[Suggestion] The Ultimate Combined Arms Gameplay Thread

We have the code for front mounted guns from the flash.

I mean, even WW2 tank drivers had Kobalt like machine-guns for when things got rough.

lol really? They send aircraft in first ( in the case of the US ) to clear infantry. Tanks are very weak in attacking infantry that has any cover. Guess what? almost all battles are in urban areas now. NOBODY fights out in forest anymore. And guess what ? tanks in this game dominate in open areas! imagine that!!!! People crying are people who think tanks should be able to zerg WITHOUT infantry.

Look son there is a reason they call infantry the QUEEN OF BATTLE. Infantry counters everything. Aircraft and Vehicles are tools. Infantry is the focus of all battles. Tools should not be answer to everything.

Here's another example. Infantry is like water and can overcome anything. Libya didn't get "liberated" by the NATO no fly zone and bombings. It still took rebel infantry to truly capture it.

Right because this thread centers around vehicles and my post was directed towards you comment that "Engineers can do everything Heavy's do".

It's almost as though and infiltrator was intended to infiltrate things, so gets a cloaking system, a medic was ment to medic things, so gets a medic too, an engineer was ment to do engineering tasks, so they get a repair thing, and a light assault was ment to be quick and ninble, so they got a jetpack.

The heavy assault should be good at assaulting things, which it easily is. The class utility is the extra shielding, which helps with the whole assaulting thing. They should focus more on assaulting and support than having all thie PLUS rockets.

There is a distinct difference between being able to do something and doing something the same way. As I already mentioned, the engineer can play an anti-vehicle role, but it is vastly different and nowhere near as efficient as the HA.

You keep saying "all the other classes can kill things too". Well gee, it is almost like this is a large scale combat game. Everyone gets a gun and can kill things.

Wouldn't a modest number like 3-5 resources per rocket be alright? And the number might vary based on the launcher. For example, specialized launchers like Phoenix might cost 5 per rocket whereas the default would only cost maybe 3. There would also be a very high cap on the number of rockets you could have, unlike the current utility slot cap of 40, so you could stock up when you had a lot of resources. The rockets would cost so little that it wouldn't really hurt players. It would just make them think a second before firing rather than spamming.

And of course there would still be some way for the rockets to be resupplied without having to back to a terminal, but it would still cost resources.

Think about it. A frag grenade costs 45 resources. Under my plan, you could get 9-15 rockets (depending on the exact cost) for the price of a single grenade.

A US soldier during a international combined training's ops in Austria once told me that they would be totally screwed without any Air Support. Guess what, Austria does not has the size and money to keep a huge Air Force going, so we relay on mechanized Infantry operating in AA or AAA.

We actually train US soldiers because we have one of the best training's. You wanna know why the Tank is considered the King of Battle ... because it's a fearsome beast that needs the effort of atleast a Squad of Infantry to be taken out. Most Squads are not even equipped to take out Tank's in the field. Mainly one unite within a Platoon carries the specialized equipment to take out a Tank at long distance and very limited ammo for it.

You wanna know why Infantry is considered the Queen of Battle? Because Tank's and Aircraft's do not hold City's. The King rules the outside of the house... while the Queen reigns inside the house.

Tank's are a very important and integrated part of combat, some experts might think the Tank in the modern area is dead.. well there will always be a need for something that rules the fields and supports Infantry, while being hard to kill, it my be no longer a Tank but it will fulfill the role of a Tank.

Gunships have partially taken over part's of this segment, but are because of their seize and lack of defense an easy target for SAM's, mobile AA or AAA. Air is easily countered over extreme distances, in a future war scenario the skies will be heavy contest to gain superiority over it, but what do the ground troops relay on while the skies are on fire? Tanks!

Fighting does happen in the open fields and order to control it you will need Armor, but you will also need Infantry for the Urban area Battles. While Air will fight over control of the Airspace. This is the balance of reality.

Air only looks OP if nobody opposes them ....

The change to the Mag rider is so simple.. Yet brilliant.

I like the OP's posts. The crewed battle tanks would defenetly help. The only thing he forgot is that AA needs to be toned down a bit as well for ESF's to operate. Currently as a A2A ESF with Fuel tanks, If they have more than one AA unit in the area, I am not allowed to enter and support my squad. This means that the best air superiority is a AA group, and that is not right imo.

So the only class that is effectively AI,AV,AA all in one loadout is balanced, and the Enginner can do all that just as efficiently? The only thing the engineer has over you for attacking is an AV Turret and Tank Mines. You have so much more at your utility, and you have a over shield to kill an engineer easily.

Did you even read my post? All my ideas would make it impossible to go lone wolf MBT anymore, and my MBT almost always is 2/2 anyways. You really only read the Infantry part and skipped everything else didn't you?

This just means you didnt understand my post. The OP said the other classes are balanced but the heavy, which had me boggled because everyone can kill infantry but only a engineer can repair. The heavy is supposed to be the master of killing, which is balanced. Your last sentence was just horrible, complete ignorance of the point. Utility is often better than raw survivability and killing power.

I find it funny that people cry about shields. A ability that ***** your speed and makes you easier to see and shoot at. No other class ability has this kind of downside.

Funny that you talk about AV ability for classes, when vehicles can harm anything, and can only be harmed by certain things. That alone should make them fragile, to balance their destructive power.

Heavies have launcher sbecause a faction may not have alot of good drivers to counter a vehicle zerg. Having rocket launchers is definitely a infantry thing. And heavies got assigned that role.

The most hilarious thing about this whole thread, with all the fancy colors and format is that the OP doesnt see that his precious vehicles were nerfed because of poor base, and terrain design. Its too vehicle friendly and vehicles are too easy to get. Thus you need alot of av to balance this.

AV ,AI and AA are just one thing: killing. Many vehicles can do this and for less certs. Being able to keep a heavy tank up and pressuring the enemy is often more valuable than simply being able to shoot a rocket once every 6 seconds. Being able to revive a squad on a point with a few second to cap is more valuable.


I focused on the infantry part because this flawed argument is meant to support your main one. but
I can see now you whole post is really a cry post about people who kill you

Good day

Eskimo, I don't agree with your assertion that increasing the liberator's damage resistance will fix it. Sure, increasing its survivability in large battles will allow it to participate in them, but there's a problem: liberators already dominate small battles. Drastically increasing their resistance will make this problem even worse.

To fix the liberator, I'm of the opinion that it needs nothing less than a complete overhaul. I posted this in another thread:

I like the idea of adding bonus exp for ESF's defending liberators from enemy ESF's. That's a cool idea. Should also probably apply to galaxies.

You do understand that the OP want's that there is less Vehicle Spam, less of those 20+ 1/2 stock MBT's being nothing more than a glorified armored Flash.

You do know that the HA, through his shield, has a higher chance of coming out alive out of an engagement and that his AV weapons are a lot less static than the Engineer one. I won't comment on weapons because everyone can have powerful shotguns... (by the way there is a new pumpaction that's even stronger on the test servers...)

The HA is considered the Grunt in PS2, but Grunt's do not carry a Launcher and C4 around at the same time. Normally highly specialized classes get to have an AV weapon. The usual deployment of AV weapons in a regular squad is 1 light AV weapon to take out APC's, Jeeps and the likes.. while within a Platoon you maybe have 1 Javalin to take out a Tank.

It's already to late to change the fact that HA's have the Launcher, while being the class with the highest Survival chance. Tank's are no longer feared by Infantry, unless they have a Kobalt on them. Tank's need a point defense as a bare minimum, like the Prowler had in the E3 Alpha.

Normally Tank's of the same generation as the AV weapons just shrug of hand held versions. While this would be ridicule overpowered in PS2, Tank's should actually be tough target's for those self-defense Launchers. I have no problem with stationary AV Mana Turrets, if they would render or give you a warning, because laser guided missiles can be detected by the laser ... just like the lock ons.

If there are less Tanks on the field but you actually have 2-3 players within a single Tank, they must be equally strong or even stronger than 2-3 solo MBT's. So instead of 15+ Tanks.. you only got 5+ Tanks. Probably even less, because about 70% or more of the solo MBT drivers are Infantrymen that use their solo MBT just to get a few kills and to the next base, they are nothing more to them than the means to haul their sorry butt over to the next facility... This is not how Tank's should be.

A cry post about what kills me? You really have no idea what type of Tanker I am. HA's barely kill me because I constantly use cover and don't overextend. I normally have my tank killed behind cover by Phoenix Spam and in the rear by ESF's, but the HA themselves normally don't kill me. I'm also constantly working with AOD, BWC, 903, and I almost never lone wolf because it isn't fun for me.

HA's are the best at the most important thing in the game, killing infantry and capping points. No other class can do this task as well. If points aren't capped resources can't be gotten, if resources can't be gotten then you can't pull any vehicles and buy tools, and if that happens you lose the map. Not only are HA's the kings of CQC, they are also very efficient at taking out tanks, ESF's and even scaring away liberators. No other infantry class can do all of that all in one loadout to even a fraction of the effectiveness of what an HA can.

Lastly, who spends an entire month collecting feedback and getting data to make a thread of this scale, 11 single spaced pages on a word document, about something that kills them? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

I actually already brought up that the bonus proximity circle should apply to both the Galaxy and the Liberator. My suggestion for the liberator is a quick fix to be sure, but to be honest it improves things with very little effort involved untill the developers get time to make a complete overhaul on them. Planetside 2 is also more about the medium to large scale battles where the liberator isn't found in any more. Yes liberators dominate single squads who aren't willing to pull buster maxes or HA's with lock-ons but other than that they don't serve a place any more on the battlefield. The ESF has totally taken up the role of the Liberator, and that isn't how the game should work ya know?

Also, my tank gets blown up by ESF's all the time, but I haven't had my tank blown up by a liberator in over a month. Something is very wrong there. I don't want liberators to be sky gods like they were on the game's launch, but they should at least have a minor presence in large battles. Not even the best liberator squads on Mattherson last long in medium-large scale battles anymore. Even with my buff to liberator armor pulling 3 burster maxes would still kill them if they didn't react , and 3+ HA's would still be an inconvenience.

I'm just worried that applying a quick fix like that would cause so many complaints that the liberator would get re-nerfed, with the only net result being wasted time and forum whining. If the liberator is toughened up enough for it to defeat 2 burster MAXes, I'm sure that would cause a lot of knee-jerk reactions, citing the liberators invulnerability in small battles.

I agree with the majority of this, especially the buffing of tanks and making them three man, but with those changes infantry cover would need to be increased and defense in general buffed (as you can see in my sig, I have ideas for that)

Infantry really aren't a significant threat to tanks in real life. The only real threat infantry pose to tanks is the risk of disabling them. In real life infantry very rarely have the ability to outright destroy a tank. At best they might be able to disable it, more than likely they wont even get to do that much. There's a reason infantry scatter and hide when a tank rolls in. That's how it should be in PS2. Infantry CAN fight MBTs, they always should have that ability. But it should be limited, cumbersome, and ultimately not very efficient. Tanks are specialized vehicles, they are the rock. Aircraft are paper. Infantry aren't scissors. They're all three. Infantry are jack of all trades, they can do ANYTHING. They can specialize into AA, they can specialize into AI, they can specialize into AV. However you should know how the full saying goes, jack of all trades master of none. AA infantry should be inferior to AA maxes, Skyguards, or ESFs. AT infantry should be inferior to tanks, esfs, and libs. AI infantry should be inferior to sunderers, libs, HE tanks.

A tank can't just spend 5 seconds sprinting to a nearby terminal to instantly change it's loadout. Infantry can. Infantry are flexible. They can adapt to the battlefield in ways vehicles simply can not. This flexibility, this versatility comes with a cost though in that infantry just are not the best at anything they do. Infantry are -NOT- counters to tanks. Infantry are -NOT- counters to aircraft. When utilize properly they certainly can engage and defeat these vehicles, but it should require teamwork and skill. Your average joe blow shouldn't be able to pop out from behind a rock for three seconds and shove take out half the hp of an ESF.

2 Buster Maxes costs 200 resources 2 pull, can be revived, and if they have flak certed to 3-4 are a complete and total nightmare for liberators. I have my MAX certed with Flak 5 and I can take a liberator out solo while it shoots at me. In a large battle with hundreds of people on one side, pulling 3 Burster Max's or 2 and a Skyguard to make chase one off or kill it if it doesn't run is not a big task to ask of. 2 Burster Maxs against a hover spam Liberator would still have that liberator dead if it didn't take evasive action and just sat there. The goal here is to bring skilled liberator crews back into the battle and keep liberator spam to a minimum.

Threat to tanks in real life? lololololololololololololo

So we've clarified you have no further points and have resorted to trolling? Gotcha