[Suggestion] Random peeves

Kobalt, it's just kinda bad.
The godsaw has better stats in almost every single catagory, the accuracy is poor, the damage range is garbage the 154 damage at max range WHICH IS 40 METERS LESS THAN A DAMN LMG WITH 10 LESS DAMAGE is garbage, the 50 extra RoF does not help it's case at all.

For the love of god at least make the kobalt, a heavy vehicle mounted machine gun, better than an LMG used by infantry.

PPA, nuff said, it's literal garbage compared to saron.
I won't state why, everyone here can look it up.

Buff it to the point it isn't garbage.

No recoil stats, you cannot compare recoils in game unless you equip the weapon, I'd at least like to look at them.

Max punch, directive.....
Whyyyyy? I'm sure it's been stated before but dear god its a pain to grind. I found an easier way to do it with AV maxcombos or just using CQ burst taps. Still, pain in the ***.

Just a vent thread, I'm really REALLY getting tired of how nonsensical the vehicle AI weapons are. I get devs don't want vehicles to dominate but dear god I have never had a problem fighting anti bloody infantry vehicles. Yet whenever something else gears for anti vehicle or anti air then, the results are staggering.

Seriously... anything mounted on a vehicle should be much better than what infantry can carry. A vehicle does not get tired from "carrying" a HMG. A vehicle has much stronger "arms" and greater mass to control recoil.

For example, M1 tanks can be upgraded with the Counter Sniper/Anti-Materiel Mount for a 12.7mm HMG:



This thing is solidly mounted to a 65 ton vehicle, so things like "scope sway" just don't happen. The name of course implies that it's meant to kill individual snipers from a very long distance, way beyond the range of most infantry small arms. It's aimed with the gunner's 10x weapon sight and also uses the tank's ballistic computer to virtually eliminate any bullet drop.

So yea, the Kobalt and Basilisk should be extremely accurate, having very low recoil while doing tremendous damage to infantry. Otherwise it might be mounted to the vehicle with duct tape or something given the amount of bloom that happens.

I get that you feel strongly about this, but come on man, this is like the 4th time I've read your thoughts on tank-based weaponry realism in separate and irrelevant threads in the last week alone.

We all know that PS2's realism stops past the fact that people guns kill people. No need to remind us all how terrible real war is, and how our weak our peashooters are.

Stopped reading.

It's not a problem with me... it's a problem that in PS2 tanks are so very much underpowered that it's almost impossible not to see how unbalanced they are.

And it's not like I'm repeating myself or anything... it's just that every time infantry players think they have some issue, tanks always have it much worse.

To recap, each of the perfectly valid points I've suggested over the week are:

1) A 11mm revolver does over twice the damage of a 40mm autocannon round. Tank damage needs to be buffed so that it is reasonably balanced with respect to the size of the weapon.

2) Tanks were nerfed in terms of their AI power, and were promised in return that infantry would be nerfed in their AV power. The second phase of nerfs never happened.

3) Tanks have their shell velocities nerfed far in excess of how infantry weapons have their velocities nerfed. This is unfair, and tank shells should have about 4 times the velocity they currently do to be balanced against infantry weapons.

4) And in this thread, I have noted that tanks have unreasonable amounts of bloom and recoil for mounted weapons. Tank-mounted MGs should have only very minimal recoil and bloom.

It's not my fault that almost every aspect of tanks makes them unbelievably weak in PS2. If I am to no longer point out these unforgivable faults, then just fix the darn tanks already!

I agree completely with OP, as do plenty of others. Whether that's a majority or not, I have no clue, but no one will ever know if the topic isn't discussed. Some things turn in to a rolling stone, and eventually get noticed once they gather enough moss. That's why I like forums, sometimes you can make a difference, but very rarely sadly. But one thing is absolutely for sure, video game wheels cost money to grease, and don't get that grease unless they squeak.

I feel all vehicles should be much more powerful and much more costly. Maybe just cut nanite regeneration to 1/4. Make AT missiles able to 2 shot a tank from the rear, 3 from the side, but have them cost a **** ton of nanites as well.

I don't like vehicle, missile spam, and C4 spam. But some people do. How many in each camp? I have no clue.

I really do love the Kobalt though. I think it's the most solid and versatile AI gunner weapon by a mile.

I'm not saying the problem is you, just that what you're suggesting is extremely unrealistic for PS2's current position. A change in balance to a more realistic shift would just completely shatter the game. PS2 was not designed to be realistic, and it is way too far down the line to try to change that.

Having a tank that can instantly kill (multiple) infantry with multiple guns, that can be spawned instantly? There needs to be serious changes for players to even accept the idea, let alone work it into the misshapen balance in PS2. It is just entirely unfeasible.

As for the rest; as a primarily infantry-only player, obviously we will disagree on this, but I don't think tanks ever have the problem of "I am literally unable to defend myself against an enemy capable of killing me instantly with little to no skill and/or risk involved." Minus air, which is another can 'o worms altogether.

2) The problem with this is though, even after the lethality nerf, tanks can still OHK infantry to the same extents with direct hits, which is quite trivial at best. Infantry on the other hand require C4 to instant-kill a tank. I don't think a HA even can kill a tank from the front with all of the rockets they can normally carry.

3) Ties in with my response to 2. If the shell velocities were made to high, then even a stark fresh new player could drive around instagibing random infantry from fair range. When given the laughable velocity values across the board, --one could almost catch a round from my Executive-- I think the current values are quite fair. Could be hurling rocks at the enemy instead.

4) All weapons in PS2 are ridiculously inaccurate. I personally would love to see a general increase in accuracy. Recoil in games mostly only exists for balance.

Anyways, as I said, forumside in general needs to keep topics and posts relevant to their threads. Gotta at least suggest to each other to do so every once in a while.

But, a rolling stone gathers no moss.

Anyways, as I said in my above response to CC, the suggestions he is/has put forward are in extreme compared to the polar opposites of the current game, which is extremely unlikely to become subject to change in the current iteration of PlanetSide.

Maybe in 2020, we'll have a balance system like that in the new hit AAA title, PlanetSide 3.

Haha. True. Maybe I should finish my coffee before posting next time.... Oops. You get the idea.

Haha, yeah.

I agree they are very weak - but also very easy to obtain (I can virtually chain-pull them no matter how crazy the attacks I try) so in an ironic sort of way, they are currently balanced.

If they were much tougher but also far less abundant - i'd be all for it. Make people care about them instead of the endless respawning to the next fight. I fear the balancing would take a long time to get right though....just a thought.

If kobalt is considered a good vehicle weapon then ES AI weapons should be fine on sunderer, but when that is suggested people say it would be too powerful. Also fury should be a fine weapon for HA.

The problem with the "tanks are spammy so they must be weak" argument is that it forgets that infantry are even more spammy and free.

True, IRL a tank can take weeks to manufacture (though it takes years to properly train a rifleman or tanker). But the enemy that tanks fight are also time consuming to train and equip. If a tanker tears apart an AT team, that AT team is simply not coming back, and chances are their ATGM/rocket launcher is also out of commission. This means that IRL tanks can still be effective because it can wipe out much more of the enemy on a more permanent basis.

But in PS2 infantry are completely free, along with their ranged AV options. In PS2, a tank can kill a rocket-wielding HA, but that only puts them out of commission for seconds, not a lifetime. The enemy force can also theoretically field an entire platoon with nothing but AT infantry, whereas in real life AT infantry are much, much more rare.

This is why the "tanks are spammy" argument ultimately fails to be persuasive. Everything is spammy in PS2, so it's no reason why tanks should be singled out to be made weaker because of it. In fact, I would argue that tanks in PS2 need to be made stronger than their IRL counterparts because they have to deal with the increased challenge of immortal, never-ending hordes of infantry.

K

I don't know how many times I've said a video does not prove anything as I could do a flaregun montage and make it look good.
And yes, I am serious.

Godsaw:
200 to 10m, 167 out to 110m
670 muzzle velocity
2 ADS from standing

Kobalt:
200 to 10m, 153 out to 60m
650 muzzle velocity
2 From hip (which is what vehicles use

If anyone understands how important the damage tiers are then you'd realize that losing even one point of it on a long range weapon can cost you a kill.
From a game standpoint with vehicles, this makes no sense. As a heavy main, I can tell you how easy it is to peak out, shoot a rocket and rinse and repeat without sustaining lethal damage from a kobalt. I've been on both sides of the engagement, it isn't hard to see what's wrong with the picture.

LASHER :O :O :O

And, believe it or not, I had the same idea. ES topguns are either fury clones or not as good at killing infantry as the fury. So it seems like if sundis had it, the outcome would be interesting.

Kobalt is pinpoint accurate with burst discipline, and it has ABSOLUTELY ZERO recoil.
if you point it at someones head, you will kill them in an instant.
you can snipe with the thing if you know how to use it.

The Kobalt starts out with a 0.2 minimum CoF. This makes it as accurate as a zoomed in sniper rifle while crouching and moving. In fact no infantry weapon that I found has an aimed minimum CoF that is worse than the Kobalt, unless that infantryman is running back and forth while shooting (and maybe shotguns of the MCG or whatever niche weapon I didn't have time to look at).

And while the Kobalt doesn't have recoil, it does have a significant 0.1 bloom per shot. If you aim with a Gauss SAW, your bloom per shot is still less than the Kobalt's. Bloom is much more difficult to correct for than recoil. With proper skill, a player can compensate for recoil by pulling down on their mouse. But bloom is entirely dependent on the RNG gods.

The Kobalt should have extremely low bloom, for starters much less than any infantry-carried weapon. This would adequately simulate the inherent accuracy that comes from vehicle-mounted weapons.

The exact opposite of what it used to be
Flooding bases with plasma from 200 meters away, terrible on the receiving end.

ZoE helps

It doesn't prove anything, but it does void your argument. You saw the video, you know it's viable.
And that's not a montage. It's clearly an unedited single clip. You can't make an uncut flaregun video look good.

It does not void anything. I never said it wasn't viable, I simply said the stats were incredibly stupid. You can do a lot of things to a body of noobs that don't know what to do, in fact you could just make a PPA or duster clip, however PPA needs work while duster is just meh.

But like the PPA it's simply overshadowed by other things when every weapon in the game is meant to be a sidegrade, but kobalts barely do anything better than bassys and are in fact overshadowed by an infantry weapon in terms of stats.

where is running off a cliff and dying on your list?