Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Campagne, Feb 2, 2019.
And now telling ME to brush up on reading comp. You're killin' me smalls.
LOL wtf are you going on about now?
Nice deflection but you still havent answered my question....
You still havent answered my question LOL.
Restate your question.
More specifically, restate your question to ME.
The question you asked earlier was asked of your straw man.
(which is another logical fallacy.. begging the question.. assuming your premise is already correct)
Sigh, its all above m8, youre just trolling now tbh, but just to entertain you:
This heavily implies that you think all fights should be who can inf v inf the best, deny it if you want to, but its clear to interpret.
You then implied that anyone in a MAX is using a crutch and is crap at the game and should be ashamed for using a MAX.
To which i simply pointed out that the game isnt just who can Inf v Inf better, its about forethought and planning just as much.
I then asked (this is the one you still havent answered):
Is some1; who cant plan, is not really thinking ahead, has no forethought, isnt playing as a correctly outfitted team, and solely depends on their ability to 1v1 Inf fight; actualy not very good at the game?
Stands to reason that their not actualy playing the game as presented to them, their playing their own version of it that they pretend is 'honourable', when infact all it does is cause loss to both themselves and their empire as a whole.
You argue that MAX spam ruins fights, i argue that players artificially removing an item from the game through abusive rants and belittlement is ruining the game and community as a whole.
I cant be any clearer on this, if you dont understand my viewpoint thats fine, if you dont share it equally fine. Throwing around abuse like the above quotes is absolutely not.
Also, its a game, its meant to be enjoyed for what it is.
I dont play WOT anymore, because i cant stand the invisible camo tanks shooting you when you cant shoot back, do i ***** whine and moan on the WOT forums? No, i just dont play it.
I suppose that is one implication but it was not what I was implying at all. It's a combined arms game. I do not think inf vs infantry skill is the pinnacle of skills in this game. Maxes absolutely should be used where appropriate. If that somehow seems contradictory to you, then maybe you need to come to understand my views better...before you attack them.
And I'm going to just stop right here with that. You've taken something, stretched it out beyond it's limited meaning and just absolutely run away with it. The entire rest of your argument is just you getting worked up about this viewpoint **which I do not hold**
Now you're going to give some more example of that....
No. I did not answer that. Because you're not asking it of ME. You're asking it of this imaginary straw man who thinks 1v1 infantry is the pinnacle of gameplay. I would be curious to know what that answer is as well.
NO. Stop. You're doing it again. I never said that (go look back. If it seems like I did, read more carefully)
Nobody is abusing you man. You're having a reeeeeaaally heated argument with... yourself. Not sure how else to put it. You've assumed my position and are mad at me for having it. HAHA. I mean how do I defend myself from that? Am I supposed to take up the position I don't have and give you your answers somehow??
Let me just distill my REAL views down a bit:
The completely legitimate tactic of bringing maxes to a battle in large numbers (by ANY) faction results in expectedly difficult gameplay for opponents. I *think* you and I are on the same page on this. It puts the hurt down on people and produces whining and when that whining turns into derogatory abuse it's not good for the game.
However I also feel that right now there is an imbalance in the game. The NC Max is OP (I've argued otherwise in the past and my views have changed). One a 1v1 level it's really not bad...and why I held opposing views for so long. When used en mass as I mentioned though the imbalance become game breaking. It generates a situation that is not inherently fair to all players.
There are players and even whole outfits that are well aware of this imbalance. They abuse it to "win" (in the meta of their choosing) and in doing so ruin the gameplay for others and damage the game. I have zero respect for these players and find them to be quite pathetic.
I hope this clears things up and perhaps deescalates a bit here?
(expect edits... be a miracle if I get this quote and formatting right)
the lethality however might be the reason of its high initial investment of nanites .. if that lethality goes down so much were the max is more about tanking indoors than dishing out dmg might aswell reduce the nanitecost ..
the removal of slugs and HILARIOUS damage drop off (to the point were the TTK for NC max weapons is 400-600% longer than TR and VS max weapons at 20m) implies that the intended role should be cqc powerhouse,
and yet in cqc the nc max shotguns still deal less damage than the TR and VS weapons.
just look at these pitiful CQC stats
and obviously DBG know these numbers, so what are the only conclusions we can come to?
incompetence, insanity or bias.
even doubling the magazines won't accomplish anything while the shotgun max still deals less CQC damage than VS and TR...
my faith is fading fast at this point.
we've seen mind numbing blunders like these go to live before and remain in a dormant unuseable state, hell,
just look at ZoE, nerfed years ago and left to rot.
so i have a scary feeling that these tickleguns are indeed what the devs intend, and it isn't an error.
nope they intended for NC shotguns to be doing less cqc damage than TR and VS.
on PTS it takes an NC max up to twice as long to kill TR and VS maxes in cqc.
think about that, the shotgun max taking TWICE AS LONG to kill maxes in cqc.
I mean that it should be based on the empircally determined odds you have to kill a tank as an infantry, on average. So don't know if you remember oracleofdeath, but it held statistics on survivability chance pitting weapons against each other. Then you can figure out the exact ratio. Minute level skill-differences are compensated for already through "extreme menance" bonuses and the like.
I remember Oracle fondly. I did not know they had that feature. But I would then change the XP gain based on several factors. For example, getting a kill with a dumbfire at long-range where people rarely get a kill would net you more XP than a CQC kill with a dumbfire. Using an SMG for a 200m kill should get you more XP than with a sniper etc. To encourage people to still use weapons where they belong, the extra XP is "normal" at the ideal range of the weapon, and then ramps up exponentially the farther away from the ideal range you are. So if you use a sniper in shorter range then intended you still don't get a lot of extra XP, but use it within CQC and you get more as it's tough to pull off (unless you use "special tactics" ofcourse).
Just gonna go the easy route and lump it all together to keep the text from bloating too far like you tend to draw it out to.
Your proposal is all over the place, frankly. They're either not tanky, or they are. They either do damage, or they don't. They're gonna be just a bit tankier than an HA with some speed, or they're gonna be somewhere in the middle with the engies and medics? You haven't proposed anything but half-baked ideas which do not sound remotely like the max. (Might as well not have it by your proposal and if we're going down that road...) Your medic one included as we have enough spawn points to fill three games. You can spawn on various vehicles, multiple spawn rooms, places throughout the map, and now the spawn pad as well. Really these things benefit the attackers far more than the defenders when it comes to the spawn pad and your medic idea. Couple of bases make it impossible to even enter without a proper max crash and even that can be dubious.
Also, I'm not limiting the number of combatants which is what Planetside 2 is about. I'm limiting the effective force of a max crash while maintaining the unique role and purpose of the max. I'm also thinking ahead to create more coordination with groups organizing flight groups to stop or aid transporting said maxes which could be a real threat, or organizing a defensive line with ground forces to stop said threat. I'm also not marginalizing roles like your proposals would do. Eventually might as well just have guns and no roles if we're going the route you want where nothing stands out and everything can operate on its own without any aide.
As to the killing power thing. That's you, not me. Don't try to project there bud. I didn't switch my argument.
I agree that the NC max nerf was way too heavy handed. I'm also against the sheer buff to the VS weapons that now hand them weapons more effective than TR's max weapons at their own role while giving the TR a throw away buff that still doesn't do anything to make it a usable weapon. Over all, I'm just against what they've done with this PTS change. But I'm not going to descend into the "EVERYTHING THE SAME!" camp I see people running towards.
just assuming the worst wont help anybody ...
also again it's PTS were devs go and experiment on stuff ... how bout that conclusion?
Oh no. VS And TR might have a better Max now. Note fair!
I swear, it is always the same 4-5 NC guys in this Forum, that defend their Unbalanced NC Max.
Planetside will be better place, if the Nerfs go through.
So you like VS dominating the entire battlefield I take it?
VS got buffed in this, NC's situational was rather than made-non-situational, was flat nailed.
And TR barely got any attention.
So NC Maxes will still be holding up in Rooms, as their only viable location, but barely managing now.
While VS kicks your door in, with either their Blueshifts (if they aim well), or with the Modified Cosmos, if they can't aim well.
If the Max is unbalanced, in CQC, while it only is viable in CQC, you don't strip Combat capability entirely...
NC maxes have no Sustain, and are Shotguns.
These are notorious weapon types, that are either effective as finally in their sweet-spot, or Ineffective-to-near-free-kill.
You're rooting for rendering the Entire NC MAX, from "Over-Achieving in one-range bracket" with One-Situation-Weapons Against All-Purpose-AI-Weapons, into a MAX that has no truly viable options comparably.
When VS's ZOE was nerfed, the MAX was still able to kill, it also had other Abilities to switch to.
NC? Every single AI weapon NC has for their MAX is about to be hard-nerfed into the floor.
Pretty much this. It looks like they got about half-way revamping the NC MAX but got distracted by plasma balls and forgot about the TR.
I honestly can't believe your logic...
the weapons with 4 seconds sustain deal less damage at every range than weapons with 20 seconds sustain
and you're like "YAY BALANCE", are you trolling, bitter or just stupid?
Do you expect more from the devs at this point?
Do you expect that the changes will go live with nc maxes shotguns actually doing more cqc damage than tr and vs?
I'd bet you anything that these changes go live with current damage profiles,
if we make enough noise they might double mag size so that we can have nearlf HALF of the sustained fire of tr and vs, (unlikely)
However, NC max doing less damage than tr and vs at every range I can pretty much guarantee you will go live.
It's DBG, they have no clue anymore.
Shouldn't have to "make noise". It's the public "test" server, where feedback is given before going live. These are the official forums where feedback is suppose to be given... but it's DBG, neither of those matter....
Separate names with a comma.