GU011: Weapon and Vehicle Changes

Too much. Make it 75 or 60 please.

Too much. Make it 300 please. They cant compete with optimal used Mainbattle-Tanks.

How about this? https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/why-the-galaxy-is-just-making-me-yawn.132877/
And then make it cost 600 or 700. A nondeployable boredom like the Galaxy wont be getting popular just because you reduce its costs. You are trying way to hard to make people use the unattractive content. Make it attractive, then people will use it. Seriously.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. 350? But I guess this is ok too.

............................................................................... you know you dont have to put at least one totally outragerous content in the game with every patch to make people puke. : |

You know what IM THINKING ABOUT ZOE? Here it comes, compact and true to my thoughts:
- ZOE is complete TRASH since the nerf. It doesnt focus on mobility, the trademark of the VS.
It is risky to use, makes me a freekill at darker daytimes, I cant put Scopes on my weapons, I cant really aim with my weapons, I can be taken out for "200" Infantrycosts by 2 C4's and therefore...
... the costs shouldt definitely NOT exceed 200 !! This is unfair and offending me, who certed out the reduced cooldowntimer for the Max-unit to the highest rank, when im now confronted with an unreasonable high cost for something that is just not worth the ressources if im unlucky just once.

As if Maxes can beat C4-ambushes! As if Maxes can beat Tankmine-ambushes! THEY CANT !!!
They are a slow, unflexible content that needs to have a resupply-terminal nearby to be able to adapt to situations, the ZOE is making the max not even fast but near to average speed and now you want to make it even more risky?!?!
Often enough Maxes are waste of time, cause an "Ressource-Ambush" would have been better and now you want to bind it even more on braindead Zergs?
THIS IS BEYOND INSULTING !!!

Now you want to DENY the ZOE-user at least the increased damage they deserve for not being really mobile, increase their damage-input EVEN MORE at the same time AND without a good reason want to nerf one weapon they use while they must even transforming themself in Glascannons?!?!
WHATS GOING ON WITH YOU!?!?!

Oh wow that was too be expected even tough I didnt expected it anytime soon?
But why cant I shake off the feeling this is just to shut me up for whats currently happening to my ZOE-Max?!?!
Not WORKING, SOE. The carrot and stick act is not my thing!!!!!!!!!!

Never put your true motives near to your masked actions? They will be discovered.
Or you are succeeding in letting it look like thats the case. You dont need to ruin Bursters to make people use the rarely drawn Skyguard-Lightning. Again a nerf of popular playstiles, SOE?
You know that most people are ALREADY keeping their distance in order to have Bursters not able to destroy them? And they still shoot their missles from afar with high precision?

Just because "Air-content" is hard to master, you are now nerfing the only thing able to effectivly ward off Air-Terrorists? How uncool. Better make it so that if something RENDERS for someone, that someone is also rendered for the target.
Cause then you wouldnt need to resort to such unreasonable things.

Can you tell us one logical reason why this should be the case, at all?
I just thought you are ruining the effort of driving your Sunderer in hostile AMP-Stations, Tech-Plants and under Biolabs for no reason at all?
Well this looks very complex to me and I dont know how it will be in the game. But hopefully this wont turn Sunderers again in less attractive vehicles after you reduced the Deploy-radius and gave people reason to be happy with Sunderers.
Thanks - we are taking the carrot, the stick you can keep.

They can't always win, but a decent lightning can always compete

a big nerf to all tank drivers i guess (particularly engineers), well back to become cannon fodder for HA and LA

No. You must speak from its speed to run away and force other Tanks to run into allys lines of fire and such, right?
That is not competition. Try to 1v1 against a Heavytank used by 2 people and you will be running all the time and die when catched.
In the case you are all using Antigroundvehicle-weaponry.

But thats just natural. 2 people are stronger as just 1 opponent.
And its not as easy to try and outmaneuver them in a vehicle as by Infantry.

I don't 'speak from its speed', I speak from experience.

If tanks/vehicles are going to cost this much they need to be given a corresponding armour/hit-point increase to make them more durable.

This is a long post if you don't like reading skip to my bullet points at the end

Overview

The new resource costs planned for GU011 are proving quite controversial for alot of members here. I don't think personally SOE are wrong to be reassessing the cost associated with pulling vehicles because at the moment there is an ease at which you can endlessly pull whatever you want.

What is also correct is what Higby said in his reddit post, "That resources don't mean all that much because they are too easy to obtain". This is completely correct, the average player won't run into a situation where they can't pull a certain vehicle because they are out of resources. I never personally find it an issue. Fact is they have the figures and they know this to be true.

Now what they have done is imo half right, they have increased the values to all vehicles to better represent their value. This will in turn make it more important for you to fight over control of particular resources. A mechanized focused outfit will want to and need to control territory that grants them that income. And this change to value may make them more important.

Hex better than Lattice for what Higby's comments suggest they want

A big problem with this though is the lattice. On a hex system you could tactically decide to go attack certain regions because of what they give to you. The lattice restricts that and forces you through hoops to get there which seems at odds with Higby's comments about allowing players to fight purposefully in regions that grant you a bonus to a certain kind of resource because you couldn't take it over or force a fight there.

Dynamic Vehicle Resource Value

Another issue is that it is a base cost to pull any kind of vehicle. My proposal is to make resource cost dependent upon what the vehicle in question is equipped with and allow players to decide what they want or even if they can afford to take a certain set up.

The Flash as a prime example is a very steep price at 150 considering a lot of people use it purely as a taxi, I know I use that particular vehicle for that purpose and taking that away from people is only going to add frustration. It doesn't fix the issue. i don't think Flash spam is something I have ever seen complained about on these forums.

I suggest keeping the base Flash at a value of 25 and adding a cost to the various things you equip it with obviously these values I'm giving can be tweaked to better suit their usefulness and power but these are just examples

Example:

Flash Buggy: 25
M40 Fury: 25
Scout Radar: 25
Mine Guard: 10
Surger Power Chassis: 10

Total resource cost: 95

This allows players to tailor what they are doing based upon the given situation. Maybe they can't afford to pull a fully loaded Flash but maybe they will be willing to lose the Chassis. It gives the player more strategic decisions to make and gives the player more interactivity and power, which is never a bad thing to give a player.

This can be applied to all vehicles where a cost is added to everything.

Cert Tree for Vehicle Specialized Outfits and/or solo players

One thing this system can't do is penalize players that like to play a certain way. Preventing players from playing in the way they find most fun will only give them cause to grow frustrated and leave and that is the last thing a business or the player base needs.

Having them fight for those resources is one way to make fights happens and is a good direction. However much like the acquisition timer players will imo with this system need another tree that can help to overall reduce the cost.

I'm not talking a huge amount but noticeable enough that players that specialize aren't left out in the cold. Other players that play infantry, air and tanks won't notice so much as they switch freely to what ever takes their fancy or suits the situation. They therefore would be unlikely to spend hard earned certs into the trees I am suggesting as it wouldn't give them visible results.

I would instead suggest that much like the acquisition tree there be 10 ranks each decreasing resource cost by 2% so the top rank is 20% with a cost similar to the acquisition tree where the last rank is 1000 certs.

So say a MBT were to in my new system cost 600 resources when fully kitted out, well this could be reduced to 480.

If vehicles are to cost this much they need to be tougher

As it stands a MBT can be destroyed with 2 C4, this will be completely unbalanced when you take into consideration the new cost to pull these vehicles.

Either tanks need an overall buff to armor or C4 needs to reduced in power. It should still be able to decimate a group of clustered soldiers but shouldn't make an air walking LA God

Summary

- Dynamic resource cost system that takes into effect what any given vehicle is equipped with

- A Hex system will better suit a game where resource giving territories are more of a focus for certain groups of players

- Cert tree for resource cost m thee acquisition timer tree. Only specialized players will heavily cert into this and mos others may only grab the first couple ranks if that. It will prevent players being left completely out in the cold

- Vehicles need to be better protected against C4 if cost is too be so high

Thanks for your time if you managed to reads it all, I know I waffled on

Normally 10 AA Maxes are pulled, after the whole zerg has been terrorized by Air for 5 mintes, and nearly every vehicle was destroyed.

Know this "proof or it didnt happen".
And even if, that must mean your opponents are noobs or the terrain was in your favour.

Sorry, but if you want to turn this into another CoD clone where vehicle's don't matter i'm out.

The ease of destroying vehicles with infinitely spammable almost instantly respawning infantry is ridiculous and so often completely out of the tankers hands.

What is different and fun about PS2 is the vehicle gameplay. If I wanted to play infantry I am spoilt for choice. This game has something different about it, and the way you are trying to kill that alternative gameplay is shameful. Tank spam is a problem, but frankly so is Heavy / C4 spam. Its a problem that never should have existed in the first place though. Unless you are going to put a res cost on heavy rockets and cut the damage on C4 you are really going to mess things up. Tanks should not be helpless XP pinata's as they are so often these days.

Anyway, i'm out until vehicle gameplay is seriously addressed. It feels like you really don't want any alternative playstyles to infantry.

A tank-hunter lightning poses a threat to tanks. It is not hard to understand.

Other than the obvious "where did that come from" cost increase on the Flash, the only sticking point I see in the increases is the relative cost of the Lightning/Harasser compared to a MBT. They're currently 80% the cost of a MBT. With MBT cost being increased to 450, 80% of that is 360 so it seems like 350 or 375 might be a better fit for Harasser/Lightning. 400 just seems a little much in comparison as that's 89% of the cost of a MBT.

I still hope the increases are only half the story, but in terms of the new prices themselves that's what stands out to me.

The flying fortress will be 350 while a dune buggy will be 400? How the mighty dropship has fallen.

and 150 too much for Flash.

"Sorry, but if you want to turn this into another CoD clone where vehicle's don't matter i'm out."

For the past three days, it has been impossible on Ceres to pull out a Vanguard.
What a cool gameplay !

I appreciate this balancing work SOE thanks!

You take quite long time to do things

But in the end you do it, and this is important.


By the way, the chaingun will also change sound I think, with a very noisy sound..

I think you'll make us more happy by announcing you've actually done something against 4th faction, or the counter of 4th faction which appears to be blowing up sunderers 20 minutes prior to an alert win.

Not some stupid resource cost changes and nerfs that you'll force on us either way.

I like the changes, although I pull tanks quite often. With auraxium membership, I was only limited by the acquisition timer (which is pretty obsolete now). It should stop people (including myself) from mindlessly driving your tank into dangerous situations. 150 for the flash are just stupid, it will never be pulled again by me, because I use them only for cheap and quick transport.

However, I'd like mineguard to protect against C4, too. Otherwise, the resource costs for destroying tanks (and MAXes) with C4 arent balanced imho.
But the resource cost increase might be a subtle way to "encourage" more players to get a membership with its recourse increase.

The IRNV nerf will hit me pretty hard, but I still think it is a needed nerf. Combined with a 0.75 ADS modifier weapon like the SVA-88, HA owned Biolab fights. Even LA on buildings and trees werent to be feared at all.

Ah I almost forgot: Skyguard (I rarely pulled mine the last few weeks / months) and Lasher buff hooray!

Because flashes are deadly weapons... and they can be loaded with cloaks or scout radar and spawned over and over and over. Flashes are one of the most versatile and deadliest vehicles in the game, it needs a higher resource. I almost ride exclusively Flash.

That top line about costing resources to spawn was sarcasm, sorry if it didn't come across.

Having thought about it though I have an idea that isn't sarcastic. Changing class costs 50 - 100 infantry resources, while you can designate one class to change to for free. Now vehicles are much more expensive, and currently tanks are blown up easily by infantry swapping to HA and pulling rocket launchers, this would make sense. It would also encourage you to stick to a certain playstyle and do better at your role.

Im sticking with what I said about making C4/mines more expensive too.

Don't be ridiculous.