HESH spam

Actually, just to expand on this, you're saying that no matter what, a 12v1 is automatically in the 12's favor, this makes no sense.

12v1, There are still limiting factors to which this is and should be ineffective. If there are 12 heavies locking to a lib coming in, lib can use flares and then heavies would have to dumbfire instead, same for tanks. Those are counters, specifically designed for thwart tactics in advance in favor over another slot.
You're telling me that

But even then, there are balances to keep that in check. For example, what about zerging? Most of the heavies in a zerg are generally looking for things to kill, they see lib, they shoot lib, lib is trying to break up the zerg by destroying key vehicles sustaining it, should we just bow down to numbers?

This line of thinking is fundamentally flawed in planetside in which we have ques for a reason, but that doesn't stop the people already zerging and the people on the other faction leaving because they don't want to deal with it. The que does limit the growth of the zerg but tools to remove it should still be available.

Now that isn't to say they could be a more coordinated zerg and use several different manners of vehicles to protect themselves from a single lib. But the thing is, the better skill and coordination of the small group, the better their odds of stopping a zerg instead of trading vehicles one for one. These counters to the numbers or masses is perfectly fine because they are limited in time and often still require you to make use of that time to not only engage, attack, destroy and leave all before the mark.

But I suppose for an infantry player, this line of thinking is perfectly fine. 12 medics, heavies, infils, engies or so on should be able to completely crush any other infantry class, but in the vehicle game its all about the strategy and counter planning, people who enjoy that style of gameplay should not be ousted just because they use weapons for the situation.


Sure, sometimes it feels helpless to try and counter that kind of vehicle that specializes against you, but over the course of your entire playsession and mine, the stats prove they are not a major amount of deaths or cause of base instability. You can avoid the weapons, the simply limit you, you can specialize against the weapons, they simply prevent you from picking something else. But most importantly, since vehicles are generally uninvolved in most base combat unless they are a sunderer or a vehicle planning on killing the sunderer, you do not need to actually kill them in order to win.

It's why a lot of vehicle players suggest to back up and pull your own tank, they are tools to be used in the game, not scorned just because they killed you a couple of times

Ah, now see I didn't read that prior mostly because I skimmed over your paragraphs and nit picked a few details. BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO READ **** WITHOUT CONTEXT.

Hey to get to the other side? Why did I say that? Because why did the chicken cross the road?
Can you, for the love of god, use a copy paste, do a quote here with brackets so that I can at least know what you are ******* referencing. You cannot possibly blame 100% of the misunderstandings on my part if you are unwilling to make your posts clear as ******* day.

At least with demi I can actually respond using the context of my post, it's basically boiled down to conceptual theoretical situations that are all up for debate. He's already said he doesn't want to argue it further. I mean, I don't really mind, almost none of it was actually based on anything, it was all conjecture with no statistics but wholey **** it actually made for an...partially understandable paragraph (minus all the fluff).

Now in response to this, force multipliers often have a weakness, the only exception to this rule is the sundi ball in which as been nerfed. Mass tanks can be countered with skyhigh daltons, mass aircraft can be removed with skyguards, mass infantry can be destroyed with AI weapons.

The point is, the mass force multipliers is not the issue, it's that people aren't willing to counter them beyond using a lockon and praying to god.

I agree that zerging should be countered, but mass zerging should be countered with strategy, not more numbers. The best example I've ever seen of this was a base built on top of the bridge between regent and scarred mesa before it was nerfed. Prior the glaive and flail didn't exist yet, BUT, a zerg of 96+ terrans marched across the bridge, a force of 12-24 NC held, with no turrets, only weapons. The small group was coordinated, prepared, aptly equipped for the situation and setup the playing field.

Another example, 3 libs, 4 ESFs, daltons, the 4 ESFs were built for speed, not actual fighting except in the case of defending the libs. This small group of 10 took down an entire zergs worth of sunderers constantly starving the spawns from above. The small zerg force did try to remove them with skyguards but between the ESFs running around closer to the ground to be a distraction, the liberators removed them first.

It's vehicle games like this that makes the game an interesting set apart from other FPS shooters, this is where it can compete, not twitch shooting and gunplay but strategy.

Large and slow yet considerably faster than infantry. After ~0.5s of accelerating a lightning is faster than infantry. If either is going to be dodging the other's projectile it's going to be the lightning and the dumbfire. My point exactly. At such ranges infantry can't deal any kind of real damage. Dodging shell they see coming is irrelevant if they can't fight back anyway. Personally I like to sit on the rocky arch between Ti Alloys and the Crown and shoot tanks with my GODSAW to piss them off. Neither of us can actually kill the other but if there's not a major fight going on next to me I'm not wasting as much time as he is.

It's a pretty simple concept. If you can't grasp the idea there's not much I can do to help with that. Anyways you've already seen the followup post so just look for a response down there.

If both players are equal skilled and have the same/similar weapons and started in the same/similar positions and only one of the players is a HA then yes, the heavy will probably win if he uses the shield. As I've said earlier I advocate for a change. But assuming both players are of different skill levels the heavy won't just win every time. Skill is the main factor, abilities and equipment follow.

Infantry flanking is quite different, especially with LAs as they can obviously fly or infils who can cloak. Everyone else can climb or hide for flanking or simply just avoid line of sight like tanks do. But you're also conveniently forgetting the skill in infantry gun fights. If the LA is more skilled he will likely win shield & flank or not. Tank battles generally do not reflect this.

Yeah, seems rather familiar. Something about a strawman and you making things up.

Infantry AV requires a huge amount of skill over an opponent to kill effectively and does not reward players at all in any meaningful way. I already offered up a change which would allow for vehicle to participate in bases more but no one seems to agree. Obviously change is needed for anything of the sort, but I don't see anyone else proposing anything to help fix it either. One might think they were content with HE spaming tanks not fighting armour or something.

Oh, bro, I doubt that quite a lot.

Exactly. Tanks don't engage in rapid hectic gunfights, they plink and then back off to repair. Where's the fun in that? No risk, no chaos, just hiding behind rocks in the desert. Funny thing about headshots, they can be achieved from any distance and aren't dependent on the direction an opponent is facing. You're not getting rear hits in at 200 meters away.

The TTKs of vehicle combat are objectively longer than the slowest TTK of infantry combat. I want to kill and die and do it all again, not sit there firing at the same enemy for minutes on end. In the time it takes to load a single shell infantry can kill three enemies and die in a blaze of glory. Personally the choice is clear.

I'm only advocating for increasing the skill ceiling of infantry combat and raising the floor of tanks against infantry in the process. But regardless this is an online competitive game, skill is important. We already have enough low-skill high-reward gameplay as is.

Hey, I only wish for tanks set for pure AV to be as effective as infantry set for pure AV, the same but different.

If you were at an angle where they couldn't hit you, that was their fault. Tanks are fast, they don't need to sit there and take hits when they're more than capable or dodging and retreating to a range where the target is in elevation. Or, better yet they could play a combined arms game and have their allied infantry take out the enemy attacking them. If he got out and fought he rolled the dice and lost. Should have been a better shot, too bad he was an idiot and didn't have combat skills to make up for it.

Well, ya' see launchers have terrible range due to their heavy drops and low velocities, and lack the capability to magically stop the enemy from rotating on spot or returning fire. I don't approve of exploiting, so no thanks. If I can't get somewhere legitimately I can't get there at all. (Unless the game forces me through a wall or drops me under the world or whatever. Accidentally slipped under a road on Amerish and got stuck. Think they actually did fix that one though.)

Meh. Not always infantry hanging around them. As you said defending sundies is a boring and unrewarding job. Infantry will protect a sundy if it means they can have a fight. Sometimes the two are mutually inclusive to boot. Infantry kill the enemy sundies because that they'll probably hold the base. AKA win the fight.

No sundies around, no problem. Tanks can defend the sundies on their way over while stopping the enemies counterattack sundies. Or ya know, you could just farm infantry too I guess.

It's more of a doll than a cat. I have to wonder who in what state of mind made that thing.

Well if its just one tank siting there not trying to defend himself from lock-ons in any of the ways possible it's not really a 12-v-1, it's 12 guys shooting an unresponsive target. In an actual fight nothing can go against twelve of anything as long as they can damage each other.

Hard to say how much. Double the velocity ain't much, raw numbers are difficult to visualize. PTS for that. Enough that the range is notably increased.

50 nanites is little, that's the point. It's cheap because it's just an existing weapon with no extra damage or DPS or anything. Just has longer range. Given that, I'd think 50 nanites is more than fair.

Reloading would be just like using medsticks or throwing grenades: Upfront cost filled to capacity. If the player can't afford a full load they're get what they can afford. Membership benefits and resources boosts and such change nothing. If you feel they'd be an issue, then you'd feel the same about what we have now.

If multiple players are all using dedicated resource-costing weapons to kill a single vehicle I see no issue. They're cooperating, don't you want infantry to use teamwork to kill vehicles?

Ideally they wouldn't necessarily be more or less effective than a vehicle of the same cost, they would just provide a different method to achieve the same results.

If there are any issues you've yet to list them. Nanite costs in general are all messed up, but they're largely irreverent anyway. As has been said, nanites cost nothing. Hell, if the infantry AV weapons were added and made effective enough that all infantry could effectively kill vehicles themselves with good skills costs could universally decrease.

Twelve players are all firing their weapons at the same target. Why wouldn't they have the advantage, there's twelve of them.

Lock-ons are useless, thanks for demonstrating that yet again. Wouldn't stop the launchers completely though, just for a moment.

If the numbers favour one side 120% of the other, yes the numbers are the victors.

Get the whole "infantryside" "vehicleside" crap out of your head. 12 AP lightnings would still instakill everything just the same.

Oh hey, it's been a few pages since I had to bring this one up.

Ok, you've basically used this to try and setup a backing to not pulling tanks, but guess I'll have to shatter this for you.

All parts of the game, are part of the game.
If you are unwilling to try other important aspects of the game, you deserve to lose against the people who are actually rounded.

If I were to tell you that a heavy main would never play medic, would need a medic for his team, should he be a team player or stick to heavy?

If you do not want to adapt, if you do not care to play another playstyle, if you do not wish to actually enjoy everything the game has to offer even, you deserve to lose because you are simply limiting yourself.

Even if you do not like it, this part of the game offers something important to the game as a whole, much like a medic is a lynchpin of a squad, if you do not want medics, then don't die. If you don't want to play with vehicles then always avoid vehicles. If you don't want to play engineer, never run out of ammo. Because soon as you need something else for the job, you are not willing to play it, don't complain about it at that point.

Small EDIT here: I'm not even saying that much tbh, you could also find someone else to do the tanking for you, it's just if you don't support him and he fails because you do not wish to help him, simply put, you deserve to lose against whatever he's fighting.

AS for your previous para- no, sea of letters, I'm not even going to read it. You clearly do not want to have a reasonable conversation in which you are responding to someone, you want to mass a sea of words that makes it hard for anyone to read.

The cutesy little gimmick is good for small threads, but not all out debates.

Because if that were the case, zerging should always win and no one should complain about it.

If they only stop the launchers for a moment, then they are not useless.

Then never complain about zerging.

12 AP lightnings can't do **** to a liberator designed to kill them.

Lemme cut the fat and get right to it. Don't pretend to be for combined arms if you don't want all faucets of the game to be able to interact with each other past one killing the others without risk.

He ought to stick with what he wants to play. He's playing a game for fun, after all.

Hey, if you can't or won't refute my arguments by all means. Ignored a lot of posts already might as well be blatant about it.

Again, if you're struggling with reading comprehension that's not on me. I phrase my statements to be clearly separate with different ideas which correspond to the quoted post. Meanwhile every time I log in after a while or when I'm looking for a specific post or piece of information I'm scrolling for half a minute trying to pass five posts. If you don't like it I'm sorry it's an issue, but it's not one I ever have and helps with another problem. If it helps you can open a response in another tab and flip between the two.

It's really not a major issue here, I don't think.

Well if you keep you posts short enough I won't have to trim them anyway!

Zerging should win. Doesn't mean it's a good thing or that it should be rewarded or encouraged, but by all means in PS2 at least it should win.

12 AP lightning can easily overkill a lib. If the lightnings can't aim high enough they can just position themselves at an angle where it would be possible or gain the distance to aim properly. Or get 12 Skyguards.

That IS the point. You got a problem in a vehicle with a liberator? You pull another vehicle and take it out(the lib will die or has to leave...although it is more expensivee and has 2 or 3 players in it. At same skill level the lib has at most a 50/50 chance).
You got a problem with a tank as infantry and you can NOT pull an other infantry to deal with it(not even against a 1manned vehicle like a lightning...hell, not even against a 1manned harasser. Well, with some luck with a MAX..and that one costs more resources).

Then theres always that second issue where you might want to pull a lib and take out the 5 tanks that are harrassing your base, but its more an issue of having air dominance, if they have ESF's flying around then you won't get close to that tank. Look at some live population stats for briggs, you'll see 0.6 kda's on nc and like 1.3+ across the board in TR and VS, not because the tanks are insanely powerful but because everytime I want to pull a liberator I get dunked by 4 ESF's, if I want to pull infantry, I get dunked by tanks, in instances you end up with overpop but it doesn't matter if you get shelled 5m out of your spawn room. Most of the NC population can't even fly the esf's, and they ignore the aerial alerts. It's really not on me to rally troops up and train them just so I can play into a balanced faction fight even though actually NC infantry is not bad at all, maybe better than other infantry on my server, all the vets or what it has left of them are infantryside players.

The point of combined arms is that each section covers major weaknesses the other two have.
Air can remove airborn threats and fast lighter vehicles with ease, tanks can remove flak and can last in an area causing sigifigantly more damage over time, infantry can provide support with rockets and capturing points or removing infantry support.

It seems like you simply want infantry to be more powerful than they already are objectively.

Then lose. If you are not willing to do something to counter that tank killing you (which again, low number or kills) then it's only logical that tank can continue what he wants to do. Pandering for a nerf to the tank or a buff to infantry while being unwilling to actually participate in all other form of the game (again, hesh can easily be removed by any vehicle that isn't the flash and even then cough cough starfall cough) is just pathetic. You are asking for the game to be changed even though you aren't really even playing the game. You're only playing a portion of it.

Never said I couldn't refute your arguments, but if you're not going to make them understandable, relatible, or ******* quote context so I know what you're actually talking about, then you shouldn't blame me for your own poor formatting or misunderstandings made by it.

I can easily make my posts smaller, but if you want a more clear look at the picture then you need to go into detail about everything.

Ah so if I start speaking another language, it's up to you to translate it.

I keep my posts with context in each response so that everyone else in the thread can read them, it doesn't matter if you can read them, it matters if the people you're trying to convince can read them.

Let me help you with that.

ftfy.

Well if you actually put in the effort, and you want a detailed explaination on a complex gameplay stance, then I won't have to fully explain it so you can constantly be mad!

Thinking like this only makes the problem worse than it already is. This is like saying "Well zergs should win no matter what counters you have in place, they are more players and therefore more powerful". Giving into the problem DOESN'T MAKE THE PROBLEM ANY LESS RELEVANT.

Ah but then you'd be assauming that the lightning shells could reach the lib fast enough or there were hills to use as a standup. This is basically my point. You cannot assume that they will always win without conditions, I'm saying a 12v1 should never always win 100% of the time as opposed to direct counters that have a better time of destroying them should always lose because there are 12 of them.

Ironically, skyguards would be a better weapon to spam than literally anything else because they actually do damage to everything. But then there's the problem of losing to anything else at long range, better an MBT specced out for long range than anything else, but even then that comes with other issues such as positioning, 12 skyguards take up a lot of space and to really get good damage out would need to be upclose to non-air targets. Granted, I'm probably underestimating the MBTs or overestimating the skyguards because a skyguard squad is such a rare sight because they generally get picked off by everything that isn't air.

If you really want to mince words here, then assuming 12 of anything should beat anything else, is like 12 medics against a lib or 12 AI maxes,. I think you don't really care about context at all and therefore shouldn't care about anything unless it's a blob at that point. If numbers are everything, why even have counters? More pop means more win. A completely flawed way to look at any game but by all means.

At that point that's not a vehicle problem. Your group is not rounded at all, by all means you should lose. It does suck when no one can perform the actions required for a win, but it would suck even more is if those ESFs didn't matter when it came to stopping you from killing all their tanks. That's a counter, you as a single player have far less power than any other unit because vehicles are a team game.

Don't get me wrong, I think that situation does suck, but even if you went by campys logic, the more numbers should win and therefore wouldn't have mattered if you pulled a lib or not, if they had more tanks then you deserve to lose, more infantry same thing.

The thing about empowering infantry even more is that means that those numbers are more powerful than it was before.
It sucks always needing a team, but with proper application of strategy, counters and teamwork a small number should be able to beat a larger number.

I get that not everyone wants to lead. But if you're not willing to lead, then you shouldn't ***** about anyone else's leadership, or lack there of.

This game already caters enough to HA solo players, on a level that's detrimental overall. They're the best class against infantry, best class against air, the most universally applicable class against armor, they can heal themselves, refill their own ammunition, and with an implant even revive themselves. Look at it this way. You're basically arguing for more solo ability because you're frustrated with the lack of teamwork on your faction. But the solo ability we've been given to fix the lack of organization is a big reason we have so many lone wolves and so few leaders. More solo ability would hurt organization even further. The road to Hell was paved with good intentions.

I always reference Arma, but they really do it right. Many servers limit weapon types to the class you chose when you log in to the server (only medics can start IVs and stitch people up, only snipers can use sniper rifles, only gunners can use LMGs, only rocket specialists can use launchers, only pilots can fly, only engineers can repair vehicles....). This means you have to rely on your team, it attracts team-oriented players, and there's never a shortage of communication, leaders, or teamwork. But in PS2, HAs can essentially take care of any problem, and if there's a niche need for something else, you can switch classes and be back in the fight within seconds. And what you get is the situation you're frustrated with.

You already know the quote I'd post so I'm not going to bother to cut and past it again. Balance and fun are what is important. Kills are what most players find fun. Not killing enemies ever though they spend time and effort hurting them and only forcing them away isn't fun. Infantry shouldn't "support" tanks, infantry should kill them alongside the other tanks. Why should tanks not "deter" infantry, or "support" them while the other infantry gets the kills? Fun is important. Don't try to force other players to play the way you want to, let them play how they want to achieve the same goals in a different way.

But yes, I do seek to objectively increase the power of infantry against enemy vehicles. As it stands infantry are damn near helpless at times while vehicles are given immense power over infantry because of very brief period of time passed between spawns. Scrap nanites for all I care and give everyone the tools they need to kill everyone else. Spam the **** out tanks and get your *** kicked when someone better than you comes along and stuffs a rocket up your *******.

Again, I don't want to do that one single thing, I want to have more than one way to solve a problem. Especially when players can't always just spawn a tank whenever they're attacked by one. Once again, why shouldn't tanks be forced to get out of their tank an "participate in all other forms of the game" to kill infantry? Not fun to be pigeonholed in an ineffective role with high risk and little reward.

If you can then ya' ought to. There's only so much I can do before it just becomes a game of hand-holding. If you can't do a bit of reading comprehension it really isn't my fault. It's not as hard as you think. Just respond to each point separately if you have to.

No, it would be up to you to communicate in a way the other person could understand. I'm typing clear, punctuated, formatted statements, sentences, and paragraphs. If you can't understand what you're reading despite there being little to no grammer or phrasing errors there isn't anything to blame on me. Take a bit of time and effort to read the points, they're typically quite clear in the ideas each segment is referring to. Honestly can't get much simpler unless I did double the length of every post so you could shut your brain off.

You can't even try to be clever with this? Come on man, put a little effort into this. Take some pride in it!

I'm merely stating the reality of it. Zergs always win and they ought to. No player should ever have so much influence over another group of players that they could ever stop an entire squad alone. That's stupid.

Well if you want to play ifs and buts those 12 heavies probably wouldn't be able to hit a single rocket on a lightning at range, and what if they had lock-ons but he had smoke, or cover, or distance, or anything that would stop the locks from working.

You won't see a squad of Skyguards because no one wants to waste all the resources just to stop air from harassing a single fight. As per usual air leaves, Skyguards get bored and nothing happens. If all twelve focus-fired on the same thing they'd rip their opponents to shreds, but they don't because it requires teamwork and coordination. Surprise surprise, teamwork and coordination are extremely rare in PS2 and requires more effort than easier point-and-click weapons. People will almost always take the path of least resistance. Coordination isn't a solution in a setting like PS2.

You'll notice I said "as long as they can damage each other." Give each class some means of effective AV weaponry and they will.

Pop balance is another issue.

The Gladius also suffers greatly at range due to the terrible accuracy and massive damage dro-- Oh, sorry, I thought I was talking to Prudentia for a second there because of the MASSIVE STRAWMAN.

If you're not willing to flip your own patty down at the local fastfood joint you shouldn't complain when you bite into a used bandaid.

This line of logic is just terrible. Nothing is above criticism or blocked only to the "elite." Ya' don't have to be a leader to know when to stop following an idiot around the battlefield.

I don't have to cook my own food to say someone else's food tastes like it's still raw.

If that counter is not within your section of the game then why are you trying to pull from there?

Now if you want a counter, I'd recommend an AA bus, double range against a lib comes out to 577.5 effective DPS against a lib factoring resistance types, doing the math if all shots land (which isn't an unfair assumption considering it's flak against a large target) you kill the liberator in 9 seconds, or 8.65 seconds to be more precise.

Skyguards come out to 490 effective DPS making it's effective TTK 10.2 seconds, except one minor problem, there's a reload. Meaning that the TTK is going to be 10.2 seconds + however the reload time is on your skygard.

Effective DPS of a dalton is 480 against a sunderers HP pool of 5k, meaning that it would take 10 seconds to kill, but this doesn't include any of the ways that sunderers can increase their effective HP and who get's the first shot.

A lot of the liberators weapons can trade favorably 1v1 against a ground AA unit, which is why A2A is an important part of the game as a good ESF pilot can often kill a lib with no troubles now that daltons have been nerfed to not 1 shot.

It's also why infantry should also keep a look out for libs as well, the ES launchers each do a chunk of 700 damage to the libs HP pool of 5k, so it really takes only 7 locks to bring a lib to burning. Due to the more exposed nature of air being above it all, it's going to often take fire from anything LoS. Thinking "Eh, I won't kill that lib anyways, might as well not shoot it" put everyone else shooting at it at a disadvantage, it's why squadleaders worth their salt will call their squad to shoot at an ESF because ESFs are also vulnerable to that chip damage being aircraft.

And why does that not count for infantry(smaller number) vs vehicles(larger number)?

Fine with me. But the same should then count for all other sections too. It's a flaw in balance that infantry does not have an effective counter in its arsenal while the others do....

Sigh, your loss. I'm not going to quote everything, I shouldn't have to if you aren't, I don't know what you're responding to in specific so I'm going to keep snipping parts I find important to discuss because the majority of the time it is fluff.

If you only find killing fun then play CoD or battlefield, those games are far more oriented in an arena style gameplay in which kills matter far more than simply detering people. However planetside is an MMO, RTS, FPS, to expect it to have the same mechanics as an arena shooter is like expecting fish to taste like pork.

1. Uh... "Shouldn't support tanks, infantry should kill them alongside other tanks". They do? I mean to support a tank, you're helping them beat the opposing tank, I'm pretty sure you messed up here because that's basically support.
2. Tanks do deter infantry with hesh and kobalts. The thing is tanks are not going to be getting those grandios of kills that infantry are going to aquire, we've already been through this, there are far more infantry than tanks, infantry want to fight other infantry, tanks don't get nearly as many kills. Plus, keeping the sunderer alive just by being a tank near it is supporting the infantry.
3. There isn't a problem with trying to achieve the goals you want, however depending on the method it should be significantly harder.

For example, if I wanted to cook an egg, I could use my car or I could use a stove. A stove designed to cook an egg is perfect for the job and much more suited to get it done right. A car can produce heat sure, but that doesn't mean it's main function is heat, it's not recommended to use a car. Much like infantry can fight vehicles, doesn't mean they should be the best at it, asking for infantry buffs against vehicles is like asking a for a car that can cook an egg (mind you some people are weird and put stoves in their car, no clue why but whatever).

Now are you trying to convince me or everyone viewing? I'm trying to make it so that people have an ideal context of what's being said and said prior to your posting so that people can easier chime in and state and opinion or make an argument against me.

You however, not putting in the small amount of effort to quote pieces of text almost seems like you don't want anyone to actually know what you're talking about besides me and even then you're translating your ideas in a poor manner in which I refuse to further respond to everything because none of it is a single train of thought or paragraph, but only rebuttals that you make against individual sentences of a paragraph of a train of reasoning. If I took apart and responded to every single sentence you made without context of the next, it would look like a blurry mess of alphabet soup, that's what you are doing right now.

See now that's another thing about your arguments, first you claim that nanites mean nothing and suddenly no one wants to waste their resources on skyguards against the aircraft that's been harassing them? You're flip flopping on your own points.

That's back to adams point about buffing infantry.

Coordination should be enforced, if it was just a free for all, everything team oriented would mean absolutely nothing.

I think you're getting a little too heated there. After all, I've already made the point about infantry buffing, fights would be harder to keep alive because more infantry could kill the sunderer. Removing other vehicles through shameless ridiculous hard counters in every class would mean people wouldn't pull vehicles beyond a sunderer, if every vehicle is a sunderer you are back to playing an arena shooter with bad match making mechanics and subpar gunplay.

The point of a zerg is to have more people to far out number the enemy, if this small group of individuals have no tools to stop a zerg then it just creates more zerging no matter how skillful you are. Also

I thought that it was a bad idea to spam tanks and individuals shouldn't influence a zerg.

I'm not here to argue zerging sucks, but everyone acknowledges as a problem, if you have a better solution to fix zerging then by all means, put it on the table, because we already have tools in the game to fix it within proper teamplay and arms usage.

Thats. My. *******. Point.
You are saying that 12v1, the 12 number should always beat out the 1. Even with lightnings this isn't the case against infantry.
If you are a single stalker infiltrator, you can cap the point behind 12 AP lightnings because they cannot see you. The objective is not to kill everything as this is not an arena based shooter, the objective is to capture territory as a traditional value of war.

I mean even if you play those odds with other vehicles, 12 skyguards against a lib, that lib, is uber ****** unless he is no where near them. That's something a lib can't do against an infiltrator in this example. We have so many tools empowering infantry to never interact with vehicles in the first place that they can objectively win a base without even touching or looking at a vehicle.

Point I'm trying to get at, there should never be a always lose situation, there should be options and methods you could've taken prior to help yourself later in the course of the game. But that isn't to say there should be an always win situation either. As the zerg has taken the upper hand in numbers, but if you can contest those numbers in other areas in which they are not proficient then you should have a method of winning.

Again, achieving your goals is not a problem, the options you take to achieve your goals should be significantly harder depending.

Now excuse me as I get some food because the god damn food metaphors made me hungry.

That's not true, in fact liberators can in fact 1v1 most all other ground based AA, tanks need to rely on number verses ground dominating heavy aircraft in order to remove them. It's actually the same with ESFs, mass ESF is not recommended against double flak bus or even skyguards.

Again, player coordination and skill are factors. Its not that infantry players cannot contest vehicles ever, as vehicles are more expensive than infantry.

Throwing a back example

Now trust me, a majority of that was vehicles, there were a few infantry trying to light assault across the walls but we had superior defenses and we took advantage of their lack of coordination.

You CAN beat vehicles, you can beat down a large number of them with proper application of teamwork, if you are by yourself it SHOULD be hard to remove vehicles not easier.

Now campy and I have very much posted that launchers do as much as tank shells in damage, maybe not in DPS, but with 2-3 heavies focusing one target, the burst is rather heavy and hard to deal with as you can't simply out repair it.

You most likely just took advantage of your walls being indestructible, equipped with shields and you being able to shoot through them while the enemy couldn't and had to go through a narrow bridge. Not to mention that the enemy was stupid.
That has NOTHING to do with balance...don't use a "once in a blue moon" situation that would be impossible today to justify that.

Justify what? That a small group of players should be able to stop a zerg?

My point is that infantry in small numbers can still stop a mass of vehicles because they are both limited in number and resources.

And even if you can't, the base design of the game rewards and motivates players to capture points over kill kill kill.

Just a mass of vehicles only prevents you from moving up or removing their sunderers with ground vehicles. In the major basefights they are incredibly hampered.

Now that isn't to say that no other part of the game has this issue as well, mass air will kill MBTs, there's no using one.

How are you going to force children to get along? It's an open world game. Human interaction is half the entertainment of group oriented PvP. We've got a code of conduct, which is ridiculously impossible to enforce. How could they possibly enforce teamwork? And who's to say at the end of the day if someone were cooperating to an appropriate extent? Arma has some incredibly serious and nerdy mil-sim units, but those are private servers where people agree to follow a chain of command when they join. I'd like more coordination on PS2, but all you can do is be a good leader if you can't find one to follow.

I suppose my statement wouldn't apply if you were stuck in a hierarchy, such as having to deal with a terrible boss. But this little video game world is entirely different. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way" is perfectly applicable and appropriate for anyone who has a problem with whatever organization is or isn't present on one's faction. It's not like buying a burger with a band aid in it at all, as there's no agreement to exchange a specific amount of money for a specific product. You group up if you want, and leave if you want.