HESH spam

We should just have huge dome shields around every base that keep shells and vehicles out. Then we could see how much tankers really like to fight each other. I think within 2 weeks no tankers would be around anymore...cause they would have no easy victims left. They will claim that they play the game for combined arms...but actually they just want one way interactions where the victim is set in stone before the first shot is fired. You want combined arms? Then make sure it's fun for all...not just for 2 out of three...

Having the ability to deal a comparable amount of dps to a tank while being a free unit that is the size of a pin but with the drawback of only taking one tank shot is perfectly fair. Infantry can hide in nooks and crannies in which tanks cannot get to them even with splash.

Skill should only go so far in this game. We already have problems retaining new players because the game is so hard to get into, with prior stats I've already proven it's not the tanks or any of the other vehicles preventing this, it's the infantry play and how far away the TTKs are from a body shotting newbie verses a headshot god vet. Not to mention flying but that's a different can of worms.

Rockets have a slower projectile flight speed BECAUSE they can deal as much damage as a tank shell. It's not a problem because they are two incredibly different things designed for different things.

Let me ask you, if I presented a unit that could be spammed for free, had as much damage as a tank at range and the same projectile speed as a tank while being hard to hit verses a unit that is faster but much much larger and easier to hit at range with the same damage and projectile speed as the prior unit while having more HP, which would you pick?

A squad of heavies shouldn't always kill a tank no matter what, if the tank is using adequate cover and range then the heavies should not just be able to reach out and gib them, this is the opposite of the phoenix in which being able to reach out and gib them behind cover but have the drawbacks of reload speed and the time for the rocket to get to the tank are also balancing factors. Lancer also being in this catagory because a squad of heavies can reach out and poke tanks hard beyond lock range. I should know, I love the vortexes.

Then what do vehicles do when it comes to the actual meat of the game.

What do you need for a fight to happen?
1. A method of which infantry can be in the fight. (spawning, teleportation, reasonable modes of getting to the point)
2. A way to capture the base (ie objectives. Not necessarily just a koth style base every single fight but more segmented objectives in which you can win or establish win conditions like killing the SCU)

Beyond that, everything is conjecture, infantry influence the fights the most while sunderers come in second, aircaft third and tanks are last.

Since tanks can only realistically do 2 things when it comes to base fights, ie, kill/suppress infantry or kill the sunderer, it's not reasonable to simply lock tanks out of the game when people already bought tank weaponry and cosmetics when they barely have any parts to play as well. Nerfing tanks into oblivion simply makes DB look even more shifty and unfair to the playerbase and the playerbase effectively killing the game asking for unreasonable nerfs.

I suggest either to alleviate the lack of gameplay interaction tanks have on the game or allow tanks to be more inclusive in the game which would include more base fight interactions. That does not necessarily include just killing infantry, this could simply be the removal of walls or buildings with enough concentrated fire while the base automatically repaired itself over time or engineers repaired it. Or worst case scenario, more infantry suppressing weapons, like massive AoE concs or EMP blasts, either I would NOT*(edit) like as an infantry player.

What I'm asking isn't unreasonable, simply shifting tanks from this poorly done AV role in which you are barely rewarded for doing good or AI role in which you barely have an influence on the average base fight to something much more meaningful or rewarding as infantry play.

Ah yes, I will enjoy killing all of your sunderers.

Do you not know how stupid this sounds? This is the long drawn out equivalent of "**** you for playing the game".

How bout, if we want combined arms, we actually play all 3 sections of the game instead of favor one.

And I'm not implying you did. Keep up with reality, man! I only pointed out the difference in DPS and the lack of firepower for infantry launchers. The DPS of launchers is just not as good as a tank's cannon. Not enough cannon to make up for the OHK capabilities of a tank. A couple hundred extra damage per shot against a tank isn't going to make much of a difference compared to what an actual DPS advantage would do.

Actual costs are irrelevant right now, as the entire concept of resource-costing AV weapons for infantry hasn't so much as been acknowledged by anyone on the developer team, but regardless sure, make them cost 500 to kill a lightning. But only if it does kill the lightning and do so consistently. Otherwise let's just resort to Space Nukes(TM), unironically.

Firstly maybe try not showing your *** to someone trying to kill you. Secondly greater range is part of the package here; Tanks can't sit there and shell if they're actively being damaged enough to force them off or die in the face of inaction.

I disagree, sounds much more fun. Personally what I dislike about tank battles compared to infantry is that the tend to last significantly longer even in extreme CQC and are a lot less dependent of player skill and moreso on starting positions, terrain, and loadouts. Infantry constantly kill much better armed & armoured opponents with trashy weapons and little else while playing in a hectic and dangerous environment. Really won't happen in a tank fight unless one of the two is inexperienced or as dumb as a brick. Faster and more lethal fights between infantry and vehicles would be better, so long as it was fair.

Again, not really worth arguing about them if they're not the main subject of the thread. At least not at this point in time. However, that said I'd say they ought to be reasonably effective over range to the point where offensive against tanks as infantry would actually be practical. I.E. strong enough to kill with them even without all the benefits of armour.

I think you'll recall I haven't actually stated HE was spammed in this thread. At the very least that's not really what I'm arguing. My main argument has been "HE is too good and is too good against everything."

Ideally allied tanks would protect sundies akin to infantry protecting sundies against infantry. If the battle on either side of the sundy goes south the other end will feel the impact. Both parties would have an incentive to play well and support the other side, thus promoting combined arms. If tanks were balanced around this idea the cost could be lowered.

And yet tanks have no issue killing infantry and reaping the rewards even though there are many places they cannot see. PS2 rewards kills plain and simply. HE gets easy kills and lots of 'em. Killing tanks also gives a chunk of EXP, but no one cares about that while there's infantry to spam.

So many bases in PS2 are just terrible for so many different reasons. Honestly, DBG ought to just host a few player-made lattice base design competitions/contests and have the playerbase design them.

Oh, and also if an entire squad of players are firing at the same target they should wipe it out. 12 heavies shooting at a lightning should win without any losses 100% of the time. We're talking about a 12v1 here, don't care who is fighting what, nothing should be able to do 12v1. Also 2.0 infantry can only fire rockets at tanks if they are exposed to a two-way line of sight.

That only applies to attackers though, since defenders get their invulnerable spawn cube they can happily not have any vehicles at all and enjoy the benefits of more infantry pushing on the points or sunderers. In the worst case scenario of bio-labs having vehicles is active de-buff for the attackers, since it's far better to just put a sunderer next to the teletube in your base than have any vehicles at all "attacking" the biolab.

Until the defender/Attacker balance is changed, vehicles that aren't spawn tubes will still be irrelevant for the defenders and thus the entire game.

if the defending side doesn't have vehicles then they are conceding the perimeter to enemy vehicles, as a result enemy ground vehicles only have one target: the defending infantry, so the shelling of infantry begins because nobody tried to contest the outside perimeter of the base.

Which nobody does cause the vehicle game is just an overpop game. The rounds are usually fast, the targets large and if they wanna aim they are usually slow moving(often standing). The skill ceiling of shelling away in grpups from the horizon is rather low(1on1 tank fight is a bit higher. Still lower than infantry let alone air tho). The one with the highest number of vehicles wins and prevents the other team from pulling more(unless the defenders leave the base together and all pull some at the next base...which we all know needs more coordination than there usually is at any base). Pads and gates have the disadvangtage that you can only pull one vehicle at a time...and hence you are basicly dead before you really saw what hit you there.
And seriously, there are more than enough tankers out there that run if they face enmy tanks and can't shell infantry. So it's not like: "They only shell infantry cause they got no other targets!".

What? You mean the game has to always stay like it is cause you say so? Why did we change the range of AV-turrets then? That was the game too...you obviously had a problem with that tho. Different situation...for sure, little biased tanker. =P

You are free to play any section you want, just don't expect anyone wants to see you affect THEIR prefered section while playing ONLY YOUR section while they can not affect YOUR section with a similar impact when ONLY playing THEIR section.
Ot's about the impact a single player can have on the other sections that is the problem here...

And you are wrong, Liberators are oppressive to vehicles. Next.

I was obviously doing a damned comparison. You make a statement "If it only takes 3 infantry to destroy one ESF with a single coordinated strike then how can people really complain about air", but this assumes that everyone is magically HA's, coordinated and in certain positions whenever aircraft arrive. So I make the comparison to a Skyguard: You can claim everyone is a Skyguard and always protected from aircraft, but that's just not true as people use other vehicles and loadouts.

This is pretty much the theme of your post. You misinterpret things and go from there. I can't blame you with the immense amount of long discussion posts you are currently in but damn just take a step back and come back when you have the time to actually discuss things.

Ah yes, magic Heavies that have their shield at 100% all the time and never get surprised by the sneaky stealth class and are always close enough and not with cover nearby that you can kill them. Oh and ofcourse 100% of the players is magic heavies and you completely blew passed the point I was making: Just because something is possible doesn't mean it'll happen. Like 3 Heavies OHK'ing an ESF.

Oh dear, you've had hilarious interactions. Well funny thing: While a Sniper has more ways it can be viably mitigated, such as the damn firing mechanics of sniper rifles. Also you are pretty much confirming the entire point I'm making: Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will. 3 Heavies shooting an ESF, also mitigateable. And due to all the requirements to pull it off it's auto-mitigated a lot more than snipers.

The thing about locks is that it's a deterrent, and the idea of deterrents cannot work in PS2 because of various reasons. But that was not the point, the point was that 3 HA's isn't a magic solution that will make infantry stop complaining. In fact the requirements to be "safe" and not have to complain about air are pretty narrow and ridiculous. One class, one weapon, coordinated strikes from specific positions with the hope the aircraft doesn't do specific things it basically always has available to it?

My point is, you are effective against ESFs. If ESFs have to take countermeasures against heavies, that means heavies are actually a threat. The only place where is this a problem is when you have only 1 guy in the hex and that's you against that ESF however even then you can play infils and simply move to the point unseen.
If you are up against 2 people in the hex, well you're already at a disadvantage however that doesn't mean that the guy in the ESF can see the infil. In fact he would be more of a threat being infantry than being an ESF imo.
If it's 3, you should be getting backup at that point.


That is taking additional time for an advantageous position, that is not getting back into the fight through the quickest means possible. If someone pegs you down while you are doing this, you took a risk, you lost, simple.[/quote]

Ok you are obviously having a meltdown. 2 people ina hex put the ESF at a disadvantage... You realize that since PS2's inception, dominating small fights has been the staple of ESF right?

Approximately, and where did you get that approximation? Dasanfall? Fisu? Your rear-end? I already showed you how I approximated the height, but you pull a number out of thin air and immediately claim you pull stats from somewhere?

I won't even continue with the rest, it's not worth it anymore when you can't even make a sensible argument. I mean you think that just because infantry can deal similar DPS as a tank canon it's somehow balanced? Despite it using a shorter range weapon with slower velocity on an infantry that can be killed much more easily? You even made a comparison to someone else about how you found it ridiculously funny that you could keep hitting tanks and whenever they hit you with full flak and shield you could just pop back into cover and heal up. Well this is the exact thing that tanks do to infantry: They keep in your view, can tank more shots than your heavy, then when things get hairy they pop back into cover/out of effective range and repair up, but somehow that isn't ridiculous but if you do it as Heavy it is. Difference is if a Heavy gets hit it'll take him around 10 to 15 seconds each hit to recover, while the tank can receive multiple hits before it needs repairs. Also let's make a nice little statement like you do: All MBT's will always have a Kobalt with 100% accuracy on top that will shoot you whenever you show up, and they'll dodge any shot you fire as the infantry rockets are slow! Hurrah any Heavy that uses your tactic is either dead or spends more time in downtime than he's engaging.

The point is you are dealing substantial amounts of damage, do you think it should really be on par with vehicles that actually spec out of pure AV *******? What exactly was the point of saying this? All this does is reestablish that yes, rocket launchers do indeed hit as hard and have a greater DPS than some tank shells, you haven't claimed they don't so defaults do more dps than AP lightnings. You're welcome to disprove that if you want.

It hasn't been acknowledged because the idea is fundamentally flawed. If you could actually put down a reasonable idea, here, right now, it could be acknowledged by the devs, I'm pretty sure you're just dodging the question. After all, if you can't prove that it's a great idea, then how is it a good idea for the game? Take your word for it?

Also why should it be consistent? Lightnings don't consistently kill heavies, other vehicles or even aircraft, C4 isn't consistent because it has counters. Again, you're asking for infantry to have this "i-win" button for tanks when people already proclaimed they don't like "i-win" buttons on the vanguard, so why exactly should it be the other way around?

1. There is such a thing as flanking, it's why light assaults AV can actually deal a good portion of damage to tanks from the back.
2. That's what lockons are for, keeping damage on a tank so they have to pull back.

You just named out what you liked about infantry but told us that you disliked it on tanks. The vehicle game should be open to everyone, putting yet ANOTHER skillbar on another section of the game demotivates newbies even more to play the game. We do not need more skillbars, we have enough in basic infantry gameplay and aircraft.

Tanks are a teamwork game when it comes to multiple vehicles, plus if we're going by "trashy weapons" yet you claim that hesh is too good at everything yet hesh does less dps and less direct damage on vehicles, wouldn't that mean that vehicles are being killed by hesh?

Personally, I think it's hilarious when **** like that happens, I've seen people duel other ESFs with AI weapons and win, that's funny, I've killed people with the candy cannon, lol, I've even killed MBTs with just hesh because I know how to start a fight and end a fight and sustain a fight.

The ground vehicle game is fun for people who value tactics and other values in relation to damage over just straight up twitch "skill". Infantry gameplay should not be the staple of all other aspects of the game because that very gameplay is making it hard to retain players.

Ok, bro, the cutesy little 1 quote replacement gimmick is probably funny to you, but here, there is no context for anyone to relate to.
Who's not worth arguing about? Why are they not a main subject. Who's reasonably effective at range? What's offensive against tanks? Who's strong enough without the benefits of armor?! CONTEXT DAMN YOU.

Maybe you should reiterate what your stance is next time. If you think it's too good against everything, then prove it? What exactly is the magic number here?

Are you kidding me? Infantry don't even protect sundis. Why should you leave that to tanks if they aren't incentivized for it instead of going after more certs? You're telling me to take a **** job with no pay instead of pursuing a job that I want and will get payed for. Maybe that's why plumbers get payed so much, hint hint.

Alright, can you prove that tanks get easy kills and are rewarded more than for infantry play even though there are many places they cannot see?

Also no one cares about killing tanks when there are no tanks to kill. I feel like the problem that you're trying to present for us is rather a tanks are actually bad and there's no reason to pull them except to kill infantry or to kill sunderers, which hesh can do. Calling them too good at everything is more like nothing else is worth taking, because there aren't enough tanks to justify taking AP when infantry are far more common.

It is a lowest common denominator problem. After all, if there are no other threats, or the threats are too rare then you can justify taking hesh because hesh is effective enough. Think about it like this:
There's a fish, big fish counters small fish, so if there are lots of big fish, small fish can't eat all the plankton that people enjoy for some reason, but if there are no big fish, there are just a lot of small fish.

What I'm trying to say is that if there is hesh spam, it's not that it's good, it's more like there's no reason to run anything else. Like the AA lockons, you can damage vehicles enough, you can hurt maxes, you can hit air, there's no reason to take anything else if air is your only threat. Simple loadout logic.

If someone were to fix this issue, they could make tanks just roaming around and guarding objectives as rewarding as it is to play infantry and throw ammo packs everywhere. If tanks are not rewarding period and clearly by your stats you already rarely get killed by hesh itself, it's both not used often but the times that it is used, it's just barely effective enough without tanks to counter.

It would be nothing but biolabs tbh.
I believe that familiarity while being different are good qualities in base design in this game. You want bases to be familiar without being the same so that each base is a different experience while at the same time being familiar enough for players to recognize basic structures.

This however, isn't to say that some bases are hot garbage, don't get me wrong, prenerf scarred mesa was TERRIBLE and nanite subs, those needed drastic changing, but not all bases are bad, the ones that include tanks and infantry are good enough in most cases. Aurora is garbage though because tanks can overly dominate it, no one can argue that but not all bases are aurora or can even come close to it.

If a tank is out of locking range, you get a lancer, I never said that tanks shouldn't lose 12v1 when they're right there, I just said that 12v1 depending on the situation shouldn't always win, maybe you need to keep up with reality?

Like if the 12 heavies have only AA lockons, the tank is over 500 meters away, while moving, without even seeing the infantry, the infantry shouldn't automatically win because they are infantry.

We already have this sort of similar strategy with aircraft, flak, mass flak. A projectile velocity based weapon over lockon mechanics. Lockons were nerfed in range because A2A pilots didn't want to auto lose because they drifted within 400 meters of a base. I mean, that's fair, tanks have to be within 300 meters to even see infantry, so to be killed by infantry weapons out of rendering range should be a rarer occurrence. That isn't to say you never get killed by it, lancer is a skillful weapon that does reward aim, it almost 1 shot's an ESF without being a 1 shot with a slow weapon like the decimator.

I can also make a similar claim to zerging, just because they out pop you doesn't mean they should win right? That's still a problem we have now. No one likes being zerged, but it's the most effective tactic because it's most basic units the sunderer and the infantry are actually pretty durable.

Turns out there's a 20000 character limit, who knew.

Literal rendering issues made it unfair. Maybe if you made the argument that tanks don't render when they shoot you with hesh maybe I'd be sympathetic, but the clear differences here is that the AV turret is a one time buy that you don't augment.

Biased? I play more infantry than you do little man and I still find time to play with vehicles because I want the game to be fair.

This is so true it hurts. More often than naught, you can just use a beacon instead against the newbie masses or a router.
Sure they're more vulnerable to infantry but vehicles can never touchem.

I just said that they are.
Let me be more clear: Hesh is not as oppressive to infantry as libs are oppressive to vehicles. Complaining about hesh when libs can easily destroy them is like saying your hand is too hot when it's hi-fiving a stove. Maybe you should try to lift your hand and give libs a shot.

Then stop adding fluff, clear, concise, to the point, make your claim and I will have a proper conversation with you.

Never said infils 100% beat heavies or the other way around. Infantry isn't straight up counters (or at least claims not to be) I'm simply saying that heavies beat infils more than infils beat heavies.

If people actually use teamwork and are incentive to yes, it should happen, it doesn't happen nearly as much as you think because most of the time infantry never has to coordinate because they're often in their own little sphere, in which 1-6 kills by a rideby mossy isn't enough to influence the fight or at least people think it isn't. Classic case of infantry simply being unaware, or are you to tell me that heavies are never surprised by the sneaky stealth class.

By that logic, I could say everything is possible but doesn't mean it will happen. I never said that ESFs used flares often, but it's possible. That hesh round COULD kill you, it's possible, but doesn't mean it'll happen.

I mean, what exactly more do you want? You've said prior to this thread that there ARE more heavies than any other class, you've even posted statistics on it, are you really telling me that no base fight will ever have enough heavies to deal with aircraft?

Allow me to use the magic demi translator:
"The thing about bullets is that it's a deterrent, and the idea of deterrents cannot work in PS2 because of various reasons that I will fail to mention because I think everything is obvious. But that was not the point and was actually more fluff instead of expanding on the idea, the point was that 3 HA's isn't a magic solution because people don't ever coordinate and infantry will always complain about everything. In fact, the requirements to be ""safe"" and will not have to complain about air are pretty narrow and ridiculous because aircraft can totally see all heavies ever before they even fire the rocket. One class that counters vehicles, one weapon that counters vehicles, coordinated strikes from teammates in specific positions that aren't really specific as long as you have line of sight on the aircraft because that's all lockons need and hope that aircraft doesn't see you or use flares because those are always available to it especially when almost every single ESF runs fire suppression."

I mean, infantry still complain about grenades, even though they are specifically designed to make break ins easier, people still complain because their doorcamp was interrupted.

You realize, infantry have the tools to avoid ESFs, people simply choose not to use them. you just said 2 paragraphs ago that infils can still surprise heavies and kill them. If that's the case, why don't you use infils? If this is the case, why are you even trying to contend it? It's almost like you're arguing with yourself and you're having a meltdown.

Also you forgot to quote my post properly. Just heads up.

2.5 meters is 8feet....that's simple conversions....
2.5 actually came from another reddit post that I had found humorous. But that's besides the point, that's off topic.

Wow, where do I begin.

1. Ok, you don't have to continue. If you can't make a reasonable argument then it's not worth responding to, you would make it easier for everyone reading if you stopped so I don't have to reply massive text walls. I don't like to but it's a complex issue that requires concise explanations, so if you are unwilling to make a statement and prove it, I will not respond to what isn't there.

2. Well considering there is vastly more infantry than tanks as campy has proclaimed to poke a hole in my prior argument that infantry get more kills than vehicles (which really didn't, infantry get a lot more kills than tanks, that's simple math) yes, I find that since launchers hit has hard as tank shells and you have far more people with launchers than there are tanks, you should often have enough heavies to respond to a tank threat. How infantry actually handle it is up to the encounter. Infantry should not just reach out and destroy tanks beyond locking range unless there is a mass specialized weapon for that job, maybe a ranged laser beam of some sort that has a name that represents it's long range capabilities with the comparison to a medivel weapon, maybe a lance of some sort. Lancy, lanceter, lancinator? Eh got nothing.

3. Yes, I found it funny how stupid it was. No matter what that tank did, he could not kill me without help, it's funny because that's supposed to be the other way around right? I'm surprised you aren't saying flak blocking tank shells is fair, it's exactly what you wanted right? An absolute counter to tanks in the form of a suit slot? Oh but then you can't use nanoweave. It's weird how certain loadout options force you to pick something over the other.
OR JUST MAYBE tanks actually don't kill you enough to make flak worth taking so infantry are asking for tanks to be straight up nerfed instead of countering them. It's like this **** write's itself.
Also

Actually no, they don't. Everyone's shield regenerate after 6 seconds, about 3 seconds to recharge fully, still, in that time the tank would have to get out and repair every single time I damage him.
What I found stupid about it was not that I was killing tanks left and right it's that tanks couldn't do anything about it. They'd have to expend a shell to keep me away for less than a few seconds. If that tank was ever hit by any other vehicle or heavy he'd actually be in trouble because then there were multiple threats focusing him.

4.

Wanna back that statement up or do you just want to throw it around.
Also, that wasn't a statement, that was a personal experience that I decided to share because it was relivant to the post at hand. I could also mention the time I killed 5 people in a row with just the candy cannon but that seems completely irrelivant.

The thing about that personal experience, backing up with data, he literally couldn't do anything about it. Flak would protect me, I could duck behind the pillar, he couldn't move up safely, the interaction was a net loss for him and a net gain for me because I was making certs.
I'm also pretty sure I could easily prove that MBTs don't use kobalts nearly as much as "always" and that kobalts do not have 100% accuracy.

But hey, your comment, I think it doesn't need me to point out how stupid it is.

Again, where is the actual gameplay difference if someone does not render or if someone renders but can't be seriously damaged by an equal amount of players? In one case you can't attack the enemy...in the other case you won't attack the enemy cause it is futile. In both cases you feel like a helpless victim. This is obviously fine for infantry but not for tankers...at least by your logic.

Don't make it a one time buy. Give it its old strength back and make it cost 100 resources. Fine with me. Just give us something to actually fight vehicles 1on1 that makes them feel as helpfless as infantry usually feels.

The difference between something that is rendered and something that is simply armored is something you cannot see can kill you, you can't play around something you cannot see. You can SEE tanks, tanks cannot SEE you out 300 meters. Even if you won't attack them, that doesn't mean you can't see them and therefore react to them by taking cover.

I never EVER, ******* said attacking out of render was ok for ANYONE. Wanna take my **** out of context? Go right on ahead, it just discredits you.

If we're going off victim complex, then there wouldn't be a game, everything would be too pillowpaded for you.

So let's keep it one way. Great solution.

You suggesting that tanks never die mate?

What I'm suggesting is that you're so mad that they nerfed a weapon that was built upon a glitch by making it not hit **** from 500 meters out without any sort of retaliation, hesh can easily be killed by just about any other vehicle being the lowest damage output, there are solutions to your problem, but right now it seems like you're only trying infantry to kill something that is anti-infantry. That's the equivalent to an MBT killing a lib directly above him.

Also, if you REALLY feel mad about that nerf, they also nerfed it so it wouldn't one shot infantry, go figure.

Well, if I want to kill a lib then I pull a skyguard as tanker and shred a thing that is three manned all alone. Which infantry do I pull to kill 2 MBTs alone easily? Exactly...

Skyguard isn't Infantry, though. (The Liberator also has a good chance of fleeing before succumbing.)

Substantial per shot but hardly substantial over all. As with infantry combat very low RoF and high damage isn't always the best option and typically falters to weapons with higher RoFs. Unless the damage was increased significantly the RoF limits the effectiveness of infantry launchers. nd what about the infantry specking out for pure AV? I guess to you they don't matter as much.

Actual "real-world" DPS is a bit fuzzy. But for all intents and purposes yes I would say an AP lightning has a greater DPS than a default dumbfire. Reasons why the details are fuzzy are numerous.

• Infantry must get into position prior to firing followup shots or else they'd be hit and killed by the tank whereas the tank doesn't have to move.
• All infantry rocket launchers take about 0.35 seconds to aim down their sights, which cannot be done while the launcher is reloading. The tank can aim as the new shell is being loaded and fire the instant they are "physically" able.
• Dumbfires have low velocities and heavy drop and require more aiming and thus likely more time to aim than tank shells. For the sake of argument lock-ons also take time to lock-on whereas again tank cannons can just fire immediately.

Et cetera. If we don't assume 100% accuracy for both sides the tank will be much more able to dodge rockets at a distance than the heavy will be able to dodge shells. At ranges where this would be fairly easy to do dumbfires would be well outside of their effective range. So again, yes I'd say tank cannons with their higher RoF and significantly higher ease of use have a higher "real-world" DPS despite dealing less damage than the default dumbfires.

Nothing put right here right now will even be read by the devs. But regardless if the idea is so fundamentally wrong you'll have no difficulty explaining why. Surely for any reason other than "infantry shouldn't be capable of killing tanks."

If you want my opinion on the matter I'll make it clear: Resource costs for infantry AV even if considerably lower than the vehicles they are destroying will impact infantry significantly more than it would affect vehicles. Infantry have consumables and grenades which they can use at the same time and after they use the equipment they paid nanites for while tanks only use their tank in that time. It costs nothing to use or maintain and in the time it takes to die the costs are refunded. (At least partially if you die too soon.) As per usual it's more difficult and cost-intensive for the infantry. Obviously they'd be tested on the PTS.

Hah. In many things in life what is most important is consistency. If it's a gamble to piss away 500 nanites to maybe kill a lightning we're back to square one, where infantry AV is too ineffective to retaliate. And if a lightning can't consistently kill heavies he ought to git gud but the problem isn't the tank or the infantry it's shooting at. Tank-v-tank combat is very flawed as I've said earlier and lacks the skill to make it a consistent battle. Against ESFs it's extremely consistent.

Always with you're exaggerations and fallacies. Resource-costing infantry AV as described by me is the exact opposite of an "I-win" button. As I've said quite a few times already it would be skill-based weaponry. If the player doesn't have the skill they don't win. And before you say it, no, I don't know exactly how much skill would be needed. That's something to be worked out if the idea ever came to light.

The only way for infantry to flank a tank is if the tank was dangerously close to the infantry. Significantly closer than he needed to be for any major reason. Lock-ons are terrible weapons with pitiful DPS and can be entirely mitigated in a number of ways. On top of it they'd take so long to deal the damage the tank would spend much more time firing shells into the base and at the heavy than he would repairing himself.

Did you actually read what I said? Infantry = fast, deadly, skill-demanding. Tanks = Prolonged, retreat-for-repairs, typically based on loadout. If a player can't land at least the majority of his shots with any given main cannon he's not going to win against anyone. But similar/equal skill is more based on where each player just happened to be at first contact and what their gun is. At least, how it often feels. In infantry combat even a l33t MLG Pro HA with a Betelgeuse or Watchman or whatever can and will die to an LA with an NS-11C in a direct 1v1.

Hahaha, yeah right. In a 2/2-v-2/2 there's no teamwork, just one player taking someone else along for the ride while he defends the tank/shoots other tanks. No coordination or teamwork required to have a gunner to the same thing as the main cannon. Ad if you're referring to multiple tanks fighting multiple tanks, we all know no one takes the time to coordinate and focus-fire each individual target. It just comes down to numbers, starting positions, and loadouts.

"Trashy" weapons being ones that just plain suck. MKV for example. The only way I could ever kill heavies with it in a direct fight was to strafe in semi-circles with Catlike and hipfire-headshot them down. Terrible weapon, never use it. A vehicle equivalent would be like a Canister/PPA/Marauder for AV fights. (Or maybe just fighting anything anyways, thanks CAI.) Point being the weapon is such **** it requires much more skill and effort to kill and do well with it than other non-trash-tier guns.

HE isn't a trashy weapon. It kills very nearly the same as HEAT and against very near AP in practice. MKV again, is a totally trash-heap gun. Consistently crap damage, DPS, and recoil. doesn't even have good accuracy. Universally bad gun. At least an Emissary is smooth & easy and consistent over range.

There's a lot more to infantry combat that pure aim, and there's a lot more to aiming than just "twitch" skills. Maybe if you played more infantry you'd know that. I'd in fact argue tactics are ever more important for infantry because of how quickly a fight can go badly. The right position can turn a gunfight from suicide to a slaughter with little room for error.

PS2 doesn't retain players well for many reasons. One good reason is the skill requirements to do particularly well in infantry combat; There's a lot of different skills, factors, a bits of information to consider at any give time and most new players can't handle it.

Well there is a practical purpose to it but yes, I actually do find it very fun.

In response to:

|
It wouldn't be appropriate to further derail the thread by discussing potential stats of weapons based on a theoretical concept which have never been so much as acknowledged by anyone other than a few players here on the forums to the best of my knowledge and never once by the developers.

I literally said exactly that in the first post I made in this thread. Already discussed it thoroughly, as have others.

This is blatantly untrue. Obviously infantry protect sundies otherwise there wouldn't ever be any fights. Because then tanks would be fighting tanks. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought tankers wanted to fight other tanks.

Come on man, this is as close to "water is wet" territory as we can get. Demigan has already explained it to you if I can recall correctly. If not I assume you're just playing dumb because anyone with any experience or understanding of HE farming already knows.

I don't think so, but even if it was wouldn't it be for the best? If they were the most popular bases wouldn't more people enjoy playing in them?

I agree. A few small changes to the same old building and towers is nice.

I was thinking of most of the bases on Hossin and Amerish. Terrible, confusing layouts with chokepoints everywhere and very long travel times to and between points. Awful.

Small problem with that: Only the VS have the Lancer. I think you need to keep up with balance. No player under any scenario should be able to successfully fight and kill twelve other players all at the same time.

Another strawman. I even specifically said "don't care who is fighting what." Never mentioned infantry wining just because they're infantry, and never said they should kill tanks 500 meters away. If there are twelve of anything in a fight with one of anything else, the twelve of the whatever they are should win every time.

Well there's always the argument of lethal, skill-based AA... But regardless, see above. Twelve dedicated weapon platforms all targeting their dedicated target should obliterate it.

Again, no one should be so powerful they could kill entire squads of players alone. Zerging must be discouraged in some manner but cannot be stopped by a vast minority because of a force-multiplier.

HESH threads are always **** so you might as well design some weapon. It'd be interesting to see what you people think is "Fair nanite based weapons".
Here use this: http://planetside.wikia.com/wiki/Vehicle_armor_and_damage_resistance

If you're not gonna do this then stop suggesting it.

If you really want to offer up some design for the weapons create a separate thread and I'd be happy to contribute to it.

But as a baseline for a simple cheap AV weapon, could just be a Decimator with a much higher velocity. Make it cost 50 nanites per rocket and slap it onto the test server.

By the way, no, that was not a misformat, that was simply an excerpt.

You're comparing two completely different things when it comes to agility. One is large, accelerates slowly but has a faster projectile. The other is 10x smaller (if not smaller than that) can accelerate quickly while having a slower projectile. I've had instances in which I could literally see the tank driver shoot and then I would side step it and miss completely. Of couse, I couldn't hit him with anything beyond a lockon but the difference was I could avoid his projectiles, he could not.

Shortest explanation ever, thank you.

Campy, if you can't even give us a concept to grasp, it's just as out there as magical dimensional space cucumbers that eat melentylon. You throw it out there like it's some revolutionary masterwork idea that takes ludicrous amounts of skill to perform that makes it automatically fair to use and yet even you have no idea how it would perform or be balanced. If you're going to present new ideas at least collaborate with demi and come up with something so I can shoot it down. At least that's something tangible people can relate to than suddenly launchers cost nanites.

I call ********. If both players are 100% aware of each others presence and both are of equal skill then the heavy is going to win based on pure numbers, otherwise you're relying on the RNG system of bullet spread to win, no one likes RNG systems.
But if you say that the light assault flanks him, that's a tactical move in which tanks perform the same way. If you're saying the light assault gets him in the back then that's also something tanks do. If you say light assault ambushes him while he's wounded, again, lightnings and harassers do that all the time.

If you're just going to assume that tanks are bad because they aren't 100% like infantry gameplay then you're just trying to make planetside another cod. Tanks are- wait a minute I said this already.

But again

The AV game is already filled with easier weapons for people to use. There are rewards for being more skilled than your opponent.
Tanks being, or at least supposed to be a fundamental part in attacking a base should be open to everyone, which is why devs are opting to make the default heat weapons on comparable DPS equivalents of AP weapons while veteran players can specialize.
Honestly, at this point, I feel like removing nanoweave armor would actually do a lot to improve the game.
But that's not the topic at hand, we do not need more skillbars.

Bruv, I play more infantry than you do.
I know the ins and outs of it. Almost 70% of it is aim. Ye who can headshot most, headshot kills. Ye who bodyshots, is dead. The other 30% is reliant on pure CQC dominating loadouts against midtier damage weapons,

making sure you have more HP than your opponent which means falling back when you get hurt to pace yourself

and model warping so that your opponent doesn't land nearly as many shots as would kill you.

So yea, beyond having weaksp- oh **** we have those too. Back of the tank does an extra 100% damage. I WONDER WHERE ELSE IN THE GAME WE CAN FIND SUCH A WEAKNESS.
The difference here is that a flank in tanking is a risk vs reward manuever that relies on you knowing the area, where the enemy is, how to get there and whats the best way to get the drop on them

Or maybe you only grazed the surface of tanking so you don't actually know what you're doing with any of it. Like a newbie who just started playing planetside thinking all of the TTKs are ridiculous and super ******* long.

WHY THE **** DO YOU THINK I DO NOT WANT MORE SKILLBARS. I already go easy on newbies, I do meme builds, I try to not overplay and do bolt baby sniper or cod pro heavy. Neither are encouraging to new players. Sometimes I give tips, ask them what was their intention, make them think actively, show them the ropes, I do all of this just so they aren't nearly as frustrated as no one tells them exactly how the game functions.
Putting more barriers on different aspects of the game to lock them out against veterans is the exact opposite of what we need here. Since planetside has no filtering system in which newbies can easily be fighting people that have played the game for years then we need to bring the vets closer to the newbies and instead sell the specialization, not the power.

',:|
I'm sorry, did I never mention the story of me sitting on a techplant roof in which the tanks could never reach me and never be able to kill me while I plink at them with rockets? I mean, I had over 18 rockets with ammo printer, my only regret is not laughing more.

Also, still doing that by the way, it was actually pretty funny because this time the engineer got out of his tank and tried to 1v1 me with his battlerifle, unfortunately I already had equipped weapons to deal with long range snipey sniper snipe combat and mowed him down. His tank was then later killed by a drifter light. It was almost like a comedy skit.

You mean to tell me, you've never been on the side of a cliff in advance to intercept a tankwave?
I'm starting to understand how you have this terrible opinion of rocket launchers.

Btw, you can totally hit a tank in the *** if you know what you're doing. Granted, I do I lot of cheese when I do this, but it's most often my best results. Cheese being climbing on walls, in which is complete ********, but for this case, acceptable by the devs, so by all means. If you want I can tutor you in game about how to deal with tanks like this, launchers and all.

Well holy **** am I lucky then. I seem to have an easy time destroying spawns with little to no resistance.
Infantry want to fight infantry, you said it yourself:

Why would infantry want to protect a sundi when there are other infantry to fight? Why would infantry want to kill the sunderer when there are infantry to fight coming out of it?

Also, if there were no sunderers deployed, tanks wouldn't be fighting other tanks, they would be fighting empty buses that tell tanks that they're ****ters for killing their buses because they're supposed to just ignore them when there's literally no other tanks to fight. Trust me, if there is a tank, that tanker will switch focus, really quickly if he knows the tank is an actual threat to him. Most igits just go after the helpless sundi.

I'd use the cat picture that I so enjoy but I feel like that gag is getting old, time for a new cat pic!

The thing about counters is that they are proficiently and much more effective against what they are designed to destroy. 12 heavies, 300 meters, out, lightning can see them, heavies can see lightning, lightning didn't have cover, lightning is dead.

I said

You said

Well then, which is it? I think you need to keep your story straight. Or maybe you could actually format your posts so they are more clear to you and everyone else.

Much higher velocity is relative, please do explain how much more, because if you're only going for tank shell speeds that's unfair to aircraft because infantry can point almost straight up. Also 50 nanites, is a grenade. You expect me to believe that I should care about 50 nanites.

There's also the issue in which if I reload this weapon, does it cost nanites? What about members that can restore nanites faster? How about the boosts? What if multiple players use this so that the nanite cost is insigificant? Does this perform better than the flash in terms of the target you want to destory?

There are so many issues in this, I don't think you grasp how nanite costs with vehicle balance works.