Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Nuggz, Aug 24, 2018.
You miss your shot with the AK-8000, as opposed to missing with the Decimator.
Tanks need to mainly fight other vehicles. Currently they mainly only farm infantry.
It's not fun for the majority of the players. If you play infantry you are just fodder for tanks. Its not fun trying to fight something that can one shot you while you have to hit it 7 times to kill it. Or get close enough to C4 it.
Mechanics that are not fun for the majority of players should not exist because it's killing the game.
It MIGHT be different if nanites weren't free.
Acting like spending something that takes nothing to get is a good excuse for 1 player to take out 30 or 40 per pull is dumb.
If you are even moderately good at driving a tank you ALWAYS have enough nanites to pull another.
Then kobalt vehicles everywhere killing infantry in under 2 secs with no fear of retaliation.
It's just awful and makes a lot of people not want to bother logging in.
I repeat. Vehicles should fight vehicles.
Lets just reduce infantry power vs tanks so that tanks are barely vulnerable to them and then likewise drastically reduce tank power vs infantry.
4 c4 to blow up a tank.
3 direct hits, 2 headshots for a tank to kill infantry.
And for goodness sake tone down the kobalt.
Everyone but the minority hesh farmers would be much happier with such a change.
How would it be more reliable? It's not exactly difficult to obtain nanites, the simple passage of time does that. I would be better able to respond to an armour threat with Nanite weapon than the decimator simply by design. The only thing that would limit me would be time, where as to throw this question onto say an ESF, if there is heavy AA the ESF isn't going to be very useful now is it?
By design these weapons are supposed to be a counter to "air and armour zergs" as per the OP, so they they should obviously be useful for the smaller number. Naturally they will be incredibly powerful in the zergs hands.
Why would I NEVER not have these weapons?
Vehicles by their nature aren't numerous enough to justify using the decimator instead of the nanite weapon. Vehicles do not outnumber infantry in anything, they are always in fewer numbers than infantry. Being able to use the decimator for "longer" won't really matter if I only encounter vehicles every so often. Even at cross-roads a base that often comes under vehicular assault often it is incredibly easy to avoid the vehicles that do whilst my nanites regen.
That's ignoring the easy answer of bio-labs, where these nanite weapons are much much more useful for defenders and almost useless for the attackers.
Making them niche weapons will just mean that you only use them when their is armour or ESF per your example. The nanite cost won't really mean anything if ESFs only show up every 2 minutes. It would literally just become a stronger Flak gun, ignored until needed and then way too strong when people decide to use it. Since infantry are far more numerous than say the skyguard users, the time to exclusion would be much faster.
And if I don't miss? I've used a weaker weapon for nothing. It's not as if I'm standing right next to the tank as if I tried CQC sniping a heavy.
And for the record, the OP says these could be lock-ons, so missing would require the presence of flairs if they even stop these weapons.
No matter what, you'll always have access to your Decimator. It will never leave you. Simply having a Decimator equipped as a standard loadout means it can be pulled out at a second's notice and fired in the following second. Otherwise the player might have to find a terminal first.
Ironically, if there is heavy air AA isn't very useful either. But regardless this is true with or without the presence of infantry-based AA
As I said, if ya' an't got gud enough to use them, you don't have one or can't afford enough rockets, if you're out in the field fighting enemy vehicles and can't reach a terminal to resupply, et cetera.
Nothing is only powerful in small numbers. Everything becomes stronger en mass, nothing we can do about it.
I'm afraid they are and they do, though not all the time it's just not true to say vehicles never outnumber infantry. And just think of all the times where a player fires and hits with every rocket he had without killing a single vehicle due to repairs. If a launcher has only ten rockets and can't resupply them without a terminal any instance where more than ten rockets are used will favour the Decimator.
All launchers are only used when there is armour or air around. Or MAXes. But let's just cut the chaff. Nanite costs for launchers don't mean much but neither do costs for vehicles, especially air. Costs for useful AV and AA weapons is basically just a formality at this point. You can nitpick to your heart's content but the fact is these weapons are meant to be more powerful than regular launchers and are justified by giving them the same cost as their ever more powerful targets.
I already gave you a few examples of legitimate reasons not to choose them over a standard Decimator. If you don't agree that's not on me. Again the costs are mostly meaningless but what in PS2 is truly "expensive" to anyone who knows how to use it? You're holding the idea to a double-standard in an attempt to discredit it.
If you don't miss, great. But no one has 100% accuracy or even close to it in real settings nor does everyone have the accuracy to effectively use accuracy-based weapons. If the player doesn't have the skill to use them the standard dumbfires cost nothing to fire.
Lock-ons will miss on their own accord even without flares and are countered by stealth on top of it. Lock-ons just aren't that effective, but regardless even if they could be lock-ons they don't have to be.
If your fighting vehicles "out in the field" you already doing it wrong. Infantry have literally 0 need to venture out into the spaces between bases. What are they gonna do? Capture the non existent points out there? Fight a few vehicles who become so easy to ignore once you get to a base?
This is why when organized squads capture a base, they aren't out fighting vehicles in the wastes of space and are instead either containing the spawn room or collapsing on points.
Since we're gonna do this, why not just give them Tank AP cannons then. You get a whopping 250m/s and will take 8 shots to front of a prowler/magrider to kill it, it comes with 60 ammo I guess it could cost 75 nanites, the same as C4, which isn't spamable at all
Btw the default freebie launcher kills a prowler to front in 7.
Maybe it should be as strong as a dalton, which is 4 shots to kill from top. That sounds more fair to most numerous unit in the game. I'm sure nothing could go wrong with this.
You haven't. It would be in every single load out I could stuff it in & would pull it at every chance I get. The decimator would be put in a "Use only If I can't use that" load-out.
Whether you hit or miss with the AK-8000, you've still spent the resources (may even have to buy another at additional expense if the LAW model some other people have proposed were used).
If you miss with the Decimator, no sweat; just reload, no expense.
What, you don't think infantry should be free to go around the world we play in? Can't fight in open fields or traverse the landscape on foot? Think infantry needs a point to capture to have fun? It's like you don't even play this game.
If the enemy isn't actively fighting for or near the capture points the defenders won't be either. In many bases this can translate to infantry fighting infantry around their spawn points which are often outside of a base or its walls.
And that's assuming there aren't any infantry outside the bases to begin with. Just yesterday I spent a long time playing around in the open snow and hills of Esamir fighting the TR and VS as infantry. Fun to fight in open ground for a change. I like open-field fights a lot.
The rest is just flat out fallacy; You're exaggerating the point rather than debating it. Argue against the topic for once rather than constantly trying to escalate it to the point of parody.
If you're incapable of imagining any situation in which a weapon worthless to almost all targets while being difficult to use effectively against the sole enemy it can kill, then the concept is just a bit too far gone for you already.
But people in this very thread are saying that the resource of nanites don't matter, be it a vehicle or this nanite weapon.
So which is it? Do they matter or not?
Why should you be free to? Aircraft aren't free to avoid AA guns or AV tanks to avoid A2G aircraft. Why should infantry get this right and no-one else? You already own the only means of actually making the map move to new areas be those bases or the useless terrain in between them.
I like field fights too. It's a shame they are just a waste of time though. Those infantry aren't doing much out there other than getting certs. You'd get more fighting in an actual base than plopping around the middle nowhere. If you want to pull the fun argument, I could just as well argue it is more fun playing a different game instead. Something the many many in-active accounts & continually declining player-base proves.
It's easy to exaggerate because you people who request these things never put out anything in the first place other than "I want".
Lets take the Op for example. We got it should cost 1.5 /2x that of a grenade, or 75/100 nanites. It is also has a limited ammo pool of 2-3, cant be reloaded from ammo packs & maybe be an engineer only weapon.
How many shots is it to kill a Tank? 1? 3? Is it just as effect against galaxys as it harassers?I dunno and neither does the OP since he never wrote it. I actually booted the game up and shoot at a prowler in a Lightning, HA & liberator to provide YOU with an idea of TTK/STK. I don't think you have done anything like that. "but the weapon doesn't exist so I can't load up the game" I hear you cry, yeah it doesn't but it can and will be compared to the guns in the game as all new additions are, so finding out what the guns it would be compared to would help you create the weapon as I did.
You just said me making this 75 nanite weapon, in line with OP's cost and a lightning AP gun in case you didn't notice, was "exaggerating" so maybe you should put out something since I've done more than you have done in this entire thread & several others. I've put more thought into your own idea than you, but I'm exaggerating.
That is your challenge. Do more than someone who dis-likes the idea did.
You mean the archer? A gun that was very effective against a unit that doesn't show up very often and useless against most other things? It wasn't a very worthwhile purchase in the end and sits in my load-outs un-used most of the time. It sure did ruin those few maxes though, I wonder if I ruined their day...
Have I remarked in this thread about the value of resources? I do not plant my words into other people's mouths; do not yank others' from mine.
Well for starters because this is a game and secondly because the entire playable continent was designed so that players could play in it. Did you forget why infantry generally don't go outside the walls so soon? Air can go where it pleases and vehicles can go where they fit. Infantry, like all others, can go where they can survive. Literally anyone (except MAXes) can capture any point just by going to it and pressing "E" when they hit a wall or are locked out by the point itself.
Time you enjoy wasting isn't wasted time.
What if I want to have fun while playing PS2? Crazy I know, I'm a real radical thinker.
I just flat out disagree with pulling meaningless numbers out from behind our backs when describing an idea. Whether or not the concept can stand on its own is what is important here, not the minutia of specific weapons.
As a rule of thumb for implementing raw stats think of something that seems a bit too weak and add it into the mix.
I launch PS2 just for stats and numbers all the time for these forums. Nobody ever appreciates it.
A tank cannon is balanced around being on a tank. It just wouldn't work well ripping the thing off and giving it to infantry. They need something balanced around their own strengths and weakness.
Well if you had to spend nanites on the Archer every time you wanted to use it, you would want to take a Decimator instead almost every time, wouldn't you?
On the whole discussion of "why would you ever pick a Decimator after such weapons are released", well because these weapons would likely be placed in the utility slot.
This means that the nanite-based weapon would be used until you run out and have to return to the terminal, but you still have a trusty not-so-useful backup weapon to fall back on. Also because it's a utility weapon you can have other classes use (some) of these weapons and create a higher class-diversity.
Lastly, rather than a direct firepower upgrade I would mostly aim these weapons at increasing their effective range without making it an auto-hit (like lock-ons) and having the weapons temporarily nerf the opponent with small stackable nerfs. This instantly improves the amount of combined arms that can be played and if a tank decides to hang around while getting hit he'll eventually look at a much higher nerf by the time he would try to get to cover and repair, and has more risk-reward.
The idea doesn't work. Nothing you have ever said shows it will. You only have your feelings on how much you hate vehicles and NOTHING else, since you REFUSE to put anything out. It's easy to hide behind your feelings, but when challenged you back down and still continue to back down, arguing that I'm "trolling" or other deflections to avoid answering the question:
What stats will this weapon have?
A weapon IS it's stats after all. You think people are using the Orion, Anchor, Banshee, Tankbuster, HESH, Cyclone, GD7F, Decimator because the model looks nice?
When designing a weapon you must account for how it gets put into the game, how it will interact with the many facets of the game both large and small. To ignore that is how you end up with how the AV mana launched, a broken mess that exploit'd rendering. Or how the harasser launched, when it could full repair from the backseat & take tank shells like a Lightning. Or the Canis Unstable ammo. They really thought about that one right?
I guess we'll never know how effective these weapons will be, since you stubbornly refuse to put out anything. Whether it plays to the strengths or weaknesses of infantry we'll never know, because you refuse.
The idea absolutely can and does. Certain players such as yourself just don't want to see it become reality for one reason or another. If you don't want to see the reasoning you will blind yourself to it as you already have.
When "challenged?" What, to do something I immediately said I wasn't going to do? If you said "man, I really hate pistachio ice cream," and then in the very next second I said "I dare you to eat this tub of pistachio ice cream" it would not be "backing down from the challenge." The correct response in this situation would of course be "piss off." And yet you say so while cutting out the entirety of the rest of my post and frequently ignoring large chunks of others.
Will these weapons cost per-shot, or will they be an upfront single-time cost for the weapon itself with free ammo akin to vehicles? If the latter, can it be resupplied from an ammo pack, or only a terminal? Will the be disposable? Will they occupy the utility slot as has been suggested and brought up by Demigan? What if some of them could take the primary slot, for a really big bonus in some way? Some combination of everything and anything? We have no idea how this would or even could be implemented.
Ya' gotta learn to walk before you can run. The basics and mechanics of the system must be considered first before specific weapons are designed to fit in the system itself. You preach about the stats and thinking about the weapons before they are implemented but you are tripping over yourself trying to get to the guns without considering how they will be implemented.
So which is it?
The idea does work and could be implemented, or it doesn't work and can't be implemented.
I'm not asking you to download the forgelight engine, learn to use it's tools, make a Blender model or nuffing.
I am asking you, using the framework of the game we have now, with damage types, lock-ons, guided missiles, TV missles, Dumb Projectiles, One use items (grenades, Stim paks), to design the most basic form of "nanite based counter for air and armour".
All of those "will it be like this?" questions have to be answered by the proposer of the weapon, which is you.
Both, you silly willy.
The idea works but how we want it function in PS2 is still up for debate. Would it even be possible from a coding perspective to create a primary weapon which costs nanites? **** if I know! Can we have weapons which nerf enemy vehicles? Maybe?? Should we even bother with less-than-lethal options? Should we give everything something new, just something the same things?
It works perfectly, but how will it to work?
And I'm telling you, "piss off." The actual designs are up to the developers, not the players. We're simply discussing the fundamentals of the idea.
But furthermore, as Demigan already told you, thrice now...
If I just completely went against myself for no good reason and "designed" a nanite-based AV weapon you would shift the focus away from the concept towards a specific set of numbers you disagree with. Rather than argue the principle of nanite weapons you want to pick at any solid set of weapon stats.
And before you say "oh you're not giving me specifics because you know they're overpowered yadda yada yadda" I could imagine up the worst piece of crap and you'd still complain about it as long as it was in any way different to the current set of launchers we already have.
What Campagne said. Lodetria, you claimed in the now closed "skillful AA" thread for example that there were no skillful weapons proposed. I looked back and found 7 different threads where I did exactly that thing: Propose skillful AA weapons with mechanics and potential stats. The result? People nitpicked the exact details rather than the idea behind it.
How do you know it will work? You got any evidence of a working nanite based counter for air & armour zerg? You've just decided it will work, but you can't seem to decided on HOW it will work, just that it:
according to you so we should trust in your judgement because...? When asked HOW you spawned all these defensive arguments. So do you really, really know it works?
It doesn't exist in the game and could possibly not even be made, as you have freely admitted, so how do you know it will work?
To use an old internet term: show me the receipts. Link those 7 threads.
Also if you had missed my posts detailing those weapons which I've been doing for a lot longer than 2+ years, you are doing a damn bad job at keeping yourself up to date. If you haven't been keeping yourself up to date, you can't claim no one has done it and just close your eyes and pray no one has done it.
It just works. But for real we're talking about adding new weapons which cost nanites. Exactly what could go wrong here? We already have a multitude of weapons which cost nanites from C4 to grenades to tanks to noseguns to MAXes. The concept is nothing new.
Well personally I'd want choice. A little bit of everything. Good all-rounder launcher which can be acquired upfront for a hefty fee acting like any other consumable or able to get the same thing later when I need it but for a reduced cost which only lasts as long as I live with it. Lots of niche weapons too, such as the AA dumbfire I described earlier.
I'd also like to see various options available to every class, even infiltrators. Though of course these options wouldn't be the same as a heavy's or a medic's or whatever. Not just launchers either!
yeah this game was built on the idea that viechles were a force multiplyer... unless ur asking for a nanite pistol that can one shot viechles?
Separate names with a comma.