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

I can sum up my whole experience with PS2 since early beta (still) with this "personal report", weitten in proper military tacticbabble:

More RTS and MMO, less BF and COD.

Didn't read the OP yet though, so i don't know in how far this is a valid catchphrase for the majority.

~On MBTs Crews.

This has debated to death since PS2 was announced (go into the necro section of Planetside-Universe, you will se many). I would have liked to see that with MBTs but i can understand why the idea was looked over and not implemented. Its less friendly to new players. With a crewed MBT you need coordination and frankly most people dont trust random people on the internet to actually do something like that. Play BF3 and get a few incompetent gunners for the attack choppers and its clear why.

A solution that i think is better and more feasible with us being 4 months into the game, people have already spend time and money in as well, would be to nerf the main cannons of the MBTs and buff the secondary weapon (turret). So it can still be crewed by one person, if needed, but it makes the tank roughly half as effective as if it were fully crewed (2/2).

I think that is a much more feasible and doable suggestion at this point that could be done tomorrow and doesnt need months of fine tuning.

~on NMG

As others have stated, its what makes HA what they are. They are meant to be a multi role class because other class abilities give supportive roles. The NMG is also not an instant "i win" button as some people like to assume. Without the shield HA are essentially useless. Just as if you removed the med tool from medics. To argue HA are solely an anti vehicle class thus dont need it, is just a bit short sighted. Other classes such as Eng and LA have some very good AV mechanics and tools.

So suddenly if you remove the shield ability these two other classes become even more potent at being both AV and AI, so are we then to remove their class ability for the sake of removing all multi-role classes? Seems like a very slippery slope there.

Heavy assault are meant to be heavy. The ability needs manual activation, shields do not regen when engaged. Movement is slowed down, and suddenly you are painted as this large Red/Blue/Purple target for the world to see. Sure on 1v1 it may be frustrating with other classes. I dont get upset because a light assault got onto a roof and killed me from there. I dont get upset that an Engineer repaired a vehicle i was so close to killing. I dont get upset that an Infiltrator used his cloak to get away. I certainly dont get upset that a MAX just destroyed me.

Class v class is not balanced 1v1 at any level and never should be.

~on Resource cost/gain

Higher resource cost punishes the lower populated faction. They do not gain resources as fast, and have smaller numbers to even secure areas to even combat that. It makes the larger faction more powerful and only ensures that they stay that way. Many servers currently have one faction with 40%+ population for most of the day. Even though some servers may be evenly populated you can not make changes that adversely affect those who are not. Any resource gain change or cost increase would adversly affect imbalanced servers and cause an even larger imbalance in the future.

~Opinion on the rest of the suggestions

I like the idea of more ordinance for vehicles. I would like to see air actually get bombs, but of course that can cause huge imbalance issue if not created properly.

As for class changes... they are fine as is in my opinion. They all have defining characteristics, a few tweaks here and there are needed but not drastic.

For base design, dear god yes. The posts you highlighted i like a lot. Adding even just simple wall structures around them or using terrain for the same effect is a great idea. Outposts right now feel way too much of just random buildings with no purpose. So adding a few things here and there to make each outpost feel like it has a purpose being there, other thana glorified spawn point, is needed.

ESFs moving to a crewed system. Its like with MBTs that ive highlighted above, it is too much too late. Air has been, for the most part, fairly well balanced now. The ability to fire both main gun and secondary at the same time, while requiring two people, could be just too much damage too fast. There are many more problems than it solves, especially to those already invested in ESFs. Its a drastic change to make 4 months out of the gate, and drastic changes are never good in games because it deters many away since it causes a feeling of uneasiness for what future updates might hold.

So... Misleading the developers of the game.

Your making it sound like he's playing a flute to lead everyone someplace to drown them. It's just an opinion post. Critique it, post a dissenting point, or voice support.

UPDATE/REVISION/CLARIFICATION

OVERVIEW

Guys I cannot thank you enough for responding to my thread, providing critiques, and likes.

cCheers, even-though you don't agree with the bulk of my thread, you deserve a medal good sir. Your feedback helped me see some of the flaws in my original post.

With all the response taken under consideration I have gone back and made some consents/revisions to some of my original post.

Moreover, while prowling the threads today I found this: http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...ltimate-combined-arms-gameplay-thread.114504/ by EliteEskimo - go check it out. Majority of things in his thread I agree with and I will try to incorporate some things into my revision here.

BASES (This needs to be made clear)

Currently the combined arms battle is unstable due to lack of certain constraints and overall structure. This has lead to the current attempt in balancing the game through buffing Infantry AV utilities, and nerfing Vehicle capabilities.

A lot of every-bodies woes currently, believe it or not, stem from the design and structure of our current play space. I cannot express how pivotal it is for the balance of a game, offering combined arms engagements, to have good base design and structure. If Planetside 2 continues in the positive direction, as being shown on the Test Server, a lot of the issues with the current Vehicle vs. Infantry formula will be solved. Furthermore, it will allow us to see what is truly wrong with each of these keys parties in Planetside.

VEHICLES

Variants

The idea behind the vehicle variants was to offer more than just variants, but to visually represent all the different possibilities with the current vehicles. The visual aspect would effect the certification menus, vehicle models, a few vehicle stats, and resources alike.

The best example would be the transport variants of the ESF (personal transport, and scout vtol). Currently I use my ESF for personal transport: Racer, Ejection System, and Stealth. The suggestion of making this a variant you could cert would open this setup to have all weapons stripped from the model (so that an Infiltrator could apply a wraith effect), and so that acquisition timer would be less than pulling an ESF in general. Why should I incur the penalty of pulling a transportation ESF at the same rate of a combat ESF? Furthermore, lets say I am an Infiltrator, and I wanna get some were fast and stealthy. The current certifications do not take you off the radar, furthermore, even at max altitude I will still run into conflict with other ESFs. Allowing Infiltrators to be able to apply Wraith to a none armed ESF would be feasible for them.

Crews

Crewing the ESF and Lightning I can give up. I understand, and agree that their should be vehicles in the game that solo players can operate by themselves. However MBTs, should be crewed vehicles (3/3).

MBTs

Even though crews may never be implemented into the game, if it is, I believe the tank driver should be given control of a secondary turret (anti infantry/anti air) to aid in the defense of the tank. This would give the driver a little something extra to do.

In the line of variants, and feeding off of both cCheers and EliteEskimos posts, MBTs should have the role of being Siege Tanks and or Hunter/Killers.

Siege

Would give the MBTs a lot more health than your standard base model. Its purpose would be to tackle base defenses (turrets, entrenched troops), and escort friendly troops up to the base. The extra health provided by a complete Composite Armor certification would allow it to take more damage - but in turn provide infantry with a nice peice of cover that they know would last longer than a few seconds, if attacking a well defended base.

Hunter Killer

Would provide MBTs with speed and the certifications to hunt down and destroy enemy vehicles across the map.

SUNDERER

I see what the lot of you are saying about my changes to the Sunderer. I have not quite balanced them out yet, so I am just going to leave this open. Will post a more balanced change later.

GALAXY

As much as I wanted the Galaxies to have an offensive role/ability maybe it would take to much away from the Liberator. In turn, the Bomber and Gunship (enhancement) should be given to the Liberator.

INFANTRY

Launchers

Except for the Annihilator, lets leave the lock on launcher where they currently are. The Annihilator still needs a lock on timer reduction. However, the dumb fire launchers really do need a projectile speed boost. In EliteEskimo's opinion a 10-20% increase which I agree with.

Heavy Assault

My suggestions for Heavy Assault are some of the most criticized in my original post. My thoughts/suggestions for Heavy Assault stem from my total of 295h 16m playing Planetside, of which 178h 24m as Heavy Assault. Moreover, the fear that playing this class generated in me.

That fear is that the Heavy Assault is a better shock trooper than Light Assault. If not the idea of shock trooper, short to medium range combat. Is it not in the lore/description that Light Assaults excel in that area of battle? My fear does not go unjustified or reasoned, I can currently equip my Adrenaline Overshield, an Uppercut or BlackJack (Buck or Slugs), Nanoweave or Flak, and Restoration or Medkits. Go into a short to medium range battle and go on "Running Riot"s time and time again, not giving a **** about any other class. MAXs don't even scare me cause I stun them with a concussion grenade and dump my shotgun into them.

Why would I want to use a jumpjet when I can use an over-shield that mitigates all forms of damage. One hit kill majority of classes, heal myself, and take on vehicles at safe distances.

Heavy Assault is too versatile for the overall balance of the game. You have to ask yourself, out of five classes why do majority play Heavy Assault? People claim that the only effective range for LMGs are short and medium, however could players who know how to manage recoil, and aim can extend the effective range of LMGs to long. Not to mention the fact that there are LMGs in the game dedicated to long range engagements as well as short.

This is why I suggested what I suggested for Heavy Assaults. Either remove shotguns or smgs from the class. And adjust Nanite Mesh Generator the over-shield. I am not asking or saying Heavy Assaults should lose their over-shield, I am asking that Heavy Assault's over-shield lose the ability to mitigate/absorb small arms fire, but in turn receive a buff in explosive resistance. But as I stated before if complete removal of that aspect of NMG is too much then just reduce its capability to do so.

CONCLUSION

Once again, thanks for all the responses. I really do hope that SOE takes some things from this thread and implement them into the game.

If you guys haven't checked out this thread: http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...ltimate-combined-arms-gameplay-thread.114504/ by EliteEskimo, you should. He has made a thorough thread discussing the combined arms aspect of Planetside 2.

Very detailed and very reflective on the current state of the game. I wholeheartedly agree with this guys post.

The only qualms I have is with the detailed vehicle specializations. Currently there are de-facto go to specializations like hover for ESFs since the others are a marginal upgrade and situational at best (dogfighter can literally be gained by increasing mouse sensitivity) so in order to specialized crafts locked into specialized abilities they have to be on par and provide an equal upgrade and for those crafts lest one specialization be physically better than any other one regardless of what role you specced into.

You're gonna make me blush

Yeah, I just posted a very similar post over there. But with more focus on AV-weaponry.

Back to the discussion:

Bases:
On a new base desing being necessary, we can both agree. But luckily, it is already comming (based on the latest FNO and the bases on the test server). They seem to primarily prevent 'sieging', allowing defenders to actually respond to attackers.

Vehicles:
I think I understand what you're suggesting. No cert tree currentlychanges the pressene of weapons or alter the number of passengers to the vehicle. I still think the Cert framework can be used for this. Consider the huge difference in functionality between a sunderer with shield diffuser and an sunderer with AMS selected. If they can make certs that alter fundamental properties (like the prescence of a primary weapon) it could provide what you are looking for without requiring a new mechanic.

I definitly love your idea of having slower but much more resistant tanks designed to advance with the infantry and a faster hunter tank. I think this was the original idea behind the MBT and lightning, but due to the low TTK of MBT's it has never really worked.
Infantry:
Mmh, if we want to stimulate 'hunting' in tanks and make them more powerfull in open fighting, I wouldn't buff any Long-Range AV weaponry.

The Heavy assault vs Light assault. I find this to be a very close call. Heavies have their shield and assault rifles giving them a very clear advantage on the medium range engagments. But how often has a Light Assault attacked you from behind with his shotgun? Flew in through the balcony, catching you facing the wrong direction? Went over the base walls, dropping C4 on your turret? Light assaults are not meant to be direct competitors to Heavies, but they can be even more dangerous if used to effectivly flank someone. Both combined, can flush rooms in a matter of seconds. Heavies go through the front door and Lights go through the balcony and both have a skill that supports this role.

I do agree that the Heavy is slightly too all-round with both an amazing AI weapon and an AV weapon. Personally, I think both should be a primary weapon, forcing him to choose his role in the engagment. It would also increase their dependency on other classes to keep him safe, increasing teamwork.

As for the balance between SMG, shotguns, rifles, etc.... I don't have enough experience or data to give a definitve statement on these. I'm never too keen on arguing individual balance.

Thanks for the replies and the good discussion.

Hey Carbonite you definitely put a lot of detail into this thread and bring up a lot of interesting ideas. Most of them are ones I hadn't considered and don't know how to explain which ones would or wouldn't work. I definitely agreed with you on the Prowler's bad tank design, how HEAT turrets should function, That MBT's need to be crewed, and that bases need more depth. That being said there were a few ideas that I didn't agree with at all.

1. Light Assault already has C4 at it's disposal, being able to sabotage a 3/3 tank that cost 450+ resources would be really imbalanced for the crew. I also think spamming grenades is likely a gun design that will annoy a lot of people in confined spaces like bio labs.

2. Launchers- Lock-ons should never do more damage than dumbfire launcher options ever. Low skill cap weapons should never be rewarded with high damage. If anything the dumbfire launchers are the only type that should do significant damage since they require aiming and path finding on the target to make the hit.

Other than that you gave a ton of options, so many fact that I don't know which ones I should address or talk about because there are so many with potential. Keep up with the creativity man , this game needs more depth and not more of the same OP weapons that later get nerfed to trash.

I think the OP spent more time writing about the game then he does playing it.

Put the same effort into a uni degree and get a doctorate or something.

Friendly bump for crewed vehicles.