Higby: Return of the Tankside

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

  1. Ragnarox

    And btw what is next? Buffing ESF hp by 40% and giving them stealth ability and nerfing AA ? This game is going wrong road....Its already half dead.
  2. HadesR

    Since I have been finding Infantry have been rendering out to 400m now and the majority of Infantry Ground AV weapons will be capped at 300m or less ..

    The distances Ground vehicles can hit infantry should be made to suit ..
  3. Kevanov

    I would be fine with the changes if the nanites regeneration was lowered. I don't care if tanks are stronger but I don't want to see 20-30 tanks rushing a base endleslsly. Its already a problem and it wil be worst
    • Up x 2
  4. Auzor

    This game could do with a few things:

    Slightly reduced harasser health/ harasser more vulnerable to certain weapons: no buggy can take 2 AV-RPG hits and live.

    The lightning viper reworked: different category from fury & bulldog:
    Make it an autocannon. Jack-of-all trades:
    Bigger mag, less splash, straighter projectile: this should be a counter to harassers, but also be effective vs any aircraft that make themselves easy to be hit.

    The ES buggies: could use similar "autocannon" weaponry; less dps vs mbt's than a halberd or actual AP cannon, but decent RoF and effective vs light vehicles. (including liberators..)

    Tank vs Tank: the USA Army first gulf war doctrine of the silver bullet: the best weapon to defeat an enemy tank is a better tank.
    Makes for poor game balance... The best counter vs infantry, is another infantry. The best counter vs an aircraft, is another aircraft.. Not exactly the "combined arms" approach. And the mind set will run into problems vs an enemy on the same technology level, with a different approach.
    Make a lightning version that is a tank destroyer. Less resource cost than mbt, more mobile, highly effective gun but.. can only shoot forward. (you should still be able to look around!) GL farming infantry with a frontal-only AP cannon. Facing forward the gun can of course move, within a 45-90° arc. (60°?) Stats wise: something like the Vanguard AP cannon, but with a 3s reload. This means losing the turret, but gaining -1+2075/1600=29.7% damage. Might not be enough. Higher shell speed, for example 400m/s.
    An even better option would be to make it empire specific.
    Anyway: harasser from behind should be effective; but IMO harassers should hunt stuff like this tank destroyer, sundy's etc. They should fear the tanks.
    we need a dedicated ground anti-tank vehicle, that is not a tank.
    A counter is only a good counter, if the counter requires less resources and/or is more effective than it's target. A vehicle should not be it's own counter.
    A "tank destroyer" lightning can be the counter to mbt's. Will require positioning; can't afford to be outflanked.

    A reworked ESF can be the counter to liberators.. atm, liberators seem to get by rather well. That is to say, it will take a lot of ammo to down a liberator. Lib has 86% dmg resistance vs esf nosegun. So, 14% makes it through. Vortek rotary can have 33 rounds, 320 dmg each. 3 full clips at 100% accuracy and within max dmg range don't suffice to destroy a liberator. And that lib may well be running fire suppresion.. Destroying one lib, with 100% accuracy, drains 45% of the rotary's unupgraded ammo pool.
    Yet pilots whine that their double-hornet rear attack deals only about 50% dmg vs mbt's from behind..
    It should be natural for starting A2A pilots that they go for the less manoevrable targets, like libs and galaxies. Yet, these can often just shrug off the damage.

    Coaxial weapons for the tanks.. any tanker with a cobalt has no excuse for bunny hoppers closing with RL.

    As mentioned by so many, increasing tank resistances, vs specific weapons, and front & side armor.. not a straight HP buff.

    The enforcer was doing fine. Why did it suddenly need recoil? It fires a smaller projectile than the halberd..Why did it's muzzle velocity need to be nerfed? Saron and Vulcan are 300m/s..The "Gauss" faction gets the lowest muzzle velocity.
    I'm not against a higher RoF.. simply make the projectiles smaller and increase mag and ammo count.
    So, if current enforcer is 500 dmg, 60 rpm, 8 rounds, new enforcer is about 250 dmg, 120 rpm, 16 rounds. Maybe a slight buff.. but not 500 dmg, 133 rpm. Make it a gauss anti-tank rifle; high velocity, zero splash damage

    Actually vulnerable aircraft, and/or better AA. ("better" does not mean "flak does more damage"; better is a skyguard with a double walker turret: high dps, if you hit the aircraft)
    For the ESF: a different nosegun: low RoF, high dmg/shot, very effective vs lib & galaxy. This represents the "20mm" spitfire, vs the ".303 machine gun" spitfire; developped in strong part to counter German bombers, against whom .303 machine guns where limited in effect. Such weapon would remain as effective as other noseguns vs ESF's, but have lower RoF.
    Mouseyaw remains needed for more airplay.

    Choice of sights for RL (especially the "default" sights); choice of sights for ES sidearms. (and buffs.. NS revolvers > most sidearms)

    Max abilities rework/buff; possibly with a nerf to infantry weaponry resistance to compensate maxes with effective combat abilities.
    NC max: I wonder what would happen if we took the shotguns, made them fire 3 pellets only (3 barrels on the model), but a tight pellet spread (1-1.5 vs 2.5-3 current), but upped RoF, mag size and reload speed to compensate. Range would be extended, they would fire full auto, but you wouldn't get "one shotted" anymore.

    Regarding the AV range limitations: I find this a bit scary because it seemed like the render ranges had gone..
    With a lock-on, you can quickly look and see if your RL starts locking on.
    With the AV turret, you don't exactly get a range indicator. Likewise with Ravens, Fractures etc.
    Is this a crappy attempt to get people to run the range finder implant?

    Then there is the metagame that goes untouched. oh, btw: I still very often get the message that I'm not allowed on the site etc. I swear at Higby all the time in game.

    Overall: very, very dissapointed that of all the things possible, Higby decides to run AV secondaries through a magic-8-ball random nerf/buff generator, then goes: let's just give more HP to tanks etc. Really mr Higby? Nothing more urgent comes to mind? Is this a deliberate attempt to keep peoples mind of actual issues?
  5. Taemien

    Zerglings get farmed on the ground below. Coordinated players giggle at them getting blown up by cert farmers as they fly over in Gal's and cap the base.

    Not much is really changing. Though pulling a tank might be good for casual play once in a while.
  6. Hatesphere

    are you implying people on the ground are not organized since they dont fly? i dot get what you are saying.
    • Up x 2
  7. iller

    Most of their KPH has always been generated from C4'ing MAXes and other Infantry, not tanks.
    Nothing will change for them. This is a nerf to Tankbusters which have had it coming a long time
  8. Killuminati C

    They'll be missed... I predict endless spawncamps in this games near future. I really hope this gets shot down on the PTS as I think most people who don't exclusively main tanks are fine with the current balance.
    • Up x 1
  9. HadesR

    Also if Tanks do get the HP buff

    Base turrets should also be buffed in their durability and / or DMG output to reflect their static nature and to compensate for the increased HP of said tanks ..

    30-40% HP increase and maybe a 20-30% Dmg increase would put them in about the right spot :)
    • Up x 2
  10. Sierra331

    7th Cav looks forward to the buffs to our beautiful Vanguards.. I've taken to calling mine "Baby" ;)
  11. Thornefear

    So unaware, crappy, lazy farming tanks won't be easy cheesy kills.

    Oh well, they'll still die.

    Gets out the suicide tank mine engi dedicated to gurney dam vanguard enforcer point parks ( a cheesy BS move)

    You gotta do, whatya gotta do.
  12. LibertyRevolution

    I predict this is going to end like the liberator update did.
    They will buff tanks, tanks will rule Auraxis, then they will remove all of the buffs then cut their ammo capacity to 1/4.

    As far as neutering the light assault so it can't blow a tank with 2 blocks of C4? To that I say go f**k yourself higby.
    Why is it OK that a heavy can carry the 2 blocks and the rockets to solo a tank, but a LA with no shields you nerf??

    Keep in mind, last time tanks were strong, libs and lolpods were strong and could keep them in check..
    Now you want to nerf the infantry counters to vehicle zergs, AV turret and C4..
    I will go back to battlefield if this becomes world of tanks.

    Tanks have no purpose in this game other than to farm infantry, and you want to buff them, what are you thinking!
    How about you work on something important like giving tanks a reason to even be in this game...
    Like have them out killing nanite convoy runs or something.. not buff them to farm spawn rooms.

    If infantry are going to have to be within 200m to hit a tank with AV, then I demand that all tank shells have their range capped at 200m.
    Also, if my AV turret is going to have a 200m range, make sure you nerf phoniex down to 150m, its camera guided...
  13. Milspec

    I guess not? I finally left PS1 when the new devs started shoveling all of the shelved vehicles and weaps into the game without a care in the world for balance. The first Galaxy Gunships for example - they instantly dominated everything on the field and were near indestructible. The devs were like "cool, that's fun, right? Lots of splosions! That Galaxy crew is having an awesome time!".

    Like all of the OTHER players getting their tanks and planes blown out of the sky and getting driven into bases by a SINGLE GalGunship were having fun and not either certing Galaxies themselves or just quitting out to avoid catching SOE's cluelessness.

    I had hopes that PS2 had sorted things out, but no - I see that it hasn't. So it's either McCheese gameplay or McOwnedByCheese gameplay, and frankly neither one appeals to me.
    • Up x 2
  14. zaspacer

    Well, looking over current causes of MBT and Lightning deaths...
    http://ps2oraclestats.com/monthly-vehicle-deaths/ (select MBT or Lightning)

    That should leave MBTs and G20 Vulcan-H (TR) as the main killers of MBTs/Lightnings. With P2-120 AP (TR) being the top killer of both MBT and Lightning. And since Banshee was nerfed, now Mosquitos (TR) are using MBT killing capable Rocket Pods (http://ps2oraclestats.com/monthlystats/) in massive numbers.

    Looks like it's gonna be TR's time to shine in the Standard Game. Unless VS can really milk the Lancer at range AV.

    In the Server Smash game, ground Vehicles (besides Sunderers) are irrelevant, so no impact there.
  15. Pikachu

    How come? :confused:
  16. MrNature72

    Except it's not.
  17. Alarox

    1.) The outside of the base doesn't matter that much.

    Attacking: Tanks can't affect inside the bases.
    Defending: Why fight outside the base when you can redeploy into the spawn room and MAX crash?

    2.) It takes too much time to react by puling tanks.

    Why spend minutes redeploying to a specific base and driving to the battle when you can send air in seconds?
    • Up x 3
  18. zaspacer

    In Server Smash, each Team (Faction) can communicate/coordinate. When Factions can communicate/coordinate they just drop Infantry directly on bases with Gals or Drop Beacons. They also use ESFs to get around or as AI.

    Top Server Smash Vehicles: Total Kills
    #1 Reaver (1636 Kills)
    #2 Mosquito (1590 Kills)
    #3 Sunderer (1324 Kills)
    #4 Galaxy (835 Kills)
    #5 Scythe (723 Kills)
    #5 Liberator (401 Kills)
    #6 Lightning (185 Kills)
    #7 Harasser (135 Kills)
    #8 Valkyrie (121 Kills)
    #9 Flash (68 Kills)
    #10 Prowler (17 Kills)
    #11 Magrider (14 Kills)
    #12 Vanguard (5 Kills)
    source: most recent Server Smash (SS #12)

    Flash gets more kills than MBTs.

    Archive of Server Smash data:

    Ground Vehicles are too slow when players can communicate/coordinate. It's much faster to just hop in Air or use a Squad Beacon and move directly onto the Cap target.

    In the Standard Game, most players can't communicate/coordinate with each other, and they don't share the same Squad Beacon. So players just find the larger battles or Faction grouping (zerg) and join it. Then that Faction grouping just randomly follows the lattice and meanders around the battlefield.

    PS2 Devs have balanced the combined arms game for the Standard Game. Server Smash does not support combined arms play. Squads and Outfits get to play in the Standard Game (playing in a small group akin to a small FPS game, in isolation from the rest of their entire Faction) on Baby Zone difficulty level with access to the completely broken tools/tactics of Server Smash gameplay (which they think this makes them "skillful")
    • Up x 3
  19. vanu123

    Nothing can hit past 600m, lancer would need a massive damage buff if its range was nerfed.
  20. FBVanu

    Again, it seems, most of forumside is not surprised at the large numbers....
    Again, SOE did not invite any input (or did i miss that email?)
    Again, SOE has a thread here that tells them "you're going too far"
    Again, SOE, I ask: Why?

    The involvement of the player community appears to be non-existent.. again.

    We have been asking SOE to go in small steps, over and over... .. then adjust more later..
    but, again.. these changes do not appear to fall into the category of "small".

    SOE.. we understand the business pressures of trying to generate revenue with a F2P game,
    we understand that your developers have their own ideas.. some of them even pretty good ones.
    What I do not understand are your nerf-buff cycles that mirror an all or nothing attitude, without
    any involvement of the players, or so it appears.

    Please understand, SOE, we don't want you to do what we tell you to do..
    we don't want you to listen to us
    we, sometimes, would appreciate an indication of being heard. But if you don't bother to ask,
    it will be very difficult to hear us, or to give us the impression that the players matter.

    This must be the fourth or fifth time I write something like this into the fourm, again...

    That leaves only one conclusion: "What we have here, is failure to communicate.. "
    • Up x 1