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

Why.... why would you nerf AP? The only tank cannon that has nothing wrong with it & that Tankers were pigeon holed into due to HEAT & HE being worthless.

Do you even know what your saying? A nerf to AP would cause a disruptive impact to the game.


HEAT & HE do infact NEED buffs.

They just have to remove A point out of all Tower bases that have the A point in the tower itself.

Also these tank nerfs screwed the game up when(Post RR) it was actually fine.

No, they need to double the size of the tower or build a larger complex around it. Simply moving A doesn't solve the issue.

Again, the previous evidence shown (the increased usage of frag grenades and C4) easily establishes that HE tanks were never a problem to begin with. The problem was with infantry all along. If anything, frag grenades and C4 should have been nerfed, not HE tanks.

This is further substantiated by the Devs at the time who said:

Things were actually very well balanced between tanks and infantry. The problem was not that tanks were killing too many infantry, but that everything was killing too much everything. Hence the Devs wanted to reduce all lethality, not just tanks versus infantry.

The problem is that the Devs only completed half of their promise and only nerfed vehicles against infantry without doing the same for infantry. This created the imbalance that we have today.

That's why the best course of action is to undo the August vehicle AI nerfs and to buff HE cannons.

The only 'nerf' I could support to AI explosives (specifically the Frag/Sticky Grenades and C4) is a change to their resource cost. Right now an infantryman can be a little bombardier if they choose to be with a grenade bandolier and C4 packs. Now this isn't a problem with me, except that it can be spammed.

An unnerfed AI tank is scary. But it is big and once dealt with its gone. An engineer with Grenade Bandolier or Utility pouch can potentially carry 4 grenades or 4 C4. If you kill them before they dump their explosives, it costs them NOTHING to respawn and try again.

Its too annoying to charge resources for dying before launching the payloads so to speak. So what I think should happen is grenades and other explosives should cost a bit more.

If any class pops 4 grenades, they should be spent for a bit. Same with C4.

So something like Frag Grenades cost 125 nanites. Sticky costs 150. C4 costs 200.

That'd cut down on the spamming a bit, without nerfing them to non-usage.

I'd also wouldn't mind seeing HE cannons across the board get buffed back to a usable state. Even switching their indirect and direct damage values would be a good start.

But at the end of the day, I want to see them have a 4m splash (more than 2m we have now, less than 6m we had before). The max damage is at .5m and extends out from there. But is 1500 for NC (375 DPS), 1125 for VS (375 DPS), and 800x2 for TR. Basically the NC gets the biggest boom, largest kill radius (about a 2m radius), VS gets the best method of engaging and killing multiple targets (3s reload vs 4s) have a smaller radius (about 1m radius, 1.5 for infils). And TR get their two shot wide area coverage (2 hit kill to 2.5m). If it seems a bit too lethal, then reducing the radius by 1m might suffice or adding more cooldown per shots.

Yes moving A point out of the tower solves the issue due to the fact that is lowers the "target priority" for players to go after the tower itself.

If everyone is using a particular Weapon... across engagement types, then that raises questions if it is *too good* at too many roles. Especially if the AI Specialty versions were already nerfed to be within acceptable parameters.

Is it so terrible that Tankers would choose HEAT as their mixed-role AI/AV Weapon, HE as their AI Weapon, and AP as their AV Weapon?

Tanks remain (1) unfit for SS/Hardcore Organized Play and (2) very powerful in the Casual Standard Game. More effort should be spent to buff them for SS/Hardcore Organized Play, and less time should be spent trying to buff them in the gameplay they are already one of the dominant forces.

A change to AP would impact the game relative to what was changed and by how much. You can't just put the blanket term "nerf" in a vacuum and expect it to mean anything.

What kind of buffs are you looking to make to HEAT & HE, that do not affect their AI level? Do you want to buff them vs. AV? Increase their Ammo or Mag?

I empathize with concern about disparity in Weapons usage rates. We see it across PS2. It is either the sign of bad game Design, or a policy that they want (working as intended) specific Units to dominate. I am a HUGE advocate of DBG changing its units/Weapons/Classes to bring about more reasons to use more stuff. But what you and I would do to address this seem to be very different: I am not looking to buff units that are already at the top of the food pyramid, but to buff/nerf/change stuff for the entire pyramid to function best.

Because people spend all their time posting in the forums instead of playing?

What are you talking about? Did you play Infantry against TR when the Prowler AoE Spam was OP?

Infantry is smaller, doesn't render as far, and they can (usually) get over more terrain than (most) Tanks. But they are also squishy, slower, can't deliver their AI Explosives as far or as fast, they aren't immune to small arms, etc.

I can't understand why you are seemingly comparing apples to oranges here.

I don't find the Devs that competent in terms of balance. I'm not saying a blind pig can't find an acorn once in a while, just that it should not be relied on to do so with any degree of confidence.

I did play Infantry against TR when the Prowler AoE Spam was OP (and MISERABLE to play against as Infantry). It was not balanced. I used the Banshee when it was OP (and MISERABLE to play against as Infantry). It was not balanced. I played against VS when the Mag PPA was OP (and MISERABLE to play against as Infantry). It was not balanced, and it was miserable to play as one of the afflicted targets.

These are not confused conclusions. It was very apparent that things were very bad.

I think the problem is that you lack either perspective or objectivity. Either way, it's that you are focused on buffing your unit and nerfing that of those opposing you. That's not balance, that's just bias.

Infantry are also free and frankly don't matter much if you kill them.

Kill an infantryman? He's out of the fight for a few seconds. Kill a tank? They're either out for the remainder of their cooldown (the old system) or down nanites (the new system).

If you mean if I've played before August 4, 2014, that would be a yes. I've been playing since December 2012. My main is NC. And I can say that based on my experience there was no HE/HEAT problem. Really I was far more likely to die to grenade spam than HE spam. Annoying infantry with their frag grenades were a much more lethal threat than the laughably useless HE Prowlers.

Only to those who don't know how to fight against tanks on foot.

I'm actually not focusing on buffing my unit... because my unit is infantry. I am primarily, over 80% of the time, an infantry player.

What I am concerned about is the lack of balance with tanks. Tanks are extremely flimsy and easy for foot infantry to defeat. You know it's bad when the other side, namely infantry, is calling for a tank buff.

Really, the only changes that need to happen in the infantry AV department (imo) is C4 needs to be brought down to the point that it can not 1hk *(2 brick) a tank without warning, and the render needs to be fixed on AV MANA turrets.

*yes i think that it should take a little teamwork or another power multiplier to bring down a power multiplier. (to what extent is on the devs, just no more POP your done tanking without warning or a chance to react) NOTE: I don't think that this should apply to mines as that is the purpose of them.

And as to those of you who argue "situational awareness", yes I know but even that can only get you so far. Neither is promoting people to dive head long at a tank for the cirt pinata of a kill (as it is that easy to kill a tank) a good behavior to promote, from either dev or player experience.

Am I being punked right now?

Costing Resources/Nanites should not grant a Unit blanket ~immunity. That makes for a terrible game. What it should make for is a Unit with Special (often superior) abilities... WHEN PLAYED WITHIN ITS TACTICS and IN THE PROPER ENGAGEMENT.

If you have played Infantry during these times, if you have been on the forum during these times, and you still don't recognize that the majority of players Affected by OP Units HATED IT, then there's not much point in me trying to convince you.

If your Unit is Infantry, then maybe you should try playing Tanks. Experience in Tanks will likely help you see it from their side better.

I mostly agree, except for the PPA part and the "balance should take time".

The PPA was an atrocity that showed really well that the devs (in case one of them actually READS this: sorry, but I'm just being honest) don't understand the basic mechanics of their very own game. Its nerf was really needed, although I can't say how it works right now since I don't really see it anymore. I'm gonna assume its still absolutely terrible.
On the Prowler or the Vanguard it would have been a decent weapon.
On the Magrider it was a nightmare. Floating tanks howering on rocks and mountains, shooting over walls and any other cover that was supposed to prevent this into bases. Worst of it was that TR and NC had no weapon that could do this themselves, so VS simply had a huge and unfair advantage. Combine that with the strafing ability of the magrider and the magburn and the Tank that spams your base is basically an invincible farming machine. And no, sadly I am not exaggerating.

And balance should not take time. It should happen when you notice you got a problem, not until the community scrambles for the pitchforks. And SOE/DGBs approach to "balance" is mostly to smash the offending item with the biggest hammer they can find, and then hoping people will forget about it since no one is gonna touch that junk with a 10ft pole.
It would be OK if they adjusted values (slightly) even on the live servers, and then checked the performance difference 2 days later, followed by several iterations of this until it is right. If they change something like CoF or recoil that people have to get used to take a week instead of 2 days to check your data. It is not rocket-science, but SOE/DGB apparently don't have the balls to communicate with their community and just DO IT.

And regarding the banshee....
I did the math, the nerfed the splash radius by 75% and the splash damage by 25%, for a combined 80% nerf.
I don't have numbers, but if somebody looks it up I bet my PS2 hat collection that the Banshee is now performing about 40% worse than Airhammer and LPPA.
The LPPA has unsurprisingly similar issues as the PPA. But the Scythe can be dispatched of rather esily unlike the Magrider, so it is not that big of a problem.
Which once again shows that the problem never was the PPA, it was the PPA combined with the vehicle it was mounted on....

Balancing can be hard work, no doubt, but it doesn't feel like there is any real thought behind what they are doing usually....

right now HE is completely useless, i would be suprised if anyone still uses HE main cannons, or even HEAT if they can afford AP

however the Prowler HE spam before the HE balance pass was extreme, especially since prowler with lockdown can spam extremely well

if anything, prowler HE should never be able to onehit kill an infantry guy, unless direct headshot, Magrider and Vanguard however definitely should be able to, to keep it balanced

all tanks however should not be able to kill an infantry guy with max flak armor without a reload, end of story

If they want to buff tanks, they need to make them less "spammy". And don't waste your breath with the "they weren't even spammy before D: " argument because they were, even with the timer. The timer at least had a small impact though, so there was that.

Should they fix that problem though, they really do need to fix HEAT and HE. More precisely they need to buff them. The problem with HEAT and HE earlier in the game's lifetime wasn't their damage radius or max/min damage, it was the poor base design. The fact HE shells could damage you within buildings even if you were nowhere near a window/opening in the building. Because of that, there was nowhere to hide, even within buildings where you are supposed to be safe. Really all they need to do now, is put those "shields" on every window in the game with a small control next to the window to turn the shield on and off. That, combined with a resource limiter/timer for tanks, and I'm all for buffing the heck out of HE and HEAT.

Explain.

Basically, the only problem with HE and HEAT in the early game wasn't their damage it was poor base design and wonky aoe mechanics that basically allowed tanks to shell the inside of buildings. This is what I meant by [That].

The resource limiter/timer is in reference to my belief that should tanks be reasonably buffed that they need to be "more restricted" in some way. Either in a more critical resource cost, the main canon needing a second person to use, a basic timer, etc. This is for obvious reasons of course, but if tanks too strong and too free then big problem. And while I don't think a HE or HEAT buff would be too bad (depending on how they do it), I am reluctant to throw my full support behind any buffs while tanks are so unbelievably accessible.

That sum it up ok?

Edit: Perhaps some base design tweaking to go along with those buffs too...couldn't hurt.

Tanks have NEVER been spammy.

How often you do ACTUALLY use tanks?