Infantry is Strong vs Vehicles, but few have realized it.

What's left to say?

• Infantry have cruddy TTK vs. vehicles.
• Vehicles have amazing TTK vs. infantry. And also move much faster.
• So when an infantry-centric force meets a vehicle-centric force on the battlefield, the results are really lopsided.

Obviously not meant to be literal in that case. But given the dramatically superior stats of vehicles, it seems accurate enough.

Play the game. Observe. Realize that when a faction doesn't field enough vehicles they get rocked (and rocked about 19 times out of 20, so 95%.) I guess you're just new to the game?

Why would I expect that? Most PS2 players are awful.

My expectation is they'll blindly choose infantry most of the time regardless of whether it makes sense. This will cause them to be useless fodder most of the time, but yeah in those rare battles where infantry are actually viable outdoors they'll be infantry there too.

It's how games work. Players can only focus on one target at a time, dealing their damage against that target until it dies and then moving onto the next target. If it's 12v12 and your squad has quick TTKs and the enemy squad has slow TTKs, you will win. Nearly always, being the squad with faster TTKs means you win.

Which is what you see in-game: when battle transitions to an outdoor fight, you either field a lot of vehicles or you lose ground.

64 players = 64 damage sources firing upon the enemy.

Eh, well okay. You honestly believe 5 infantry have a chance against a Zepher Liberator, 1/2 MBT, HEAT Lightning, and Rocketpod ESF. There's no reasoning with that kind of person, because they obviously have never played Planetside 2. You're wrong, but no amount of logical breakdown of how those scenarios plays out will convince you otherwise. You will continue to be a mediocre, underperforming player due to being close-minded.

Again, you're disregarding that infantry are harder to hit. But in general, you're correct. What you're not correct about is ""infantry has no chance".

I didn't seriously suggest it was exactly 85%, I just picked a number for sake of picking a number different from what your RNG spits out.

Haha, what? let me just quote you for a bit:

I hope you spot the irony.

Don't be ridiculous, I can't believe you're being serious here. I shoot at multiple enemies all the time, and the people I'm fighting with and against do too. Literally all the time. In infantry fights as well as vehicle fights, I find myself engaging multiple targets in at least half the fights, and I don't do it in sequence, but in parallel.

...? What does that have to do with whether 1v1 balance matters to large fights?

Of course, I'm assuming the 5 infantry have a sunderer in a good position.

Wow, and you just had to end it with an ad hominem. Well, I guess when you have no credibility to lose, you might as well..

1. Er...even if we were, why would that make you think only about tanks? Are you saying you've never been killed by rocketpods or liberators near your spawn? Mostly the discussion has been about how vehicles dominate infantry in outdoor fights.
2. These were just 3-4 random tank pulls I had today. It's meant to establish the fact that vehicle dominance it's common enough that even without cherry-picking some really good sprees there's a clear dominance. I'm sure you're not going to link me to your character who has 8 infantry K/D because you "do it all the time". The players in these ~4 anecdotal tank pulls didn't get revived because they were generally spread out (as disorganized as my own team.)
   • That said, in the same battle there were probably only 2 of the 24-48 friendlies in the area who were actually pulling vehicles, which resulted in far less success and far longer battle that it should've been otherwise. There were like 3-4 deaths I had where I would pull one counter and immediately get stomped by the other type of enemy (pull a Skyguard, get killed by AV+AV prowler...pull an AV+AI magrider, get killed by aircraft.) It's yet another example of how bad decisions really limit your effectiveness (even when they're not my decisions.)
3. Eh, Libs don't get killed by dumbfires all that often. My lib flying style is incredibly reckless (low altitude) yet I rarely eat more than one dumbfire and it's usually only some combination of Burster+Dumbfire+ESF that gets me. But on the flipside my lib will have a very good chance of killing that sunderer. Actually that's mostly my 2-man libbing that works like that. For solo-libbing I usually just Shredder from max render range and either destroy the Sunderer myself or occupy the time of ~2 repairers and 2+ AA users who are forced to do nothing but try to counter me. Often those are the ~4 smartest and most observant players too, which means those are 4 players who aren't pushing out from the sunderer and quite often what I see is that I'm not the direct reason the sunderer dies but that because I've occupied the attention of so many players my teammates are able to easily push forward to finish the wounded sunderer.
4. Outdoor fights between bases.

nah, in open, i usually take a lighting tank, make my way through some bizzarre people that are camping in tanks and blocking the road, do a round or 2 round the battlefield, run over a few maxes and engineers, shoot others with he so even if they dont get direct damage they are taken down by splash, come back and repair my tank while I watch the campers on my side explode being annihilated by 64 precise rockets while sitting still like ducks

and I love watching those poor infantries trying to get out of a deployed sunderer while i shot 6 he in their spot

1. Agreed
2. The main point is that infantry can be revived in about half a second from 6 m away, while vehicles are dead for good.
Also, the more armor you have, the less power you have inside the base.
3. I'm pretty sure that a Burster MAX/Ranger will quickly drive you off
4. I'm not talking about long range armor fights, where infantry are non-entities, but fights around bases, where infantry have adequate cover.

2. An infantry force outdoors typically isn't going to survive via medics. Medics themselves dilute the force, reducing its AV punch. And again, we're talking about outdoor battles so it doesn't matter that a vehicle force needs to transition many of its players to infantry when the battle gets into the base (although this varies by base and most bases allow you to suppress the spawn with vehicles.)

Really the main thing is that infantry stand almost no chance of pushing from base A to base B. If they were "strong" vs. vehicles, they could accomplish that, but they're not.

3. Rangers are a vehicle weapon. Your stance is that infantry are strong vs. vehicles. (While I still have to give them a chance to be sure, last I checked Rangers were noticeably inferior to Walkers.) A single burster will be suppressed by a zepher lib faster than the other way around, unless the lib chooses the wrong approach (and to be fair, "the wrong appraoch" is impossible to avoid at certain bases.)

4. Well as long as we're not saying infantry is strong vs. vehicles (which implies they win a straight-up fight) and simply saying that in situations of dense cover infantry stand a reasonable chance of fighting off or possibly destroying vehicles, then sure we can agree to that.

2.The Medic's add to the force, they don't dilute it. If their were none of them, then their would be no AV punch left.

3. Well, you were talking about you shredding the sunderer....

4. Well, yeah, Infantry in an open field obviously won't stand a chance, but a hill or wide ditch is all infantry really needs.