GU011: Weapon and Vehicle Changes

Also one other thing in regards to MAX suits, I'm fine with them costing more because they were becoming too dominant a force in pretty much every role (Infantry Battles, Combined Arms battles, Anti-air, etc). But if they are going to cost so much they need to be more resilient to C4. A stock MAX should be able to survive a direct C4 with at least 10-20% health left imo. The tradeoff of 1 LA death + 1 C4 vs. a 350 resource MAX suit is too lopsided, and it's not like LA suicide bombing is hard.

I will support something like that anytime albeit not seeing a problem with the gu so far. But on the other side with
continent locking in mind it's only natural that a retreating faction getting more and more problems to hold on the fight.


Happens in the real world all the time. You could constantly kill more enemies than vice versa, you could be
technologically superior - all that doesn't matter. Once you fall behind your oponent production wise and in ressources
or your supplies are denied over some time - you will loose, no matter how skillfull what ever your side is.
For example germany in ww1 and more so in ww2 or any other conflict througout human history.

Honestly that's a fair counterpoint to the scaling resource cost suggestion. I just don't care for the resource system fundamentally, and would prefer to see something more similar (not identical) to what was in PS1. If there were ways to influence it beyond just capturing territory that would make a huge difference.

Maybe a combination of a scaling cost related to it's proximity to specific facility types and what not as opposed to the Warpgate in order to keep some of what you are talking about, but that's just me kind of spitballing, probably more appropriate for a suggestion thread.

TBH with the increased resource cost C4 needs toning down in general versus vehicles, or being increased in cost to suit

You're probably right, MAX suits were just the first thing that came to mind since they are the only thing that can be insta-gibbed by it even though they are basically going to cost the same as a tank from now on.

can we at least get a flak armor buff/fix for the MAX? that would be like a little bit of vaseline, instead of the total dry-**** we're about to experience.

you're INCREASING flash and harasser resource costs?

what the **** are you people smoking?

driving a flash is basically a death sentence already, why the hell would you make it cost MORE resources?

the harasser can be powerful, but its just barely more sturdy than the flash is, and doesn't warrant such a high resource cost. not to mention it takes 2 c4 to kill any vehicle in the game except for sunderers, galaxies, and possibly liberators, and light assaults can do it without ever being spotted, which means the target has absolutely no chance to defend themselves

200 resources and no timer to take out a 450 resource, 10+ minute timer MBT? this totally sounds fair
200 resources and no timer to take out a 400 resource, 10+ minute timer lighting? also sounds fair
200 resources and no timer to take out a 350 resource, 5+ minute max? yup, this one sounds fair too


can I please buy some drugs from you guys?

1. Vulcan:

- Burst Fire is now useless cause of the low dps and so it cannot be used in range combat at all
- as soon as the spin up is over, the CoF is ultra horrible and so range fight is impossible
- Damage Falloff on Range was ultra nerfed

HOW CAN SOE CALL THIS A VULCAN BUFF TO MAKE IT BETTER ON RANGE?! IT IS A NERF!!

2. Saron/Enforcer

- No nerf in sight, still 1000 times better than the useles Vulcan

Conclusion: I will cancel my SOE Membership right now. I'm not going to accept this BS anymore.

Bumping up resource costs just comes off as being even more lazy in regards to designing the bases properly. It's just going to make territory control snowball hard. It also promotes even more vehicles just hiding in the back being useless. Because we didn't have enough of those already. I can only guess there isn't enough memberships/boosts selling.

Majority of the costs changes are just flat out asinine. Lightning and Harasser costs as much as a Sunderer/more than a Galaxy? Lightning might as well be re-tuned to the NS MBT now, Harasser I don't even know. The Flash that will flip/explode at the slightest provocation or impact getting a six fold increase? I better not be able to get shot off it at that price. Actually why would I even pull a Flash at all at that cost when an ESF is practically dirt cheap in comparison? I actually find it hilarious that the least strained resource of all, air, is getting little to no increase at all.

C4 was already hideously effective for its cost, now its efficiency is effectively doubled if not more, it needs a cost increase. Even the whining about MAX's being capable of getting revived. Did any consider, I don't know, increasing the time a revive takes? So you know, actually securing the area will matter? It's not like specialty grenades are going anywhere either.

I really don't know what to think about the idea of sticking sway on a 1x scope.

What I find funny about the current implementation. Wind up + CoF + Damage degradation = A vulcan that is even worse at range due to having to burst fire so much and thus fight RoF wind up as well as much worse damage at range.....

Very true words.

I won't play tanks anymore. i certed my prowler up to 54% right now. Got the full cooldown certs, full reload time and full vulcan magazine + maximum ammo capacity and now it is all utter useles. the funny thing is, i won't miss it or cry tears about the ridiculousy failed and bad new vulcan - cause i just can't pull a tank anymore and so there is nothing to complain about.

The Night Vision nerf is ultra ridiculous cause it is/was the only effective optic. all others suffer from too big reddots or stupid recoil mechanics which make it hard to compensate recoil which larger optics than 1X. This new GU makes me speechless and fills me with hate.

Harasser teams have been dominating Lightnings and MBTs lately. They're the fastest and most agile ground vehicle that can out dps mbts and self-repair in the 3rd seat on the move. Be happy they didn't nerf the vehicle, but instead decided to increase the resource cost so they're not spammed so much.

Not true. The truth is: ENFORCER and SARON Harasser have been dominating lightnings and MBTs (and infantry and aircraft). Both weapons are overpowered and need a critical nerf.

But instead of doing that SOE decided to take all kind of vehicles out of the game. this is why the coming vulcan nerf won't hit us tr's too bad - there won't be a chance to use it anyway.

Concerning vehicle costs: https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...erning-the-increase-of-resource-costs.134359/

This isn't a problem with the Harasser, it's a problem with the Battlefield-ification of Planetside 2. Armor (specifically tanks of both the heavy and light variety and every tank type in between) should be far more durable than they are in PS2. But, since tanks are easy to kill in Battlefield, they're easy to kill in Planetside. Another reason why the Harasser is so awesome at what it does is because it has a separate, dedicated driver, and a separate, dedicated gunner. A MBT driver, at any given moment, is sharing his attention, reflexes, and thought process with two completely different activities: Mobility and Offense.

If a MBT driver could trade weapons with his gunner (or have a second gunner, one dedicated main cannon, the other dedicated to secondary) tanks would be MUCH more formidable and may even justify the ludicrous new resource costs. Right now tanks are glorified artillery. You get them to an ideal spot and park and then shoot until you move again. If drivers could actually concentrate on driving you'd see way more mobile skirmishes and significantly more effective tanks due to their new-found navigation and evasion.

very good, maybe this will make the game playable again, still waiting for no reviving maxes, less damage for max weapons and shotguns, thank you for the changes anyway.

In case anyone hasn't seen it, here's the link to Higby's comments on Reddit.

Problem is, I call bull**** on every single thing Higby said there, over one simple reason:

Then why does every vehicle have a 2,441-point certification line to drop the cooldown to 5-10 minutes depending on vehicle?

That's 610,250 experience points, or over 61 hours of playtime at 10,000 exp/hour.

Are people that invested in that cert line just supposed to **** off then, because Higby doesn't know what to tell ya?

If he's going to include such a massive oversight in his defense of these terrible decisions, I can't really trust his judgement on any of the other points he hopes to make.

I respectively disagree entirely.

ESFs+Libs have a counter. It's AA (as well as themselves). What's the counter to a MAX crash? Another MAX crash. You're arguing like the only thing being balanced here as AA MAX vs ESF+Lib. That's not the case. AI+AV MAX needs the resource nerf (and AA imho, but that's only a matter of opinion), whereas ESF+Lib distinctly don't. We're also seeing a buff to Skyguards, so cannot comment on the AA vs air balance purely on the basis of AA MAXs costing more and ESFs+Libs not costing much more.

As to your latter statement, firstly it's entirely false. AA absolutely doesn't need to be more powerful than aircraft, otherwise there's no point in having aircraft. If you aircraft are entirely outdone by the enemy AA (which is often invulnerable, hiding behind enemy lines in invulnerable spawn fortresses), the enemy doesn't need aircraft of their own, and if they don't have aircraft of their own, there's no battle for air superiority.

And then to move a little bit earlier in the statement than that, AA doesn't need to be available in the same numbers as aircraft (it currently isn't, anyway - 3 AA MAXs can deny 6 ESFs with no risk on their part at all)... It's a question of the actual balance - if one skyguard can fend off two Liberators, you don't need two Skyguards, much less three, do you?

Alright, I guess I'll toss my 2¢ into the discussion.

Ok, I can understand some of these new costs to avoid vehicle spam, but you are going to make ESF's THAT cheap in comparison to ground vehicles then harassers should be just as cheap. Since harassers are weaker than a lightning and stronger than a flash, they should be at the same price as at least an ESF. This makes even more sense when you consider that both ESF's and Harassers are both very maneuverable in their respective locations (air/ground), are fast attackers, and are both susceptible to damage from firearms in addition to the more AV weapons on tanks, rockets, and turrets. Then when you consider the proposed nerfs to anti-air weapons (with the exception of the proposed buff to the skyguard, which even then is still nearly a nerf considering the resource cost for a lightning), the last thing anybody should want is more air the ground spam from ESF's. And lastly, when you take into consideration that (unlike an ESF pilot) a single person cannot drive and fire weapons at the same time on the harasser, it becomes even more abundantly clear that the proposed price compared to the ESF is extremely overpriced (not to mention a harasser should not cost as much as a vehicle with the armor/strength that you see in a sunderer). Unless you are going to buff the harasser and make them immune from small arms fire, then rethink that cost.

These resource costs need a hard looking over again. An idea I would suggest in relation to this would be to add a way to trade in your vehicle at a warpgate for at least some of your resources (depending on condition of the vehicle) to be returned and a reset of your vehicle timer.


Overall, I do not like how this update is looking. I'm not even going to get into the new weapons nerf against the current weakest of the 3 MAXes, the NC MAX. Literally, the only good things I saw in this update are the buff to skyguards, the increased damage against ZOE MAXes, and the resource cost reduction to the currently nearly useless galaxy (honestly, I very seldom see them used for anything other than moving troops from one base to another).


Alright, I feel better getting that off my chest.

Ok, I also wanted to add my thoughts on what everyone is saying about c4. I see a lot of people complaining that c4 is only 100 infantry resources compared to the new tank cost and calling for it to be equal. The general thought seems to be, "How does 200 infantry resources equal 400/450 mechanical resources?!". But when it comes to balancing cost, there are more things to consider than just the basic up front price of the items. You also have to consider a few extra tidbits here....I'll explain.

Let's say I'm playing as an infantry class carrying two c4. First off, the target is in a tank, which has more armor, health, firepower, and speed than a standard infantry unit. On top of that, if you are actually an experienced tanker, you have a gunner (if you don't than just blame yourself). Also add on top of that, usually tanks are pulled in groups, and very often they have infantry support. If all that is said and done, and somehow I manage to get my ONE infantry through whatever support forces that tank has around him, plus that tank doesn't just roll away or move, plus the tank doesn't shoot me, plus the tank's gunner doesn't shoot me...than I deserve the kill.

If one infantry, even an LA can get through the forces in front of you to c4 you, then you just plain well weren't paying attention, perhaps buy radar? Otherwise you could always just reverse. And if you're complaining that it happens when you're battling another tank? Well that's just called strategy, you were distracted, and someone took advantage of that. You can't have your cake and eat it too. After the last buff to tanks, they are plenty strong and anyone saying otherwise just doesn't know how to use their vehicle correctly. Which brings me to what I was saying on c4...

The cost of a 450 mechanical resource tank is matched not only by the 200 infantry resource costs of c4, but also by the large amount of work that infantry had to do to get to your tank to blow it up. And if anyone says that it is just too easy for an LA to come out of nowhere and c4 the tank, that's just plain ridiculous. Just lose the tunnel vision and look around you. Heck, I play VS. Our tanks have to turn towards whatever we want to look at, so whenever I have to look around to check my surroundings my whole flipping tank has to move. But I don't get caught by ANY infantry with c4 unless I go into an area with buildings, or I'm not paying attention. And people need to learn to accept this simple rule, "THERE ARE ALWAYS RISKS FOR THE ACTIONS YOU TAKE!" If you want to push the line forward with your tank, if you want to help infantry push into an area with buildings, or push the line anywhere really, you have to accept that your tank is going to be at risk. If you want to farm infantry and just shell an area from far away, then if a single infantry can somehow get behind you when you're not looking and blow you up, they deserve it. Tanks can not, and should not, be invincible to infantry. Now I don't want armor to become obsolete, but if I am in a squad of 6 organized guys against a tank or two, I should be able to take them out if they get too close or they aren't paying attention. Basically, the resource costs may seem a bit skewed, but you also have to consider the cost of the kill itself. Infantry has to do way more work to get to that tank, while the tank has alot more advantages to prevent that from happening. And right now, it isn't like every infantry is soloing tanks. Unless you catch a tank not watching his *** and are able to tankmine/c4 it, the tank will almost always win unless you outnumber him 6 to 1. So..yeah, I feel like most of the complaining is just guys who either suck at tanking and get killed by c4 way too much cause of their bad skill or just feel like in a tank they shouldn't need to pay attention. Though I know for you dedicated tankers out there, that this resource thing is just pissing you off, and you're just trying to avoid having to wait 40 minutes to get back in your rig.

Side Note: On c4, versus the 350 Max unit cost. That one...I believe to be a bit unbalanced. Maxes should be about 250 in my opinion. Though, I guess the same thing can be said, if you are a max who gets caught off guard by regular infantry with c4, then yeah, you should die.