long range vehicle combat, which the engi's anti-vehicle turret does just as well.

    If you change the heavy shield there will be no reason to play the HA.

    From the lore:

    "Their armor and shields can take more punishment than most other soldiers can, allowing them to dominate in direct close-quarters conflict where their heavy weapons are most effective."

    Its clear that lore wise the HA was made to combat both infantry and vehicles. They aint an anti-vehicles class.

    No, its a clear nerf to the HA. Again with a near useless shield in CQC, why play the class when the LA has everything the HA has, just better?

    The HA shield is working as intended: it makes the HA the primary assault class in the game, the frontline infantry, and lets us not forget:

    "Only with the introduction of Rebirthing and recent improvements in shield technology has their mantra of "endure and eradicate" become viable. While the Heavy Assault's brute-force strategy may not be the most elegant solution, it's proven itself as an effective one."
  12. Shockwave44

    Stay... off... the... roads. I just saved the devs 4 months of work.

    My outfit isn't some stuck up military run boot camp. If that happened we would just laugh at all the points we just gave that engineer. Oh and we aren't dumb enough to drive on roads in the first place.

    What was that about using it as a crutch?

    I already have a brother, bro.

    I know what you were suggesting. Anyone in the sundy should switch to HA's before they leave so they can jump out if they run into trouble. Works just fine now.

    That's another few months saved of development.

    So the tanks just have to sit next to a bunch of repair and ammo sundys? Yeah, I don't see anyone exploiting this. Ever.

    Is no one supposed to die in this world you're trying to create? An engineer has to get a kill with mines... eventually.

    I have no problem with sunderers now but if someone comes along and offers a good idea, I'll back it. If not, I'll tear it to shreds, as you put it.
  13. Shockwave44

    How much more increased? You make it any faster and I won't need my 800ms lancer anymore.

    Light assaults with grenade launchers? Are you related to Michael Bay?

    Could have saved yourself a lot of typing and just said, PS2 needs more explosions!
  14. Papio

    No need to redesign the whole tank, just shift the camera and cross-hair over to the barrels, you drive a car off centre so getting used to driving a tank that's off centre should be cake walk.

    Papio - Simple is better... most of the time.
  15. Hypersot

    well, if we're about to lose our shield, at least give us this:

  16. biterwylie

    The issue of Lock On Launchers is never addressed properly here in the forum. Someone will complain about his tank getting blown up, then the next person will say there is nothing wrong with lock on launchers as he has no problem escaping in his ESF.

    Ground and Air are fundamently different in how they can respond to being locked-on. Air can escape easily, Ground is almost always destroyed. All the moaning in the forums is about Ground Vehicles now being absolete due to lock on launchers. Reducing the Lock On and increasing damage of G2G missiles is only going to hurt the game further.
  17. cCheers

    Quick disclaimer: I’m only BR30, most of what I’m about to say does not come from first-hand experience. I don’t have any relevant degrees or certified knowledge on these matters. Consider this a personal pondering and nothing more. In addition, English is not my native language so please forgive any errors that have slipped through the spellings check.

    On infantry vs tank balance

    Okay, before we can begin this, we first need to determine what tanks are supposed to do and what their roles are in this game.
    Possible functions of tanks in this game:
    * Destroying exterior defences
    * Sieging a base
    * Defending a base
    * Hunting
    * Escorting between bases

    Destroying exterior defences:
    By that I mean destroying base turrets, possible infantry on the walls and other stationary forms of defences preventing access to the base itself. Currently, this role is only of relative use. Small bases have very little of these (although the new base layouts on the test server indicate they want to change this). Bio-labs are not applicable to this. Amp stations have hard spawns so close that it is easy for infantry to spawn there and take over this role (there actually way better at it, but more on that later). In Tech-plants this by far the most useful, as the bas e turrets can fire at the surrounding areas fairly good.
    In addition to not being very useful often, tanks are actually quite bad at this. With the exception of the base turrets, most defences on the walls and buildings have an insane amount of cover against ordnance. Because terrain is indestructible, Heavies can easily skyline approaching tanks (Skylining = standing near the edge of a raised surface so that your body is forming a silhouette against the air behind. Shots too low will hit the barricade, dealing no damage, and shots too high or to the side will miss completely, also dealing no damage. Only direct hits can actually hit you.) Leaving them vulnerable to enemy infantry rather than enemy tanks.
    The bases are in fact designed as to not support his function. That’s why there are AV turrets but no AI turrets aimed outwards. The idea was to make infantry do the assaulting. Personally I disagree, as assault should be a combined arms fight while the base fighting should be infantry-centric. Tanks can be used to effectively destroy enemy tanks in the ‘courtyard area’ should any be used as defensive measurements.

    Sieging a base:
    By that is meant shelling the ‘courtyard area’ to limit or prevent enemy movement inside the base, possibly preventing reinforcements coming from the spawn to the cap-point. A very effective tactic in smaller bases and Tech plants, not applicable in bio-labs and amp stations due to tunnels. Spawncamping is just a very successful version of this tactic. It is sieging the base to the point that ALL movement has been prevented. Several improvements have been made (and new base design continues this trend) to prevent this tactic from becoming too effective. As such it is becoming increasingly difficult for tanks to do this.

    Defending a base:
    This includes preventing enemy infantry and sunderers from approaching or entering a base. An effective but very difficult role to use because of the limited chances to pull it off. Small bases can’t pull new tanks so any tanks must be brought in from somewhere else BEFORE the enemy gets there (improved battle flow will hopefully make predicting enemy movement easier giving outfits a chance to prepare such a defence). Tech plants and Amp stations can do this with Amp stations being by far the best known example (think several on the inside tanks aimed at the gate). This is part of the opposite side of ‘Destroying exterior defences’ and attack tanks can be used to destroy defending tanks.

    Whether hunting a deployed sunderer or that damned Engi-AV turret, hunting is all about using your speed as a vehicle to quickly close in on a known enemy position (outside of a base) and destroy the target. Vehicles are remarkably good at this thanks to their speed. A single tank running amok amongst the infantry spawning around a sunderer is also counted amongst this.

    Escorting between bases:
    Whether the tanks themselves are the transport or they are accompanying a sunderbus, the principal is the same here. Tanks are used as a means to safely escort the infantry from one base fight to the next. Tank battles would occur when opposing tank escorts encounter one another or tanks are send in with the purpose of intercepting such an escort. Sadly this has become very rare indeed for two reasons:
    1) In my opinion, this is mostly due to map design. With a few exceptions (mostly on Esamir), most bases are very close to one another. So close that stationary defences of at least one base will be able to contribute to this fight. Think about the range of Engi-AV turrets, base turrets and so on. In addition some infantry zergs will simply run from one base to the next rather than ‘wait’ for tanks and sunderers to pick them up.
    2) Which brings me to the second point: those very same infantry zergs, rather than being vulnerable being left in the open, will decimate pretty much anything they encounter. We’ve all seen the groups of Heavies and Lights charging at the enemy tanks rather than taking cover. This is of course compounded by the fact that should they die, they can always respawn at the nearby base they just came from.
    Tanks have become exceedingly bad at this role. The battle sunderer, sunderers full of heavies or just a plain old foot-zerg will defeat a tank column in the open. Firing from long range is difficult because bases are so close, map design and Engi-AV turrets will easily outshoot you at that range (if they don’t fire from even further out).

    The complaints: (a.k.a. why do people have such a huge difference in experience on this matter).
    I think the large discussions and threads on tank balance stem from people seeing tanks active in very different roles. People facing a successful ’sieging’ tank will experience spawncamping. While the tank drivers trying to intercept an enemy foot-zerg or go hunting will face massive amounts of long range rockets. The balance between tank and infantry is very dependent on location, situation and role of the tank.

    Even the infamous Tank-zerg (although the same could go for any large armoured tank column) tends to fall in one of these two situations. Against a small outpost, they are unstoppable because they can ‘siege’. Against an enemy where this is not possible (walled base) or opposing forces large enough in numbers they tend to fall apart incredibly fast due to not being able to replenish their numbers quite as fast. Any protracted battled is usually won by the infantry (replenishing numbers and long range advantage).

    Good, now we have a baseline of possible roles of tanks. Now comes the question of course what role would you like to promote or discourage?
    Currently tanks are either ‘sieging’ (which very few people like and thus is being prevented with new base layouts) small bases or ‘Hunting’ and skirmishing around mayor battlefields, which only really contributes to a fight if you manage to kill enough or destroy an enemy sunderer.

    An example of the battle flow as I would like to see it would be:
    The convoy approaches the enemy base and starts taking out the exterior defences with the aid of the now embarked infantry. With the outer defences down, the infantry rush in while the tanks stay outside to protect the sunderer as spawn point. After the base is taken, everyone loads back up in the busses or tanks (not wanting to be caught out in the open) and the convoy moves to the next base.

    Let’s break this down to the individual steps and role of tanks.
    Approaching the base and ‘Destroying exterior defences’.
    To encourage this, would require tanks to have a more important role to play in this part of the assault. Currently infantry can do this better than the tanks can due to the presence of AV turrets, the lack of AI turrets and the presence of skylining infantry. So we would require some base defences that are vulnerable to tanks (shells) but more resistant to infantry (rockets), a form of flak or chaff comes to mind. I don’t mind the skylining, as this would force the attacking force to combine arms between tanks for one part of the defences and snipers / light assault for the infantry on the walls.

    Infantry rush in and tanks stay outside to protect the sunderer.
    This is already being sought after. With improved lay outs and reduced changes to fire inside the base, tanks are forced to stay outside. As the game progresses I hope more people will find out that sunderers armed with mine guard, AI secondary weaponry and deployed in an more open position are very safe to suicide runs but not to ‘hunting’ tanks. Sunderer drivers can really only choose one thing to defend against and it is up to the defenders to adapt. Once they do, tank drivers will continue to have a function even outside a base as they start to protect the sunderer against ‘hunters’.

    After the base is taken everybody loads back up.
    This can only be encouraged by making a dangerous zone between bases. Have infantry out in the open be very vulnerable. For this I would buff the splash damage of tanks back up. Yes, they will annihilate infantry, but only if those same infantry are in the open. Cover and Fire-and-forget rockets greatly even out the playing field in courtyard areas. In addition, the danger zone between bases should be longer. If we consider the current bases to have fixed locations (redesigning a map would be a tremendous amount of work) the only way to do this would be to reduce the safe zone around bases by decreasing the AV firepower of infantry on very long ranges (I’m looking at you Engi-AV turret).
    All this combined will hopefully bring back the idea of combined assaults on bases and tank battles in the open (as one side tries to catch the transports where they are vulnerable and the other is protecting them).

    Your suggestions such as giving everyone flak and increasing all rocket launcher efficiency and giving tank AI weaponry a short range would greatly countermand this. It would make infantry out in the open even stronger than it already is making tanks even more obsolete. (taking into account that spawncamping will be greatly reduced due to the new base design). Their only role still viable at that point would be ‘Hunting’. ‘

    * ‘Sieging’ becomes impossible due to new base design. Not your idea, but it’s coming because spawncamping is enjoyed by no one.
    * ‘Defending’ becomes very hard as your tanks lack the ability to push back the improved infantry (and an attack force would have fewer tanks, meaning infantry is the largest component now).
    * ‘Escort’ or transport if you would like to call it that, is just no longer necessary as the infantry would out damage the tanks. At extreme range infantry have cover and Engi-AV turrets. At medium rang infantry still have cover and rockets. And at close range infantry lose their cover but have AT mines, C4 and even more rockets.
    *I’ll concede that ‘Destroying exterior defences’ would not actually be all that influenced by the increased resilience of infantry on the walls as it is up to attacking infantry to take them out. However if you also increase the damage of Heavies, they would even further reduce the usefulness of tanks during a base assault. The Flak or Chaff upgrade could still be added to compensate for this.
    * ‘Hunting’ seems the only thing not directly affected by these changes. But then you go and propose giving sunderers more health and it also reduces the functionality of this role.

    What’s left is long range sniping which would not be able to kill infantry fast enough to influence a combat.
    • Up x 3
  18. cCheers

    On tanks individually

    Here you give a very complex and, in my opinion, ultimately unnecessary series of possible changes to prevent vehicle swarms.

    You propose giving a tank weapon multiple weapon types to combat different threats but with limited ammo to reduce wild firing, making every tank a somewhat all-rounded vehicle. I don’t see how giving more versatility to tanks would reduce swarm formation. And what would then be the role of the passenger? Why not pull two tanks, both capable of dealing with other tanks and infantry, rather than one tank? Right now, you need that second gunner to increase your functionality, to protect you from targets your main gun can’t handle, not just your efficiency. But when every tank is somewhat capable of everything, is it more advantageous to have a passenger or to have an additional tank?
    You give ammo as the primary restraint on these new tanks, and then give sunderers the ability to go both ammo and repair at the same time and also increase their health for more sustainability. Thus immediately removing the one drawback you set upon your own tank design. In addition, as nearly every base has an ammo tower; their limited ammo would only need to suffice to take the next base.

    On multiple seats, we can partly agree. But I would strongly disagree on the mandatory driver part. For the enjoyment of the game every player should be able to contribute to a battle. Not just drive to a good firing position and then watch and hear your friend having fun blowing stuff up. I know there are dedicated drivers and pilots out there (I drive and stay with sundy most times myself) but if we want large massive tank battles, there must be at least one one-person tank. So that even the most casual of players can contribute to the massive feeling everyone is enjoying.

    As for resource cost I tend to agree, Fewer more powerful tanks at a higher cost would be more appropriate and increase the value of resources.

    As for the variants? Why? To make a different variant just change your main weapon, choose a different secondary weapon and alter your certs. Adding an additional layer and mechanic serves no purpose here other than forcing one specific primary with one specific secondary gun which goes against the core principal of these customizations. Having every tank being capable of fighting every kind of enemy at the same time would also discourage teamwork. Why coordinate with skyguards and cobalt HE tanks when every tank has some AI and AA capabilities? Everyone could just pull the same all-round tank and be overall decent against everything. It would only serve to make all tanks more homogeneous.

    On aircraft loadouts

    Now you’re just trying to make things needlessly complicated :)

    The same thing applies here as it does for the ground vehicles.
    You want an interceptor? Go ‘Racing Chassis’ with ‘Stealth’ and Rotary cannon.
    You want a dogfighter? Go ‘Dog Fighting Chassis’ with ‘Composite armour’ and needler cannon.

    What I’m trying to say is; you can already customise your vehicle to a certain degree. If you want more, just ask for more differentiating certs, more different cert trees, more cert slots and/or the ability activate more certs at the same time. I too want even more customization, there is hardly ever anything wrong with more customization. But we can do this within the already exiting framework of certs so there is no need to add ‘Air blocks’.

    I do like your Idea of differentiating resource costs attributed to different upgrades. As that gives another method for certs to be balanced against one another, giving more variation in their power or utility.

    I would also be very careful about overlapping roles. There already is a liberator, making the galaxy the same serves very little purpose. Just give more options to said liberator.

    As for the increased lock-on speed: I think I understand what you’re trying to say. You feel the lock-ons are too slow to contribute when an ESF flying around at full speed and even those hovering can easily just deploy their flare and fly away while waiting for their cooldown. But be very careful about what you try to adjust here. Even without firing, a simple lock-on warning will often force an ESF to start taking evasive manoeuvres preventing from taking a good shot at anything. By merely aiming your weapon you are already reducing his efficiency because of the potential threat you pose. Not every ESF has flares and even the ones that do can only stop a one rocket before being forced to flee and stay away for 25 seconds. A single rocket is enough to scare away an ESF for 25 rockets because, once again, you pose a substantial threat to him. My point is, lock-on rockets won’t get much kills, but their presence and potential damage is enough to have an influence on the battlefield. So be very careful about shortening their lock-on. They are designed specifically with countermeasures in mind for a reason.

    On Infantry

    The Flak Amour and the Heavies are much related to the Tank VS Infantry discussion as mentioned earlier. I very strongly oppose buffing the AV capabilities of infantry even further. The shield of the Heavies is in way also related to this. If we want the outdoors to be tank-zone and inside the base to be infantry-zone, we need something to make the heavy unique even when inside the base. For that, they really need their shield, or there would be no reason to ever pull a Heavy Assault inside a base. Thus rendering the ‘Assault’ part of their name rather moot.

    On weapon lay out there is a very similar argument as against the vehicle all-round weaponry. Right now every class has its own weapons, its own strengths and weaknesses. Giving every class more of the same weapons will remove this distinction. Be it due to abilities, weapons or certs, every class plays completely different and that is a very good thing. It promotes teamwork, it gives variety to your play and it gives a sense of identity.

    As for balance, these things take time and are largely based on anecdotal evidence. I would not make any claims on these without seeing the actual statistics.

    I followed your link to find your propositions on MAX’s. I’m a little confused, you want to add weaknesses (knee caps and back) to prevent them from charging blindly towards the enemy, and then give them the ability to use concussion grenades and flash bangs that do just that. You want to promote their team dependency and give them a grenade which was only usable by other classes. I do like the idea of a backside weakness, thus further exasperating the reduced mobility of maxes.

    If you want, I can do a more in depth analysis of Air VS Infantry as well. But it seemed less prudent considering the current discussions on the forum.

    TLDR; Go read the entire post. On this I greatly agree with the OP. If we want rational discussions based on arguments we can’t have people skipping them entirely.
    • Up x 2
  19. Ash87

    Very well put.

    I think that the whole issue of a driver not getting to have fun, could be mitigated by either giving them some kind of small machine gun, or just granting them gunner XP. I think Gunner XP actually is the better of those two options. You are actively encouraged this way, to keep your gunners alive, so that they can keep raking in XP For you. You see this kind of play in liberators now, where the pilot will interact with the gunners to make sure everyone has the best angles, ammo is topped off, the aircraft is not in immediate danger, all so that they will continue to reap the rewards.

    Your basically devoting one whole seat to ensuring the survival of the vehicle, which is, in and of itself, not a bad thing.

    As to tank specializations, I would say that you also have to consider what doors this opens in the future. If vehicles have paths of specialization you can cert down, to unlock additional abilities devoted to a single style of combat, you leave the door open for more variety in existing vehicles, down the road. What if in the future they add in artillery for instance. If you cert into the artillery path on your MBT, you could effectively make it so that the MBT can become the artillery piece. This would mean we wouldn't need a whole other vehicle made. That is a whole other vehicle that has to be designed by the developers. Balanced, pushed through the test server, etc. Rather than 10 vehicles with individual functions, you get a few that have endless customization. I would say people would tend to want the freedom to customize what they already have, more than having to buy Racer frame Again, for yet another tank. I see what your saying with: "Why would you want something other than something that was effective against all targets?" but we've already answered that question with AP Rounds. AP Rounds are completely useless against infantry unless you hit them directly, which isn't easy with a tank round with no blast radius. By your logic, people would Only use Heat rounds, they are all around the best. But, we have plenty of tanks that pull AP. People -want- specialized weapons, especially when you get into larger groups.
    • Up x 2
  20. Tanelorn

    This is not a SITREP, nor are you "summing up" anything. Its just your personal wish list for changing the game. Label it as such and this is a good suggestion thread. As it stands, you are misleading others who come in to read it (including devs).