GU011: Weapon and Vehicle Changes

So let me get this straight.. you're wanting to add ADS movement to the scope, while the weapon ALREADY has CoF bloom, and uncompensatable horizontal recoil? You've just killed the scope. You'll have an easier time hitting targets at medium range with a T9 Carv with ironsights, the worst LMG in the game simply BECAUSE of the horrible horizontal recoil. Congrats SOE, you killed the only good scope in the game. If you want people to use the variants, make them BETTER.

I have to keep my debating down to the level of this forum, or people don't understand. You're still whining, and aren't acknowledging that 2 C4 can make "1" vehicle kill ONLY.

PS. I hardly ever get killed by C4 in a tank, or Harasser, but perhaps that because I play a lot of LA so I understand the tactics and know how to avoid it. Perhaps you should give it a whirl and learn something?

Good patch.

But i think MAX price is too high (300 will be enough). Or reduce costs for grenades, c4 and mines.

Before making the Flash cost 100 make it harder to roll and explode from no reason, I lose at least some per day and I am pretty good using it.

It takes one shot to destroy it and self destruct in at least 20% of the cases you use it, a lot of people will be walking long distances after this update...

It should cost 50 or 75 max... also updating the timer for it now is almost useless

100 resources for a throw away transport that goes boom after barely hitting a tiny bump is still way too high.

I both do an don't like the sunderer no deploy zones. Mainly because I was one of the many who would put the sunderer on top of the point, but ultimately this can create a larger standstill and longer fights at smaller bases... so... I guess it makes it more interesting. Maybe if they FIXED THE SPAWN POINT BEACON ISSUE it wouldn't be as big a deal. Basically if they can drop pod on top of the point (near unhindered with the beacon unable to be dstroyed) I should be able to spawn there. But hey that's just my opinion.

So you're going to ramp up MBT costs so that we cannot pull two in a row.. but you're going to leave in all the bs that kills MBTs instantly, and rocket spammers can still pull at least 3 ESFs before they run out of resources.

Woo. Great job guys. /sarcasm

I don't know anymore.
You try to give constructive feedback and what you get are wild, wild changes that conflict with other mechanics in the game.

Timers suddenly don't mean much unless you are on a cont that is pretty much yours. On Miller at the moment I'd probably feel bad for the other empires that are always outpopped in world pop.
Flash cost is prohibitive to pulling them. (Though I can see what you were trying to stop.) Surely there is a better answer than what you have done though?
Some things like ZOE's and broken tank mine mechanics (STILL NOT FIXED!) got into the game and still haven't really been addressed or commented on.

Specialisation in this game was promised at the start to be through long and interesting cert trees. Now its being done by prohibiting you from using other weapons due to resource cost. Versatility was keeping it interesting kind of but now versatility is being sacrificed and there isn't anything else keeping the game interesting (for me anyway.) I don't pull a MBT anymore because it is woefully crap vs its major threats; C4 and rocket wielding infantry and rocket spam. I can't fly mossies to save myself and libs are like flying coffins. Infantry was pretty much all that was left. Some people like myself have almost certed into most of the things they wanted to with the current cert model. Most options only allow you to use 1 thing in each area like defence or utility making the rest of the tree useless. I don't understand what it is you are trying to do with this game anymore. You are killing longevity in gameplay terms with some of these decisions but trying to sell shiny things to make people **** themselves out but looking better means nothing when the game doesn't feel like it's evolving into something that you want to play. Most of my own outfit. (67ish people) are questioning whether to spend anymore on PS2 at the moment, GU11 isn't filling us with any hope. Someone at the top questioned why no one was buying resource boosters didn't they?

I tweeted Higby that the previous nerf to our magazine size is too much to bear with further nerfing of our CQ shotgun damage.

Long Reload + short clip + nerfed damage= dead MAX.

The reason behind the nerf to mag size was too much damage per mag if at 0 meters causing other MAXes to get owned a lot. Well, now that damage is nerfed short range, the reasoning for mag size nerfage is no longer applicable. Please restore NC MAX clip size to pre-nerf levels.

Thank you! Was really worried all those certs into Harasser and Flash CD were no longer worth it. Not *as* crazy, but still usable!

then they need to add the same thing to the lightning, as well as the speed to not have to worry about lock on's like the harrasser... its main defense should be its speed not some god awful OP armor. if its going to have armor like that it needs to be the same as any other TANK choose a side and hope you chose right. its a glorified transport vehicle it should not be even remotely as tough as a lightning TANK its ignorant and just shows very very very poor judgment on the devs in control of balancing, just shows they have no freaking clue.

so what your saying is the flash... now a "crewed" vehicles with 2 people .... should be tougher than/ as tough as hte vanguard. the harrasser is BUGGY how many defneses should it get.. it has speed most lock on's will miss, composite armor double the TTK even against AP since thats all i ever run and kill lightings with ease compared to harrasers... and you have the ability to repair while running... all those advantages and it costs the same as a lightning. either the lightning needs a serious buff or the cost needs to go up drasticly for hte harraser.

t9 carvthe worst LMG in the game.... ROFLMAO.... ROFL!!!!..... ROFLMAO... omg thanks i needed that laugh... t9 carv is so bad its the most used gun on the TR Faction... simplistly easy recoil to control i've never ADS when i play my TR just spray and kill

silly ezmode TR whining about hte carv.. LMAO man thats just classic.

the flash COMOM really!!!! i think 75 is fair since it can kill some people but 150 that just crazy

Well... Unfortunately this may not ever be ready by a Developer or Admin but I'm going to chime in for the COST changes.



ALL VEHICLES and MAX's costs should be based on a weapons loud-out and amount of certs variable.

Want a Standard Vanguard with no upgrades? -->> 300 resources
Want a Vanguard with AP and an Enforcer? --->> 450 resources

MAX, Standard no upgrades -->>150
MAX, Customized -->>350

All I can see that doing is incentivizing people to skimp out on their loadout and intentionally leave slots empty. The people that haven't certed something will be able to spam it (aka, tank zergs would still work) and the players dedicated to the role will have less room for error, though they're more likely to survive longer as they're more experienced with the vehicle/class.

Unless you really enjoy jumping into Sunderers or MBTs where they haven't even bothered to unlock the 1 cert upgrades? "Sorry man, I needed to keep the resource cost down."

The vehicle cost increases would have only made sense if the ability to deconstruct vehicles to regain spent resource points was also an added feature for this patch.

I can see why you think infantry combat is terrible. Sometimes I stay away from it also when its a huge fight and there's a ton of lag. People don't show up until they are already in your face with a shotgun. What are some other reasons that you think make the infantry game terrible? I think they are trying to improve the infantry game with these changes, including the map changes etc. A lot of players complained about being constantly bombarded/camped with tanks/aircraft/maxes as infantry, that's the reason for the increase in cost for those units.

You do make a good point about coerced into buying boosts just to play the way you want. We shouldn't need to feel like we have to in order to complete. Raising the cost may hurt players with certain play styles more than others. Also it will make certing in timer reduction unnecessary.

I think this idea was said a long time ago. But the way to fix this is just to make the passive reduction timer certs on max/vehicle/air reduce the resource cost instead. This way people who just like playing these types of units can dedicated certs so that they can play them more often.

1. This will reduce the amount of these units on the field because not all players will be able to just spawn one constantly.
2. Allow those players who like to play that unit the ability to do so.
3. Still create an incentive for boosts but also not require it since you can use all your certs to reduce the resource cost of that unit. Although instead of a timer controlling when you can respawn a unit, it will depend on how fast you can accumulate/spend resources.
4. Allow growth and tailoring to the specific needs of each player's play style.
5. Make the passive certing into timer reduction more meaningful. (There are like 10 ranks in this passive. You could award reduction cost exponentially or just do a flat amount. Could start off as a small cert cost and ramp up in cost quickly or flat amount each time. There's a few ways to change how available these units are and how much a player needs to invest. You could cert it down to what it costs now or even further.)

Currently on live, I don't cert in the timer pass 4 ranks or so. Imo it's a waste because if you destroy that unit constantly and quickly you run out of resources anyways. And the timer becomes meaningless because the timer becomes how fast you can regain the resources to buy another unit. Also, if I do well, I will stay alive in that unit longer than my 15min CD timer. If I do poorly, then that unit is probably a bad choice anyways because if it's getting destroyed that fast, the other team probably has a setup that already counters it. It would be futile to waste resources on another unit of that type. Of course there are exceptions like trying to learn to fly and other personal reasons. But for flying VR is probably a better place to start learning. And honestly, if you're a MAX lover, the resources cost right now is just way too low for how much you get. It may be fun for you, but the guys on the other end of your gun aren't having any fun.

I'm fine with almost all of the changes with this update, except for one glaring mistake: the resources. Resource costs for vehicles are perfect the way they are, as nothing is overly expensive or ridiculously cheap (except for the flash, but it should be...). Right now, as someone who has put quite a bit of certs into the cooldown timers, if I can't spawn a vehicle, fifty percent of the time it is because of the timers and the other fifty it is because of resources. In my mind, this is perfect, as there is a balance between the two that still makes the cooldown timer useful. But seeing as how once SOE decides to put something in the game, no-one can change their minds, me and a few friends have come up with some ideas that could ease the pain of the resource increases while at the same time making the game more resource centered.

The main idea behind this plan is supply runs. Basically, every base that you hold will still generate resources for the overall pool, but there would be stations at each base where a Sunderer or a new vehicle dedicated to this purpose would pick up a certain amount of resources. One the vehicle takes the supplies back to the warpgate, a small amount of resources is added to the pool that only lasts for that one resource drop. The idea is to get convoys of these vehicles going to bases and bringing back resources, as to boost the empire's overall pool. Now there are three ways these convoys could be handled: NPCs, player guided NPCs, and purely players. Personally, I believe that having the convoys made up purely of players would work the best. NPCs would just cause problems with wonky AI and such, and no player would want to guide a bunch of mute NPCs around instead of a human squad. A player would get an XP bonus for both picking up and dropping off the resources, and enemies would get more XP for destroying a vehicle carrying resources than one that isn't, and maybe get some of the resources it was carrying. To stop players from just going back and forth between the one base outside of their warpgate, a specific player can only take resources from a specific base once every 10 minutes or so. This keeps the convoys moving to new bases, and progressively farther away from the warpgate until that time is up. This way, when an empire is losing a continent, they can still be getting resources, as long as there are players dedicated to getting their empire as many resources as possible. This would also open up new roles for players who either dislike or aren't good at the infantry/vehicular combat of the game, or those who just enjoy driving more than fighting.

To go along with the supply runs, the lattice system would be changed. Bases would revert back to being captured based off of hex adjacency, but you won't get any resources from and can't make supply runs to bases that aren't connected to your warpgate via lattice links. This isn't essential to the supply run system being functional, but as many players prefer the hex system or dislike the flaws of the lattice system, it could be an added bonus.

I would love to know anyone's opinions on this, as we've spent quite a bit of time formulating this plan and could use the feedback.