[Suggestion] Infiltrator vs Vehicles- daybreak please!

It has been discussed many times but hopefully the more it's discussed the more likely it is to be addressed. Infiltrators are the only class without a anti vehicle possible combination of equipment. I often miss the planetside 1 days of infiltrator while adventuring in planetside 2. It feels incomplete. Planetside 1 infiltrators could hack vehicles that were stationary/unmanned. Also they could carry "boomers" to set traps for MAX units/ vehicles. Now fast forward to ps2 and nothing.

I strongly request infiltrators become a stronger role in the future. This can be accomplished in multiple options:

1) allow infiltrators to hack and control vehicles that are not in motion, this causes drivers and gunners to be more on the alert at protecting their assets, also utilizing proximity sensor attachments on their vehicles
2) hack disables weapons systems until the "virus" is removed by a same faction infiltrator or a specific amount of time has lapsed
3) simple and makes sense, allow infiltrators to carry C4, as a recon/special forces class why can a medic carry c4 and a infiltrator can not?
4) give infiltrators a balanced anti vehicle rifle, allow us to aim for that sweet spot on the back of a tank and make them realize the need to move/ change course

These are a few options that I think would bring balance to the class, some of which were already in ps1 for years without being unbalanced....no reason we shouldn't be able to find a balance in the new ps2. Miss the days of being a patient slow creeping infiltrator and hacking a cloaked ams in ps1 thus creating a instant massive battle as your commrads rally to your side!

I wish. However, I can understand why Infiltrators do not have C4... you know... *Looks around*
Being invisible and all.

Had it in ps1 without causing balance issues, boomers were c4 and it was like that since launch in planetside 1

PS1 was something I'd rather not talk about. Didn't really like that game (Infiltrators were completely invisible, something that angered me). However, I could see a mini C4 happen. Deals half the damage of actual C4, but you can carry twice the amount. Still able to kill infantry with a brick, but radius is smaller.

True when not moving they were but there was also a balance to this as well, the dark light implant light them up like a Christmas tree so Ya cant complain if you chose to not use the implant. Every style of play had a counter play to balance it. Until BFRs haha.

Good last point Although, I'd like to see naval combat come back. That was an epic feature.

Any time I read a thread like this, my immediate thought is: "Well, that's what having different classes is for".

Navron I understand your thinking though. There have been times when I felt obligated to pull a AA Burster Max or something... (lets say an air death ball is above the base.) However the majority of the time people tend to stick with a class they feel comfortable with. Not all battles are obvious and threats change from moment to moment.

I find it fascinating that people just gravitate towards one class. We have other options but ultimately all of us have to pick one of them to play at any given moment. The developers offered us a world of choice but most people tend to become a specialist. It would be like developers throwing us an awesome party, with like pizza, cake, cheeseburgers, and salad. They made the mistake of putting each food on different tables. Clearly all the infil mains just want to eat cheeseburgers. Its like those mono diets where people just eat **** loads of bananas. Thats fine, I am more then happy to eat some cheeseburgers. I kinda wish PS2 was truly specialized.

When I find threats I am not equipped for I have no problems just throwing my hands in the air going : "NOPE not my job." That is why we have 80% mains as HA. Obviously these folks care more about taking out a wider variety of threats then I clearly do <3.

Letting the enemy max unit walk by and go about his business is perfectly acceptable as far as I am concerned. I used to try and sneak up behind and give them double proxy enema. Then I realized the cruelty of my ways. Seriously even that won't kill them. They just kinda wiggle around all distressed for a few minutes and start searching for you with the darklight THEY DONT HAVE. Its all very tragic and emotionally scaring. Maybe I will spot the max IF I'm feeling sorry for incoming allies may not hear the murderously loud footsteps. But ultimately if I do decide to help some infantry players by shooting a few bolts into the rear of an enemy Max who is entangled with other infantry... that my friends is a sign of Vanu faction-ship you just don't get to see very often.

Besides when there are max units there are fluffy engineers nearby. Not only are these adorable backpack wearing players easier to kill, but they also have ammo. We stalkers prize ammo above all other rewards. In fact there should probably be a directive for stealing enemy ammo.



Enemy Maxes are like carrots, and LIKE HELL am I going remove them before bunnies come over for nibbles. :3

I agree hacking or disrupting vehicles would be more fun and interesting. We don't have the tools to kill anything outright. That is fine, I don't want to create big explosions. Most of us just want to troll drivers, and possibly tickle them into a respawn if they come out of the vehicles to say hi.

Sure, every other class has C4 (and for the record, I don't think Infiltrators need it) but some classes also have their own class specific counters to vehicles. Heavy Assaults have their rocket launchers. Engi's have their tank mines and AV turrets. What's wrong with the Infiltrator getting a class specific way to interact with vehicles? Whether it be hacking a vehicle or even just some EMP variant that disables them for a short time. It doesn't make sense to me in a combined arms game where vehicles are all over that one, and only one, class gets the shaft when it comes to being able to deal with vehicle threats.

+1 to all of this.

I just don't think it's necessary. Mostly for the reasons CuteBeaver stated. If I want to go AV, I'll switch to a secondary class only for that purpose and then switch back to Infil. If i come across MAXes, I pull oit the explosive bolts and betties. It's not hard and it's not really a problem to solve.

The point of an infiltrator is anti infantry all the way... But you have a major point on c4.
No idea why a medic can hold it and an infiltrator cannot.

the answer is easy, the new anti material rifle is a sniperrifle but landed in the hands of the strongest AV class (AV mines/AV-mana/acess to C4 - with utility pouch 4 blocks) and does not really need such a rifle.
Perhaps i could understand if the AM-rifle would take the place of the AV-mana and the engy would have to decide what he wants to carry around but mana and rifle is a AV-overdose.
The AM-rifle would give the sniper the chance to kill maxes and be a pain for vehicles (i still dont get why a rifle that is able to pierce armor needs 2 headshots for any infantry while being a bolt action weapon).
Atleast egny and infils could share this weapon if deybreak games is still willing to give it to the engy.

i really love the stalker cloak but i would say if infiltrators should get C4 it should not be usable by stalker-cloakers because that would be too OP and i know i would abuse this power to kill as many tankfarmers as possible that are hiding as far away as possible from the fight while using HE-ammo. A normal smg-infil would be ok.

I have to say, despite my stance on " no we are not meant to blow things up" you guys have a pretty solid case for the Anti Material Sniper Rifle. Logically speaking, even the developers were considering allowing us to use it.

Personally I just feel Daybreak are afraid of a Snipocalypse. They don't want lancer 2.0 nests everywhere and they are legitimately concerned we'd transform into revengfiltrators. So they are more then likely going to release it to the engineers first. This is a class that is spoiled for choice when it comes to AV options. They can tank mine, they can use AV turrets, C4 and I don't think every single engineer would go replace their primary weapon without hesitation. The disruption on the vehicleside ecosystem would be minimal, almost unnoticeable.

If Daybreak gave us infiltrators the AMR I think for a good week (at least) we would be repaying vehicles for their slaughter against cloaker kind. Relentlessly harassing them and there would be much tears on behalf of the vehicle-side community. Do I think it would be horrible longterm? No, since the likelihood of us collectively killing vast amounts of vehicles, is probably minimal because the weapon only appears to do significant damage to lighter vehicles and max units. Nevertheless we have proven how annoying we can be... (Remember the tears when our EMP's got buffed to remove over-shield? Remember the salt thrown around by the HAs?) So for a good 2-3 weeks we as a community would be consumed by revenge but after a while I think most infils would just go back to what they loved prior to the shiny new toy being released.

But why do we ACTUALLY want this AMR so badly?

Because hacking isn't working, hacking is lackluster, hacking isn't giving us alternative methods to deal with vehicles as it probably should. If we had options to hack vehicles and disrupt them we could cause problems without blowing everything up. Anything from immobilization, reversed steering or controls, constantly appearing on the mini map for allies nearby (like a tracker dart) until it wears off. I mean the sky is the limit with hacking. Even something like taking over unoccupied NS vehicles is probably something Daybreak could swing.

Wouldn't that be totally amazing? Sneaking up to an unoccupied enemy sundie that is spawning troops... carefully... crawling under the bus, and hacking it to your faction in the middle of everyone. You may even be able to drive away before someone has the sense to C4. Maybe it has a deploy shield allowing your own faction to spawn in their place. Im not sure if that would be considered treason though... since enemies would begin farming your comrades...

Hacking in bases is in an absolutely pathetic state. The only thing we can count on is having some form of vehicle terminals. Infantry terminals were often removed and never returned... the reasons stated was for performance boost and to prevent abuse from squads holding capture point (tech plant) from easily resupplying inside. Daybreak learned an awesome lesson about terminal placement. Never stick it near the capture point it needs to be in one of those little trivial buildings. With the light bridges (and interlink) I have hope that hacking will eventually be revamped. They proved this concept works to create a field that can switch between states and allow or prevent enemy access. SO MUCH could be done with existing code when it comes to base flow. Gradual base design overhaul could completely change how we fight and what locations are more defensible.

Compounding to the lack of hacking usefulness many bases have places where turrets should be, but nothing is there. This is relevant because it makes your case for AMR much stronger. In newer bases we see very few turrets. Sometimes there are NONE to occupy. (To Daybreaks defense WE KNOW they have been working on up-gradable turrets, and it could possibly make sense not to bother putting older style turrets in bases when they would need to be removed later) . I'm willing to throw them a benefit of the doubt freebee on that one.

I know I'm rambling but understand I am not saying the AMR is a bad idea, and it probably would be fine. Asking for C4 is not fine, mines can be incredibly powerful already. Our class really isn't meant for "blowing up things" and we should encourage more specialization rather then homogenization.

I know it sounds rather odd, but I am kinda happy that Daybreak hasn't given us the AMR because there is a considerable possibility they internally acknowledge the problem with hacking and want to solve those issues instead. I just wish, if this was the case they would communicate this intent instead of waving the shiny carrot in front of our faces and getting peoples hopes up.

Only if they promise and give us decent evidence, that hacking is worked on, i would forget about AMSR (maybe).
But nope, never were it anywhere mentioned. So no, i want my AMSR NOW.
And by the way, could those who claim to "main" infiltrator start to refere to the infiltrator ability as cloak and not invisiblity?
Because we are NOT invisible. Such a thing only the plebs, bads and crutch assaults say and claim.

Fair enough, its your opinion. I'd prefer more variety and options for the Infiltrator class rather than getting pidgeon holed into one role only (a role that every other class in the game can do: kill infantry).

Unfortunately, that's the only way to do it in the game right now. The downside is any vehicle player can regard an infiltrator as a complete non-threat and free certs. Again, any other class can CHOOSE to bring some AV capability to the fight. In a combined arms game where vehicles can be spammed all over the battlefield, to have one class without an inherent ability to directly interact against vehicle threats is poor design IMO.

Or shooting them works too so I'm not concerned with the Infiltrators current ability to handle MAXes.

Like I said, any class can fill an "anti-infantry" role...some can even do it while providing "anti-vehicle" and "anti-air" roles on top of that. Might partially explain why Infiltrator is a popular first choice for new/low BR players and the trend is they gradually shift to playing HA at higher BR's.

http://i.imgur.com/7JLzYdN.png

Infiltrators can hack base turrets - this should not be underestimated! Turrets do not show up on the map and you're being in a position where the enemy vehicles are most likely to turn their fragile rear armor towards you. I've seen many sundys blow up from spear phalanx shots into the back when they parked in what they thought was a safe position.

Also, you can hack infantry terminals and change class or hack vehicle terminals and pull vehicles of your own.

The hacking vehicles sounds interesting, but it would have to be balanced. Hacking abandoned vehicles wouldn't cause any unbalance, but hacking full/used vehicles might be OP. Also, there should be a defense upgrade against hacking, so vehicle users have to choose between hack protection and better armor/stealth/whatever.

C4 on infiltrators would be OP, LA w/C4 are hard enough to defend against.

I like playing infil, but I'm gonna betray my brothers and say I don;t think infiltrators should have AV abilities.

There's plenty of classes, and Infiltrators are assassins, scouts and general nuisances.

They're not meant to be "light-heavies".

None? None at all? Not even an AV ability that fits the flavor of the class (ex: hacking or EMP)? Consider this as well: counter play is an important element of game design. How is only one class having zero counter play options against a very significant element of this game a good design decision?

We could use your same argument against Infiltrators and tweak it to question why Medics have AV abilities. "There's plenty of classes, and Medics are healers, revivers, and general nuisances. They're not meant to be 'light heavies'."

Well by twisting the argument around you're not proving him wrong, you're just pointing out something that's also silly. Infiltrators are arguable even better at stopping infantry advances than heavy assaults are, due to their cloaking and scout/sniper rifles, and can even go closer against 2-3 people with their smg. It's not about giving every class everything, it's about giving every class a use. If infiltrator had AV options then the infiltrator would have a use in literally every scenario just by switching a weapon around.