If "vehicle nerfs" are supposed to make the game "better"...

So many issues in that post.

The very main problem is that everyone thinks balance comes from nerfing or removing the unique thing of the targeted weapon while some people think that the game is "balanced" if they made all the weapons identical to their rivals

Let's take a look at the games nerf history that went into big concern

1)AV grenade nerf
They did so becouse it was just a better variation of the normal and HAs used it against infantry although it's supposed to be an AV grenade,now,it doesn't fit into infantry rule neither AV rule becouse you need to have PERFECT aim in order to use it right

2)Dalton,zepher nerf
This mainly came from some self-important complains from some people who doesn't approve something called "air support" and always dreamed to turn the whole game into infantryside,now,dalton is more focused on armor and mostly liberate vs ESF fights (it's actually good but needs more muzzle)

zepher was supposed to be a versatile weapon,not focused on AV like dalton and not focused on infantry like the duster and shredder,it's meant to have higher splash damage than dalton for infantry and moderate direct damage for armor,yet,all that got nerfed becouse of the same infantrysiders

3)PPA nerf
This also came from the guys who misunderstood it's rule as it was intended to be a LONG range infantry weapon,the main problem was that people generally doesn't want any sort of vehicle inclusive fights and that's why they nerfed everything in it,the canister will be kept as it is(only effective at short range engagements) and making the marauder as a downgrade of the fury,so basically no one wants ES secondary weapons to be effective at range which is something that harms the game "interest"

4)banshee nerf
This also came from so much complains about its high dps although it was a very competitive nose cannon when we compare it to the light PPA as both of them were both solid against ground targets,the nerf also came from infantrysiders as well who think that ESFs shouldn't have A2G rule and that's what's going to be the main focus of the future:the light PPA

5)ZOE nerf
This was also becouse people aren't convinced of VS maxes ADSing faster becouse they are supposed to be heavy units that move slow while with damage boost,it was a solid long range ability.unfortunatly,some people didn't understand it was meant to be an offensive ability (that's why you become more vulnerable to bullies when you use it) now,it's a thing with more disadvantages than advantages,you get the dmg boost till 10 meters and still more vulnerable to small arms and makes AV weapons useless with ZOE,while after 10 meters,the dmg becomes less than the normal which makes any falcon/raven/pounder/fracture maxes more good for long engagements than a ZOE max

6)LMG nerf
The same thing happens,people complain about a special thing in a weapon and want it dull although LMGs are supposed to be more different from each other,this comes generally from people who has some personal or strange complicated problems with a faction.so when they find a chance of nerfing this faction,they will rush for it


This also summarizes why Mosy of the VS posts shows aggression when it comes to balance,so much nerfs in a small time is basically a dersecution,I see that such adjustments or "balances" need to take much more time since the weapon targeted is very sensitive to talk about

I spam vehicles. I calculated on the average I can roll an anti infantry Lightning loadout every 2 minutes, without considering the continent lock bonus and the subscription boost.

If they buff vehicles with the current resources system we make a huge step back to when the game came out. Vehicles are already now a huge force multiplier: make them stronger and result will be that the best way to capture a base will be to neutralize the vehicle bay. That was the way the game was in the beginning and that's the reason why Esamir has be re-made with huge walls everywhere.

Think about it: when tanks were tougher there was a cooldown. Even with maxed certification you had to wait like 5 minutes before to spawn a new tank.

Your not "spamming" vehicles. You pull one after the life span is over and if you have the nanites.

Also The game is ENTIRELY different then how the game was when it came out. So stop using that as a logic point.

If vehicles were made stronger the game wouldn't be bad.

Exactly: it's completely different. Resources regenerate faster, and there is no cooldown. I NEVER run out of resources, thus I spam all the tanks I want. If someone deployed landmines out of the vehicle bay and I die I immediately get a new tank. If I die again I must wait like 2 minutes but If I have the continent lock discount or a subscription it's even less. Man I don't how you call this but it's spamming and back in the days when tanks were tougher this was impossible.

In time all structures have been changed to mitigate this (does anyone remember when devs added all those shields and covers? ).
Seriously make vehicles stronger with this resources system and it won't be much different from when they implemented bfrs in ps1. I can score a 20+ kilkstreak right now, gimme the old c75 viper and the old armor value with this respawn rate and I'll farm more than ever.

But your not "spamming" tanks in the first place.

Also are you forgetting how the RR allows people(and gives people no excuse to not) to fight fire with fire?

If vehicles were stronger they would be balanced by other vehicles & the current infantry AV.

Stop thinking in a rose tinted bubble.

*snip* nvm

Balanced against the other vehicle yes, balanced against the other AV... this is completely arguable. Maybe they're countered by the AV Mana when it's so far you cannot see the rockets coming. Rocket launchers on the other hand are very common but they do not deal significant damage. Their damage at least is not even close to vehicles AI weapons. I can grant with my Anti Infantry loadout it's gonna be 3 footsoldier with rocket launcher to make me explode. 90% of times I get my Lightning destroyed is because I pass over a landmine or because another vehicle shot me.
Moreover C4 is countered by radar in the defensive slot, while landmines can be avoided if only one in the sourroundings has EOD HUD as implant.
Yes, vehicles could be countered by other vehicles. Which is exactly where the game was when it came out.

Notice that I am not against buffing vehicles and I'm not saying devs made good choices. I'm just reminding that vehicles have been nerfed when spawn rules and resources have been changed. Were you there when this happened? It was because some players cried out loud because they wanted to seat all day in their tanks and not wait for the cooldown. "I am a pilot, I don't want to play infantry. I go AFK while my Prowler / Vanguard / Magrider is on cooldown" they said.
If devs want to buff vehicles again that's 100% fine, but they must consider spawning a tank today is definitely faster and easier than it used to be months ago.

Vehicles are too easy to get....to free access to them. Planes should only be able to be pulled from main bases. Libs/Lightings/MBT/ESF/Gals should only beable to be pulled from main facilities.

Because I disagree with you?

OK, I'll try to be reasonable and give you stats and proof...
So let's look at the explosion radius changes.


That's a drastic nerf that didn't need to happen at all, the HE shells were OK, if not slightly too good.
Now let's take a look at the usage of each tank shell.


Rather suprising, since HEAT was the most used shell out of the three while all the time HE was unused. After the (unecessary) nerfs AP became the norm while HEAT dwindled to take AP's place and HE was even less used.

I think incentive should've been taken to improve HE in a way not to be this extremely situational gun that you would probably almost never use, but instead decided to make it worse.

I'd just like moments like this with my HE, since it doesn't have a common role and it should at least be proficient enough to be worth using.

Well not exactly moments like that all the time, but at least a good role to fill, as it stands now it isn't worth buying nor using over AP or HEAT since the situations that occur in PS2 it's rather unlikely you would even touch HE.

Dude..... we are on the same to some extent.


HEAT & HE are worthless now.

Also how Tower base with A point inside of the tower screwed over the game.

Correlation does not imply causation.

just a re-edit

Remember that time when you told me "YOU JUST QUOTED YOURSELF"

Yes.....

1) The forum community (and Hardcore Organized Players) have consistently stated they want the game tuned toward them. And they have been (1) hostile toward a game tuned toward chasing mass appeal, and (2) hostile to changes that would affect their core gameplay/tools. The Devs have backed this.

2) The game has had an actual Dev Staff on budget for years, and it has done little to develop high volumes of the types of new or updated content (or marketed content development cycles like formal expansions) that spark general audience player interest. The game at a glimpse doesn't look all that different (aside from camo/hat variations) from what it looked like at launch. At a glimpse (website, forums, etc.), there is no visible marketing about future formal expansions/changes/hype to the game.

3) The Devs have been inactive in getting the game balanced. Bugs removed. Features implemented. Communicating with the community. Making sure all Factions have basic staples. Etc. It really seems like a fragmented and self-serving mod community based on its communication blackout, new content that is sparse and random, sea of unfixed career bugs, chasing content for small demographic niche interests, and changes that are some combination of steps forward and backward.

4) The New Player experience has been known to be horrible since forever. And this got much worse when tools like Instant Action were castrated to accommodate the preference of Hardcore Organized Players.

Look, if you WANT to grow the playerbase population of a game to vast numbers, you have to do the things that will attract and keep the general audience. Make the game great for New Players (a way to keep new people and convert them to regular players), make it fun and playable for the mainstream, make it feel modern with formal expansions, etc. This forum community has consistently backed ideas (and the Devs have consistently pursued decisions) that appeal to a small demographic and drive off the masses.

People are not going to spend their time populating a game for you, if they don't want to play it. You have to decide if you want the game as it is (and on the path it has been on), or if you want something different. But even if all the community decides they want to chase a bigger population, they still have to convince the Devs. SOE has a LONG history of Devs doing what they want. Of Devs acting like a fragmented and self-serving mod community that is making things that appeal to their personal whim of which demographic to appease.

The Devs could literally dedicate a Continent on the Test Server to balance (maybe run it 1-2 days a week if they need to focus use). Allow ANY FACTION to use ANY WEAPON/UNIT. See which Weapons/Units/Loadouts people end up using... BUFF THE UNUSED STUFF. Until the usage numbers start evening out. This is basic playtesting.

Yeah, if anything HE needed a buff, not a nerf. HE usage was significantly below the other cannon options to begin with. HE was terrible for most situations.

Ideally, this is how it should have broken down:
HEAT- 50% usage
AP- 25% usage
HE- 25% usage

This would have meant that things would be balanced. HEAT should be the most common choice due to being a generalist weapon (and the default one). Both AP and HE should have been equally useful, as both are specialist weaponry.

Today this is what it looks like:
HEAT- 36.4%
AP- 59.6%
HE- 3.9%

Where HE is majorly underperforming as a valid choice for tanks. Same with HEAT, as it has been reduced from a generalist weapon to a specialist one. Now AP is by far the dominant choice from the three options.

So because the Devs obviously weren't concerned about reducing lethality all around (they didn't nerf infantry AV like they promised), they really should not only revert the HE/HEAT nerfs but actually buff HE until it is as popular a choice as AP.

Usage rates do not imply something is balanced in the context of their impact across the game. They simply imply whether something is useful (and available) enough to be used.

What you're making the case for is NOT an HE buff, but an AP nerf. A change that would not disrupt impact across the game, but that would increase usage rates for HE.

Personally I believe that tank nerfs were to compensate for bases that just don't fit in that well with Planetside 2's combat and scale.

I wish we could help them work on bases, I know it's a pretty massive undertaking.