Game Balence

What things would you people like to see added or changed in the game ATM.
What kind of updates and changed do you think are needed/ you really want. Keep this thread about game balance and not about bugs like crashing and stuff.


Fire away forum side

i like stronger vehicles back including/especially max and land, not as much as fire power but armor

wall/tower cannons should do way more damage to vehicles

infantry vs infantry i think its fine as it is

i'm sure this is not popular but i really like to double the price of deployables BUT at the same time double the damage they cause as well , its just ridiculous that you have to put down 2 or 3 ?! whats the point of that ?!

i would like to see the light assault getting a BRAND NEW type of deployable replacing the C4, so they can still jump out and destroy aircraft in mid air, but would not be able to do the same to infantry and land vehicles

I want to feel the "awwww crap" factor that I used to get with this game.

By this, I want to crap my pants at he site of certain units not laugh at them and not worry.

In short, please stop nerfing things..

I'd like to see buff to grammar ****'s

Nerf to MAX's killing potential; preferably by 50% and then buff their health by 50%

Cut MAX DPS considerably (I'm talking like 75 percent reduction) and raise their health up to about 6,000. Make their role more of a bullet sponge rather than a 350-resource "I win" button.

And why would anyone bother to shoot at them when they do sod all damage and take for ever to kill? Or did you intend to give them a taunt ability that forces players to shoot at them as well?

As to the OP; removing from continental grid all current small bases and about half the 3 cap bases (possibly all but I think that might leave it a bit to blank).The new network should be significantly more spread out giving a lot more of ground to cover between the bases. The existing one cap bases to function as PS1 towers; takable by any faction relatively quickly (about the length of flipping the point x2 or x3) with out needing any coherence to anything while the big bases go are all LLU based capture. This would open up a long stretch of land to fight on with infantry pushing closer to cap the neutral bases for forward supply while giving a reason for transport to exist beyond going from WG -> Fight for a random player and allow much more ground to be fought over while the LLU run back forces the enemy AND attackers to spread out more.

Improved lag compensation algorithm (So that I have the same amount of time to shoot the enemy as they do me).
And a radar that is actually synced to what I am seeing.

I'd like an update that gives the game the ability to physically stab people who write "Balence".

I realize PS2 is not and never will be a simulation or anything close to resembling one. But its worth noting.. Realism balances itself. That being said.. I'd prefer a game that makes logical sense over a game thats really well balanced. So an infantry wouldn't take a 120mm HEAT round to the gut and walk it off.

"Balance" is a played out idea. Its now used as a code word for people to get what they want; usually a nerfing of something that scares them.

It is up to players to achieve balance and then tip the balance to their favor. One day, players will face up to their challenges, but not until the very profitable gaming formula of scripted wins and butt-pats is played out by game companies.

Real life combat is ANYTHING but balanced.

You mean the way folks used to react to ESFs with rocket pods? Ah, the beta days...

people armed with guns from the 40's-60's being dominated by aircraft with fully explosive auto cannons with IR-optics.

people strapping explosives to themselves to cause as much damage as possible.

War is so fair lol

Sure it is, the good guy ALWAYS wins, because whoever wins, considers themselves the good guys.

I disagree. Real life combat is perfectly balanced, because there are no artificial rules to regulate actions. If an actual engagement isn't "balanced" (ie. "fair"), then its because one side failed to prepare for whatever reason. The biggest factors here are usually lack of equipment and training. These two things are non-factors in video games.

i want see room complex under the Biolab, Tech Plant, AMP and for Interlink fapility

Rather they just added back all of the ones they have removed. Be more fun if there were simply twice as many firing, then if they simply did more damage.

They are distinctly not non-factors. They reduce development to an arbitrary permissiveness (your 'artificial rules to regulate actions') - it's a videogame where there are no consequences. If I can be prepared in any way I want 'realistically' because equipment and training and non-factors, then I'm going to detonate a 500 megaton bomb and that's game over, right? So we remove that, because it's boring gameplay. We've arbitrarily drawn a line through 'realism' as to what's 'fun' and what isn't. We've lost our absolutist pursuit of realism, so in our pseudo-realistic sim, where should we draw the line? If changing one more gamebreaker (bio-weapons, maybe?) for the sake of fun, why not change a few more etc...

Eventually we end up in the pursuit of fun, not the pursuit of realism, because fun is more appealing than raw balance.

Tactical nukes and bio weapons aren't in many simulations, not because they're not fun, but because they're outside the scope of the simulation. This isn't The Matrix. We don't have supercomputers that allow us to recreate the world in perfect detail. So simulations aim to simulate a small subset of the experience as accurately as possible given technological limitations. Included in that simulation is a model of the supply of equipment, which would ideally start out equal and change depending on how things are modeled and how each side progresses. The scope of the simulation regulates the type of equipment available and the supply model dictates how much. So yes, equipment is a factor, but not in the way I was referring.

And note that realistic doesn't mean "exactly like real life". Google says it means "having or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected". So it just means things are predictable.. logical.. All projectiles would have the same gravity. Something that can penetrate and destroy a tank would kill an infantryman.. etc..