Higby: Return of the Tankside

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by BlueSkies, Jan 16, 2015.

  1. Yago

    OP histrionics aside.
    Wouldn't the complementary playstyle be to have air and troop support for said tank column?
  2. Dinapuff

    The only thing that changes here is a bit of a range nerf and a slight increase in hp so c4 can't gib a tank with esf / c4. You don't need more than 200 range to take care of a tank most of the time, and c4 is used primarily against infantry.
  3. Dinapuff

    They do this because if they get closer they risk getting ****** by everything because they are too fragile to actually play as proper support without dying within a few minutes.
  4. WTSherman

    If you have been forced back to the point that your spawnroom is being camped, you are not defending the base. You have already lost, the timer is just a formality to create breathing room between fights.

    Any attempt to re-take the base from that point will take the form of an attack, with the other team defending until they are pushed out or the cap completes.

    Even a redeploy MAX crash from the spawn room is strictly speaking an attack, using the spawnroom as a beachhead.

    Defense does not begin when the point flips, it begins as soon as you see an enemy on the horizon. It does not end when the base caps, it ends when it is easier for the enemy to walk around the base than for you. At that point, they have control of the base in all but name.
    • Up x 5
  5. Juunro

    Well, yes. And I've been having alot of fun using a Valkyrie with vehicle stealth and like, 3 jackhammer heavies and a medic on the skids to drop on top of rocket nests while the gunner hoses targets with a CAS-14. It makes lancer nests evaporate in a most satisfactory way.

    I was just saying that "Our only mission is to stop tank zergs" is a statement that needs to be matched by doing the same against the VS on alts or at least by redeploying away to entirely different fights when the VS starts doing it themselves, otherwise they are being hypocritical.
    • Up x 1
  6. Yago

    Ohh a user manual for the lancer:

    • Up x 4
  7. Yago

    Better for the thread if you don't draw out the worst in people for effect IMHO.
    Glad to hear of tactics and teamplay at work though, *doffs cap*
  8. ATRA_Wampa-One

    Yes, you use AP now since your easy (9000) kills with HEAT was rightfully nerfed, oh and congratulations for having more HEAT kills than the world leader with the hPPA does. And yes, HEAT was rightfully nerfed when the world leader has 5 times as many kills with it as the world leader with the Magrider PPA and it should be nerfed even further along with the AI damage that AP shells do with these tank changes.

    Also, which instance were you talking about when GOKU drops between a TR/NC fight and lances all their armor? No I'm curious since apparently we do so much. As to your assertion that we kill everything with our lancers... guilty as charged but we make a special exception to kill the known HE/HEAT spammers first.

    Oh and keep saying I'm the biased one when DA can't even track your infantry stats since there isn't enough information to do it.

    Well, I was trying to be nice since the only thing you seem to be in are tanks and MAX units, but there are several MAX units that couldn't shoot me while I was throwing C4 in their direction. It's called positioning and it's something that I do all the time as infantry while for some reason tank spergs think they shouldn't be bothered with because QQ C4.

    That's the entire point of my argument by the way, why should every other thing in the game except for sunderers and galaxies because they are essential to team play have to keep good positional awareness or risk being killed by people that flank them almost instantaneously while tanks should be immune to that mechanic?
    • Up x 1
  9. Juunro

    I don't really want to get into the argument with and against HE/HEAT farmers, but do you really think that the AI damage an AP Tank shell does should be nerfed with this patch? I mean, really? It's a gigantic sniper round; there is no universe in which a dude on foot shouldn't be turned into meat-slurry when hit by a 75 pound penetrator tank shell going 6 times the speed of sound. You have to already hit someone directly with the damn thing, should it not kill now unless its a headshot?
  10. I play by many names

    Higby puts zero thought into these balance changes. Sigh. He fixes none of the issues plaguing the game while making an easy to use farming tool even easier to use, while at the same time gutting the light assault class even more.
  11. WTSherman

    Not to mention that 8 seconds is a ludicrously long TTK no matter how you look at it. Why should a tank have to take 8 whole seconds to kill a single infantryman?
  12. Juunro

    Honestly, if they'd give me a friggan co-axial Kobalt as a 'scope' choice for the main gun, they could nerf the AI splash all they damn well want.
    • Up x 1
  13. I play by many names

    Because not every vehicle in the game should be able to easily farm infantry. Some should actually be weak against infantry and require infantry support to properly use... You know, like tanks historically needed. Tanks don't need any infantry support in PS2 because they have insane AI capability even with a purely AV setup. Tanks should dominate open terrain against other ground vehicles, and only really do well against infantry when supported by infantry. Tanks should be at a disadvantage when fighting infantry without their own infantry support and when fighting in any kind of urban/cluttered environments.
    • Up x 1
  14. FateJH

    Does everything a tank do equates to farming, including their own self-defense?
  15. WTSherman

    You pretend that tanks are "historically" weak against infantry, but historically they're anything but. Tanks have always been able to kill infantry in direct combat just fine, including in most games where they are present.

    There are exactly four things that infantry "historically" do better than tanks.

    1: Recon. An important part of recon is not being seen. Turns out a 70 ton tank is pretty easy to see.
    2: Doors. Sometimes you need to get into confined spaces. Tanks are fat.
    3: Being expendable. Infantry are cheap, tanks are not.
    4: Being versatile. An infantry guy can hop on a turret, get in the back of a jeep, set his rifle down and go grab ammo for a cannon, parachute from a plane, search PoWs for hidden grenades, dig trenches, clean latrines, and generally do whatever you want him to as long as you get him the right equipment. Tanks are stuck doing exactly what they were built to do, they damn well better be good at it.

    Being killy and being dead 'ard are what tanks excel at. A tank that's not killy at all (such as taking 8 seconds to kill an infantryman that literally any other unit in the game can kill in 0.2) and made of paper is a tank that completely fails to fulfill its role.
    • Up x 1
  16. LegioX

    Counter changes. Tanks should cost 750 resources now. You want to go kamazii with a tank or harasser, well if u lose it you will have to wait 10-15min or more for another. Heck I remember in WW2OL when you pulled a tiger, if you lost it, you couldn't get another for like 1 hr. That's how it needs to be.
  17. ATRA_Wampa-One

    That makes no sense at all from a "realism" stand point though in a science fiction first person MMO game where the planet we're fighting over some light-years away from earth prohibits any gun from firing over 1000 times per minute or at velocities greater than 1000m/s because reasons.

    Realism people... because I have never once seen video evidence of a single infantry man disabling or destroying a tank while using simple handheld explosives.

    NWS Video!
  18. WTSherman

    Honestly, if you ask me the resource system as a whole still needs a ton of work.

    Either nanite pools need to go up, or there needs to be nanite generation and storage that is independent from players (such as a base having its own nanite reserves). This is to allow a wider range of nanite prices, so that prices can be more finely tuned. Separating nanite generation from players would be ideal, since it would reduce the problem of more players=more nanites=stronger zerg.

    The "personal resources" could perhaps represent how much of the faction's resources you are authorized to access at once, to prevent a single person from draining entire bases.

    If we can access more than 750 nanites at a time, then we can make things that cost more than 750 nanites to pull.

    Prices in general would need a large overhaul. Vehicles would likely go up across the board to make up for larger reserves of nanites being available, most consumables would probably remain largely the same or receive small adjustments to more clearly define their value relative to other things. Aircraft would have to see a substantial increase in cost.

    Adding a small price to most/all ammo would be nice (if and only if nanite availability is expanded as described above, otherwise we'd run out of nanites so fast). It would add a small value to being ammo efficient. A cost added to redeploying could potentially curb Redeployside.

    A more detailed approach to weapons would be nice too. What's funny is that due to the current resist table this is entirely possible, but SOE generally likes to just give a weapon a single multiplier across the board and leave it there unless it causes a huge fuss (like the original Vulcan).

    For example, rather than the simple "AV, not AV" divide we have now, we could have more fine-tuned adjustments. Make HMG types (ie Basilisks, Basilisk clones) able to damage Sunderers and Aircraft but not Lightnings or MBTs. Make light AV types (fury, Viper) able to damage sunderers, aircraft, and lightning, but not MBTs. ESF Noseguns could probably generally be put in the "no damage to lightnings/MBTs" category. This helps with the "relatively few things can qualify as anti-tank in the first place" idea.

    Weapons that lose anti-tank capability could receive buffs in other areas of course.
    • Up x 1
  19. MarvinGardens

    There are no facts supporting your claim that you can't break a siege from the spawn room, and your definition of "defense" is highly subjective. I do not understand how you differentiate retaking the capture point from "defense". If you are attacking anything in a base you control, that is "defending the base". Alternatively, if you are attacking anything in a base you don't control, that is "attacking the base". Thinking you can't re-take the base after getting pushed back into the spawn room is just your opinion, and is proved wrong every day in game. Not in every battle, but I've been in many battles where we either pushed out an enemy by continuously attacking from the spawn room(usually by taking out Sunderers and their armor support) as well as getting pushed out of a base when the enemy received a lot of spawn room redeployers. It's only when you give up and stay in the spawn room that nothing gets done.

    Some ways to break a siege are organized MAX crashes(You don't need to redeploy to MAX crash), rushing enemy Sunderers with C4 to take out spawn points(made a lot harder after deploy shield, but I'm fine with that), rushing enemy tanks with C4 to stop them from spamming guys leaving the spawn room(will be infinitely harder after armor buff), and let's all not forget the magical wonder of redeployside, where defender pop can explode within seconds due to organized redeploying. Seriously though, keeping an enemy out of a base is an exercise in futility. At least in Planetside 1 there was a freaking wall around the bases with only 2 entrances for vehicles. Most bases in Planetside 2 have no defensible perimeter. Just a clear ride for enemy vehicles to drive on in and either set up Sunderers or tanks at choke points. If battles ended as soon as the enemy sets up shop inside the non-existent base walls, then why the hell does Planetside 2 insist on drop podding me into those very same bases whenever I select Instant Action? Plus, why are those the only bases they let me spawn in without leap frogging with redeployside? Perhaps because they want me there to help "defend the base"? If Planetside wanted me to re-take the besieged base from the nearest friendly base, shouldn't they make me spawn there instead?

    I do believe that base defense does start as soon as the enemy renders in on the horizon, but the defense doesn't end as soon as things are unfavorable for the defenders. Otherwise, why would the attackers need to wait to get their capture xp? Because the fight's not done, that's why. I believe that, and since capture xp is awarded at the end, Planetside apparently believes that as well. Whether you believe that or not, nothing in the game supports your definition. It might in the future, but not right now, as of this post.
    • Up x 1
  20. Hatesphere

    you spooked felicity
    • Up x 1
  21. WTSherman

    I mentioned the MAX crash myself. A MAX crash is an assault on a base you do not control, using the spawn room (or teleporter room, in bases that have them) as a beachhead to stage your assault from.

    Just because a base is your faction's color on the map, does not mean you really control that base. If I can walk about the entire base freely with little to no fear of getting shot, where as you would die the second you show your face, who controls the base?

    The side that can safely occupy it, of course. Anything else is just a formality. If you drop pod into a base that is completely locked down, you are dropping into hostile territory. The color on the map doesn't decide the real ownership any more than raising a flag at a castle makes it yours. It's yours when people you like can come in, and people you don't either get kicked out or die.

    Here's an example of an extreme scenario: if a base has 100% Vanu pop in it and 0% anyone else, who really holds the base? It doesn't particularly matter for practical purposes what color the base happens to be on the map. For all practical purposes the Vanu control that base, and you will have to launch some kind of attack to take it back. To hold the base the Vanu will have to defend, even if the base happens to be red or blue.

    That bases are so tiny, that being "pushed back to the spawn room" is often a matter of the front line only moving five feet, is a base design problem. That's what makes bases indefensible, not whether they accommodate spawn room warrioring or not. PS2's map designers were so focused on making sure you always spawned "close to the action", they forgot what would happen when the action moved right up to your door.
    • Up x 6