Noot is a special kind of train wreck: you want to watch the results. As well, the mods act on excessive acts seemingly not the usual chatter: Which covers a lot apparently. Or they are subtle about it.
Me too, but considering how mild I've been recently I am wondering what the hell it was. There's been tons of worse insults all over here. Recently I also corrected someone on what autism meant, and for some reason that was also regarded as an insult. I corrected someone's prejudice and it was considered an insult! It seems that the moderators are getting out of hand. P.S: I wouldn't be surprised now if that last sentence causes this post to be removed as well the way it's been going. Edit: Also nice that they don't tell you which post(s) it was that got removed. You have to find it yourself.
I've recived a warning too, that's the moderetors. Anyway, this thread is kept going becouse the problem persists
The problem of players using their opinion and ignoring performance stats does indeed persist. Any idea's to solve this problem?
- Take a bunch of people and fight it out in a variety of configurations on PTS. If you really want to prove ****, make it a tournament with some kind of prize. - Abuse the supposedly overpowered thing on the live server and give us hours of uncut streaming. Then let everyone else post their hours of uncut stream to compare. Include both abuser and victim perspective when making the final verdict. These are the only two ways to make any arguments in terms of balance when it comes to online games. Anything else is make-belief with numbers. However, PS2 is a bit of a wonky game, as it doesn't have proper metagame. Its nature is too casual to pressure people into using optimal tactics. Even the veterans tend towards doing whacky **** instead of going for pure performance, as anything else will make you go mad from the monotony of this game's structure. And then you have issues like the known bug of NC getting all the noobs even though VS have the beginner-friendly guns, which skews the balance massively as well, as "harder to use but much more powerful" is meaningless when everyone on your team is too bad to reach the skill cap. Maybe we should focus less on balance and more on expanding the scope of things to do in the game. I wish the devs had the resources to make bases that can only be assaulted with turbo boosting vehicles, bases that are on flying islands, bases with hackable auto-turrets that ignore cloaked players, etc. Not only would they shake up the gameplay on a semi-regular basis, but they'd also allow underpowered or rarely used pieces of equipment to shine, which would indirectly lessen the salt from the balance issues that cause these things to be under-utilized in the first place. (Note, these are one-trick-pony concepts. If they were to actually be implemented, they'd need to be more than "that base that's good for harrassers, war ants and flashes (and possibly Magriders if the design is done badly)". I'm putting this disclaimer here because there will inevitably be someone who'll otherwise complain about these examples.) Whacky war adventures with hundreds of participants is where this title really shines. It should play to that strength. Snipers, C4 and Heavies belong here just as much as harrasser races, ESF roadkills, Sim City and actually not invisible Navy Seal cosplayers.
On the NC i fear every beginners weapon is actually good. Exept for the Gauss saw. The Mercenary is a Pulsar C on roids The sniper rifle is bolt action The Medic is versatile. I fear the TR have the most hard weapons to manage for new players. Couse the "spray and pray" policy (If you say "burst fire" you get shot on the spot by a commissar)
The Vanguard only seems OP if you keep trying to counter it by playing to its extremely specific (often crippling) strengths - don't facetank the facetanking tank. You'd think a player with a faction tank that has the highest mobility would understand the benefits of flanking and evasion...
You can't flank and evade when assaulting a base with 10 heavies ready to lock on. You can flank in campaign combat. Last time i saw one in planetside it was 2 years ago
A base with 10 heavies, that can't all have angles, that can't be 360 degrees around the base, nor can see everything with their full firepower... You understand that flanking doesn't require the enemy's entire force be facing the other way right?
Thus, it's not flanking. Flanking involves not being in seen by the enemy. Man am i talking to someone that uses his brain or just wants to grind my gears?
Ambush = not being seen. Flanking, is attacking the rear of the majority. You literally think a mobile threat with an optimal range is more suicidal than a stationary one that has no optimal range. A 6 second shield is OP, against faster & stronger opponents A Beetlegeuse which is at the top of the charts, is inferior And that the Godsaw fires faster than the Gauss Saw, which both are 500 RPM.. which is slow. So irony.
If they see you and they get into position, you are not flanking anymore, that seems pretty reasonable I sware the Godsaw has faster RMP once. Beetlegeuse is ****. It's the orion but worse, it's only cool for swag really The vanguard shield is invincibility mode for 6 seconds. How much goes a vanguard with the racer chassy? My magrider goes 60 About agility? Could we say a leviteting tank is more agile IF it can't turn the turrent without the whole body with it?
If they have time, to move from every possible angle & position, your entire plan requiring them to not be able to, or not have time, was poorly planned. It never did. It has 30 less bullets, and a further range: it only recently got the AV mode, which was later given to VS in a better form on a pistol. The Beetleguese's infinite ammo, and better stats make it superior to the orion.. You can't get worse, when it has better stats, infinite ammo, no need to reload, and the perks of the original. It lost nothing. Invincible? No. It's a directional damage resistance booster. For 6 seconds the tank takes less damage: and it's dependent on side hits or frontal hits, the rear is unaffected. With the largest side, and longest repair times, hitting the side of it is easy, and repairing that damage takes more time. Magrider goes 60, and has a magburn, in addition to 6 directions of motion in addition to the smaller chassis. So a smaller target, with no sign of motion, with a speed booster, and a reload advantage. Agility does not refer to the turret: the tank is capable of moving in any direction it likes, without even needing to rotate, and has a speed booster. Every other tank has to turn their entire side to the direction they want, to then start moving. If the Magrider had a turret also, (let alone if they kept stability of the fixed-mount gun), they wouldn't get much out of it. Besides easily hiding behind the smallest cover, the ability to strafe, fire & point escape button at a different direction of course. Magrider is also very effective at evading & being hard to hit with infantry-scale AV. Add in the ability to rapidly ram infantry if need be, to the murderous travel speed while never exposing the rear.. And then you recall the Prowler's top speed, and NC's Vanguard having the largest possible side to hit.
A magrider goes right, left forward, back. Not up and down. Tha'ts 4 directions The magburner is a joke. useless in combat, it's good for climbing hills tho. Are you seriously saying that a tank that is used to flee. Becouse the magrider is just good for fleeing. Is better then one with more HP and Shield? I stop discussing about it, everytime i write something to you i hear the eagle screeching and some of my neurons dieing
I was refering to angles, not up & down, which is the usual (the up & down) A joke. It's used to escape combat, against infantry, or to begin an engagement. The Shield isn't good for anything but a single instance of a slugmatch. Fleeing? The agility of the Magrider offers more options than 6 seconds of Shielding on the largest tank. The Magrider has a faster reload, the enemy Vanguard has a longer repair: If you aren't trying to face-tank the Vanguard, you can use the tactical application of your mobility & faster reloading to deal rapid damage, evade shots, or re-position easier. Then disengage if need be, for the shield to be nullified, and re-engage easily: Vanguard can not escape. Vanguard is not in control of the situation. Shield is situational, and countered by not ramming yourself into like an idiot. As well, the TTK on the Vanguard remained the same with that extra health, it just takes longer to repair it. This means, that much more health is exactly the same as prior to CAI, for the prowler & magrider to kill it. It has just affected the repair times, with the Vanguard having the longest. Eagle screeching. You mean phoenixes. I'm sorry an non TR\VS ES weapon is being used. Heaven forbid it's not "Buuurrrr" or "pew pew" over all, but some NC ES sounds actually being heard in a battle against the NC. Like jesus, we know you want the weapon to be rendered useless not actually remade better -- You fear the shield preventing straight-forward "Bash it, and if it does anything special, do the same action as before" Given VS & TR can't be handled by simply shooting them to pieces regardless of ability use when using a Vanguard. Yet NC is expected to be beaten by firing at it, regardless if NC does anything. As then you'd have to actually worry about the NC equipment, if it was actually taking thought & not just shooting it as if NC didn't try any tactics, or abilities but just died to TR & VS regardless, if unless that VS or TR was that inferior to not win the fight. Think about it. Can you survive in a Vanguard without the shield against a Prowler using nothing? Can you survive against a Magrider without angling yourself, or doing anything special in a Vanguard? What did the opposing tank do? Sit still & opened fire? If so, I hope they didn't win if the Vanguard didn't do the same damn thing. As that would mean the Vanguard doing more work, or timing, or any action is equal to inaction of the VS or TR tank operator. How about Phoenix? Should it fire from spawn? No. Should it remain in the present state but lack that capability? No. Why? As it is the only weapon that lays vulnerabilities upon vulnerabilities onto the user, while also making the most basic action entirely counter the effects of the weapon: Aka an singular engineer or repair grenade on a vehicle nullifies phoenixes. You see a Lancer. You know, it has an optimal range, you work around it. Enemy & User, work around this limitation. You see a Phoenix, you know anything can survive it - and that it is vulnerable in the process of acting. Entire risk is on user's head, threat is near absent for enemy. You see a Striker, you know what it is geared for, you know what to avoid. Enemy & User, work around this limitation. Scattermax: RNG controls this, in the only firing range. Perhaps using NC gear, outside of perfect situations, would help your issues. I made sure to use the Lancer in the worst possible situations after a Lancer thread. I use TR weapons in the worst situations as well, as normal ones, to know the limits of what I am fighting. It helps a grand bloody deal.
Even if there was a hypothetical unflankable Vanguard in a base protected by tonnes of AT heavies, that just means it's playing to its strengths and minimising its weaknesses. There's still a very real threat from Light Assaults, mid to long range Harassers, opposing AT heavies, Libbies, etc. and you're complaining about it being invulnerable?
