I really wish there was more infantry combat

Since were all dumb, maybe you should just leave.

We can go large squads of people with rocket launchers, this works.
However, We cannot have every infantry squad go 8 HA, 2 engies, 2 medics.
That would be booring, it would also drive metagame stagnation due to EVERY infantry platoon being the same for fear of armor.

We can have big balls MC c4, the solo light assault. This works. A Single light assault CAN sneak up on a tank, and pad it with enough C4 to kill it.
However, it works much worse with a squad.

However, the lack of ranged, mobile AV defenses for the other clases makes squad infantry AV based around a single setup.

While we do not need a second rocket launcher, we can definitely balance a weaker, higher effective reserve ammo utility weapon for ambushing tanks in numbers. This would allow for more variety in infantry squads, without forcing your squad to respawn en-mase due to a lightning showing up.

A squad with proper medic coverage doesn't need Injectors. Sure, they would likely appreciate a good number of Heavy assaults.
However, this doesn't mean a squad should lack the ability to hide when they see armor, and have every member contribute without respawning if a utility mortar, which I have suggested a good number of times here, were added.

This means, a tank couldn't roll over squads by chance if they are not a specialized Anti-Armor squad, meaning not a soul can damage their tank out of the group after they blasted the chance HA's.
The squad could likely severely damage them, and kill them if they outsmart the tank.

Would rocket launchers be a part of the solution? Yes. They are not obsolete, they are still the largest package of infantry to armor damage that can be delivered at range.

Would C4 be part of their tactics? Yup. C4 is best, but its just a bandaid currently, as only LA's really are able to make it shine, per say.

Would people use grenade launchers? Probably.
Grenade launchers are free, restock-able, high velocity, and good on infantry/maxes.
However... They are not good for tanks. I have seen people try, but equipping a weapon you might not even like is pretty steep for using an attachment for anti tank purposes.

Would mortars make the situation much more bearable? Yes. Infiltraitors, medics, and engines who are packing AI turrets could whip out their anti tank mortars, and soften the tanks for the big guns to finish them off.
Being a utility item would make them cost resources, but they would probably be the cheapest item for the infantry, due to the sheer number of shots it would take to kill a tank, making it a weapon for the masses.

They probably would be cheap certification wise too.
I mean, its a weak mortar based of the fury designed for squad use. Meaning that it encourages team play, and isn't good for lone wolfing.

So far I've only thought you two were dumb. You're not dumb so much as childish. So really only one. Like the person I'm about to respond to is really smart and actually has interesting ideas.

Only quoting this part for ease of people reading I did read the whole thing. I don't really disagree with you and it's an interesting idea but I think it would need to be very heavily regulated and likely requiring sacrifice in order to do (ie an engineer loses his repair gun)

I'm definitely for spreading the AV roles between classes but I feel the HA needs to lose some usability before we can do that. Things are boring infantry wise atm because the HA is so ubiquitous.

Lack of proper vehicle population control has caused the nerfing of vehicles, and the buffing of infantry vs vehicles. So all the people who really care about using tanks and aircraft arguing against vehicle population controls are only hurting their own playstyle. Kinda funny if you ask me. Sweet irony.

Don't know if this has been suggested before, but how about adding some single-use disposable rocket launchers? They'd function a bit like C-4, you'd purchase them with infantry resources and equip them in your utility slot, and they could perhaps be used by every class except for heavy assault (not sure if it would be OP on classes like infiltrator, haven't put much thought into it). Would give infantry more of a fighting chance vs tanks imo.

What makes someone an idiot is also the person using a beta site that even the Devs stated that some of that information is not quite 'accurate' at the moment and stated it is STILL IN BETA.

Furthermore, you posted a few times wanking about lockons and berated people with regards to many other things that you don't give the impression of a person who 'uses that preferred method'. Furthermore, the 'preferred method' does not necessarily reflect based on 'kills', otherwise mine would have been under infantry as a heavy given some of my kills, but I also get some on as an Engineer or Light assault too in various other ways.

From my own experience, trusting a site to believe that is 'preferred' method based on kills and what it is... Planetside 1 would be rife with Orbital Strike spammers as the preferred method by sheer volume, when that is purely opportunity. This game is easy to get kills or kill steal on purpose or accident that any stat from that site would be suspect because of how some people have died in various ways and their level of contribution is not exactly 100% "their's" either.

The reward of effort in this game is also kiltered, more so on the fact that I have gotten experience doing a fraction of the damage, but someone else gets the XP for the kill. We have people who bail out of vehicles and denying people of kills as well and again this skews metrics to make the use of said stats to place a claim on 'preferred killing method' is accurate when some things can also be kiltered on me getting lucky with C4 or with a dalton or being part of an annihilator squad hitting the jackpot of blowing up a sunderer full of people, when I may prefer killing people in an MBT or with the LMG.

But hey... Let's not bother with the fact that logic dictates that this game doesn't show metrics of the efforts of a person... Or the fact people get tons of XP arriving to a capture of a base, even though they put NO EFFORT in taking it, just happen to be in on time for the conversion. Or the logic of the effort it takes to get a group of people to mass lock on to 'ONE' target to try and bring it down. And let's also not forget, YOU PULLED THE 'NO COST/NO TIMER' ARGUMENT. To me, anyone who pulls the 'NO COST/NO TIMER' argument based on resources literally screams 'Air Jockey'/'Tanker'. The 'NO COST/NO TIMER' argument is a poor excuse in any argument.

At the same time, your lame statement saying people are bad players for getting farmed by vehicles and being camped at the spawn is further proof that you are not only ignorant of actual proper defense, but you, like others I have argued with here, have no concept of proper defense. You blame the players for not defending, for being bad. The design of all the bases are CRAP when it comes to defense. No one with any combat sense would setup places that are so damn open and cannot be defended or make it easy for a vehicle to move in without getting hit hard and be a detriment to attacking forces. No one would design a base where defenders can't get to key areas or have the ability to defend key areas by some means and no one would make defenses that forces the need to have MORE defenders be able to hold off attackers.

But like the foolish person who uses also limited number of people who visit the forums to be your "majority" you failed to grasp that there are REASONS why you don't instantly cap a base... Why there is an SCU you have to burn down in the major bases. It is there to let defenders try and fight back, to try and retake the base.

And lastly, like those I criticize for the whole 'Fall back, you lost the base' argument people, constantly falling back means - NO FIGHT... I play the game to have a good fight. I play a lot of FPS games because I want a fight, but if you want to foolishly cling to the 'bad player' argument on bad base designs that make it too damn easy for Vehicles to suppress a room, then you are just as 'bad' as the players you insult who want a fight that doesn't involve quick turn overs.

But in the end, I guess it is because of the 'Call of Duty' ADHD type players. And I say THAT, more on the need or desire to have quick, roll overs, when wars are rarely quick, decisive like a standard small FPS fight... Sort of ignoring the fact not all fights are like that.

You can't have that because it would be considered 'OMG, Infantry IWIN BUTTON' just like what they are doing now with the Annihilator complaints, ignoring the fact that lockon weapons, while "skilless" are not always "zippy" in the kill factor, and requires more than one person pulling it off. Now you are offering a literal weapon anyone can use to kill, even with a 'cost' would not curb the use of the Lockon based weapons, still won't kill the complaining of the 'OP' infantry weapons against vehicles.

This was the more proper use of the decimator in PS1. One never reloaded the decimator in PS1, it just had three shots and once spent, auto-removed itself from One's inventory. I would rather the decimator almost no one uses be turned into this for all classes, only 1 use as opposed to 3, unless certed that high. Hrm... medkits, or a decimator...

From FNO tonight, Hossin should be a very good continent for infantry. It should be very fun.

Play cod then? it's about having a tank line, bombarding, abusing lack off AA and the infantry are the ones in the ****, they're fodder. They don't cost resources and they don't have long respawn times. If the enemy has tanks, get tanks, the better team will end up with tanks+infantry vs infantry

They're the cheapest and biggest force.

And it's so much thrill to just hide behind a tree when an enemy MBT runs by and you're just sitting there, ready to flee

Well, first I'd like to say that server mergers did help a lot. I just hope it can stay this way.

No. I will not play CoD . I love the large scale combat of Planetside. Also ,love vehicles and infantry. I was just afraid that infantry were being threatened. Server mergers have reassured me, but the pre-merger Indar is still a warning of what will happen if server pop drops too low with the current vehicle system.

YES! You are right. Things are boring infantrywise, or at least were pre-merge because of HA, but not directly because of HA itself. Rather, everyone was having to play HA to deal with all the tanks. It was a self-perpetuating cycle. And as to your earlier comments, there is no direct correlation between vehicle kills and number of vehicles. But anyway, again, things are looking up post-merger, so I'll stash this thread away in case infantry combat ever gets boring again.

I really wish there was more infantry combat


Solution: PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, PS1 motion detectors, PS1 cloaking AMS.