[Suggestion] The Ultimate Combined Arms Gameplay Thread

As you can see from the video they did a lot of damage before the AV damage buff, now they do more. As you also saw the Phoenix was able to chase a lighting going medium speed down a road, it's way easier to hit a big flat box like the Prowler. I would argue the Phoenix is more useful that the decimator since it is camera guided, it can also be used in close quarters against MAX's as seen in the video.

That could actually add a lot of fun to the game, it would be like the WW2 P-51 Mustang general purpose bombs. They really do need to give tankers and pilots some more weapons to play around with, and this could actually be a medium skill cap weapon since it's dumbfire.

That again, is an old video. The initial speed of the phoenix has been nerfed too, making it extremely dangerous to use in close quarters (and useless vs infantry or maxes in those situations). You might hit them, but chances are you'll be dead before your rocket gets close enough and infantry and maxes take more than one hit anyways.

They do around decimator damage to vehicles, but they take about 3 times as long to do it, require you to be within 300m, and you can't move while shooting, making them effectively useless versus ground except for situations like spamming behind a spawn shield. They only have a realistic chance to hit people who hover for over 5 seconds, making them effectively useless versus air. They take multiple shots to kill infantry and you can't fire and forget making them effectively useless against infantry.

They were apparently going to have a filter than made it harder to spot infantry (like a reverse nightvision?), making it harder to bombard a base from far away. I think they just needed to make the rockets render, don't allow them to pass through shields, potentially make them brighter, and possibly give them a noise. Let people know it's coming and be able to see it and don't allow people to negate a huge flaw by sitting somewhere they can't be hurt.

You are most definetly not alone in this There are quite a lot of posts in this very thread arguing a very similar thing. As a way to balance tanks vs infantry with both feeling useful would be to seperate their usefulness by terrain type. Infantry should wreck tanks inside a base (C4 and AT mines). Be able to push them away from the walls (walls provide cover, skylining, dumb-fire rockets deal reasonable damge but can't hit anything very far out). I think infantry was supposed to be at a severe disadvantage against tanks in the open, but currently they also dominate this role (Engi-AV turret, lock-ons, Phoenix and Lancers). Tanks feel weak when forced to hide, take cover, pull back and repair. Artillery may take over this role but Battle Tanks, I feel, are much more interesting if they ARE the cover or at least capable of performing a role that the infantry is not better at.

This has all been discussed several times in this thread, so time for something new:

Buff to MAX AV damage.
I consider the MAX AV to be mostly mid or short range AV weaponry so upgrading this would not alter the desired balance much, as such I don't mind this upgrade. In addition, while giving more variety to AV weaponry, they do not add any new methods to destroy tanks and they are not significantly better than the HA. Meaning that any AV MAX player could also have pulled an HA. As a tank, you will not face more AV weaponry, or even weaponry in any new situation, just more different flavoured. I'm always a fan of more flavours and this might give some attention to an underused weapon.

How is saying that it takes one volley from rocket pods to the rear of a tank a "tiresome exaggeration." You come back will all sorts of examples about how great lightening weapons are because they can take out tanks to the rear with two shots with a long reload. It's tiresome and I keep repeating it because it just proves you wrong. Sure their effectiveness vs infantry is reduced but for ESF they are the secondary weapon. Nose gun is more than enough for dealing with infantry and personally I'm glad that so many ESF pilots are so attached to their pods as often it gives me plenty of time to get away when they rocket me. Lightening HEAT is superior to pods, blah blah it isn't. Although it is not a bad weapon. I am not saying that Lightening is bad, just that it is not equivalent to ESF. This is obvious to most.

And people cower in fear behind rocks and hills in tanks because they get blown up too quickly or because they are timid. worried about k/d, feeding and other irrelevancies. Not because they are embarrassed by their ugly movements compared to tanks in PS1. If they added picture in picture mode for tanks and libs so pilots could see more than one perspective then tanks could even perform better with the pilot also controlling the cannon.

Your argument that "lone wolf rambo" gamers are a bane on games and don't deserve to play MBT but Lightning is an awesome tank that they should go ahead and use as much as they like is slightly contradictory to me. Sounds to me like you just want those lightings to be there to be easy fodder for the guns of your new super powerful increased crew MBT.

Until single man MBTs are removed and the silly resource system removed you will never see truly powerful vehicles. As it stands now since they have no cost and no real teamwork aspect they need to be weak or else you get what we had before which was massive tank zergs.

It's a design flaw really. One called out before this game even went into tech test. Non-crewed vehicles was a bad decision.

Usually, I generally hate the big men of any community......


But, Buzz actually seems reasonable.... When he isn't blowing up friendly AMS'es.

Again I know it's an old video, but slowing their speed down actually made it easier to hit tanks that are behind cover, usually that's where my tank gets blown up. Decreasing the speed also makes it easier for you to hit tanks that aren't moving full speed since you have more time to adjust the rocket. I'm not saying the Phoenix is a super OP weapon, just that it really shuts down tank columns when used in mass and gives them no where to hide, not even behind rocks.

I agree that making the rockets render and making them brighter would go a long way to making them balanced. Part of being able to dodge a rocket in a tank is being able to see that rocket coming and know where the threat source it.

You actually are describing combined arms. iRL combined arms simply means using vehicles effectively with infantry, because unlike PS2 vehicles are precious and infantry is always the vast majority of your forces (combined with the fact that 95% of all troops DO NOT carry an AV weapon).

Enhancing the combined arms role in PS2 means seriously restricting the availability of AV weapons and making vehicles costlier (and more durable). The result is that troops are for killing troops and taking bases, but only with teamwork and/or in favorable conditions can they fend off an armor push.

The current state of PS2 basically makes a couple troops a match for a MBT (justifying spamming cheap and weak vehicles) which is a horrible balance.

about the HA and Engi and all that....Why not have a split section inside the classes?

As a HA chose do you want to be good as Av or AI
Same with Enginer. Do you want to drive or do you want to help infantry?

force people to specialise inside the classes more. I don't care about the whiners in this L2P is the word. And brain dead CoD lolers can jump a cliff (applies to BF3 to since it is crap compared to the old BF games). This game needs skills and tactical play back.

I want the zergers to get severely punished for going up against an organised group not the other way around. This game needs to raise it's difficulty a bit.

Hey Buzz I know you agree with the 3/3 Crewed MBT idea that was put forth, but what did you think about the issues regarding HA specialization and current rocket spam? For instance my idea was to make low skill cap rocket launchers such as the ESRL's and Lock-on's cost a low set amount of resources 5-25 per rocket, and have standard dumbfire launchers and decimators cost no resources since they are dumbfire rockets and thus medium to high skill cap weapons.

Also, I know that TE makes use of Galaxies and aircraft to so what did you think about the suggested changes and buffs to them? For instance the new proximity bonus area for the incentive to guard Galaxys and Liberators. I feel you know pretty much all aspects of the game like the back of your hand being a BR 100 and having one of the largest outfits in Planetside2 so getting your opinion on these suggestions would help me know if I'm on the right track.

I agree with everything on this thread

I don't think a cost on resources is the answer for rocket spam. Rocket spam is a result of the HA class and it's proliferation. It's proliferation is a result of it being the most powerful class in the game and capable of doing everything.

It can heal itself.
It can shoot rockets.
It has the most OP ability. (NMG)
It has the best weapons. (LMG)

I have no feedback to offer you in terms of applying resources to the class because I think that as a whole resources are yet another stupid idea that needs to be scrapped. At it's best is a non-factor and it's worst an annoyance.

Are HA the only problem? No. If you "fixed" HA you would have to deal with OP land mines, absurd AV turrets, C4/LA combos and a myriad of other anti-tank options in PS2.

The only solution is to make the tanks more powerful but if you make the tanks more powerful you have people doing nothing but getting into tanks. You can't justify power unless the vehicle is crew operated. The Liberator was (too) powerful and now it's a joke which is a shame since it's the only 3 man combat vehicle in PS2.

Unless SOE is willing to scrap resources, scrap one man MBTs and make everything work off of a timer you won't see much change. It'll be a balance nightmare where the pendulum constantly goes back and forth.

You said it was useful versus maxes at close range, I told you it wasn't because of the slower launch speed and it requiring you to stand still until it hits or you bail and then doesn't do enough damage to one hit anything (except ESF's which it sets on fire). It's a terrible close range weapon.

It doesn't shut down tank columns any harder than the striker which can make a zone of no vehicles, including air, or the lazor which works just as well in groups and doesn't require people to be standing still.

I agree that Heavy Infantry does eem a bit too multifunctional at the moment as you posted. But I wouldn't consider ALL AV weaponry in need of fixing. The questions are; where do we want our tanks to operate? Where do we want them to be effective? And what role should they be performing there?

The LA + C4 is extremely effective, but only at close range. Do we want our tanks to be able to drive inside a base and survive? Right now C4 is not a universal counter to tanks, it is a very specific counter to tanks inside your base. Tanks inside a base can basically only do one thing and that is sieging the spawn, C4 are a response to that. Not to tanks as a whole.

In the same way, Engi-AV turrets decimate tanks out in the open, but are raerly used inside the close confinments of a base. Or at the very least they are not as effective there. As such Engi-AV turrets are only a counter to tanks in the open, not a universal anti-tanks weapon.

I don't think it is a pendulum at all, it is not so simple as Tanks vs Infantry. Far more interesting is "the balance of Tanks vs Infantry in the open" and "the balance of Tanks vs Infantry inside a base". If we make for example tanks very powerfull in the open but very weak inside a base (what I think the original intent was) they will both have a time and place on the battlefield. And people will pull depending on the situation.

So it can no longer do the quick fire thing as seen in the multiple videos?

On whether is shuts down tank columns faster than the striker, striker has a bigger advantage in wide open areas with no cover for tanks and against tanks that don't have IR smoke certed. So for instance on the desert area of Indar that advantage goes to the striker.

Within the hill terrain, rock/tree filled areas of Indar the advantage clearly goes to the Phoenix. This is because a tank can break a striker lock behind cover and retreat to cover after using IR smoke. A striker also needs to see the center of the vehicle to get a lock, where as the phoenix doesn't even have to see the vehicle. A NC HA can stand behind a rock or tree, fire the rocket and maneuver the rocket around the tank's cover to hit it when it tries to hide. The Striker you have to maintain the lock for 5 seconds, and even then the path finding of the rockets is majorly flawed and many hit the ground and other cover. I'll put it to you this way, my tank would stand up much better to a striker squad than a phoenix squad because my tactics using cover and IR smoke would still work. The only good tactic for going up against a Phoenix squad that I've found is staying out of their 300m range

Buzz I agree with you completely on tanks and that HA's are not the only problem. However since I know you personally are very good with the HA how would you balance out their overabundance if not with resources restrictions on smart rockets? I know other classes would need to be balanced too naturally, but since you personally can accomplish so much in one life with the HA what restrictions would you give to it to make it a good class, but not the ultimate class? (Ex. maybe if you pull a rocket launcher you get no LMG or way less LMG ammo ect)

We don't just need crewed vehicles that are worth crewing.....

We also need anti tank "weapons" that are proliferated enough without being a class feature to justify balancing AT weaponry as a whole in a way that makes tanks tougher against individual infantry.


The utility slot exists to allow classes to fill their class flaws (.... Despite only healing and C4 being available,) or, that is the only justifiable reason to have the slot.

If I may interject for Colt here, his overall opinion is that the Lightning was specifically made and tailored for the lone wolf type. He believes that the people who want to have the main turret and drive the tank at the same should drive the Lightning since that is what it was designed for. If you think about it, it does make sense that the MBT should be crewed so that one person can't pull a multi-seat team oriented vehicle. We shouldn't have MBT's that anyone can be running around with it solo while being able to use the most powerful part of the tank.

Initially I had fault with his argument since I like to drive and gun at the same time, and simultaneously love to have my outfit buddies and other friends in the gunner seats. However what Colt helped me to realize is , while that maybe what I do, a great number of people are pulling the tank 1/2 to just use the turret and have a super Lightning. He also helped me to realize that if something similar could be done with 3/3 tanks so someone could get plenty of kills 1/3 that they still would try. At this point I'm more supporting option A over B or C because option A, classic crewed tanks, is the only type that has already proven to be both balanced and fun in past games.

The main argument people will make against Colt's statement is that they invested into the turret, so they should get to use it. However, if you look at it in another perspective, you will be investing into the turret so your gunner can better defend the tank, get more kills, and get you more XP while you're driving and firing here and there with your Coaxial Kobalt or AI gun, and your other gunner is on another AV/AI/AA secondary. The only proper suggestion for a MBT that the driver could also be the gunner of the turret which was strictly better than mine was Compass's idea. Compass had suggested that the turret have an extreme reload penalty if it was only single manned, which could work if it was made extreme enough, but it still wouldn't prevent people from pulling and trying to solo in a MBT.

On the topic of rocketpods I think what Colt is trying to say is that rocket pods are only good, because the ESF can easily flank a MBT and get away. This is true in that rocket pods wouldn't be nearly as good if the ESF couldn't flank the MBT. However I'm not sure what he means by the AP lightning has a better TTK against the rear of MBT since rocket pods kill a MBT in 1.2 seconds for Photon pods, a few fractions of a seconds for breaker rockets and a few more fractions of a seconds more than the breaker rockets for hellfire's rockets TTK.

I hope that clears things up.

Thanks for saying so, I wanted to make the best possible thread to catch the interest of both the players of the Planetside 2 and developer team. It's not enough to make a thread, you have to put effort into it so it appears you want to fix the game for the betterment of everyone, and not just yourself.