[Suggestion] The Ultimate Combined Arms Gameplay Thread

An Epic Thread on How to Bring Back The Combine Arms Gameplay in Planetside 2

While I’ve been enjoying the game slowly get more balanced in some aspects, other aspects of the game in terms of balance have gotten so much worse. The major problems in Planetside 2’s balance are not merely limited to vehicles, but to infantry, air, and even the resource system in some cases as well. This thread has been made both from my own personal experiences and the constructive and informative feedback I was able to get during the duration of an entire month from my past threadhttp://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/a-very-detailed-suggestion-to-higby-instead-of-making-mbts-weak-and-numerous-you-should.100539/.

I would first like to start out by thanking Colt 556, the many experienced dedicated Tankers/Pilots, and the many people of Planetside 2 who helped give me necessary material, feedback, and form the ideas I needed to make this thread as detailed as it is. To reiterate the following suggestions have been made not only from my observations and thoughts, but from a great many of other friends and peers in the Planet side 2 community which I have accumulated since the game’s launch.

Infantry Balance Problems and Suggestions

Currently between all 6 Infantry based classes, most classes feel balanced besides the Heavy Assault. Now analyzing the Heavy Assault, back at launch they were primarily anti infantry with a powerful LMG, an over shield, a pistol, and a dumbfire launcher that could be used effectively against Tanks and ESF’s if proper tactics and path finding was used to account for the time it took the rocket to get to the target and the drop of the rocket. The HA felt powerful and it felt like a great class, but the weapons the class had made it so users of the class still had to work together in teams of 2 to take down a lightning or teams of 3-4 to take down a MBT. In addition they had to sacrifice their ability to deal with vehicles as effectively if they wanted to be able to lock on to air targets.

Fast forward to today when a Heavy Assault can effectively carry an LMG to deal with any anti infantry threat, pull out a rocket launcher that the HA can use single handedly to take out most Air, Max, and Vehicles threats all at once with little skill involved. Nowadays Heavy Assaults can choose from a Laser Cannon with no drop, little path finding involved, and can effectively hit an Air or Vehicle target 500m+ with little time delay for the projectile to reach the target. In the past Heavy Assaults would have to risk themselves to seek out vehicles, which were using tactics and using cover, in order to flank them to get the kill. However it is now possible for a Heavy Assault to hide behind a wall, and actively hit and kill a vehicle using tactics and cover. Then lastly we came out of the skilled Planetside 2 gamer days when you had to take care to aim at your target, to merely staring at your target for 5 seconds and be assured to heavily damage them or secure an actual kill if you had one other person helping you. Looking at the launchers we can obviously see how much easier it can be to secure a kill with the new launchers regardless of the skill of the user.http://youtu.be/Gk2UbSzWEDc



These new launchers are for the most part a straight upgrade from dumbfire launchers you start off with when you create a character. In order to balance this out the current dumb fire launchers need a speed increase of 10-20% and also need to maintain their path without drop off for at least 300m to make them justifiable for the user who can aim properly.
There is an inherent problem when a single class of infantry can be the best class at dealing with Infantry, Aircraft, and Vehicles with a single load out without having to sacrifice any utility in any area or having to specialize do to so. If a Heavy Assault wants to be AA and/or AV they should lose something to do so, either not have a pistol or much less LMG Ammo. It also makes little sense that a Light Assault has to pay resources to be an AV threat, while a Heavy Assault can spam anti vehicle rockets with no resource cost to them at all. There shouldn’t be a class which is singlehandedly a major AI, AV, and AI threat all by themselves without any specialization or sacrifices made.

There is also a problem when every class but Infiltrator can be an Anti-Tank threat with C4. Medics should not be able to go around hauling around C4, they should only have medical supplies and a carbine as a way of defending themselves against infantry. Heavy Assaults should not be able to carry C4 without losing something of equal value, they are already caring heavy protective armor, a LMG with multiple belts/clips, a giant rocket launcher, a grenade, a pistol, and extra pistol ammo. Throwing down 200 certs to get C4 doesn't make you specialized, especially when that weapon is good against everything on ground. So in the end infantry classes, and in particular Heavy Assaults, need to become more specialized in their roles and have equipment that matches their role on the field of battle.

Lastly rockets should cost 25-40 resources and should not be able to be resupplied by ammo packs. Currently this allows for Striker/Lancer Squads to destroy vehicle combat in the middle of the Indar’s desert, the tundra on Esamir, and also makes it possible for large groups of Phoenix users to endlessly spam Phoenix rockets behind cover. Bullets should be easy to come by and not cost resources, but considering AV grenades, mines, and C4 all cause damage in some form to vehicles and all cost infantry resources there is literally no reason why rockets should be exempt from this drawback. The implementation of rockets with resources would also promote aiming and timing, rather than the spray and spam approach with rockets.

Finally by making rockets cost resources we should see less of them being spammed at places without a terminal/Sunderer nearby and for a much shorter duration. I know for a fact there are a lot of people in the community who would be glad to see no resource cost scenarios like this disappear.


Bringing the problems of the Annihilator spam back in version 2.0, but hey at least IR smoke and Flares still applies.




Bringing the threat of the Saron sniping you from the mountains by Magriders back at the games launch, but now the threat shooting you is much smaller and stops rendering to you after 300m, not 800m.




Phoenix rockets, buffed with more AV damage, now exclusively going after a much bigger, easier to hit target which cannot use cover to hide.




Unlimited non-rendering rockets from up to 800m away which can 5 shot a MBT from the front or twice in the back. But hey tanks should be able to hit a black pixel once, in the Prowler’s case twice, from that distance and need to adapt and L2P right?

Vehicle Balance (Mainly MBT)

How Tanks should be, but are not

MBT's should be valuable assets in battle that infantry can hide behind as they advances across the battlefield, and MBT’s should be truly feared and respected by all lone infantry and single squads. Tanks are supposed to LEAD the charge. They're supposed break enemy lines and give advancing infantry cover. Tanks should be the single greatest hard counter to infantry, and if you see an MBT you should run for cover, not try to fight it. Tankers want to be right up there with their infantry buddies and not forced to sit in the back and shell the enemy like an artillery platform. Infantry should hide beside tanks and use them as cover without having to worry about that MBT going from 100-0% health in seconds. Tanks will be tanks when they can use their turrets to take out fortified positions while helping infantry move up to make a push.

The Main Problems Currently Facing Tanks

1.The main problem of MBT’s being so weak is any player, even a BR1, can pull, drive, and fire a MBT by themselves. This has resulted in massive tank spam which has tanks literally stuck in traffic jams inside AMP Stations and Tech Plants. It is also the cause of dedicated tankers being team-killed by being rammed into by numerous other MBT’s. Most of these tanks are stock tanks with no certs or SC invested into them, so people are just pulling them because it's easy and cheap.

The majority of these MBT's will be blown up very fast once they hit a big battle, decreasing the feel of a MBT's durability and worth in battle. Currently only about 10-20% of people who pull a MBT actually want a defined roll in one, or actually want to be a dedicated tanker. This leaves 4/5’s or more of the current tank population on the road in the hands of zergers and people who really have no place in tank at all other than to farm a few quick kills.

2.Tanks feel very disposable due to their short TTK from infantry. Quite frankly a few rockets to the side of the tank and you're on fire. A flying peter pan LA can easily fly over you while you're driving through a facility and instantly kill you with two C4. A tank can run over last second rendering and low cost AV mines and die instantly. It costs valuable resources and certs to use C4 and mines yes, but the tank is complex machine on a cool down timer intended for Team game play, and the C4 and mines are not. There are so many different ways a Tank can die to infantry in this game. All HA rocket launchers, C4, Tank Mines, Dual AV Falcon Max, AV turrets, ect.

If a MBT of the future has this many threats, it should be hardy enough to handle them without feeling like it's made of Balsa wood after a few shots. The MBT was originally made to go up against only dumb-fire launchers, the occasional lock-on, and a skilled tanker could avoid these threats with maneuvers and IR Smoke. However with the all these new counters introduced the MBT has not been given any additional way to defend itself from them but to sit further behind enemy lines, or to try to play as a real tank should and die fast.

3.Even before the General Update 4 infantry were a far bigger threat to Tanks than were other tanks or Aircraft by a mile. Throughout history Tanks have been feared by infantry and have been used to make advances in battles as infantry use them for cover. They are also found in limited amounts compared to infantry through any given battle. However Planetside 2 makes it so everyone can have a MBT at any time from almost any area of the map given you own a tech plant and quickly obtainable resources. This results in everyone grabbing their own MBT instead of staying as infantry and hitching a ride with a Galaxy ( sadly almost never used anymore), or a dedicated Sunderer Driver. So now you have tons of Stock 1/2 MBT's which are very not useful outside of zerging.

As a result this is creating dull shelling/farming game play, and a congested TK filled battlefield to navigate through which dedicated tankers hate. It also creates shell spamming/farming zerg battles which understandably all infantry hate too. MBT's are making the journey to becoming disposable exploding taxi's. They are spammed as if they were running water from a sink, and valued by most as nothing more transportation and a few kills before bailing them in a ball of flames. Tank spam should’ve be nerfed, never tanks themselves

4.The over nerf of splash radius damage has made a MBT’s strong suit, open field combat, into a Tanker’s worst nightmare since most infantry run Flak Armor to begin with. With splash radius and damage being reduced most tanks pose little threat to infantry making use of cover, and tanks have to get in closer to hit them while sitting still because only the Magrider has turret stabilization. This then results in MBT's getting C4 spammed and rocket spammed. Even tanks trying to play it safe and shell from afar can get blown up outside their own effective range by 2-3 infantry.


5.Directional Damage on MBT’s is one of the greatest reasons a tank can no longer break through a line. Because of this because a MBT can be instagibbed even by the common dumb fire rockets. No other type of vehicle has directional damage other than tanks. I could understand if everything worked in the game this way, but the current system doesn’t promote aiming at MBT’s weak spot, only getting behind them.


Currently this is the scenario of what MBT’s have to deal with if they want to play the role of front line tank.

An ESF can easily get behind a MBT and escape after taking out my 3000+ Cert MBT in less than 2 seconds. In the case of the Scythe you don’t even have time to press E and bail. This ladies and gentlemen is what I’m referring too.

Tankers have little to no chance to react when an ESF gets behind them and shoots at any part of them. As you will see it only took 1 second: 08-:09 to kill a full health 2/2 vanguard which even managed to hit the ESF with an AV rocket.
And for those of you who like pictures

Suggestions

1.Make MBT’s 3/3 Tanks to put an end to tank spam. By making MBT’s 3/3 they truly become a team vehicle like a Liberator. There are 3 potential ways to implement this.

a.Option 1: Have the driver in control of a secondary grade weapon like the Kobalt, a gunner controlling the main turret, and another gunner controlling either a Halberd/Enforcer. Basically a classic crewed tank which would require not much additional balancing since a single driver couldn’t do much by themselves.

b.Option 2: Have the driver control the turret as they do now, and then add one more secondary gunner slot on the tank. However the turret would only become operational if the tank was at least 2/3. The Turret would basically function as a bank safe does, where you need two people to turn the key at once in order to open it up. This way one could still drive and rely on their own skills for gunning the main turret, however if a person wanted to go 1/3 by themselves to get a super 1 manned tank the turret wouldn't work at all. Basically it would work like the Alpha Prowler Design Concept.


c.Option 3: Allow for both options to occur, making it so each type of 3/3 MBT would hold no real advantage over the other when both are 2/3 or fully manned. The Magrider could either have its damage buffed and stay 2/2 or could be 3/3 with some simple changes as follows




2.Extend the base cool down spawn timer by 10-15 minutes, this way when you lose a Tank you have 20-25 minutes to wait unless you have heavily certed into the cool down timer in which case it would still be 10 minutes. This also means that if you pull a MBT and dispose of it as trash you will now not be able to spawn another one for a great length of time. This will also ensure that the only people who will be able to regularly pull tanks are the people who actually want to have the role of a Tanker.

3.Make MBT's cost 450 resources to pull, it's a giant armor killing machine that took metal, advanced circuitry, and nanites to make. People shouldn't be able to pull MBT's like they are their own disposable Taxi’s, which is what the flashes are made for. If we made MBT's expensive and valuable it would also fix gameplay on other levels such as forcing infantry to hitching a ride with dedicated Sunderer drivers. It may even bring back meaning to the majestic sky wale, also known as the Galaxy, for mass transportation. This would also reduce the amount of people playing as Heavy Assault simply to counter the sheer amount of MBT spam. I want to see a diverse infantry battle, not 2 forces of heavies with the rare medic/infiltrator/ Light Assault catching along.

4.Make MBT's and Lightnings have more specialized roles by buffing each turret type.

a.AP Turrets should be buffed to shred armor of any kind; they are giving up all splash damage vs. infantry to actively fight other vehicles. Infantry are still a great threat to a MBT and to give up fighting them effectively means they should get rewarded against vehicles for doing so. They should be able to Destroy a HEAT Tank by at least 2-3 less shots and do +300-500 more damage per shot than the HEAT does.

b.The HEAT for all MBT's should have their current splash radius increased by 1m, however only the inner splash radius damage against infantry would be OHK regardless of Flak armor. If an explosive tank shell lands directly at your feet or right at your side it should kill you, but the outer splash damage radius should take 2 hits to kill infantry on the Magrider or Vanguard, and 3 for the Prowler. By being universally helpful against armor and infantry it should be a jack of all trades on the battlefield. HEAT users should able to deal with infantry and armor, but not able to go against an AP MBT or a Large infantry force unless flanking maneuvers and tactics have used to surprise the enemy.

c.HE Turrets should have large splash damage, have a slower projectile speed than HEAT, and should decimate infantry when they land in the immediate vicinity unless said infantry is wearing FLAK armor. In turn, HE should be literally useless against anything more than flashes. If someone pulls HE to try and farm infantry they should be literally unable to fight back against ANY vehicle source that comes to deal with them.

5.Make MBT’s only able to spawn at Warp Gates and Tech Plants. MBT spam is detrimental and cheapens Planetside 2’s experience for infantry right now. With this change Lightnings can be spawned at any medium to large facility terminal regardless if a tech plant is owned. That means that a medium counter for a 3/3 MBT would always exist where ever they went defenders because any medium to large facility they try and attack will always have a medium vehicle counter present at a much lower resource cost, which any one infantry could use. Finally it will make sense for a single player to pull a Lightning over a MBT if they no longer wish to work as a team.

6.Either remove directional damage so tanks can push up and not instantly destroyed, or significantly increase armor value for the rear so the MBT cannot be destroyed in mere seconds simply by flanking it. An ESF should no longer be able to Instagib a MBT by getting behind it and hitting it on any point. A tank is currently the only type of vehicle with directional damage, but if it has to stay the extreme rear damage penalty much be significantly lessened so it can stay on the front line.

7.Make it so if a MBT starts to flip over or does flip over it only does that. No more of this instant blowing up when something touches the roof of the tank or if a tank is close to tipping over. This seriously needs to be addressed. Tankers are able to put up with this because tanks are easy to spawn right now, but it will be absolutely unacceptable to happen when a MBT is harder to spawn. Just the other night I hit a slope on my Prowler going 20 KPH, the top of the tank slightly nicked a desert cactus’s branch, and then the tank blew up killing me and my gunner instantly. There are many unnecessary suicides that tankers could’ve avoided had this mechanic not been in place. So in short, please remove the pressure/angle triggered self-destruct button on the roof of the MBT please.

8.Buff MBT health significantly. In the days where AV counters and C4 are everywhere the new and improved 3/3 MBT must be able to support infantry on the front line and push up without the fear of being instagibbed up close and from afar. Keep in mind that this buff is necessary not only because MBT’s will require a team to work, but they will also cost more resources, and be much more rare on the battlefield meaning way more rockets, C4, ESF’s, and counters will be coming each individual tanks way.

The new 3/3 MBT would ideally have to take on damage wise 20 dumb-fire rockets (25 Vanguard) from the front, 15 from the side, and 10 from the rear. 2 C4 would take a tank down to 40%, and with no mine guard it would take 3 mines to kill a tank. If an ESF got behind the Tank it would take a Full Salvo from behind the Tank and then require an additional full Salvo from the side to kill it. A team of 3 should not be instagibbed, and should have time to act against an ESF. The end result is a MBT will no longer have to deal with this type of quick death scenario again.

Part 3

Air Problems and Suggestions

1.Currently the vast majority of ESF’s go with rocketpods to ground pound instead of A2A, or more afterburner, simple because rocketpods are effective verse everything. ESF’s were originally intended to be air support for Liberators and Galaxys. Now that ESF’s get significant XP for blowing up all air vehicles this makes that role viable again. ESF’s should become more specialized with key contrasts between roles.

a.If a pilot wants to use rocket pods they should lose 75-100% of their afterburner ability, making them into an A-10 Tank Buster type ESF.

b.If a pilot wants to go with their intended rounds and use A2A missiles they will still have normal afterburner abilities.

c.If I pilot wants to be a total ace and only use the nose gun, give the afterburner tanks a high capacity and quick regeneration ability.

2.Currently Liberator’s skill cap has been raised significantly since the Dalton and Zypher Cannon have to remain within lock-on distance of the enemy to be truly effective. Meanwhile AA threats have skyrocketed between the high saturation of lock-on type launchers and the new Lancer for the VS.

This is a 3/3 Vehicle which was originally supposed to have the ESF’s role of taking out Armor. Currently a Liberator cannot effectively run from the sheer rocket spam headed there way. My MBT hasn’t been blown up by a Liberator in over a month of continuous gameplay. MBT’s are supposed to fear liberators, but as of now they are just target practice to shoot at before we run from being 1-2 second gibbed by ESF’s.

a.Solution, significantly buff the armor of Liberators by 50-80% in order to allow them to be able to participate in large battles once again. If a Liberator overextends they will still be destroyed by a force with enough AA counters. This will also mean that as bigger targets they will attract more AA fire from ESF’s allowing them to participate in the battle more as well.

b. Give all 3 seats significant xp sharing for their kills, as of now being the tail gunner of the Liberator is very useful but very unrewarding for the gunner.

c.Give the Liberator a large invisible proximity circle like the Sunderer delploy circle. When an ESF blows up another air threat within that circle the ESF pilot gets 1.5 times the normal the XP for protecting the liberator

3. The majestic sky wale known as the Galaxy is nearly extinct on the battlefield. Today it has been primary been reduced to troll ramming Liberators, ESF’s, and doing spam kamikazes into the crown. Galaxies are massive slow moving targets that are very easy targets even for tanks. They need to be able to drop infantry on the front lines of large scale battles and be able to escape back to the warp gate to do it all over again.


a.Solution: In order to make that happen the Galaxy must have its base armor buffed by 50-100%, and have the deploy kill XP increased to 100XP per kill. There are very few pilots who are willing to do this unselfish and team centered role, so the few that do should be rewarded greatly for their work. This will also mean they will be able to draw fire away from ESF’s protecting them

b.Make all gunner seats on the Galaxy share XP significantly and allow ram kill share XP to occur well. All gunners and driver are actively participating to protect the galaxy and the valuable infantry it holds and should be rewarded accordingly.

c.Give the Galaxy a large invisible proximity circle like the Sunderer deploy circle. When an ESF blows up another air threat within that circle they get 1.5 time the normal the XP for protecting the Galaxy.

I want to see galaxies and liberators supported by large air ESF squadrons, as advertised in the PS2 Air Combat Video.

Closing Remarks

Players of Planetside 2 I believe this game should be unique from COD/ Battlefield/ and future competing games. It should be trying to offer a different experience, which is true combined arms game play. I feel like I don't stand alone when I say that I don't want people to refer to this game as “Infantryside with a hint of Tankspam 2”.



I also believe I speak for the community when I say I want MBT's are a powerful, valuable asset in a battlefield which an infantry can rely on as cover, and not avoid because it’s an explosive hazard. We need a game where infantry fear a MBT because of how hard it is to kill, but at the same time don't have to face palm at an AMP Station full of MBT’s camping the spawn room. We want a game where dogfights blaze across the sky as tank battles make thunderous sounds of epicness across the fields. Lastly, we want to hear the echo of gunfire in big bases not drowned out by the sound of dozens up dozens of MBT’s.

What the Planetside 2 player base wants is a Planetside 2 which offers a truly unique combined arms game play experience. An experience where every man and machine has a place on the battlefield, and every type of aircraft has a place in the sky. Furthermore we want a game where nothing is spammed to sheer stupidity. These combined suggestions and ideas need to be considered and implemented by the developers; both in order to keep this game unique, and to keep it competitive in the gaming industry for years and years to come.

Finally, we want a game that we can tell our friends about. Then when they ask what it’s about we can show them this video that displays the tank battles, air battles, and infantry battles that form the intense experience that keeps us coming back to play.


I do not use Twitter or Reddit, so if you like this thread and what it suggests please tweet it to the developers or forward it to them on Reddit. Thank you for taking the time to read this post, and I sincerely appreciate any constructive feedback given by players or the developers.

This ^ Greatest Post NA

will take awhile to read, but i sense justice in this....

Why has this man not received a medal?

Seriously I love tanking and more importantly tanking with a competent top-gunner who is on TS3 with me.
The new faction specific launchers make tanks pretty much worthless as we get spammed by lasers and missiles we can't see or dodge. The Striker.... is more AA than anything but that is a different story.

I think making rockets for the faction specific launchers cost resources is a great idea (if not all rockets), or at the very least make it so you cannot get them from little ammo boxes that an engineer can just drop. Rocket spam is a real problem that you see in many FPS games that have tanks. Someone once argued that a modern anti-tank weapon can disable a tank with one hit. I countered with "Maybe, but not every soldier can run around with 5 of them strapped to his back". One game I played limited the number of people who could use the class that had the bazooka type weapon, but obviously in Planetside that just isn't feasible, so something else must be done to limit the rocket-spam

As much as I would like to see tanks require a full crew of 3/3 like the Liberators I think that might be a bit much for PS2. That reminds me of Arma 2, which while fun, we need to be realistic. The Liberator's pilot at least has a gun. Few people would want to drive a tank unless they got some XP to make it worth their while.

I do like the idea of increasing the cool-down and buffing the MBT to make them more, well, tank-ish. Combine the rocket-spam with the fact that it takes three shots to the rear to take out MBT's and it is no wonder tanks are starting to feel useless.
If you want a cool concept, look at Battlefield 3's use of SLAT or ERA on their armored vehicles.

Yeah! Less CoD/Battlefield ... more PlanetSide! The game always should have been about combined arms, a theme we strongly drifted away from!

Actually, all three of my suggestions for 3/3 MBT's would have the driver in control of some sort of fun weapon whether it be the main turret, cobalt. Fury, ect. In fact all 3 seats in each MBT idea has access to shooting something, so everyone gets to share in the Dakah and get XP Gain. I also talked about how sharing XP between all 3 seats would help make this work too.

Your comments about the heavy not being balanced makes everything you say suspect. First off, you ignore the extreme utility the the engineer has, infact the engineer can do everything the heavy does ( destroy vehicles , kill infantry) a medic can revive whole platoon. A infiltrator can sneak in hack a terminal and let his whole squad spawn heavy tanks in the middle of the enemy base. A light assault can flank very well, and cap points better than a heavy. A heavy is made to kill things period. Know your role.


Hide behind a wall and shoot you? That is SUPPOSED to be the infantry's strong point!!!!! You are supposed to send infantry or aircraft to clear them. What are we supposed to do, stand out in the open? The new launchers are supposed to PUNISH vehicle only zergs.


Next, your argument about vehicle balance. Sorry, real vehicle games force people to have a gunner and a driver, not this rambo loner tanks we have. SOE made it too easy to pull vehicles anywhere and too easy to repair them. They also made the bases and terrain far too vehicle friendly. No trenches no rivers or cover. Sony had to nerf vehicles because of the horrible layout. They were losing subs left and right.

That would be great then. In Arma 2 when I don't need XP to get certs and get shiny new things, I have no problems being the driver most of the time (I want to kill things with the big cannon too on occasion). In Planetside that is not the case so a shared XP thing would be great.

combined arms? you mean a zerg of tanks and aircraft bombing a base until people just spawn somewhere else?. Sounds like you people who champion combined arms are hypocrites. The reason NOW you get owned is that you dont send infantry to clear out the enemy and send you vehicle zerg in and rightly get owned.

True combined arms always have infantry at the forefront clearing other infantry, like in actual warfare. Before you only needed one guy to pop out and cap a base while your zerg pounded the spawn in oblivion.

Okay, please STOP with "Rocket resource cost"

Or anything that implies increasing the resource cost in general. You have no idea how hard a faction can snowball with resource gain over another. The only thing keeping snowballing in line is the constant 3-way war and it's a BAD kind of balance.

I don't know if there's a solution, to this problem in particular.
But resources are not the way to do it.

If you really want to try fixing this, use mechanics like a mix of low-range lock (250-300m max) and BFBC2 tracer darts for longer ranges.

Before any improvements to vehicles can be made, this list of fixes must be implemented.

The Engineer's anti-vehicle capabilities are much more static and defensive. Part of the imbalance in the heavy is the high capacity support weapon combined with overshields and rockets. By comparison if you look at Battlefield 3, the Engineering class gets the rockets and repair ability, while the Support class gets the support weapon and ammo dispensing abilities. If it wasn't for the deployable turrets in PS2, such a change would probably help out a lot. Heavy Assaults could use their shields to keep them in fire fights longer while actually using their support weapons for support

Heck, you could probably do that change as it is and just make the turrets, mines, and launchers share a slot for the Engineers. That would prevent them from becoming an overpowered destroy all the things class.

Will that happen? I am pretty sure there is a 99% chance of Nope. But it is worth thinking about.

In real open warfare Tank's are being used as the spearhead for the advance... Only and ONLY in Urban terrain were Tank's are at a disadvantage will you see Infantry being send in first or alongside the Tanks, because they are cheaper than replacing an AFV.

This should be the case in PS2, so all open warfare should be dominated by Vehicles, while Outpost/Tower/Base fights should be dominated by Infantry or Infantry supported by Vehicles.

This right now is not the chase, Infantry rules over the fields, the bases, the hills, everything. Mass Infantry right now stacks in power like crazy.

The Spam of everything should end. Meaning less Tankspam, less Rocketspam, this concept here pretty much ensures that Tank's need atleast 2 players, so the number of Tanks get's cut in half, the resource costs of rockets cut's the AV spam.

What we than end up in the spaces between cap points is Tank's engaging other Tank's in moderate numbers, with Infantry is supporting them. And once you get closer to a Base were Infantry has a alot more cover and room to maneuver within, and Tank's get limited in their possible movement, you will see Infantry fighting Infantry with Tank's supporting... This is how real combined arms should look like.

Air is somewhere in the same place and should first fight enemy Air and than think about supporting on the ground, but not totally dominate ground warfare. AA should be a defensive tool and not an offensive tool.

We need more combined arms!

I think rather than nerfing stuff things should be buffed, so give tanks point defenses like in MW2 where the Bradley has that laser thing that intercepts off a certain amount of projectiles. at least give tanks something to counter threats.

You still havent addressed the fact the heavy cannot heal, hack, fly, invis, or repair. Its almost as if sony intended to heavy to live longer and kill things. The heavy has no utility, even a medic can use C -4 to blow a heavy tank up.

On Combat medics:

The issue with this class is that they eat up TWO trees of certifications from PS1.

Medium assault (Under-appreciated due to having less firepower then heavier soldiers/snipers/special soldiers,)
And Advanced medics (Appreciated for their infantry revivie ability.... But mostly just inside bases..)


Their design goal is as the bread and butter infantrymen- The primary force when making strong momentum based pushes with infantry.

-How do we know this?

Infantry lost the need for repairs come PS2 due to the scrapping of the armor system.
Making engineers primarily for fortifying positions, and keeping vehicle rushes in shape.


Cloakers lost the ability to fire pistols in cloak, and got a rifle holster (Which is used for sniper rifles.)


Heavy assaults got LMG's good for sighted, extended fights in close quarters and medium range..... But are generally weaker then assault rifles. They have the AV cert as well.


Light assaults..... Don't have many options for long range combat, making them primarily a class optimized for fighting in biolabs and on towers... And have better evasive capabilities regarding infantry, once again..... A CQC ability.


Medics get rifles, which are statistically the best series of weapon to carry in the game, the ability to heal, and revive infantry without forcing them to take a long walk.
As such, they are not a "Just medical supplies" Class.... Why? Because they are named after a "Medical supplies+Medium assault" merit from PS1.


On C4:
Yes. The fact that this powerful general explosive is the only way to combat vehicles off HA is a VERY bad design decision.
It makes it so vehicles either live for very little time... Or almost no time.

We need another AV option for non-dedicated AV Classes.
We had this to a limited degree in PS1, believe it or not.....


Boxed AV grenades (Called frag grenades, but... Not good against infantry,) could be purchased to be used in various grenade launchers.... The Punisher (Now even more gimped S-Weapons,) and the Thumper (No equivalent.)

Not to mention the micro-rockets that could be used in a unique multishot rocket launcher (That could use frag grenades as flack too,)

Now, neither was exceptionally good at killing vehicles.... The thumper in particular was famous for its ability to kill teammates with greater precision.
Both could do the job if massed.

Now, we all know that semi-auto dumbfire rocket launchers and grenade launchers would be used to farm infantry.
So lets not take that path.



-But we need something that does what the Thumper/Rocklette launcher did.
Allowed masses of AI soldiers to be a threatening deterrence to vehicles, without the "You fought one of the 500 infantry who own C4. Go elsewhere," of C4.

Excellent posts EliteEskimo. Liked and I will most likely share your posts forward for people to see.

You also adressed my worry about making the MBTs 3/3 vehicles, I really want a gun to use if I'm going to be driving my slow-as-hell Vanguard.