Should there be a change in nanite costs?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Ziggurat8, Jan 24, 2018.

  1. Ziggurat8

    So Combined Arms changes have been out now for a while.

    Vehicle/Infantry interactions have gone the way DBG intended with Infantry now on the best footing they've ever had when it comes to Infantry/Vehicle combat.

    I feel it's time to change the nanite costs of vehicles to allow for better vehicle representation on the battlefield. I think MBTs and Lightnings especially should have a price reduction of at least 50 nanites as they stand right now.

    On a slightly different topic but within the theme of nanite cost changes.

    What do people think of possibly implementing nanite costs based on vehicle loadouts?

    An example could be a stock lightning costs a base amount; we'll say 250 nanites for discussion purposes. As each new upgrade is unlocked and added to the loadout the nanite cost increases a little bit. If the stock Lightning cost 250 nanites a fully upgraded Lightning might cost 350. Players could then remove ranks or upgrades from the loadout based on a target nanite cost they wanted to achieve. Say they want a lightning to cost 300 nanites. They could choose a slightly lower rank of reload speed, a smaller ammo pool and leave the performance slot empty.
  2. stalkish

    The vehicle weapons and options are supposed to be side-grades, not upgrades.
    One has a benefit in 1 area, another in another.

    So it really doesnt make sense to make some weapons cheaper than others.

    Of course in reality they are not sidegrades, but thats a dev balance problem, not a problem with the costs.

    Id quite like a weaponless flash perhaps even weaponless ESF for pennies.
    Gives people a nice solo transport option.
  3. Icehole1999

    Harassers need to cost 450, just like the MAX. You need a driver and a gunner for the buggy, just like you need a driver and an Engineer for the MAX.
    • Up x 1
  4. FractalCore

    I think Nanite costs are OK. It's not really hard to recover them and gives the game a good "spawn hygiene", preventing some vehicle spam.
    Another side effect is that makes you think twice before bringing the big guys to the fight (MAXes, Galaxies, MTs, ESFs).
  5. adamts01

    1/2 price nosegun-only ESF
    • Up x 1
  6. LodeTria

    Lightnings have needed a cost reduction for a long *** time.
    Unfortunately that'd be a vehicle buff and infantry-side would cry and cry and cry so it won't happen.
    • Up x 3
  7. Ziggurat8

    I didn't specify it in my proposal for nanite costs for upgrades but the weapon slot would be free. The upgrades specific to weapons would cost nanites. A stock viper (no reload speed, ammo capacity or scope) would cost the same as the stock HEAT, HESH or AP. A maxed out Viper would cost the same as a maxed out HESH for instance.

    It would allow for lower prices on vehicles as well as not hamstringing BR15 players in uncerted vehicles. Yes they wouldn't have the upgrades a fully certed BR120 had access to but the vehicle would cost less.
  8. strikearrow

    I agree, so long as its a stock nosegun and no extra afterburners.
  9. strikearrow

    Either that or harassers need to cost the same as lightnings because frankly a 150nanite 2 man harasser can often destroy 2 AV lightnings without too much trouble and that same harasser could eat 2 skyguards without even running away to repair first.
  10. LodeTria

    Those 2 AV lightnings were bads then lol.
    Vehicles should be brought up to the harassers effectiveness, not nerfed down into the uselessness of lightnings.
  11. strikearrow

    I don't think so; I've seen a harasser drive in-between 10 tanks 2x before it needs to go repair and repeat 5-6 times before they finally killed it - even with 10-15 infantry also shooting at it. Harassers need a nerf period.
  12. Campagne

    I disagree. Quite frankly infantry without C4 or tank mines are worse off than before the CAI because of the increased exposure time for launchers. Less damage means more rockets which translates to more opportunities to instakill the infantry.

    Needs to go the opposite direction, in my opinion. Less shots with higher damage, not faster shots.

    Anyway, I do think there should be resource cost reductions, but not for weapon slots. As Stalkish said, they're at least supposed to be sidegrades.

    The other slots, such as the defense and utility slots however, are objectively better than not having anything. Pulling vehicles without these things equipped lowers their total survivability, which justifies a cost reduction.

    Also really helps new players get into vehicle play but allowing their naturally undercerted vehicles to be more forgiving of defeat.

    Yeah, because trees aren't the most effective form of AA and tanks never complained that HE left them at a disadvantage when fighting enemy armour. :rolleyes:
    • Up x 2
  13. Ziggurat8

    Check out my response to stalkish. I totally agree that different weapons shouldn't cost different nanites. But weapon upgrades absolutely should cost nanites. Reload Speed 0 costs no extra nanites. Reload Speed 5 should cost extra nanites. It's a direct performance increase. No side grade about it. Same with magazine size and extra ammunition. Scope slot I could go either way with.

    Changes to a lot of things like Flak armor, extra ammo for RL's, higher sustained damage with faster reloads and shorter lock ons. As well as lower splash, direct damage and projectile speed of lots of the vehicle weapons certainly made it easier for me as infantry and harder for me as a tanker.

    Really can't agree that having slightly more face time with the few turrets that still OHK makes it harder. That's a bit of a stretch. Try rank 4 FLAK armor (50% explosive and 20% tank cannon reduction) if you are worried about OHK vehicle turrets. It's pretty effing strong.
  14. Campagne

    Ah, yeah. I think that would be the best way of going about the situation. Kinda imbalance-proof too, sorta.

    Extra rockets by default is something that should have been the case for a long time. Finally have enough to kill an MBT from the front. Downside to that though, is a heavy can solo a sunndy really easily if no one stops him. :p

    Even with the changes Flak just can't compete with nanoweave in my opinion. Not unless I were going exclusively for enemy vehicles only, and even then maybe still. Can hide indoors from tank cannons and lolpods but not from LMGs & Carbines. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but don't at least some AV cannons still OHK through max rank Flak armour with a direct hit?

    Lock-on ranges were decreased as well though, meaning it is now possible for aircraft to shoot infantry from outside lock-on range, I think. (300m render for infantry, 250m range for lock-on?) HE was also made the best universal choice once again though, so everywhere ya' go there's more spam than before.

    The lower damage really shows when hitting lightweight and damaged vehicles too. Cloaked flashes for example, can turn practically invisible, can instakill any infantryman by running them over or can two-shot them with a shotgun or grenade launcher then cloak again and disappear in the distance. Can't kill the flash with a dumbfire anymore, better off just shooting the infil instead.

    A better way of increasing the DPS of RLs is to leave the reloads the same as pre-CAI but increase the damage and velocity of all launchers. What is it now, like 5-7 rockets to kill? That's way too many times to pop out when ya' only need to be hit once by the tank. Even if the infantryman did survive the hit with Flak, they'd be on death's door and would need to heal and recharge before they could try again, assuming nothing else came along and killed them. Right idea, wrong execution. But I suppose I could say the same about the entirety of the CAI. :p
    • Up x 1
  15. adamts01

    Nah, they need the afterburners. As justification, think of why these would actually be pulled.
    • Transportation: Come on, let the guy get somewhere faster before he bails out over his target.
    • The Reaver: It's near-worthless without fuel tanks. This limitation would put the weakest ESF farther behind the other 2. But with tanks, the 1/2 off Reaver performance gap would lessen.
    • Fighting Gank Squads: If you had the nanites, the average player would go with Coyotes, and gank squads will run either A2A or A2G wing mounts. These will be pulled when you're already down on your luck, they don't need to be handicapped.
    But...... As a condition of 1/2 price, ramming damage caused by an ESF needs to be basically removed, as scrubs LOVED to ram with the Indar bonus, and we don't need 175 Nanite tank-killing manned missiles.
    • Up x 1
  16. strikearrow

    The problem with giving them extra afterburners is that a skilled ESF pilot with extra afterburners is going to own any mediocre pilot even if the mediocre pilot has a nosegun and tomcats or coyotes. The nosegun only cheap ESF with extra afterburners is just going to give the air to skilled pilots and completely deny it to any mediocre pilots.
    • Up x 1
  17. adamts01

    These skilled pilots you're worried about are very few and far between, and they don't have a nanite problem at 350. This isn't something that would affect them.
  18. Ziggurat8

    Solo infantry vs solo tank you're right. Popping out more times to shoot is easier for the tank to land the shot.

    Several infantry vs a vehicle however means there's more damage on the vehicle in less time and misses have less impact.

    Overall I feel the survivability and lethality of most ground vehicles vs groups of infantry is down from what it was preCAI. The flash got stronger, which makes very little sense and the harasser is about where it was- maybe a bit better vs dumbfires, definitely worse vs lock ons. (In fact I tell my outfit to pull lock ons whenever harassers get too numerous, it's the best counter by far right now)

    I'm not gonna comment on air, it's in a weird place right now. I hope the devs aren't done with the air changes.
  19. strikearrow

    Not on Connery. You realize it only takes 2-3 online at any one time to deny air across the entire map, right? When 7-8 mediocre pilots manage to kill them 2x quick enough to deny them immediate respawn, it's still at the cost of 4-5 of the mediocre pilots and their respawn, which leaves 2-3 mediocre pilots in the air and with the cheap ESFs, those 2-3 pilots would be shot down fast.

    In the end, those 2-3 skilled pilots would control the air even with 7-8 mediocre pilots trying to fly against them. In other words, less people would fly at all.
  20. strikearrow

    AA Lock-on range is 350m and impact has to be within about 400m or the rocket disappears, although, 1x somehow I was hit by a rocket that locked at 350m and impacted at 600m, dunno what that was all about.

    I agree with you about the HA rockets TTK for tanks is way too long and gives the tank way too many shots for its OHK guns.
    • Up x 1