HESH spam

We already have team exp bonuses, it's just people aren't into the teamplay mindset.

We shouldn't enforce coordination with sticks, only carrots.

I did say team orientation should be enforced, making people recognize that there's something available for them to do that the team needs. Additional information has always been this game's weakpoints, I believe adding more information to what's in the hex you're fighting in would be a great start. Not necessarily enemy information, that should be up to the players to infer and inform each other, however there is no reason I should only know if I have medics nearby if I'm low on HP or only engineers nearby if I need repairs or ammo.

Make a recommendations arrow for new players for different classes when they die or are selecting a class, after all, if there are only a few of these classes, they are able to make more certs using that class over 40 people using engie and only 2 people are actually resupplying ammo.

We really ought to bolster newbies to get into the teamplay mindset over the lone wolf **** everyone else mindset.

I think you'll find I lost nothing, that's kinda the entire point. Saving time and effort.

Again, this argument has been dealt with. But furthermore this is a competitive MMO FPS. Killing is what we're all here for. Nobody joins an FPS to do anything other than shoot other people.

1. Yes, that's "support," but I don't want to help someone else get the kill, I want to kill. Tanks don't "support" infantry, (though I suppose they may soon with the PTS HE changes), they kill them. The point of a gun or explosive is to kill or seriously wound. Infantry just can't reasonably do that with infantry-based AV weapons as of live.

2. No, HE and Kobalts kill infantry. Dumbfires deter, lock-ons deter, flak deters, C4 kills. AP cannons kill. Nanite-costing infantry-based AV should kill.

3. If one method is significantly harder while achieving the same effect in a best-case scenario, in my mind there is a problem. The same results should be achieved with the same skill and effort even through different methods.

A stove in a car seems like it would just waste gas. But not really the same thing. Cooking eggs in a car is a rather uncommon situation. Being attacked by someone in a war-based game and not having the effective tools in the arsenal to kill is a much more realistic and practical issue.

The message is directed at you, but the information is public. In a way it's directed at everyone but was written for you. Out of context sounds kinda romantic.

I don't agree. If anything I put in additional effort to make a joke in the process and cut down page-long posts for easier viewing. My opinion though, I guess. Never been an issue for me when other forum-goers do the same.

They do mean absolutely nothing, but not everyone agrees and some feel they must be conserved. A Skyguard is kind of a waste in general.

Enforced? No. If players are forced to do something even if they would have chosen to do so it reflects negatively on the game. I agree with what you said to Adamts in a later post:

Players must be encouraged and guided into things. Everyone likes to feel like they are in control of their own destiny. They have to be allowed to make their own choices even if all roads lead to the same place. The illusion of free will, as it is.

But I think the issue with HAs is being overstated. Healing themselves either costs nanites and a limited supply or a implant, and ammo requires an implant. And if a player takes both they will be less effective in actual combat as they could potentially be while still not being able to support themselves as well as a medic or engineer could. But I really don't see the relevance here. Tanks can also repair themselves with either a tool or equipment and can resupply themselves in the same as as infantry can with ammo printer. Why is it only seen as an issue for one side and not the other?

Heh, yeah, sorry. Was tired and frustrated at the time.

Spam tanks in the sense that a single player just repeatedly pulls nothing but tanks all the time. And when said player eventually comes across a bigger fish in the form of an actually l33t pro infantryman with a beefy and expensive rocket launcher comes and blows the sucker back to the spawn pad.

What I mean to say is that i my opinion tanks and other vehicles and such can have more freedom and less pulling restrictions when they are treated as a playstyle and not as a force multiplier. In turn when infantry get the tools needed to kill the vehicles all over the place everyone can play the way they want all the time and not be forced into specific roles.

Well if neither side can kill the other it's not really a fight. If 12 HAs were in a field against one lightning they should win every time, provided roughly equal skill and experience.

I don't agree, obviously. If I only have a few options to achieve my goals and one or two of them aren't actually possible at any given moment (can't pull a tank if I can't reach the terminals for example) I might be blocked from my goals simply because I'd lack the abilities to achieve them. As is if I can't or won't pull a tank I'm basically screwed against a tank with half a brain because I can't kill him before he kills me or retreats and repairs.

Bleh, eggs. If anything I'm less hungry now.

Information isn't the problem. Look at what makes PS2 a Lone Wolf game and Squad/Arma teamwork games. On top of that, look at how little Arma and Squad baby the player, how little information they give the player, and in the case of Arma how infinitely much more there is to know. Mechanics need to force players to coordinate to be successful, by limiting what individual units can accomplish on their own. Ammo Printer and Health Regen was a big step in the wrong direction, for example. A Max/Engi pair is a good example of what this game needs more of. The HA doing basically everything is a bad example. Removing thermals was a good change. I think the new spawn system will also push teamwork in a good way.

Look, I agree implants that restore ammo were a bad idea, I advocated it was OP before release, suddenly everyone has ammo printer I'm not here to argue that. But arma has servers regulated by players for the game, planetside is an open sandbox, in order for people to start working together more the mentality has to be set in. If the game asks you to play medic because there are very few medics, you're rewarded with revives and an overall more likelyhood to win the base, that's the carrot, the stick for arma is that if you join a server and don't follow the rules then you get kicked, plain and simple.

Information is definitely a problem, vets have been asking for a more fleshed out tutorial against different kinds of threats in planetside for ages. So far it only covers that you can crouch, that you can move, that you can shoot and that there are tanks in the game. They don't cover that these things can shoot back, that teamwork is important, how close is too close, how to use cover or any of the basics of combat, only the very very very core mechanics. And then suddenly you have people that have no clue what they're doing against ESFs and call them OP because they're not looking or seeking help. The first few seconds of the game you're just trying to figure out wtf is all of this ****. The best way to get any information out of the game is to look online for guides. That seems like a problem to me.

Mk.

And yet we have repair tools, generators, control points, I mean the core of the game incentivizes you to capture territory, you get 3 free effortless certs by standing in a tiny little zone. Something to fight over in this game is just as important, if not far more important than just killing.

Also, I highly doubt 2k players at peak hours is competitive (shots fired dbg)

Always wanting to get the kill disregards literally everyone else. You can totally lone wolf everything and get the kills yourself and no one else, but that's so unsynergistic with the rest of the team that you might as well tell people "Hey **** you, that tank kill is mine" and then TK them. The game should never encourage that mentality because this is not a free for all, it is a teambased game.

.......

And removing a large chunk of HP is not seriously wound?
If we were going by your definition, everything is a deterant, after all I don't want to get shot, suppressing fire means nothing if it's not lethal, so if we go with your logic obviously LMGs, ARs and etc, tank cannons, kobalts, shouldn't be too lethal and we should rely on RNG or whoever chases the most for kills.

I'll get to nanite AV in a moment.

Yea, no, that makes no sense. If you and one other guy, point blank, both heavies, one has a CQC gun and you have a long range lower DPS gun, both the same skill; the heavy with the closer ranging weapon should 100% win because you are both equal on skill but he's the one that prepared for the situation. Also, if this were the case, newbies would never want to play the game. There are vets with thousands of hours on this game, that newbies will never have a chance of avoiding. Giving vets an outlet of killing everything because they had more time playing the game gives newbies no hope if they want to play tactically in their favor.

Another example, vet infil uses a bolter, newbie uses a tank, newbie kills sunderer and secures the base for his faction, vet gets lots of kills. If you're telling me we need to disregard the newbie for actually being a team player then we have no common ground here.

Look. Either nanites matter or they don't. The entire basis on nanite weaponry is that they cost nanites. If you are not willing to pull a skyguard and kill an ESF then you shouldn't be willing to use a rocket launcher that costs 500. And even then if you are willing to pull nanites you should pull a ******* tank.

I and adam already believe tanks with it is stupid because it takes more away from a coordinated game. But that isn't the point I'm trying to make here. The point is nanites. If heavies are already willing to spend nanites to heal themselves, tanks are basically an HP bar you pay in advance while having clear weaknesses. You're asking for these heavies that can already sustain themselves and shoot from range to use even more nanites to kill tanks, so why can't I ask for more nanites to be dumped into my tank to block your crap? It's an infinite escalating cycle at that point and then people don't fight with clear defined units anymore, they fight with nanites. That would bring up a whole nother plethora of problems if that were to be the case.

If you're going to use the "this is just fair because they do the same thing" card then it should work both ways otherwise you're being a hypocrite and asking to bolster infantry because it's infantry.

Then we guide them into infantry because vehicles and maxes are often called ****ters and people are detered from ever playing them and then we complain about them being OP so that they get nerfed and we remove another portion of the game using this psychopathic illusion mind scape of free will being controlled by us. I could poke so many holes in this that it couldn't even hold it's breath.

Players should only be told the pros and cons of something, after that it's up to them to use it. If players don't see more benefits to doing X then no one does it, it's why people don't pull tanks when they're going to a base, they pull sunderers, the cost of defending themselves against a tank attack is not represented and they only see the potential free certs they can make with spawn ribbons and fighting infantry.

That simply reinforces the singleton player mantra. Also, what happens if the tank is actually a good tanker and simply ***** you anyways? It seems like your bias is against newbies using vehicles than anyone else. It seems also like good tankers, who can already lead, judge drop distance and aim will still be 300 meters away shelling you. So not only is your supposed god solution bad but also worthless because it does generates more problems then the first one you wanted to solve.

That's the complete opposite of combined arms.
If you don't want to be forced into specific roles, that's what CoD is for. Each person has their own loadout, able to do different things that have no class roles that don't want to be forced into. It works much MUCH better for that game because they have a better engine for gunplay so you won't pull your hair out thinking about how you put 50 bullets into one guy and he's not dead.

Turning one game into something else is not going to solve anything. Planetside should stick to what it has now and improve itself to make it a better game. If your definition of improve is to completely cut an entire section of the game out then you might as well play a different game.

Conflict is not always a fight and not always solved with killing. If killing was really meant to be the end all be all of the game then we wouldn't have control points, generators, or even land. It would be everyone at the ascent using the 3 different control points as hardspawns. At that point, it's basically cod.

It is why time and effectiveness are factors in strategy. Again, throwback to the long range heavy and CQC heavy argument, if the long range heavy actually took the time to think about what he needs to do before he meets that CQC heavy, he could've had alternatives to that situation, in which since there are multiple class, there are multiple ways to go about it.

What you are advocating is that one class can be the end all be all of the game because being able to remove 2/3rds of infantry threats by themselves is beyond OP no matter how many skillbars you put behind it (which again, we need to retain new players, not make vets more powerful).

With never lose situations, you have to deal with never win situations too. In which the enemy team took so many preparations in advance in order to lock out every single tactic you could come up with. At the same time, if your team took every single preparation to lock out the enemy team, don't you feel like you deserve to win? The thing is what I'm saying is that with pure numbers that shouldn't be the end all be all (in your example), there are so many different ways to spin the situation that the game should reward the smart player over the dumb player that only spams numbers.

It's why people say to spawn at another base and pull a tank there asap, because time is a factor, you have the upper hand of not being surrounded by the enemy team, you can choose your approach so that the enemy team can't always account for it.

If the enemy team however is a coordinated death ball then it's only fair if you had a coordinated force of your own to try and counter.

It's why people use beacons to take on techplants. Because they can take advantage of the enemy team's low cooperation while being a small coordinated force to take the point and hold it from the balcony. However all it takes is one player to think and destroy the beacon to stop this as the coordinated force now has to take into account being choked out with medics having to take risks and revive people.

It's also why I have a problem with routers. In the absolute best scenarios, like controlpoint B of the new crown, whoever owns the router can simply spam numbers with almost no recourse available to the enemy team. It is get funneled down a really stupid choke with no cover at all and die. Lack of tactical options is the death of what this game offers over everything else.

However, tanks, never were that. There are plenty of ways to take one down, you're simply advocating that the hardest way to be done by individual players with a skillbar over their head and made into the easiest way for the sake of "I'm tired of having to play around this guy even though he presents a threat to me. Which reminds me:

Now didn't you say the explanation for your low deaths against hesh and AI was because you knew how to actively avoid it? If thats the case, why does HE and kobalts suddenly kill in your example? Before you say "Because they're actually threatening" let me enlighten you that ESFs run from lockons and flak, try to dodge dumbfires, tanks avoid C4 like the plague which is another thing. C4 is nanite based infantry AV and it does kill by your account. Well well, problem solved, it's already in the game! You showed me the light right there! How did I ever think that something this OP was actually already in the game! And was also nerfed because it killed infantry far too well!

I've basically covered every corner of the game and explained it to you in the best ******* possible manner I can.

If you want to get that last "Ah ha!" in and try and convince me otherwise in every single way you can think of, at least try and do it without feels. I could make the exact same argument that infantry lockons are also oppressive and should be nerfed because they're on top of a tech plant and are really hard to return fire at. Because really, a kill is simply putting a player out of the game for a certain period of time. If you are constantly throwing a lockon at a tank, you are making him sit in place and repair as the most fun way of playing the game ever while making certs hitting him. Preemptive conversation ender ho!
Before you say "Well infantry don't have counters to tanks!" you have an entire tech plant to use as a cover. Bases have cover everywhere and the ones that are incredibly lopsided, everyone agrees should be changed. To say every base needs to be covered is simply locking tanks out of the game and prevents every fight ever because suddenly tanks are the ones destroying all the sundis and suddenly you need a way to contest them (cough cough tanks cough) or you could be buffing infantry to do this and suddenly infantry are the oppressive ones and need to be nerfed because then you can't have tanks or sundis.

Opening options to the players and straight up buffing someone because they can't think of a way to do something while refusing to approach any other part of the game are two incredibly different things.

Bases and sub-objectives are mostly just catalysts to fights. People from all factions will go to them and find themselves fighting in the process. For some players it's also a fun objective. Cap the point, kill the *******, blow the genny, fun.

Heh. Not competitive for DBG at the very least.

Kill-stealing and just never getting one's own kills are far from the same. In PS2 everyone kill-steals, usually accidentally. Nothing really wrong with that, at least not unless done on purpose. But a lone wolf either has C4 or he's not killing vehicles. This is what I mean, I want to have the capacity to kill without the presence of other vehicles and without having to rely on someone else to damage the enemy enough for me to steal it. Vehicles don't rely on infantry, don't ya' know.

Besides, lone wolf tankers and ground-pounding ESFs and such can kill everything without help better than infantry can. They don't even need synergy, but the more the merrier.

Yes, it would be. But what you and what I would define a "large chunk of damage" to be is clearly different. If I shoot someone in the chest with my SAW, that's 1/5 of their health gone. In my opinion that's nothing, not even close to "seriously wounded." 4/5s of the enemy's health, that's different.

Small arms don't deter infantry because they kill quickly and fairly consistently. They only deter light armour such as harassers and ESFs & Valks because they simply don't kill. It takes a lot of time and guns firing to destroy one of them from full health. Kobalts are basically just an NS version of the SAW and tank cannons instakill which by all means is the exact opposite of a deterrence in this context.

I was more referring to the same player performing the same task but with two different methods. Tank-v-tank and infantry-v-tank. Also if the guns were a SAW and an Orion or Carv with both parties having 100% accuracy they'd just kill each other.

Vets should kill with their skills and knowledge. Nubbies need to learn somehow, but as I said everyone should die and that includes all the salty vets being killed by fresh new faces. However, that doesn't mean a new player should ever get free kills.

Honestly, when was the last time you saw a newb in a tank actually kill a sunderer? It never ends well for them. But regardless this isn't even related to what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is that an infantry with a dedicated AV weapon should be capable of killing the tank nub or not provided he has the skill to do so.

Heh, OK, let me state it clearly: In my opinion nanites don't matter at all for most practical gameplay. Sorry, I realize it seems like I'm switching positions on ya' but what I mean to say is that to anyone who does think nanites matter should acknowledge the cost of doing so. The cost is meaningless to me but not necessarily so to everyone else.

No, I should be able to deal with the enemy in the way I want to and not be forced into a role I don't like. Not like a Skyguard is even worth 500 nanites anyway!

I really don't have a problem with Ammo Printer. Other than the fact that it's so useless for most things. One magazine a minute at max rank? Excluding another better, stronger implant in it's place? No thank you!

Anyways, tanks get way more strengths than weaknesses. Speed, armour, health, firepower, maneuverability... Do they even have any major weaknesses? Can't fit through doors? Not like the player is stuck with their choice either, press E to revert back to infantry if the "weaknesses" are too great. But for real, exactly what weaknesses do tank actually have? I must be missing something surely. Their increased size I guess? Kinda the same thing with doors though.

Tanks don't need any more help against infantry than they do now. What could possibly be needed anyway? They'd still hold nearly every advantage over infantry.

I'm just calling out why infantry not needing support is being portrayed as a bad thing while no one mentions tanks doing the same in the exact same way.

If you could poke holes why don't you? Infantry gets called "****ters" all the time. HA-****ters, CQC-bolt-****ters, shotgun-****ters... It's not like people are actually choosing not to play as vehicles or MAXes because other players call them names. And most vehicle nerfs are quite justified and continue to out-perform their counterparts both in armour and infantry. Lots of nerfs are bullcrap though, nothing new there. Damn CAI ruined the Canister too. Again.

Surely players are capable of deducing the pros and cons of everything themselves as is? Does anyone really need to be told vehicles are faster and stronger and infantry is smaller and more free?

U wot m8t. You just don't want infantry to kill tanks, do you? If the tanker is more skilled he'll win, if the infantry is more skilled, he'll win. Simple.

I've already addressed tanks shelling at 300 meters away and how AV weaponry could solve that. But it really doesn't take much skill to sit in tunnel-vision and lob shells over at distant targets. At best it's almost hitting the target and killing them with AoE anyway.

You and I have differing definitions of "Combined Arms." I propose balancing situations in which infantry, tanks, and air can all fight each other and together, but you say that's not CA while offering no contending example. I suppose you'd have the food-chain we've got now?

You won't be rid of me so easily, I'm not going anywhere.

Well in your example of a stalker with 12 lightnings outside the building there is no conflict. If the twelve of them got out of their tanks and walked inside they'd slaughter the stalker but if they refuse to do so they don't have an interest in the point. There must be a conflict first, and something to fight over. Land and bases creates conflict, conflict is the core gameplay where goals are fulfilled by killing.

Well really as with most infantry combat it comes down to skill. I kill heavies with the quite frankly overpowered Watchman with my 'SAW in short range all the time and kill enemies with longer range guns at long range with the crapshoot that is the Promise. Skill factors into infantry fighting and anyone can win a fight with anything against anyone, within reason.

Recall my thread about the HA and callbacks to it in this thread. Also you might have noticed I never mentioned any specific class(es) with recourse-costing AV weapons. While some things should be limited so we don't get Space Nukes(TM) on stalkers or hyper-long-range cannons on LAs, most things ought to be open and available to every class. (Don't bother with cannons or Space Nukes(TM) or whatever though, they're only examples of a concept not an actual suggestion.)

People say it but no one ever does it. As has been covered in this thread already, it's not as good an idea as it seems on paper.

Spawn beacons don't require coordination, they require that a SL places one down and that his squad randomly notices the beacon and chooses to drop on it. The players then almost trap themselves in the same place they are blocking the enemy from via the same main chokepoint and a collection of players builds up. Happens by chance, no one did or had to work together to make it so.

I rather like routers, they're literally the only good thing about construction in my opinion. But you yourself just extolled the virtues of a beacon on top of a techplant yet call a router deep in the B not tactical. The router at least requires a forethought. Besides, routers are balanced by the longer spawn timers requiring the players to hold the same places for longer before support can even spawn.

Again, you might have noticed all the times where I said tanks would still have the advantages. Infantry AV right now is worthless. I advocate for expensive and effective weapons but this does not change the fact that infantry are weak and vehicles are not. They don't stop tank shells or buff strafe speed or anything like that. Tanks would still be stronger than dedicated infantry, the difference would be that tanks would require skill or they'd die to those who do have it.

As I said, I actively avoid HE spam and other things of the sort because I know how worthless and futile my efforts would be. As I have also said, in the time it would take for me to even damage a vehicle I could find and kill a group of other infantry by myself. It's a waste of time so naturally I don't even give the enemy line of sight when possible. Obviously however not everyone plays the same way I do and that I am not an example of the typical PS2 infantry player in this respect.

As for the weapons themselves, they don't require huge amounts of skill in the case of the Kobalt and require very little for an even faster and more reliable kill in the case of HE.

ESFs run because they're all cancerous cowards whoring their KDR for their own perverted enjoyment, or something like that. They don't dodge dumbfires, not actively at least. Generally do it passively and only really die to the slowest one.

C4 is overpowered against everything. You'll notice the top killer of everything is C4 on and from every faction. But it's also an example of an AV weapon which requires the user to have more skill that the target. No tank actually paying any attention or with any tactical or situational awareness will have any excuse to die to C4. There are even counters for it for tanks. (Flanker armour, radar, eyesight...) The nerf also affects it's use against infantry less than against vehicles. I have also state this in another thread, nothing new.

Honestly no you haven't. You barely touched on air if at all and at times it seems like you don't even know how to play infantry. You even exclude tanking tidbits which even I know as an avid not-tanker.

Hey, you're the one ignoring arguments and using petty "insults." I've defended my claims with statistics and logic and math. We don't have to agree, but if anyone is being over-emotional or personal in his arguments its not me. And you say cover of all things is a counter to tanks? Harhar.

Is the Starfall a buff to the Vanu Sovereignty? The Watchman a buff to the Terran? The.... ehm.... NC MAX? in ideal situations a buff to the NC? ( ) No, they're different tools providing different options. Whether or not the tools themselves are balanced is a different conversation. Merely giving player the options to use different ways to approach old problems isn't a blanket buff.

And how can you say spending nanites on a dedicated AV weapon is a direct buff to infantry but not say spending nanites on a tank is the same thing?

I want to be an AV tanker but that is being actively sabotaged by devs, but it's fine for that to happen since I'm just a vehicle ****ter and not infantry. That's why you plebs cry'd about being farmed by AP like trash you are.

In what way are AP tanks being "sabotaged?"

The Lightning and Vanguard AP cannons are even getting light buffs on the PTS.

CAI.

I think that's a good model. The community will make guides, and that dev time can be spent improving the game. And this community has plenty of people willing to help if just asked. I had no problem getting help. Anyone jumping on voice or chat in game has plenty of help, even from opposing factions. I think fixing the game is more important than explaining a broken game, especially when there are already more sources that can arguably do it better than Daybreak ever could.

Unless the game is literally unplayable, I think the devs ought to spend more time improving how they want the players to play their sandbox game. If no one at the table can play monopoly properly then it doesn't matter if the shoe has a ****** up lace or the go space is a fruit rollup.

sigh

That'd be a perfectly fine explanation if the game never rewarded you for the effort put in.

I mentioned I was making certs just sitting on top of the tech plant shooting rockets at any vehicle in the area. Well even without killing them, I still made certs, while it wasn't a kill and therefore should not be treated as one, I was still rewarded for my efforts when assists happen. You say you want to be rewarded for killing vehicles and therefore that must tie in to your argument that more powerful weaponry must be in place for such a thing is a flimsy argument at best.

If you get the kill, you secure the death. We do not have an ultimate context engine, acting as if we do does not help anyone. Even if you waited at the last possible moment to actually contribute the tank that spent most of his time shooting will still get almost 100% of the kill credit as an assist. However it only takes a guy not thinking for his team to actually wait til the last possible moment to kill something.

Or are you telling me that we need to change the reward system so that whoever goes the most damage gets the kill? Because at that point you'd never want to shoot rockets at vehicles ever. And unsynergistic mechanics in this game are detrimental for the teamplay.

Oh yea, they're clearly different all right, so why are you comparing weapons that have RPMs of 500 and 22 (maximum) respectively. If you're doing the math like that, the saw grossly out DPS's anything the cannon can do, the cannon is for burst amounts of damage over a short duration in an area and can be mitigated by 50% where as the saw only can be mitigated by 20 even though its a sustained damage weapon. Pros and cons. Lets not even mention server latency and gunplay.

Deregulating the costs would simply make for a more confusing game than it already is then at that point.

I'm not saying that costs should suddenly mean anything to everyone, but if it means nothing to you, that's a resource that you are not utilizing in your gameplay and you're just hindering yourself.

People have this mentality that resources are just tools for asshats that use hesh tanks and yet if you're not using any of it, it's actually not using a mechanic that the devs have put into the game specifically to balance out other parts of it. If no one uses grenades how do we break open hard locks on the points for example? The problem here is that vehicles are both not worth it for the cert return and are not worth it because you have to invest certs to specialize into it. So before you even start making certs, someone is already ahead of you in that manner. Even though the devs are trying to make default vehicles much more appealing it's clear that they still aren't because they almost never get certs for utility which is the majority of a newbie's cert gain.

In other words, the vehicle game is a kill game and that's why it's bad if you want to make certs. Players who do want to play with vehicles are playing for the objective of killing sunderers, playing for the novelty of using a gunship or tank or playing because they want to kill infantry. There's almost no utility that vehicles can perform that isn't 100% dominated by speccing out a sunderer.

There's no generator destruction, wall breaking, no reinforcing or shielding, no cover applied, no distractions, no nothing but kill kill kill for combat vehicles. This leads to an inconsistent cert gain in which if there are plenty of vehicles, tons of vehicles, it's a feast, if not then it's a famine.

Before you tell me that the game should be based around killing, you should address why do we even have support certs for basic functions and how come we shouldn't just remove them since "no one joins an FPS for anything except for killing".

Alright, what statistics, what logic and what math. What statistics that you've tried to defend your claim with, I've pulled, with what logic you've conjured up is complete conjecture based on the emotional state of the player, what math you've pulled up I've had to pull myself first.

Also

Kettle calling the pot black there. I think I've only insulted you twice at most out of all the posts in this thread, unless you're talking about the things I find stupid in this game. In which, I didn't know you were a digitized plastic explosive that was misnamed!

Lastly I'm pretty sure I explained why I wasn't going to respond to everything

Context:

Yep, I did barely touch air, because this threads about hesh which isn't an air weapon. Granted, my post can be misleading, but if that's your best defense, along with trying to insult me (which you claim that I do, constantly while ignoring you) then this should simply touch on ground to air interactions and why they aren't as powerful as you want them to be.

If any one unit could stop a unit based on seige breaking or coming into a base enforce then the point of that unit would be null and void. It's why there are a splash of different counters to work together to take on a bigger threat, much like a max in an infantry hold, the max is something that no infantry should be able to 1v1(without the ******** brick) and the max does in turn take support from the units around it, as it is not precise, it is unable to deal with multiple types of threats at once and must be repaired after taking any significant damage.

Now since the devs are working on the maxes to be a more break in type of role over a kill kill kill role (which completely invalidates your claim that no one joins an FPS game for any other reason than killing, also the quote was by wrel, you can find on reddit, I won't link for you) then they're also probably willing to change the game based on the major demographic of the game which would mean they would try to anticipate an ideal number of infantry, air, and ground vehicle ratio in which (this is a rather out there claim so bear with me) they would obviously expect more infantry than any other unit, which would mean that the idea of giving infantry more powerful weapons to deal with vehicles is so out there that it's completely unreasonable or they could even nerf infantry AV. Actually, they kind of already have, with lowering the locking ranges of many launchers. Suppose that isn't as out there as it seems.

That seems like an over generalized claim based on people actually trying to fly because actively, if ESFs did not consider flak a threat, then they would simply ignore it and keep fighting. The same way you would simply serpentine to avoid sniper rounds. The odds of it actually killing you at that point are slim due to it being a precise bullet at range and modelwarping is a *****.
AoE weapons however, render this method of avoidance null and void for a reason and is why they actually did increase the splash and splash damage on a lot of tank shells, because tanks are a ligitimate threat, simply serpentining to avoid 100% of a tanks damage would pretty much nullify tank's role against infantry.

But I suppose that's off topic pertaining to your original argument. Blah blah blah, you're insulting people even though you don't like it when other people insult you, gj, gold stitcker.

Since I don't know what the context of this is, you're going to have to be more specific to what this is pertaining to, but otherwise; unless you can prove that HE is a much more reliable kill over kobalts, I'd say that invalidates this claim based on previous statistics from dasanfall I've pulled up. As kobalts beat hesh in almost every catagory except for vehicle kills. Kobalts have a higher KPH, a higher KDR, higher KPU. To make the over generalized claim that all kobalt users are skillful(which since they actually make up a relatively equal amount of users against hesh combined would invalidate any "watered down hesh" claims), that still doesn't prove that hesh is more reliable.

Not disposable or easily replaced, easily seen, must take time to be deployed, requires a tech plant for MBTs, requires multiple players in the case of an MBT, longer downtimes for repairs, less maneuverable (because the definition of maneuverable is to be easily controlled while in motion; tanks do not turn on a dime and easily flip....alot), less adaptable, cannot get into bases which is the magical ******* axis this game spins on, cannot capture control points, cannot take cover from air threats easily, cannot swap roles on the fly requiring a new tank to be pulled every time a new threat arises, cannot be salvaged or "revived".

But by all means, the strengths comparatively to infantry are: Increased armor and HP, "generally" better sustained damage against vehicles that it is actively countering(because again, some launchers actually beat out in terms of DPS against some tank shells), better "staying power" than lighter means. I suppose in the context of redeploying, infantry do require a sunderer to spawn at an enemy controlled base with a few exceptions being biolabs and some amp stations (which is a shame because vehicle captured bunkers would've been cool) so I'll chalk up faster response time in attacking a base. Beyond that, the strengths of a tank are not so easily compared because often what you can do with a tank you can often do with a handful of infantry and deployment based vehicles.

You're reaaaaaaalllllyyyyy stretching the killing fps thing. At the point the engineers step out of a tank, they are no longer a tank, they are infantry and all the downsides that come with it right? But at that point the situation would change and then all other aspects are thrown into the air. No one is arguing that more players can beat one player if they adapt, I'm talking about if they are unwilling to change their methods, smart players should beat dumb numerous players, also I'm pretty sure I specifically said that the stalker was on a control point. No one is going to care about a stalker just cloaking, the stalker would have to present an active threat to the tank drivers, however trying to remove the situation I setup to specifically counter argue that 12 should beat 1 in any given situation, well, discredits that you're actually trying to sustain your claim at all. It feels like, suddenly, 12 should beat 1 is not a very good claim. After all, if those 12 heavies in the original argument could kill the lightning with just lockons, then the lightning could change it's tactics and use smoke to pick off a few and return when it has it's smoke ready again. Because the lightning decided to be smart and change it's gameplay to match the situation and therefore was rewarded.

Yea, I don't care. I never said that player aim was never a factor, however basing the entire game around how skilled a player is to kill everything is completely unfair and actually contradicts your argument with the 12 should always beat 1, if the 1 is far more skilled than the other 12 players combined, no matter what those 12 do, should that 1 be able to take down 12 other players?

In response to

How bout the official one by wiki? Combined arms is an approach to warfare which seeks to integrate different combat arms of a military to achieve mutually complementary effects (for example, using infantry and armor in an urban environment, where one supports the other or both support each other).

In your example, in which all things are simply a playstyle and there is no limit to usage, everything would be treated like infantry, there would have to be no additional value to tanks to perform a specific role in which everything could be solved by infantry in which the increased cert gain as infantry far outweighs using your time in a vehicle. It's stupid is what I'm saying.

People that want combined arms should be looking to integrate infantry play and armored play to complement each other, however vehicles are so infrequently used that it's still not rewarding to stop AI tanks with an AP tank because they are not often used because certs come from infantry more than tanks. Tanks perform no additional roles beyond simply pushing up to a base or killing sunderers and because of how frequent rocket launchers are, which are not actually that frequent in military application, tanks can't push up and expect infantry to, except infantry are not great at wiping out an entire line of heavies using rocket launchers.

It's one of those cases in which a few skilled players should be rewarded and be able to stop the line of locks but aren't because there's just a mass ball of infantry that can't be stopped because hesh isn't as effective as you claim.

Slightly off tangent, sure, but still valid.

That's a shame because it looks like more effort to convince me that this game should be molded into cod instead of simply working for a few hours and buying it. And the devs ignoring you completely so that it never becomes cod. etc.

It's not me trying to be rude, it's me trying to explain to you why this game should not be like another game unless you can convince me otherwise.

Btw, the example I used with liberators verses ground vehicles, I cut out DPS numbers because again, over the 20k limit....sigh.

With server lag as bad as it is, I consider this game literally unplayable. So yes, I'd like to see that fixed before they worry about new-player guides, which are already out there.

You guys realize no one is going to read your massive walls of text.

HESH in its current form is not good for the game. Its getting a slight nerf next patch, but it doesnt look like enough.

If you want to get a point across, try being a bit more concise.

Bored Spitball Time!

What if:

1. Tanks no longer cost nanites, the number of {combat} vehicles you can spawn is now a set number (per class, so that is X number of MBTs, X number of Lightnings, etc) per hour, with the number resetting (not stacking) every hour (or alert, or some otherwise predetermined period of time). Instead nanites are used to resupply ammunition. In exchange tanks now carry multiple types of ammunition which they can switch between like the firing modes on a rifle. Instead of certing into loading only one ammo type, you would instead cert into loadouts more heavily favoring one ammunition type over the other.

2. All* infantry gained access to a disposable (think LAW, Panzerfaust) launcher capable of significant damage to vehicles at point blank range but too slow to be effective at longer ranges. This would be in the utility slot as an alternative to C4 (so 2x maximum).
*all infantry that can currently use C4

3. Engineer AV turret replaced with a wire guided launcher. Makes them a bit more survivable and unpredictable while using it.

4. Give Heavy a nanites-only launcher. This has been brought up many times, but since no one else seems to want to be creative...
Launcher will be designated, not lock-on. Keep the crosshair pointed at the target and the projectile guides to the target. Projectile should fly faster than the Phoenix, and be maneuverable enough to account for changes at long range, but increasingly less so as the range decreases. Should be killable, like the Phoenix. Should hit for ~1/2 the health of an MBT, but reload speed should be such that if the tank reacts quickly they can avoid a second shot, but if they are too far from cover or if multiple infantry coordinate, they will probably be killed.

The devs won't read it, but that's not really the point. Plenty of players do, and their opinions get refined, and eventually things move along in to a palatable form.

Well I guess it's a good thing for my argument that the game hardly rewards players and in no practical way for not killing enemies. What, 50-100 EXP for assists, deterrence/damage ticks on vehicles? A kill gives more than double usually and ticks up the count towards medals 'n stuff.

Imagine the difference in certs gained if you were just fighting infantry instead. Doesn't even matter how or with what. You'd be much more likely to kill but even if you didn't get a single one you'd be getting more assists much easier. It's just not rewarding at all in any practicality.

I'd hardly call it "flimsy" to ask for the same compensation a player can get from playing an absolute minimal risk role requiring little skill. It's not merely what I want, it's what players need to incentivize the desired behavior. It's not worth the time to even attack a tank over infantry, haven't I told you?

>Dealing damage is rewarded
>Players wouldn't want to deal damage
Wat

Maybe players wouldn't killsteal as much but you bet your bottom dollar players would want to deal the most damage and fire at the enemy sooner.

Because 1/5 the damage at 500 RPM is way more than 1/5 at 20 RPM, and it's still way too low to be considered severe. A single rocket on a tank is hardly more than a scratch. Also SAWs against armour do deal less DPS on average. Against heavy armour they also deal a DPS of 0, so... But don't think of this in terms of infantry and tanks, think of it in terms of relative damage done per shot. One rocket or shell isn't much to a tank, just as one round to the chest isn't much to infantry.

Also I've never seen nor heard of anyone ever not registering a tank shell hit.

"Attention players, everything is now free!" Not confusing at all! Not balanced, but extremely simple if the proposed system is in any way confusing.

You misunderstand. Nanites mean nothing to me because they replenish themselves faster than I can deplete them. I could pull a sundy, drive it to a base and grab some mines for the road, a sticky and a frag, and a few medicine sticks before running out. Realistically I'm probably not ever going to need more than mines after a sundy because I'd have spawned with them already. In the time it would take to die I'd either have not used anything or lived for so long that if I threw my 'nade and chugged all four steroid sticks I'd have enough to replenish them all anyway!

Nanites are hard to run out of past outright abuse of force multipliers.

The vast majority of infantry gameplay is utterly void of the exact same things. At best there are a few pieces of viable cover around which aren't all that often used. Infantry, vehicles, air, it's all 'bout da killing.

I'm actually going to ell you the game is based around killing. Support allows for maor killing and is also a thankless task. It must be rewarded because most "support" class players are totally worthless as support. But honestly, did you first pick up PS2 because you wanted to repair tanks and rez infantry? Or maybe it's because you wanted to do so across a several-kilometer-wide open world.

Ya' know, all the talk about the statistics, the math of DPS and such crap, logic is what we're basing our arguments off of. Literally pages of it.

Ah, see, this is why to never break character and be inconsistent. At the time I was rather pissed off about something unrelated and didn't feel like using proper grammar for a once. "You" in this instance isn't referring directly to you, but simply a slang-ish way of saying "one," or "a person." "[If a player spams] the **** out of tanks and gets [his] *** kicked when someone better than [him] comes along and shoves a rocket up [his] *******." Not a logical sentence but like I said that wasn't really the intent at the time.

Well then don't go about making claims you know to be false! But you do ignore large swaths of my posts, you even say so yourself.

Different strokes for different folks. Even if a unit is mostly only good for one thing while something else can do it roughly the same some players might still enjoy the niche unit more and want to use it over another. Options are fun.

If a MAX can't kill me in the 0.3s-0.5s it would take for me to aim a launcher and not bother to chase me while I spend the next 5 seconds reloading he ought to die when I do it twice. As is, I Decimate (pun intended) MAXes solo all the time and I often don't have a choice given how much they are spammed and especially so in smaller fights. No one should just click a big green button and suddenly become tougher and stronger than anyone else because of it. --Break-in by killing everyone who tries to stop them. But I've not seen any potential changes put forth by the devs. nor and lethality nerfs, so I don't know where you're getting the idea from.

And if you won't even provide an attempt at any kind of evidence I cannot even consider your claim valid. I'm not going to look for potentially misleading, inaccurate, or anecdotal evidence on your behalf.

Well, perhaps it's more a generalization of A2G ground Skyknights who loathe death and avoid it at every opportunity. A2G ESFs in general though, do follow the generalization. Also insulting the type of person, not an individual.

If you actually read everything it would be a lot more clear. I even used the exact same wording as you did to make the connection as clear as possible, and in the following segment I'm still directly referring to both weapons by name. All my efforts are so underappreciated.

Already did, see previous posts. I say your interpretation of the data is wrong. See previous posts.

I think you'll find it has been argued that they are easily replaceable and that they are disposable. Size accounts for at least three disadvantages by itself, only one combat vehicle can deploy, takes less than a second, and now doesn't even need to deploy to get the former huge DPS buff which can now be done on the fly. Requires a techplant *lattice connection, requires only one player and receives a combat bonus with two, air has unparalleled maneuverability at high speeds, are generally more adaptable to any battlefield with universally effective weapons (AP does strong damage to everything), cannot capture *most control points, nothing outside can find much cover from air and truly nothing effective without being newly defined as "indoors," generally don't need to change loadouts with one-size-fits-all weapons, and most of the time neither can infantry unless in the presence of a capable and willing medic for as long as he lives.

Against launchers almost universally higher, see previous post. You also forgot speed in every way, significantly longer TTKs against them, significantly easier weapons, AoE effects on many weapons, universally effective weapons and loadouts, again.

Again, if they're not fighting it's not a 12v1, it's thirteen randos dotted around a base all doing nothing. If they got out they'd not be tanks, off course. But there'd still be twelve of them able to fight one enemy weaker than they are. If one stalker can kill all twelve pilots in direct combat he must be declared "Battle-King or the Stalkers." Or banned for cheating, one of the two. But again, if they aren't all fighting it's not a 12v1 and no one is going to die.

If a heavy is a better player than twelve other LAs combined and they all get into a fight at the same time where one team is the heavy and the other is the LAs, the heavy is going to be shredded almost instantly instantly by 12^X shots per second. Even if they all have 20% accuracy the heavy cannot win even with a blatant aimbot before the sheer volume of fire tears him apart. No one player no matter how good or cheaty he may be should ever be able to account for 12 other living players at any time.

Which wiki? If both infantry and armour can kill infantry and armour, are they suddenly incapable of supporting the other, even as they kill infantry and armour together?

Everything can be solved with infantry, or tanks, or light armour, or aircraft. It's about player freedom and the choice to play how the player wants to play.

Again, I stand by my ideas as integrating infantry and armour together.

No, it's not rewarding to stop an AI tank because the time it would physically take to do so would be exponentially higher than the time it would take to kill numerous infantry.

Skill should always be rewarded but it should never make a player unkillable.

The Devs. ingore literally all of us here on the forums on a daily basis.

But anyways, seriously calm down with the strawmen, you're building an army to rival the likes of the Terracotta. I have said and described many, many times a game which does not resemble COD in any way. You refuse to look at my arrangement critically and instead equate me and my ideas to those which you personally dislike.

If you shortened your post by trimming my quotes you'd have had the space needed.
|

The walls are there for those whom wish to read them.

Opening statements on these threads are often very concise, we're just discussing the finer points.

1. limiting tanks to population is a bad idea and will make an unrewarding style of play even worse (compared to infantry), why should tanks have to pay resources for ammo? infantry don't pay for any bullets they use.

2. there's a reason why we have a class system, ether pick heavy assault or don't, infantry shouldn't all be toting rocket launchers unless they are heavies, imagine an infiltrator with a rocket launcher or a ball of medics with rocket launchers and remember you can't make those only hurt vehicles, people will inevitably use them against infantry.

3. they are not heavies they get wire guidance from their AV turret because it's counter balanced by the fact the turret is immobile (skilled engineers use the place, shoot, scoot, place, shoot scoot strategy)

4. 50% of a tank's HP at range? seriously? you are effectively asking for ranged C4, tanks are nowhere near the threat infantryside anti-tank people claim, you die more from infantry explosives then tanks. if this ever happened there would be no tanks left playing cert and exp wise it is already more profitable to play as infantry then to drive around in a tank, lets remember that tanks are far more limiting than infantry, you can die 10 times and still keep playing infantry, if you destory a tank the user might have enough to pull another one and if you kill him again soon enough he's out of resources.

infantry's strength is numbers, vehicles strength is speed and armor. i wonder if you even play enough in tanks to have a balanced understanding of how infantry and tanks interact.

HESH is nowhere near as a threat or lethal as infantry like to claim.

You make a compelling argument for Infantry consumerables being too cheap.

Wait a moment, haven't it been tankers that got us a C4 nerf because a thing with NO range was deemed too strong by them? Seriously, C4 was NEVER lethal for any tanker with just a bit of situational awareness. Still you got your nerf.

"You strength is that you need 10 people to kill me...my strength is that it only needs me to kill 10 of you. That's balanced.". That's your argument? Really???