[Suggestion] Infantry only continent please?

That's why we have burster maxes.
That's why we have lock-ons.
That's why we have rocketlaunchers.

Barely anyone recognizes our problems lol.
It is something new to me that sometimes DA struggles to have fun at OPs
I find that with all the fuss going on about the "If you want to play this game the right way join a zergfit tacticool outfit" is wrong and all you need is to redeploy do defend facilities in time and shred people.

Lock-ons take time to fire. Time which an HE tank will blow you away before you fire a missile or an Air Vehicle will just lead your rocket into the dirt. Dumbfires are ok if the baddies totally disregard their surroundings. MANA AV turrets are good and have great damage but you're vulnerable to that same HE tank that one shotted that Heavy trying to get a lock on.

Did I mention lock-ons break easily even if there is only a one foot wide obstacle in the way.

If anything there needs to be some sort of Urban environment, like a city or something.

this game is Planetside 2. this games is about combined arms warfare. that means all sorts of vehicles and infantry working together fighting a big battle.

an "infantry only" continent would go against this. if you want infantry only combat, you are playing the wrong game.

PlanetSide 2 is not a combined arms game. The fact that there are vehicles in it doesn't make it one.
See this thread.

Planetside 2 is not a combined arms game because Iridar said so.

Despite it demonstrating the very definition of combined arms.

You already have Hossin.

Funny you should mention the definition, since in the other thread me and Cruczi proved that PS2 doesn't fit the combined arms definition, and YOU demonstrated that you don't know the definition of combined arms.

No, Cruczi had no argument at all. I stopped responding because it was like arguing with someone who doesn't have a grasp of the most basic idea of what they're arguing about.

Again, the simple definition of combined arms, as stated by the US military around the 1980s when they started developing a combined arms military is:

"The combined arms concept is the basic idea that different arms and weapons systems must be used in concert to maximize the survival and combat effectiveness of each other."

Everything you mentioned and Cruczi mentioned, about combined command and objectives, is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether there is combined arms or not. Both you and Cruczi were obviously so ignorant of the very subject that you were attempting to discuss that it was very clear that nothing would change your knowledge or logic on the subject.

It was like arguing with a dog over Plato; the dog apparently has no ability to understand even basic philosophical concepts, so why continue? No matter how many times you show the dog that it is wrong, it will just continue to bark the same bark.

I know the definition of combined arms very well; it is YOU who apparently adds things to it as you see fit.

Yes, he had. His argument was that PS2 just has an appearance of the combined arms, but it in reality conflicts of interest between groups of players prevent combined arms on faction wide scale.

This is absolutely groundless statement. You're just saying what you want at this point.

If you always read just the headline, then sure. But me and Cruczi, we want a bit deeper understanding. We use the expanded definition to determine if PS2 is combined arms or not, because the expanded definition is more precise. And we haven't just pulled it out of our hats, it's on the same wiki page about combined arms, and I'm sure we'd able to find similar sentiments in other sources.

And even if there aren't any, the need for unifying objective and command structure logically follow out of your basic definition. There is no combined arms unit without them, and there can't be any.
Me and Cruczi - we have a vision, argument and logic. So far to our "combined arms is A, B and C, and PS2 has only poorly implemented A, so it's not a combined arms game" you have responded only "combined arms is only A, you don't know what you're talking about, you have no logic, only ignorance".

But it seems to me you're the ignorant one, ignoring everything but the first sentence of the definition.

Sigh... so you're taking the Wikipedia definition over the definition of a US Military Study on Combined Arms?

Combined arms absolutely do not require a unified command structure. That's not any part of the definition of combined arms. Let me give you some examples of combined arms:

1) In WWII, infantry are pinned down by artillery fire, so they get on the radio and ask for an airstrike on the artillery position. This request goes through the proper command channels and the fire request is granted. This is the type of combined arms that you and Cruczi are thinking of, and yes it is combined arms.

2) In Iraq, a tank platoon is assigned an area to patrol and engage enemy armor. Their objective is to destroy enemy armor assets and emplacements, which they do. Hours later a mechanized platoon from a different national command moves into the area, and suffers no casualties because there is no enemy armor. Although the tanks and infantry never saw each other or spoke to each other and even come from different nations, it remains as an example of combined arms.

3) In early European warfare, a group of knights is working with a band of mercenary archers. The archers fire first simply due to their longer effective range, pelting the enemy with arrows. The knights then charge the enemy lines. There is no combined command structure, yet this is also combined arms.

4) In PS2, a lone wolf Infiltrator steadies his rifle on the battlefield. He sees a HA and shoots him, killing the target. Unknown to the Infiltrator that HA was aiming at a Liberator who was bombing the base. The Infiltrator and the Liberator had no direct communication with each other or even awareness of each other, but this is still combined arms.

The problem with your and Cruczi's "vision" is that you mutilate the definition of combined arms. The definition of combined arms is "A". PS2 has "A", and therefore should be a combined arms game. You and Cruczi are uncomfortable with this obvious conclusion so you chose to add "B" and "C" to the definition of combined arms. Then you and Cruczi say that "because PS2 lacks B and C, it is not a combined arms game."

So again. Combined arms requires only three things:
1) Use of different arms and weapons systems
2) In concert
3) To maximize survivability and combat effectiveness

So is PS2 a combined arms game? Well...
Does PS2 have different arms and weapon systems? Yes.
Does PS2 employ these different arms and weapon systems in roughly the same time and place? Yes.
Does employing these different arms and weapon systems in PS2 maximize the survivability and combat effectiveness of some or all of the arms and weapon systems? Yes.

Ergo PS2 has within it the concept of combined arms.

I mean the only argument that you could possibly make would be that somehow PS2 doesn't meet one of the three requirements of combined arms. You're welcome to try and I have no doubt that you will, but you need to understand that your imaginary definition of combined arms that you and Cruczi brewed up is meritless.

I'm using what I have. Would you care to provide a link to that study?

So according to your example, if a mobile AA battery at some point passed the road, and two years later an air force flew 200 km from the road then it is combined arms too.

According to that, even a presence of units of different kinds is enough to call it combined arms

No command structure? Lol wut? They all gathered there just to sip tea, by chance? Of course there is command. And there is a purpose. They all gathered there to win the battle, this is so obvious, I don't understand why you deny it.

So again, according to you a mere presence of units of different types in one battle is enough to call it combined arms. It isn't. Just because there are vehicles in it, doesn't make PS2 combined arms.

How is expanding to gain better understanding - mutilation?

Fine, we can work without expanding. In fact, I didn't even need to expand it, since all this time we were talking within the constraints of this definition.
3) To maximize survivability and combat effectiveness
This is the part that's not in PS2. Whatever units do on the battlefield, they don't do it to maximize survivability and combat effectiveness. This may sometimes be the end result, and that's why you're compelled to erroneously consider PS2 a combined arms game, but that's not why different units interact with each other.
They do it for own, personal goals, that can very well against combat effectiveness.

WHY is important, and that's the part you're denying.

A sunderer, placed by one of the defenders at the bottom of the biolab. All defenders who have died will spawn at a Sunderer by default instead of biolab's spawn. That's not using a vehicle to help infantry, that's using a vehicle to farm spawn ribbons, and infantry will need to go through teleporter to return to the battle upside, wasting time on unnecessary movement.

Infantry farming a Sunderer without blowing it up. Fights on bases going on for hours. People, who you call useless, because they don't follow your goals at capturing bases, who instead choose to farm their own stats. It's all the result of improper encouragement and lack of unifying objective.

The file is available for reading here. It's the cornerstone of modern combined arms theory, although as the study itself admits combined arms has been around for centuries. We just never thought of it as its own thing and put a label on it, but logically it simply made sense. The only recent change is to create organic combined arms, that is combined arms that happens on purpose as a result of design. But whether combined arms is organic or accidental, it's still combined arms.

I mean if you have a rock-paper-scissors game why not just throw out all three at once? Thus, combined arms.

The hard part about that is whether the presence of the AA battery somehow increased the survivability or combat effectiveness of the aircraft.

If the AA battery shot down a number of enemy fighters and it crippled the enemy air force for decades, then that may be combined arms.

But if the AA battery didn't really do anything that would significantly increase the survivability or combat effectiveness of the aircraft 2 years later, then it was not combined arms.

See how easy definitions make things?

Nope. Here's an example of two different units being present that is not a case of combined arms:

In PS2 tanks and infantry are in a mad rush to assault a base. In the chaos, more infantry are run over by friendly tanks or shelled by friendly tanks than killed by the enemy.

That example did not meet the definition of combined arms, so it is not a case of combined arms. Even though there were different weapon systems used in concert... they did not increase the combat effectiveness of the group.

I hope you're beginning to understand how definitions work... so long as you don't make them up or change them on the spot.

Not really. The mercenaries are there to get paid (the PS2 equivalent of making certs). They really don't care much about victory at all. More the paycheck and looting (and not dying of course). Furthermore they're under the orders of the mercenary company, not the same chain of command as the knights. Yet it's still combined arms.

What makes something combined arms if it meets the definition of combined arms. As I've pointed out above, you've completely misunderstood the definition of combined arms (and I'm starting to feel like you don't understand the concept of a "definition" in general). In order for something to qualify as combined arms it must meet all three criteria for combined arms.

So in an oddball way your statement is halfway correct... that just because there are vehicles present doesn't make it combined arms. Because that's only 1/3 or at most 2/3 of the definition of combined arms.

But as usual you're incorrect about applying that to PS2, because PS2 meets 3/3 of the requirements of combined arms.

Because you're adding extra requirements to a perfectly good definition developed by reputable authorities?

If I were to take the definition of "duck" (the quacking type) and added to it the requirement that they must have gills and then announce that ducks were not "ducks", that would be mutilating the definition.

Your "changing" of the definition of combined arms is as absurd because many IRL examples of combined arms would no longer qualify. That and you're really not qualified to go around inventing your own definition in conflict with established authorities.

Read the definition again. I'll even requote it for you:

"The combined arms concept is the basic idea that different arms and weapons systems must be used in concert to maximize the survival and combat effectiveness of each other."

Is there ever mention of "why", of "intent", or anything remotely related?

No, there is not.

Essentially combined arms simply is an idea that if you want to maximize combat effectiveness, you should use different types of weapons together.

Now as I pointed out earlier in my example of tanks running over infantry, if the combat effectiveness or survivability of units goes down due to using more than one type of unit then that is not combined arms.

But simply because one case is not a case of combined arms does not mean that there is no idea of combined arms at work or that combined arms do not exist.

And there are plenty more examples of combined arms existing (a situation that meets the three requirements of combined arms) than not.

Sure, but let's revisit the definition of combined arms, and we see that yes, your example provided is not combined arms. The presence of the Sunderer doesn't help the infantry and does not increase their combat effectiveness.

On the other hand a Sunderer driven by the same pilot who just wants certs who actually parks the Sunderer in a useful spot is an example of combined arms.

What is the important difference is not the intent or orders of the Sunderer driver; it's about how it increases or decreases the effectiveness of friendly forces. Because intent is not part of the definition of combined arms; combined arms can happen without any intent to do so (and historically has happened when one unit or another got lost and wound up in another unit's AO). On the other hand even those with the intent to have combined arms can decisively destroy the idea of combined arms by executing it poorly.

The reason I said that according to you it's enough just for vehicles to be there, is because chances are whatever they do can reflect positively on the infantry, which will appear it to meet the definition.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I need to spell EVERYTHING for you.

Not adding anything, it's already there.

So yes, there is "why", there is "intent". It's there, in your words. But behind whatever people do in PS2, apart from organized outfit ops, never stands the intent to maximize combat effectiveness and survival.

Your line of reasoning is that if sometimes the actions of different units reflect positively on each other that makes the game combined arms, and this is nonsense that doesn't meet your own definition, because positively affecting each other may not have been their intent.

A cat catches a mouse, eats half of it, then gets scared of something and runs away. Two hours later another cat comes in and eats the mouse. According to you, that's two cats hunting together.

I'll give you a pass because you're probably not a native English speaker.

But "to" does not necessarily imply cognitive intent. It implies causation. Examine the following sentences:

1) We consume food to nourish our bodies.
2) Rockets travel fast to escape gravity.
3) Sunderers deploy to allow infantry to spawn.

Now in each of those examples, does the subject of the sentence have conscious, thinking intent to reach the second goal? No, of course not. We don't eat because we say, "Boy Iridar, I sure need to nourish my body so therefore I will eat", we eat because we are hungry or food smells good or something. Rockets can't think, they just act. And a deployed Sunderer may have deployed for many reasons; to allow people to get out and pull MAXes for example. But regardless of why it deployed the cause-and-effect of deploying is the same.

None of those have anything to do with conscious intent. And that's how "to" is used in the official definition. As simple cause-and-effect, not as a sign of command.

It's not nonsense. It's combined arms.

See, the difference between you and me is how we think about this. You start off in a position where you don't want PS2 to be combined arms because then it means that everyone telling you to go play CoD if you want infantryside would be justified. So your assessment is goal-driven; you don't care how you get there so long as you do get there. This is why you start making up your own definitions and ignore the reality of PS2. It makes for incredibly awkward logic and generates strained incredible arguments.

On the other hand I start from a position where I don't know if PS2 is combined arms or not. So I first ask, "well what is combined arms?" Then I find a definition of combined arms from a reputable source. Next I observe what goes on in PS2, and see if that meets the definition of combined arms or not. And based on that, I can conclude whether PS2 incorporates the idea of combined arms. This is a much more objective and balanced approach to inquiry.

Your method is much closer to an oil company that desperately tries to publish "study" after "study" to attempt to discredit global warming. It is highly biased goal-driven research. My method is what scientists would use, to observe and then come to a conclusion based on the observations, not to observe based on your conclusion as you do.

And to this I'd simply ask, "well what's your definition of 'hunting together'?" If your definition of "hunting together" isn't as weird as your definition of "combined arms", then the next step is to see if what we observe meets that definition or not.

And if it meets the definition, then they are indeed hunting together. If it fails to meet that definition, then they are not hunting together. Simple, no?

But of course if you're poorly trying to make a point by irrationally equating "hunting together" with combined arms", then I'm not sure such a simple task would really be that simple for you...

So I've been reading this study. A very interesting thing indeed:

For a game that's balanced around vehicles having an infantry only area would annihilate the balance completely. Just have a look at Battlefield 2 infantry only servers, or should I just call them "STOP WITH THE F****** GRENADES ALREADY!" servers.

Sure. That's if you want to implement combined arms in the highly organized mechanized warfare of the late 20th-21st century.

Like I said above:

Erm, how about no? I've seen people throw around "combined arms" as an excuse to why PS2 is full of infantry farming vehicles. I went and researched what combined arms is, discovered that PS2 doesn't fit, and I'm trying to explain it to others ever since.

And I've said ten million times, I don't want infantryside. I want a game that's fun for everybody. I would enjoy PS2 if it was a combined arms game, but the problem is - it isn't. Changes are necessary to make it a combined arms game, and I would meet them with open arms if they were to come.

I'm not even sure why you're arguing with me, just because you don't agree with how I word things? You seem to be acting on a premise that I want every vehicle to be removed, that's not so. Changes I'm asking for will result in better coordination between different unit types, surely that's something you would welcome.

This we suggested after the latest resource revamp.
Regardless of how many XP or resources I earn, the vehicle timer should start AFTER a vehicle blew up.
idea that nanites need to "manufacture" the vehicle, and that takes time..
you can't order a new one to be made , because the nanites are busy building vehicles for other players..

your turn starts once your current vehicle blows up, if you want another one oft the same kind.

however, you can start out with a Liberator, get that blown up, then spawn a lightning.. etc..
After 5-8 or maybe even 10 minutes, THEN you can spawn another Liberator..

The "cool down" timer turns into a "Manufacturing Timer", that can not be certed into to or be sped up by any means.

It could slow down the vehicle spam, at least the 'same vehicle' spam over and over again.