Devs please, many of us don't want a game that has three perfectly equal sides with equal vehicles, equal weapons, and equal tools. Between you and me things are already disturbingly similar between the three sides especially with weapons. What small differences exist are instantly slammed on the forums for being OMG easy mode as they are seen from a very narrow-minded perspective that has NO PLACE in a team-based MMORPG. Three Unique sides! We want three unique sides that have strengths and weaknesses! Players should have to adjust their strategies based on what side they are on, and what side they are fighting against. It's perfectly acceptable for one side to have better air abilities, or another to have a superior anti-tank Medium tank. We want to have one side to have an unfair advantage in certain situations, like close-quarters because have the fun in team-based games is the strategy The NC needs love, not much love, but enough to seal them into their nitch. They have great defensive capability with their prowler tank, and great close-quarters capability with their max. Their weapons should complement this by being hard hitting close-quarters weapons. Mortars would be one example weapon I feel would be really cool for the NC to have. That, I feel, is their flavor, though it is not currently represented in practice. The TR needs to stop complaining about how everyone else is easy mode, seriously, you guys get extra rounds in a clip, a huge advantage that is completely dismissed when you complain about minor things like OMG bullet drop with vanu. The TR flavor which should be emphasized more is speed. If an alliance was to have the best air, it should be these guys. Their tank should be faster, and unleash their rounds in volleys which require a significant reload in between, to encourage hit and run tactics. Their infantry weapons should (and I think currently do) have large clip sizes with a comparatively large reload time to again encourage fast-hitting tactics. The VC needs a TON of work, seriously. I'm not saying they have a disadvantage, I'm saying they are a complete farse. Why the hell do vanu weapons take soft point ammunition, silencers and all that other projectile weapon hooba jooba? Why, with the exception of bullet drop, do their weapons mimic the weapons of the other alliances rather then take on a more 'alien' feel. The vanu should be DIFFERENT! they need without doubt their own line of cert upgrades that actually make sense to projectile weapons and the idea should be that they have unique abilities in some forms while missing out on certain other abilities the other alliances have standard. Don't even get me started on the shotguns. Why the hell do we have 'energy' shotguns that take slug ammo!?! About the only thing in the vanu that actually works as it should right now is the magrider. Nerfs are a bad idea 99% of the time We all appreciate the fact that you guys really do listen to our input, but responding to constant forum whining is not the same as preforming that the majority wants. Good players, and good suggestions about balance can be easily distinguished from the bad whiners who constantly say "this <thing> is unbalanced because I did the exact same thing 5000 times and it killed me every time." This player has failed to adapt to the situation and rightfully deserved to die. We are paying into things and can expect no refund when our toys get nerfed for balance. If something gets nerfed we honestly should have the opportunity to get our certs/cash back. We paid for a product and we expect that product to work within our expectations. I see no large difference between time-investment work, and actually cash contributions. Both will significantly deter a player who is left feeling like he wasted his time/money. 99% of the time it is better to add options or improve upon a counter weapon as opposed to nerfing, but even then you should be careful in doing so. (It may have been random, but giving everyone half-off G2A launchers the day after the G2A patch was a pretty mean thing to do to those fliers) Suggestions Magrider-the number one nerf this candidate is perfectly fine as is. for a few reasons. First off its perfectly legitimate to expect a technologically superior side to have the best anti-tank medium tank. Tanks are not the hard counter to other tanks. The hard counter would be air and launchers(especially those nasty guided ones) The fact that a magrider can beat the other tanks in open combat is just that tanks nitch. Knowing this should be sufficient enough for the other sides to adapt their strategy. I have no pity for those stupid enough to challenge a mag 5000 times in an open field and getting pissed because he keeps dying. Its not that the magrider needs a nerf, its that the other tanks need a buff. The other tanks need better traction and weapon stability. The fact that they demand their opponents tank get nerfed rather then their own gets fixed makes me sad. Its pretty clear when you see posts like 'I HOPE YOU LIKE THAT NERF VANU, hahaha!' that this is not about fair balance, but about a guy who is upset that he died a lot and wants to ruin the game for those that killed him. Strafing is not a new concept for tanks. TR and NC drivers who want to fight other tanks in open field should consider getting SIDE armor and turning their turret at a 90 degree arc. The only problem is that these tanks get no weapon stability, and this is a real easy fix. Its all that is needed to level the playing field. Air combat To keeps the game fun everyone should have the faint chance of taking on their hard counter. Air doesn't play nicely by these rules and its a big reason people complain about them a lot. It really sucks to feel completely helpless. LAWS anyone here ever play infantry? Well, they had LAWS in infantry. They were single-use disposable launchers. Infantry wouldn't feel so helpless against air and tanks if they could elect to buy a powerful one-shot launcher with their infantry resources in place of, say, a grenade. Making a laser-guided air version or something similar would also be nice. The idea is to give them the 'fighting chance' not give them an instant counter. Liberators are having an identity crisis. If one infantry can own them with a guided launcher, and cover. They are retiring to an anti-tank role maybe? It would be cool if the developers just said straight out how they intend a vehicle to be used. Thats all. Long post, yeah. This stuff has been bothering me for a long time. I don't really have interest in playing a game with three identical sides. My favorite FPS is AvP2 because the three races were so different from each other. I really want to see more uniqueness and identity added in the future rather then nerfs and babysitting whiners. thank you
Absolutely agree. We do not want this turning into three identikit sides battling it out. Asymetry is everything to PS2. Its one the main positives.
Since when were PS factions ever asymetrical? In PS1 maybe, a little bit. But true asymetry would be something like Insurgency vs. Established Military, where the Insurgents have no armor but tons of mines, AT etc. and the Military gets all the advanced stuff like tanks and air vehicles. Thats true asymetry.
It's funny how easy you can tell who is a Vanu player. Seriously, it's always defending the VS and "granting" the NC a slight buff (they need a huge rework, in all directions) and calling the TR whiners / losers / anything bad.
NC got a prowler finally, woot at least it has something of use other than denying the enemy 1 rocket in dmg
For a game with 3 sides there has to be balance. Unfortunately, even if there is balance, many players will not see it that way as that gun is better than mine, that tank is better than mine, not taking in to account the advantages and disadvantages of all three. The only way to stop the constant balance QQ is mirrors. 3 completely different factions is a slippery slope and I don't know if it has ever been pulled off in another game without absolute mirrors from one side to the other. I think what is more important is that all sides be given options on how they want to set up their toons. There is no way to **** or overcome a side that has great accuracy and no bullet drop. The NC hit harder but have less rounds, so what? The TR fire faster but have more spray, which does not really compensate for being hit by bullets that hit harder. Being able to kill is based on damage alone. Being able to spray 1000 rounds down field means nothing if they are not hitting. SplatterMax's are nearly unbeatable at close range. So the answer is don't go close range, which sounds fine except we have lots of close range bases, ie bio labs and most points are in protected areas. Since we are playing a futuristic game, I would hope that all sides would have similar options for close, mid and long range encounters for all types of infantry and vehicle warfare. What would be wrong with having very short range and long range tank shells? If I use my shotty I am unable to attack enemies at long range, should we not have to make those same decisions for tanks and planes? A ESF set up for infantry attacks should have a very difficult time being able to kill another ESF in combat as their weapons loadout is infantry. Maybe you could give a some of both but that option should not be very good at either. Regardless this game would be so much better off without combat planes and tanks.
Well yes if you're currently king of the hill balance wise I can see why you're perfectly happy shooting fish in a barrel forever. Trouble is it's not much fun for the fish. I'd like a balanced game please and no that doesn't mean factions are identical, you'll still get your hover tanks and we get our tin buckets. But it does mean Mags should have downsides that match the ability to mitigate most of our damage dodging fire while still being able to retreat and always having your hardest armor facing the enemy.
I agree that the factions should be different and unique. Since the Magrider is so much more maneuverable than the other two tanks, shouldn't it have considerably less armor? That only makes sense. Seeing as how the Magrider has 360 degrees of lateral movement while being able to keep its strongest armor and main gun facing the enemy, it is natural for it to put more shots on target. Therefore, it would make sense that it should have to rely on that maneuverability to survive while the Vanguard has to rely on it's strength of armor and weapon, and the Prowler relies on it's forward speed and faster firing. Leaving the Vanguard as it is, reducing the Magriders armor by 1/3, and decreasing the gravity by 1 for the prowler would accomplish this unique feel of each tank while balancing them out.
THIS. THIS x 10. I completely agree. I been posting this on the forums 100 times over. I dont want the same sides, with the same guns, with the same upgrades... same everything. If you wana play Halo or CoD, then do so... the best part about the game is the hate you build of the other team because of their weapons. Everyone hates the MagRider, because you don't get one... not because its so much better. If you take a prowler 1v1 mag, and you flank them or rush up on therm in that short to short-medium range, U WIN every time. If you engage from a Medium to Medium-long range, U LOSE... almost every time. I award you +1 internets sir, for doing what I could not. Putting a good post together without calling out all the crybabies... and I still cant do it. *** SEE BELOW *** Saying something is "OP" is like crying to your mommy that Billy got the bigger scoop of icecream, because its "not fair". Rise up, face the challenge and overcome it... dont go cry to SoE. This isn't ObamaLand where everybody gets everything they want because they cannot achieve for themselves! -BILDO
Some decent points. Problem is the Dev's are so focused on trying to make everything equal to shut up the whiners and make sure that no purchased weapon has any advantages. So all the weapons are pretty cookie cutter. Like for the Vanu High Velocity Ammo cert. I would change the name to Beam Focused Module cert. At least make it sound cool. The weapons themselves should have had marked differences. For Example: Vanu: Weapons are plasma projectile based. Extremely fast on target. No projectile drop. Weakest damage per round at all ranges. Medium rate of fire. Larger magazines. (Motto: TECHNOLOGY FTW) TR: Weapons are conventional. Slower on target. Average bullet drop. Standard damage per round at all ranges. Very high rate of fire. Larger magazines. (Motto: Why use one bullet when 10 bullets are better) NC: Weapons use hybrid heavy rounds. Slower on target. Slight bullet drop. Large damage per round at all ranges. Slowest rate of fire. Smaller magazines. (Motto: Hit em hard) This is how it was balanced in PS1and it worked pretty well with the empire specific weapons.
There is air in this game now? I do see some plane thingies flying in the skies but instantly turning into fire and scrap.
Do players want outcomes decided by skill or by the equipment? Most will say skill but that is a lie. Most want to use the most op part of the game to farm people and certs.
