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

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Scr1nRusher, Aug 10, 2015.

  1. iccle

    This particular gem of non argument pops up every time this issue is touched upon and needs to be boxed up packed in a crate and burned in a fire. Everyone who puts forward this view always conveniently omits the time it takes to travel in a tank to the front lines in the tanks TTK, when was the last time you had to go to the warpgate to pull c4, then drive halfway over the continent to rejoin your squad? When was the last time you had to redeploy 1-2 bases back to get c4? So no you absolutely cannot count travel time in your TTK it's ridiculous, spurious and completely misleading. TTK calculation is simple, the length of time it takes to kill after first engaging your weapon system, the length of time it takes you to travel into position should not be included since it varies wildly every time and everyone experiences it regardless of class/equipment. We all have to travel to engage the enemy furthermore ground vehicles travel slower than infantry over long distances because they cannot redeploy.

    I would argue that it was dumber for 20 people to allow themselves to be pinned in by 2 people in a tank it's beyond simple to completely avoid this situation by redeploying outside the base (to the nearest sunderer or other outpost) and also allowing you to flank tanks in this position.
    • Up x 2
  2. Beerbeerbeer

    Yeah, yeah, we've heard that argument before and I digress...

    It's not those wise enough to do it, it's the newbies, who have no idea about the finer points of spawning elsewhere, stuck in a pitiful death loop at that base.

    Such a great impression that bestows upon them and dare I say those early impressions mean a lot to whether they decide to stick around to actually learn.

    Hey, I have no problem boosting my score farming HE again and that's exactly what I'll do if they buff tanks and that's all I'll do. That's all I did before I got fed up and left early on because that's pretty much all that was going on at the time. I will take advantage of the situation to the utter extreme.

    It was utterly stupid. An HE farm festival where the only time you can shoot your guns is while standing inside the spawn room.

    I like the fact that I see infantry moving about outside. Buff vehicles again and it's going to revert to the same lameness where everyone spawns at the nearest tank terminal and waits in line so they can rush two bases away and farm more stupid newbies who don't know any better or "ignorant" people who actually wants to FPS.
  3. Scr1nRusher

    Ah.... no.

    Buffing Vehicles isn't going to equal more "farming".

    Also this game isn't just about Infantry and Infantry isn't immune from being killed by things.
  4. Beerbeerbeer

    You think infantry are immune to vehicles?

    I get killed by vehicles--including tanks--a lot right now.

    Just fess up, at least I'm honest in saying that the tanks of old were indeed farming machines. Placing veiled reasons as to why tanks should revert based on OTHER arguments is just a flat-out lie.

    I think you have the argument reversed in any case. You want immunity in your tank. You want the ability to rush into 20 people, ONE-SHOT HE spamming everyone, with little to no risk.

    There's good reasons the devs changed what they did and God help us all if they ever go back. And frankly, I think they seriously misjudged it from the beginning and waited far too long to do what they did.
  5. ColonelChingles

    Actually even before the August 4 HE/HEAT nerf, tanks were barely doing better than HA's with LMGs:


    The KPH of an HE MBT is fairly close to a CQC LMG, and even exceeded by the CQC LMG at some points!

    And of course, you have to pay 450 nanites for one and you get the other for free. :p

    If tanks were farmers, then infantry must have been uber farmers.
    • Up x 1
  6. Scr1nRusher

  7. BaronX13

    Yeah, comparing C4 to tanks and tank canons seems silly doesn't it? Then perhaps armor pilots should stop comparing them as such. I think it's pretty obvious both playstyles (C4 and tanker) have their own set of difficulties, so let's not pretend every tank in the game is magically C4'ed like it was an afterthought by a passing infantryman.

    Also, you want to box up and burn an argument? Box up and burn the mindset that tanks should be able to rambo into half a platoon and get a bunch of kills, survive, then pull out again. It will never happen.

    Oh and just for giggles.

    Tanks need to learn they aren't the only units in the game, and they cannot be buffed to the point they are immune against everything. ;P
  8. ColonelChingles

    Well certainly we aren't asking for tanks to be immune from everything. There would be plenty of reasonable alternatives to take down tanks.

    Say for example, Liberators. Which are actually purposely-designed tank killers.
    Or AV MAXes, which are infinitely revivable and who can make use of cover just as infantry can.
    Possibly even... other tanks? Surely a tank must be powerful enough to defeat itself!

    But what should not happen is that a lowly infantryman with the investment of a mere 150 nanites can instantly destroy a 450 nanite MBT. Tanks at the very least should be immune to OHKs from things that infantry carry.
    • Up x 3
  9. BaronX13

    If this were real life I'd agree with you. But this isn't.

    Seriously, I'm begging you guys to realize this. This game, and it's players, will not be OK with tanks being that strong.

    Also, the ONLY thing that a tank can get OHK'ed by...is C4. That's the ONLY infantry carried object in the game that can do it. There are plenty of ways to avoid it to. Prox radar, AI secondaries, moving around, situational awareness, having friendly infantry, etc. Now, for stuff like aircraft bailing, as douchey as it is, they DID IN FACT have to purchase an air vehicle and their C4, so the resources balance out (even if i think it IS stupid).

    C4 will ALWAYS be a thing in games with tanks next to infantry, ALWAYS. It will never change. Also, if you are so worried about the 150 nanites versus 450, fine, make each brick cost 225. Even if you DID make 2 c4 cost as much as an MBT, it wouldn't stop anything at all and you know it. Tankers would still be upset cause they got snuck up on and butt slapped with c4.

    Tanks will NEVER be as strong as you are wanting them to be, not unless major rebalancing happens. For tanks to be as strong as you propose, their number at that time, would have to be restricted on the battlefield (like every other vehicle should be). Again, I'm not against tanks being strong, I am against them being that strong and as accessible as they are currently.
  10. Bl4ckVoid

    Because this game is DYING. And the main reason for that is massive is now over-the-top massive. You step out of spawn and there are 10 snipers waiting for you. Or a tank. Or LIB. Or an ESF. All will OHK you.
    Too many cheaters, non-existing physics, too many OHK, non-existing resource model, faction population inbalance, fake fog.
  11. Beerbeerbeer

    KPH of an infantry weapon, where at any given time would outpopulate tanks in general by a significant margin, versus that tank gun, kind of proves my point, you think?

    Since there's no context of how much, just speculating that for every ten LMGs you have running around at any given time, there might be one tank and yet it can still kill as much says A LOT, or, like that nitwit would say, ALOT. In fact, that ratio is probably off.
  12. Bl4ckVoid

    There should be a proper resource system instead of the current chain-pull vehicle stuff.
    • Up x 1
  13. lothbrook

    Fixed that for you.
    • Up x 2
  14. Scr1nRusher

    Your not even "chainpulling".
  15. iccle

    No it only gets silly when you include metrics on one side and exclude them from the other, ie time to get to target included in TTK for LA, but excluded from TTK for MBT. This serves only to artificially inflate the 'difficulty' for one side while at the same time ignoring the 'difficulties' on the other side.
    • Up x 2
  16. ColonelChingles

    Again, this argument would only hold weight if infantry were also not spammable. But as it is, infantry can be spammed like the dickens. Kill a rocket-carrying HA? They're back, free of cost, in seconds. Kill a C4 faerie who was in transit? They simply get to come back and do it again for free.

    So two changes I would propose which would make the situation balanced.

    1) When infantry die, they "lose" all nanite-costing deployables on them. Even if they have not deployed them yet. After all, the difference between dying out in the field with C4 in your pocket or on the ground is negligible... in either case you have "lost" the C4.

    2) All current infantry classes will cost 100 nanites to spawn. There is a new "free" infantry class, the Medium Assault, who is armed with just an Assault Rifle and a knife. In that way infantry can keep playing as infantry, but "specialist" classes will cost nanites and therefore not be as spammable.
    • Up x 1
  17. ColonelChingles

    Statistics is per hour of use. The number of users is irrelevant.

    So if you did have 10 LMGs running around for an hour, you would divide their total kills by 10. Whereas with the tank you do not divide the total kills at all if there was just one tank.

    What these statistics show is that if you run around for 1 hour with a CQC LMG, you are likely to get as many kills as if you ran around with a HE MBT for 1 hour. Except of course you don't have to pay anything for that CQC LMG.
    • Up x 1
  18. TheRunDown

    I don't think Vehicles are that much of a Problem..
    The Problem I face daily in PlanetSide 2, is the S@&% Level design and the fact that each and every single spawn room is CAMPABLE by Vehicles.. Wish they'd take a page from PlanetSide 1, give Infs a break from Vehicle Zergs be making Infs only areas. Kinda like the newest Amp Station design. (Not the crappy MLG amp station with multiple spawn rooms, that's just wishful thinking to have a 3 way empire attack.. sounds cool but never happens, so it just turns in to a mainbase that can be captured in 3 minutes...)
  19. BaronX13

    If tanks were greatly buffed and their accessibility were reduced, I could also agree with your suggestion for infantry, I believe it is an ok middle ground. Sure, might need a lil tweaking, but it's a starting point that we could begin with and see how it goes. Though, I can only support that if tanks were buffed greatly, and they received less accessibility. (Though nanite costs for consumables might have to be tweaked so that a 100 nanite class could still afford to bring a full loadout, for example an engineer with 4 tanks mines or c4)

    Otherwise, the only buff I could be ok giving to tanks without any accessibility change would be the infantry ranged AV tuning.

    If that make sense.
  20. BaronX13

    Um, so you agree with me? You are basically comparing apples to oranges. There are so many variables to that discussion that it always ends in a dead end. Just as infantry believe tankers can just sit 300 meters away and click for certs, tankers believe that c4 magically ends up on their tank every time and they believe there is no way to combat it. There are arguments for both sides and trying to compare two TOTALLY different things in such a way will never get you anywhere.