The New Resource System Destroys Planetside2

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by ConcernedGamer, Aug 6, 2014.

  1. Quikloc007

    The current system is still a work in progress!
    • Up x 1
  2. Nexus545

    Okay, firstly about lattice destroying tactics. I have no idea what it's like on your server but whenever I hop on Woodman I see 3-4 big fights on the battlefront of a continent and all the other lattice links either desolate or have small fights going on. The idea that it's all about big fights being won by whoever has more players is wrong. If you want a big fight you go to the hotspots and if you want to flank the enemy horde you go around using the smaller fights.

    Anywho about the resource system, let's start with tanks. The space in between bases has always been made with the intention of vehicles battles and since the patch I've finally seen those massive vehicle battles on the hills of south-west Indar again, I haven't seen fights like these since the game came out. And regarding the tank wins a base mentality it's no longer the case. There are only a few bases I can think of that still exists where tanks can roll in and start spawn camping a base in such a way that people can't defend. Bases are for infantry fights, in between them is for vehicles. With the new system these fights have become more intense and fun because of it.

    Of course the simple problem of being outnumbered still exists but let's be honest if someone walks into your base and outnumbers you 2.5 to 1 you've always lost. This is nothing new. You just try to hold them as long as possible for reinforcements to arrive. (*HINT HINT* use leader chat to arrange tactics with your faction).
  3. Flashtirade

    The entire game is still a work in progress. That doesn't mean things should be allowed to stay borked or even unfinished for long cough missions cough. They need to halve the income rate in a hotfix, it's really too much. It's not just enabling vehicle spam, it applies to MAXes and explosives as well.
    • Up x 1
  4. Vertabrae

    The German blitzkrieg did not roll over nations that hadn't adopted tank tech yet. Poland had a some tanks, Not many granted, but some. France and England actually had a fair number MORE tanks than Germany did. Only difference was the Germans used their tanks with Infantry supporting the tanks. Meaning the tanks pushed, and infantry stayed right behind them (using motorized transport) so that as tanks pushed into an area, the infantry could secure the area.

    The French and English basically used their tanks as mobile pillboxes to support infantry, thus losing the advantage of mobility.

    The Germans also concentrated their armor, while the French and English dispersed it.

    That's why the Germans were so successful. They concentrated infantry and armor, with heavy close air support at the key locations. Everyone else at the time basically tried to make a line that was strong everywhere, but in reality was fairly weak everywhere.

    Tanks are, and have almost always been, extremely vulnerable to infantry. Despite what happens in PS2, tanks don't engage infantry with their main gun very often, unless it's shooting at a building to destroy it. It's kinda like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun. They do have 1-2 machine guns on the tank that are much better suited to killing infantry.

    My point is tanks, unsupported by infantry, are extremely vulnerable and pretty much metal coffins for their crews. This is pretty much holy writ these days when learning about modern armored warfare.
    • Up x 4
  5. Rift23

    Blitzkrieg also had a lot of calvary involved. As in, horses. Suppose the equivalent of that in PS2 is Harassers which can be spammed as much as tanks (do people even use gunners for their halberds?).
  6. Zar

    you must be really new go ahead and cert into c4 every class but cloakers can have 2 bricks easy and that will insta win a tank.... and those 2 bricks are less then the tank sooooo...............lets up the cost of c4 to match the tank?
  7. Phyr

    We should buff LA running speed so I can run down tanks like they're gazelle /rawr
  8. LT_Latency

    You are not going to go 50/50 vs a tank in C4. So that is not 1v1 a tank.

    You are welcome to come fight me. I get a tank you get c4. Let see how things turn out.
  9. daniel696

    Image answer your thread.


    Now serious, with the fase 2 of the revamp we will se how good this will be, is what I'm saying, the system is incomplete and they need to complete it quick, we can't play with something not done.
  10. Harmaakettu

    I love it. Playing with an organized outfit which can coordinate fire on a single tank at a time is a glorious massacre when enemy pulls an armor column. The more they pull, more we get certs ;)
  11. Jachim

    Exaclty, all the tanks with their terrible HEAT now are just pure cert piniatas. Infantry should be swimming in certs, instead they're still pissed off a tank dies slower than an infantry.
  12. RigelDominar

    Your post is the main reason I spend all of my time flying. Tanking and Infantry play are the most zerg heavy numbers win gameplay in Planetside. I am biased absolutely but at least 10 ESFs together simultaneously attacking something is a weird rare occurrence. Ten tanks around a base is just a Tuesday. Still people complain if get to be any good at flying because then they call you weird names like "ace", "skyknight", or "airgod". Following that they usually tell you "Hey you are ruining the game for new pilots, tanks, and infantry". No one ever tanks into account that flying is one of the rare places that you don't always have to fight a 48v48.
  13. andy_m

    Great constructive discussion here, as usual. The Mods will be proud :D
  14. Goliath Mk2

    With the new resource revamp PS2 is now looking more like PS1 and i'm loving every minute of,
    Last night I got carried away playing for 6 hours (i usually only play for 2 or 3 sometimes 4)
    • Up x 1
  15. Sebastien

    That's not quite right. The French lost because Germany was practicing Maneuver Warfare which the French were not prepared for having come out of WWI. (Ironically, Napoleon practiced Maneuver Warfare when he made fast advances by leaving his supply train behind and having his men live off the land.)
    In fact, the German tanks at the start of WWII were based on the principle of Speed>Firepower>Armor, which ties in with the "Blitzkrieg". The purpose of this was to destroy the enemy and disrupt their lines of communication and command by attacking so quickly the enemy did not have enough time to mount a defense or even understand what was going on. The key to this being the tempo of advance and weight of fire, where the tempo must be maintained otherwise the enemy may have enough time to counter attack.
    Often, German tanks would use the fuel intended for the trucks carrying the Infantry, just to keep up the advance.

    In response to tanks needing infantry, that's not true either.
    The closest example you could find of tanks needing Infantry support is Grozny and Syria right now. The problem with Grozny was that they had green Commanders being sent into a city where they didn't have maps for while fighting Veterans of the Afghan war.
    Syria. I don't know what's going on with Syria other than the fact that they're fighting an asymmetrical war with tanks, and the crews don't seem that **** hot.

    The point of the wall of text is to show that although tanks may struggle in an Urban environment, so will Infantry. To say that you need Infantry and Tanks together to be effective is true, but only in certain situations, and in urban environments it's a symbiotic relationship. If tanks weren't useful in urban environments at all, they would never be sent in anyway, they would just bypass. Which is also another principle of Maneuver Warfare, bypassing well entrenched enemies because they'll slow down the advance.
    The Battle of 73 Easting which was M1A2 tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles primarily for example. Yes they did have infantry, but they were only employed when holding a position. Dismounting troops in every attack would majorly slow down the employment of armor.
    Really the employment of infantry with tanks is to lower collateral damage.
  16. Phyr

    If it was only a handful of tanks at a time, no one would complain (and be listened to). It's the mass tank/air spam that people ***** about, and the resource system makes them more frequent.
  17. Tacom

    Perfect example of this new concept of armor in urban environment is found in the Thunder Runs executed in Bagdad, where the tanks literally run trough the city while the mechanized infantry took positions at key crossroads.

    So nowadays, armor is expected to be able to hold their positions againts ligh infantry.

    Of course, what we have in PS2 is not Light but heavy infantry, and so it is perfectly right that they can destroy armor easily in favourable conditions.
  18. variablez

    new system sucks to much vehicle max spam, pull whatever , whenever.
    everyone have a free tank / max every 5 mins....lame
  19. SuperMedicated

    This is a combined arms game. vehicles kill infantry and kill a lot. that's normal. What isn't normal is that you can pull a tank every 5 minutes if you run out of resources and there is nothing limiting the tank zergs, there should be few tanks killing lots of infantry and lots of teamwork from the infantry or another tank to kill the enemy one. Battlefield is famous because it does that correctly
  20. HerpTheDerp

    USSR in '41 had significantly more tanks than Germany AND they were all drastically outclassing the German ones.