I had fun last night and I think I know why

PS1 bases pls.
Pls Higby pls =[

Remember that one day - that one freaking day - when splash damage for all explosives was accidentally disabled (except for the Magrider's main cannon, but nobody really cared)?

What a glorious day that was. There was a huge thread on here (that even got Luperza's attention) praising that 'bug.' Being able to move around and actually enjoy yourself without having your screen bouncing around like crazy or getting instagibbed from hundreds of meters away or at the very least, having half your health magically ripped off by an aircraft that wasn't there 10 seconds ago. That was one of the most memorable days that I've ever had while playing this game, and it was for all the right reasons.

Why do people say this? Do the not realize Battlefield is a combined arms game and this game practically copied it, just put it on a massive scale instead of 64 player maps?

Battlefield handled combined arms better too. Infantry aren't just completely helpless against them, you can actually take them down if you are an engineer. a single RPG will take a chopper out in one hit if you manage to land it. and you couldn't just spam them either, vehicles were on a cooldown and there could only be a certain number in play at a time. Not to mention the infantry gunplay is cirtually identical, with projectile's bullet velocity, and recoil you have to compensate for.

You see it as farming XP. I see it as destroying enemy spawn points, destroying enemy armor columns, and ruining the enemies overall plans for vehicle deployment.

It's not my fault SOE made destroying vehicles the most profitable way to play this game; in fact a large portion of the player base asked for an increase in XP for destroying vehicles because it was very low when the game was released. Am I capitalizing on it? Yes. Would I still play the same exact way if XP was cut in half or more? Yes. Want to know why? Because I enjoy playing MBT. Because MBT is the only playstyle which doesn't cause my FPS to drop <10. Because destroying enemy spawns and combat vehicles is one of the most satisfying, important, and impactful part of any fight IMO.

The point of bringing up my XP gain was to show that a tanker doesn't have to shell a spawn to get XP or make an impact.

If you think this type of gameplay and XP gain is "easy" or "mindless" farming, then give it a whirl and tell me how effective you were.

I would still roll around in my MBT if XP was cut in half or more. MBT is my favorite playstle. I could care less about XP gain at BR100, but what I do care about is destroying spawn points and enemy armor.

Funny thing about your biolab comment is that while you are up there in the BioLab, camped in a spawn room, staring at a bunch of dead bodies, with a medtool out farming revive XP, I'm down below the biolab protecting our spawns and taking out the enemy spawn points.

A thankless job that infantryside players are quick to dismiss or call unimportant.

This reminds me of the trite complaint against snipers in games. Yeah, it's hard to see it coming, most times you don't, and for that reason losing this way sucks and feels cheap. With that said ESFs, just like snipers, CAN be countered, sometimes by other class but always by the same class (esf vs esf). What's frustrating is when you have no interest in playing the classes that can counter. But when this is the case the only thing you can do is try not to be where they will be if possible, and, more importantly, call for backup to counter the threat.

So you are guy in the tank that shows up and kills the AMS and ends the battle for us players having fun fighting over a base.
What you consider to be "most satisfying, important, and impactful part of any fight" is actually what ends the fun part of the game.
Most of us are here to play a massive FPS.. when you kill our spawn and end the battle, you have killed the game.

Yes, I was here when a vehicle kill was worth 100XP, yes it needed to be increase, and I am fine with where it is now.

What I am not fine with is how vehicles can just go wherever they want on the map and hunt and kill anything.
I would like them to make all areas not connected by lattice into "outside the combat area" and give you 10secs to get back.
How out of bounds works on the edge the map, but have the line be your territory and what territories are open to attack.

They cannot limit how many people pull vehicles in this game, but they sure could limit where they have access to go.

Are you seriously trying to debate me using the "you ruined my infantry farm by destroying the ENEMY Sunderer?" Hahahhahahhaahhahahaha

Sorry I'm out there completing the objectives that most people are to lazy or suck to much to complete.

Also by making non connected areas out of bounds for vehicles you are eliminating the entire principal of Flanking. You might enjoy the zergy, one lattice lane 200vs200 fights pounding into each other head first , but I guess I enjoy a bit of strategic play.

Hahhaha thanks for the laugh.

Your objective is to end the fights.
My objective is to enjoy the fights.

We are playing with totally different goals.

Flank all you want with infantry, I am sick of random vehicles showing up at battles they have no connection to destroying the fight.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

YAY, then I am winning forumside!

As a MBT driver what do you suppose I do? Should I let that enemy Sunderer sit there and spew out infantry and drive up to them harmlessly and ask politely if they would like to c4 me?

So let me get this straight. According to this OP as a MBT driver I'm not supposed to farm infantry kills, because ???cry cry it hurts my feelings??? According to you, I shouldn't be destroying sunderer's because it ruins "enjoyable" infantry fights.

What exactly shall the point of a MBT be?

I'm playing planetside, where the goal is to take and defend territory. Like it or not, that involves killing sundies.

CS 1.6 doesn't have any vehicles and the matches don't end until all the infantry are dead. Maybe that's your speed?

Ultimately, the goal--the only real goal--is to get the most possible people having fun playing the game. If anything you're doing is lowering the overall amount of fun people are having, you're playing the game wrong and need to not be doing that. For better or for worse, for most people here, the fun comes from big, long infantry fights. We can argue back and forth about whether that *should* be the case, but it is what it is, whether we like it or not, and if, by playing towards *any other goal*, no matter how noble, you are ending/preventing those infantry fights, you are making other people not have fun and actively destroying the game. The whole point of this thread is that people are saying that they have more fun when vehicles aren't around, and no amount of argument about combined arms or how obviously tanks should OHK infantry or any of the other things people talk about will change the fact that, ultimately, anything that makes the average player have a bit more fun is a good thing, and anything that makes the average player have a bit less fun is a bad thing, no matter what. What we're saying is that vehicles in PS2, as they currently are, have a tendency to make the small percentage of players who happen to be in tanks at any given time happy at the cost of every one else being less happy and having fewer fun fights.

Why does every thread titled "I was having fun" always end up being vehicle hate threads?

I swear you people are trolling me at this point. I've now been told twice that I'm actively ruining the game by destroying sunderer's and "ending" good fights(grind fests). Bad hit detection, horrible FPS and pings, people shooting through BioLab shields with libs, people shooting into spawns with HE from outside render range, people abusing the invulnerability bug, and so forth are what are ruining the game. Let's not blow this out of proportion.

The goal of this game is taking territory and owning continents. The goal of this game is not grinding it out for hours on end inside a base in an endless stalemate. If "the majority of players" were only infantry, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Believe it or not, a lot of people drive tanks.

The thing is that this IS a combined arms game, and no amount of whining and complaining from the infantry players will change that vehicles do have an impact and do play a role and aren't going anywhere. It's like you guys just want vehicles(except sundies) removed from the game, and I hate to break it to you, they aren't going anywhere. Either DEAL WITH IT or come up with some suggestions that don't involve nerfing tanks to uselessness or removing them.

I ask again, what role shall tanks play if it is not destroying enemy vehicles or killing enemy infantry(you know the things they do IRL)?

I can't believe there are so many people who actually think that playing the game the way it is supposed to be played, ie destroying important objectives, taking territory, defending territory is actually a bad thing. I want to laugh at you all but it's actually pretty sad that you think I'm hurting the game and making it less fun. It's no wonder this game is in shambles, the players have no idea what type of game they are playing.

And BTW don't try to make your statements represent "the majorities" view, if anything there has been a healthy back and forth between people who are for and against vehicle participation in battles.

Oh my god you're joking right? You're gonna hate on splash damage now?

A lot of people liked that bug. Truth of the matter is: tankers that went HE and farmed infantry were doing more harm to the game overall, by way of having "fun" at the expense of the dozens to sometimes hundreds of people they were mindlessly farming. I don't think anyone minds when a tank takes a few people to bring down, they just don't like it when tanks can hap hazardly shell an area with sloppy aim and be rewarded for it and more often than not easily escape for repairs when they do come under fire. Personally, I'd like to see secondaries become the primary means of infantry killing, but not on the level of the PPA (which is more sloppy aim rewarding bullocks.)

Planetside is at its best when vehicles don't make a strong presence outside of where vehicles are expected to dominate and in fact, be fun to utilize.

It isn't about limiting numbers of tanks though, actually, I'd rather it be encouraged that more players pick up flying or driving. It's about their ease of use or likewise, difficulty in use. It's easy to farm up tons of infantry with a HEAT/HE cannon, but the way the land is hand carved, it's also easy for a tank to retreat into cover and repair once damaged, making tank on tank warfare feel frustrating and unrewarding.

There's also a distinct lack of distance to cover between conquerable facilities. People don't mind jogging for two minutes. By contrast, PS1 was akin to taking everything but the amp stations, bio labs, and tech plants off of the lattice in PS2. Everything else can't spawn vehicles, and was only good as a local infantry hard point. People were more likely to grab a tank taxi then, and their convoy met the enemy tank convoy...

Here's the irony: if SOE were to take everything but the largest bases off of the lattice, the increased general distance between these locations that matter might encourage players to actually counter attack with their own tank blitz. There is still a problem with terrain making it anything less than a mindless cluster **** in most locations however. One or two guys get scared and stop moving forward, the rest of the convoy gets held up and starts getting picked off like fish in a barrel.

Additionally, as bases generally DON'T suffer from tank shelling madness, the belief that tanks ruin everything should fade a good bit. Generally speaking, I think tank balance vs. infantry is good right now. The problem is that most capturable facilities simply aren't built to be all that great at protecting players from tank spam, much less host zerg on zerg battles for that matter. Likewise, I find the actual bases to be far too big for the purposes of practicality.

Because 2% of vehicles can piss off 98% of infantry.

Switch to AV? If me and 10 others do sure we can take out the tank. If I and 5 others do, the tank drives off slightly hurt, repairs, then comes back at max range to spam again.

Vehicles saying C4 fairies and infantry are their biggest threat? Proximity radar. Oh, what's that, it hurts your chances vs. other vehicles? But infantry are your biggest threat. So do you want to fight vehicles or infantry? Not that you really have to choose, since most AV weapons kill infantry just as easily as the dedicated AI weapons do.

Vehicles are the prime example in this game of having your cake and eating it too. There's nothing they can't do, have minimal risk when played with the least amount of intelligence, and can destroy an infantry forces 5x their size with spawn camping. If everyone had access to the lancer or infiltrators had AV options, things might be a bit different but as is the only real threat to a tank is driver stupidity and aircraft.

Dear OP, there are several games which are advertised as pure fps (infantry) on the market, against the combined arms feature of PS2 and several other games which require air and ground effort (some even naval) to accomplish an objective.

Please, check them out and play them all you want; free of vehicles ruining your fun, libs wrecking your suit and battle galaxies bringing doom and loom to your troops. Wouldn't that be amazing? what are you waiting for bro? The paradise awaits you and all the infantry heroes!

Shouldn't you be farming with HE shells somewhere?

Pretty much this.

All we need to do is lower the XP a vehicle gets for killing infantry to -50% of what it is now and it'd be great. Tankers would want to engage tankers, there'd be no reason to just sit back and shell bases unless you're someone that really cares about KDR.

If you are someone that really REALLY cares about your KDR? Then congratulations! It means less than nothing