Higby: Return of the Tankside

Argg not the clearest post, but not going to edit as the forum is **** and does not work correctly... what a shocker an iffy Sony product.

Seriously, they can always get a profanity filter to work, priorities are screwed SOE.
You have no hope for a future with this kind of performance, take a look at your electronics divisions that are falling down.

Won't be log before China takes you to the cleaners with the games market too I'll bet.

lol.. Has "Elite" in name and posts stuff like this...





Now then, still haven't heard any real arguments against vehicle deterrence XP since deterrence is the new thing for infantry.

I'm thinking XP, ribbons of course, maybe add it into the HA and MAX directives.

The worst part of this thread isn't the caliber of the debate.
It's that we're insulting each other over petty things.
Stats? it's been done. Forum names? that's some sort of new low.

Did it make your ego feel better saying that?

The reason the LA revamp was cancelled because Higby decided if LA's were given buffs, Vonic and others who excel at Light Assault would become overpowered.

They've also used this rationalization for not buffing several NC weapons. Because those who were great with them now, would become totally unbalanced.

So even if your stats represent the top 1% of all tank players, the same reasoning applies. These changes would make good tankers like you completely game-breaking. And even raise up bad tank players to the level of being powerhouses.

But what posting your stats DID do, was confirm that you care little about game balance or the quality of life for other players. You're just another Vehicleside farmer who wants even more buffs for his farm wagon.

What are you saying, that tanks should be buffed to the point that ANYONE getting in one can get stats like you? You should be on here telling everyone that if they practice hard and master their craft, they can attain your level of success with MBT's. That they don't need buffs. And that C4 is fine. Because if you can do it, why can't they?

Instead you chose the really dishonest and undignified path of joining the unwashed by pretending there is ANY aspect of your craft that is in need of a major buff. Your stats prove otherwise, good sir.

Stats are not petty, they're pretty revealing.

What if you saw me make 200 posts about how horrible some weapon was. Then when you looked up my toon, saw that I had a 30 (just making some numbers up for argument sake) KPD with that weapons.

Wouldn't that tell you something? It would tell you that I was full of it!

I have no doubt this dude is a good tank player. But I'm sorry, his stats alone prove there is nothing wrong with MBT's in their current state. And it's simply disingenuous for a player enjoying that kind of success, to come here and lobby for buffs. It's just selfish!

Also the stats show that even the best C4 user in the game, could never EVER even hope to achieve that kind of result.

Stats are facts, they cut through the hyperbole and shed light on the issue. Yes they can often be manipulated, but that's not the case here.

I've been a gamer for over 20 years, and I'll tell you this. When the elite hardcore players get the ear of the developers, which they usually always do, online games like Planetside 2 quickly go down the tubes. Because they ONLY care about their own little thing and not the overall game.

It actually really shows that nobody should care about K/D in a combined arms game.

The entire point of a vehicle of any type is to augment the capabilities of the crew, and is generally centered around doing a lot of killing while not dying very much. It's why we spend billions of dollars or millions of nanites on them in the first place. Even the MAX.

Obviously this ruins KDR as a stat in this kind of game, since a vehicle that didn't leave you any better off than before you pulled it will have utterly failed in its role.

What's funny is I do think these buffs/av nerfs are too much too fast (200m is so bad it's not even funny) but I cannot agree with someone claiming that pulling a vehicle should make zero difference.

Why bother spending ten million dollars on a tank if it's going to die just as fast as a foot soldier that your accounting department considers to be worth fifty thousand, and not even have any additional lethality to show for it? Why even spend 450 nanites, for that matter?

This game really needs more than just a new resource system. It needs a full fledged economy, where absolutely everything has some cost.

This would require significant nanite inflation though, if the cost of a bullet is to be anywhere close to reasonable compared to a tank.

I don't die consistently to single infantry. What I said is that when everything CAN die to a single infantry then Tanks become under powered, particularly when faced with an AV nest.

I also don't think LA should be incapable of destroying vehicles. Instead I think that 2 c4 is a very low amount of nanites to destroy a tank, and I think that if LA want to destroy a tank should be forced to spend a somewhat equal amount of nanites (give them a utility pouch).

When you consider the logistics involved with fielding an " armored " squad, and the resource costs involved. It is significantly harder to perform consistently when compared with other aspects of the game (infantryside, and airgame).

Not only are you forced to drive everywhere, but the moment a few of your players die you have to repull tanks and drive from warpgate / nearest main facility. The chances of you dying in transit if not babysat to a random ESF fielding rocketpods, a tankbuster lib, or a bunch of ******* bailing down from a galaxy is significantly higher than the chance of dying in a straight up 1v1 engagement with an enemy tank.

It is simply not worth the effort, and at best an unreliable move dependant on your opponents being idiots, and this is reflected in the number of players that bother to invest heavily into tanks vs the number of players that invest in other aspects of the game (infantry side, and airgame).

The reality of the game is that tanks got nerfed in early release, HEAT / HE nerfs and base design updates have ensured they stay a niche product that isn't any better than ESF*s with AI weaponry, which means that the only purpose someone would pull a tank for is a push and ditch vehicle for adaptive squads that push lanes, and a farm vehicle for players that can't fly.

Lock-on should be reduced to 200meters then to be fair its just point and click weapon. and then wait for result.

Since we're being all chummy, for starters, I'd never do that. Your player character stats are yours and I have no interest in them. The most I do is check when people have made a forum account, or, if a character is listed, when the oldest character was made, since that helps me understand from where that opinion is coming and how it evolved based on gameplay changes. That is to say, how the game was back when the person started playing, to where it is now. You don't even need to go that far to determine when someone's opinion of a weapon is expressed in hyperbole.

The compiled SOE usage statistics are more meaningful in any case.

EliteEskimo is this forum's premiere tank enthusiast. Has been for as long as I recall him posting. Even as far back as when tanks were all sorts of rubbish and silliness - the metal coffin with a gun that they once were - he's been out there playing with them. He's posted lots of opinions about how they would best operate alongside other elements in the game, their interactions and the gestalt that could result from it, and within the framework of other play styles. Regardless of my personal opinion of his stats, if there's someone who has been serious and focused on tanking long enough to have an substantive opinion on the matter, it would have to be him. I can't think of any other name.

Only Eskimo?


I CLAIM TR BIAS IN YOUR POST, SIR!

Fair argument.
Like I said, though, I can't think of any other names. Not that there aren't others, it's just that I can't think of any by name.

I'd love to dive through the history of the late Vehicles subforum too, if I could, but I don't know if I could piece together enough of it just by traversing back through the post history of user accounts.

300m surely. Make C4 do directional damage, if I flank the tank I should be able to kill it at least from the rear.

Also: allow me to apply camo to my anti-tank mines

All that means is he's lost all his objectivity, and his opinions cannot be taken for gospel when it comes to MBT balance.

I just knew something was skewing his perception when he started to bring in the "realism" argument and how infantry AV should be utterly useless against his tank. Now I know why.

He hasn't been the realism guy in this thread. There's always someone who'll cite it but, in this thread, it hasn't been him.
And where in this thread did he say he wanted all Infantry AV should be utterly useless (for now I'm just going to assume that's your rephrasing) against tanks?

MBT's in Planetside 2 cannot die to a single infantry carrying AV weapons. You can barely carry enough rockets to solo a tank, and what kind of idiot is going to allow you enough time to shoot them all?

The fact that C4, a general explosive, is FAR more effective then dedicated "anti-vehicle" weapons, tells you they aren't hard counters, but merely deterrents.

But C4 is also orders of magnitude more risky to use against vehicles. High risk, should equal high rewards.

Using nanites in a balance argument is flawed for a few reasons.

1. The resource system is broken currently, with plans to revamp it coming allegedly at some point in the future.

2. Ninites costs have no bearing on balance. The players have created a false hierarchy in their minds that cheap things should be weaker then expensive things, when this was never the intention of the Nanites resource system.

LA's should spend equal the amount of nanites to the targets they can destroy? Just...what? How in the hell could you possibly balance that? By that logic a Harasser should cost 500+ Nanites, and we might as well remove Max units from the game.

This is a pretty subjective statement. And considering the potentially high payoff of organizing an "armor squad", shouldn't it be "harder"?

But aren't you guys always preaching that it's a "combined arms" game? And honestly, cry more please. You are vastly exaggerating. An armored squad is not going to be getting ganked from an ESF, unless it's crewed by oblivious bads!

So basically you should never die in a tank. I mean, that seems to be what you're saying. Ridiculous!

I'll believe that when I DON'T see herds of tanks everywhere I go.

Effort? Sitting in a tank all day? Please, that aint effort.

What about Alarox, Myself, Sebastien and Calisai? >_>
(or for some more infrequent posters, FourTwoFour and Rayden78?)


I miss the vehicle forum.

You've officially lost it with this, and have gone completely off the rails. Just wow...are you serious?

Your playstyle is so important, the ENTIRE game needs to be revamped to make you happy. We need an economy? Where even bullets have a cost?

I think you're done here honestly. Time to find another game, because I can assure you people don't log into Planetside hoping it gets turned into Eve Online with guns.

Also why do you guys keep bringing up Nanite "costs"? Nanites regenerate automatically. They "cost" you ZERO! You didn't earn them, you didn't pay for them. Nanites are there to LIMIT YOU, not to use them as a justification for being overpowered.

Dude if we got ribbons every time we hit a tank with AV, only to have it drive off and repair somewhere, I think the servers would melt down.

How about infantry deterrence? Make all main guns require 5 hits to kill infantry, see how they like that.

... This forum does have that follow-poster-function-thingy. I really should start using it right now, else I'll look even sillier.