[Suggestion] The Ultimate Combined Arms Gameplay Thread

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by EliteEskimo, Apr 9, 2013.

  1. Dishwasher64

    I'll do what I can. Could I get a link to your reddit post? I don't want to clutter reddit up by starting another thread, I'll just upvote yours.

    I have a question though. Did anyone at any point mention AV MAXes? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't, it's completely fallen by the wayside, but I have felt for a long time that it could work. It combines a lot of the things that you guys seem to want out of infantry AV options: it has a resource cost, a cooldown, cannot be switched to at the drop of a hat, must be certed into, and makes significant sacrifices in AI/AA capability to be good against ground vehicles. The problem is just that it isn't any GOOD at what it does. Well, that, and launchers, C4, and AV turrets are all TOO good.
  2. drNovikov

    1. Nobody "punishes" tankcampers or lolpodders. It's not a puniishment, it does not even prevent tank spam.
    2. It's not World of Tanks.
  3. drNovikov

    Oh yeah, lolpodders want to be invulnerable to infantry and just farm.
  4. drNovikov

    Nope. If a tank got C4'd, that means that either that tank crew was too bad or that guy who kicked their ***** was too good. Same with the rocket launchers. With that magical repair tool a decent crew can just outrepair 1-2-3 heavies.
  5. Dishwasher64

    drNovikov, between your signature and your two (edit: now three) posts it would be difficult for it to be more clear that you are tremendously biased toward the things that you play and don't give two ***** about the things that you don't. It's that attitude that led us here, and we're sick of it.
    • Up x 2
  6. EliteEskimo

    Oh I would assume bases would naturally get in due time as well if we got my suggested splash back. Who isn't into more complex and fun base designs? I totally agree man, and I approve of your unique and constructive ideas for them too. :)
    • Up x 1
  7. EliteEskimo

    I'm not sure how to handle AV Maxes, currently the only one that is semi-decent is the Dual Falcon Max. I didn't have nearly enough experience going up against them or playing as them to know what to suggest to improve them. I don't have a Reddit Thread or Account, and I don't plan on making one because I literally don't have the time to jump between two different sites and maintain two huge threads.
  8. EliteEskimo

    Please explain how my ideas wouldn't prevent Tankspam? I went into great depth to explain how tankspam would no longer be an issue with my suggestions.
  9. Hemi

    First post...cous this thread needed my first.

    Great job m8!
    • Up x 1
  10. carbonite

    EliteEskimo, you are a gentleman an a scholar. Your thread is awesome, and I agree with the majority of what you said. I hope that your suggestions are considered and implemented into Planetside 2. But here are my critiques:

    Your suggestion on making rockets cost resources has me in limbo. I see what you are trying to accomplish but I am not sure if it a good or bad idea. If SOE could implement it in the test server and let us test it out, that would be awesome.

    I am also happy to see that you realize the current problem with the over-saturation of vehicles in the game, primarily MBTs. Your suggestions for which I agree with. Furthermore, the fact that you touch upon the Heavy Assault being too versatile.

    Crewed MBTs is one thing that I am a fan of and suggest often. Your other options for increasing the man power of MBTs I do not quite see as working. But possibly the combination of them would?!?!

    Directional Damage on MBTs sadly I think sorta needs to stay. Primarily for the soldiers sake. ESFs shouldn't be able to swoop in behind you and instagib you before you have a chance to react, or even really realize what the hell is going on. Moreover, MBTs should receive an overall armor buff. Your reasoning behind this, allowing infantry to use it as cover, is fair and reasonable.

    Requiring MBTs to only be spawned at Warpgate and Tech Plants is cool. I think with the new lattice system it will work well.

    Your damage output suggestions for the MBT turrets in regards to Flak armor, I think are a bit much. Now if, hypothetically the amount of tanks present at a location was smaller (do to crews, and resource cost), and bases where made more fortified I could agree with this to an extent. Certing out Flak armor is suppose to protect you against explosives, if it fails instantly do to a tanks main cannon - then essentially its useless.

    Galaxies Health buff I think would require some testing, I do agree with what you are trying to accomplish here. ESFs escort Galaxies is also a great splendid idea. Liberator armor buff, agree. Liberator currently with all the AA that is present is just not going to last long. Increasing its armor isn't a bad idea.

    I referenced your thread in mine: http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...-summing-up-all-the-qq-and-ps2-issues.114066/ I made an update to it on page 4. If you would be so kind to read and tell me what you think that would be awesome.

    Excellent thread EliteEskimo.
    • Up x 2
  11. Emotitron

    I approve most of this OP. Some variations on how to solve things could be swapped in, but for the most part it addresses the main issues. Vehicle spam has lead to OP infantry weapon spam has lead to terrible combined arms game play.
    • Up x 1
  12. drNovikov

    That's why in a combined arms game tanks should be guarded with AA. Everyone wants to farm infantry = no AA = they deserve to be instagibbed by air.
  13. Lord Robert

    I agree with most of the suggestions in this thread. Something should be done to address the "combined arms" feeling in this game, it is fading fast and making the overall experience much less fun.
    • Up x 1
  14. EliteEskimo

    Everyone does not want to farm infantry, and that is a crass and blanket statement especially for the people like me who are in outfits. Even with AA present an ESF can still quickly swoop in from behind me and kill me in just over 1 second, no AA does that to ESF's. ESF's meanwhile get Rocketpods which are Anti-Everything, meaning a good ESF pilot can kill my tank in about 1 second and then fly off after leaving me with no time to react at all. That is not balanced game-play.
  15. EliteEskimo

    Thank you good sir for the compliments, and I'll be commenting on your thread soon it looks great at first glance.

    Looking back on rocket resources suggestions perhaps they should cost more along the lines of 10-25 per rocket. I still think making them cost resources is justified for the reasons I stated, and especially because it allows infantry to permanently spam the ESRL's and AV turret rockets ontop of mountains and in spots generally out of reach and render distance for tanks to even react too.

    What precisely about the 3/3 Crewed MBT ideas wouldn't work, I'd be interested to know why? Ideally my favorite suggestion is option c which implements both types of 3/3 MBT's for players to choose from.:)

    I offered a large statement on how directional damage will work in terms of damage for the new tanks if it is to stay. What did you think of the directional damage's new and improved stats on tanks I listed?

    In terms of Flak armor, almost all infantry seems to be wearing them these days and twice last night I had a scenario where I hit an HA directly in front of his feet twice and he didn't die. There are also many infantry that are now taking 3 inner radius splash damage hits to die which seems excessive. If tanks are rare and not spammable my damage buff should be reasonable.

    Again thanks for the detailed response, and I will look forward to commenting in your thread.
  16. Ronin Oni

    Hmm, long read, lots of good points, though I don't necessarily agree with all them.

    I like your proposed Air changes for the most part, though I think 50-75xp deploy kills would be sufficient. Oh, and I know most people take nothing but pods... but I find Rotary + AB Fuel to be quite effective.... preferred even. Me and 1 of my wingmen both (2 other main wingmen I fly with prefer Rocket pods or A2AM respectively.) Still, I support making AB fuel a lil more attractive, and making Rocket Pods a bigger hit to performance.

    MBTs..... here's my idea.
    #1: beef cost to 450, increase timer substantially, increase armor/hp (with same CD as current for max rank Acquisition. Optionally, MBT resource cost could be even higher, and reducable down to ~400 resource with Acq certs, further making them more 'specialized' or more expensive for those who aren't)
    #2: Increase damage of all Secondary turrets (this makes extra gunner more important. AI ES turrets in particular need buffing. NC needs serious tightening of pellets, VS needs Velocity buff, TR needs minor AoE range buff)
    #3: Add a new top turret for dedicated gunner.
    a) Dedicated HEAT turret would be auto-unlocked. Dedicated HE and AP turrets avail for purchase per standard turrets
    b) Dedicated turrets grant the tank a 50% armor and damage bonus.
    c) Optionally make new special Dedicated gunner turrets. A 2x RoF Gauss canon for NC, 4 barrel prowler, something neat and unique for VS. Optionally VS may have only non dedicated gunner tank and simply get buffed

    This would accomplish much of what you want. Making them more expensive, less spammable (without heavy Acquisition certing), and tougher, also giving a new option for dedicated gunner tanks which grant an appropriate boost making the tank even more powerful. The increased cost and cooldown on MBT's should make 1/2 driving a bad idea. Main thing is me and my friends love our 2/2 MBT's, only occasionally each grabbing our own tank (when we do, I almost always opt for Lightning). I don't think any of us want to drive a tank without anything to do. A hull mount Kobalt is hardly worthy.

    Anyways, just my idea. If they changed MBT's to require crewed I can adapt... but I better at least get a hull mount MG while I'm driving :cool:. I still prefer 2 man MBT's. The AI focused top turrets should be particularly effective, and the AV options should be on par with HEAT at minimum, if not main canon AP. This would make 1/2 tanks a huge waste and simply foolish. I like 2/2. I don't care much for 2/3 or 3/3 (though honestly we'd prolly just run 2/3 and we'd both share the top turret depending who's best for it at the time.) Actually... I wouldn't mind x/3 tanks all that much I guess.... still not my personal preference though so I can't help but dispute it.

    Ok, now heavy assaults. #1 they're supposed to be the standard trooper. They should be the most common. I will completely agree that the default launcher needs a Velocity & Trajectory buff. I will say no to resource cost on rockets.... rocket spam is the only way a faction with no resource ticks can continue fighting against a vehicle heavy zerg. I will concede that they perhaps could require "resupply" to refill, and not allowed to refill rocket ammo off ammo boxes (and if this happens, nade launcher rounds should DEFINITELY be included with this) requiring a Sunderer or Terminal to refill Rockets. This would also add more value to the extra rockets suit slot. (which, FWIW, I already use). Oh, and I'd add Terminal's to the side of galaxy's (not AMS... just equip terms... and those shields from beta! :D )

    I also think it's fine Infiltrator is the only class that can't equip any AV. For starters, c4 charging a tank as a medic is suicide unless the driver is totally inept (never been C4'ed by a medic, though I've had several try), but as a cloaked Infiltrator? Well that'd be too easy. Jet-packing LA's are really the biggest C4 threat, but me and my gunners shoot them out of the sky at least 9/10 times. They move slowly and predictably.... and Heavies have no need to get that close (and Engies have ATM's... honestly why ever take C4 as eng?)

    Anyways, good post OP... Well written and thought out, even if I don't entirely agree.
    • Up x 1
  17. Pat Cleburne

    I don't agree with making HA rockets cost resources. Other than that I can compromise.

    Armor on tanks and ESF's need a serious buff. This is a combined arms game, and that should be taken into consideration when you decide what kind of damage 1 infantry can do to 1 vehicle. A tank or an esf should not fear the lone foot soldier. It should be the other way around. If you want to nerf damage fine, just increase the armor rating. Also I am not opposed to increasing resource cost to reduce spam.
    • Up x 2
  18. EliteEskimo

    Even if you don't agree with everything I sincerely appreciate the detailed feedback and unique ideas. Now to address your concerns.

    1. I wanted to clarify, you said that you wouldn't want to drive unless you had a hull mounted MG, do you mean machine gun/Minigun(Vulcan), or Main Gun? In option A you could have a AI Tank Kobalt (which is very accurate and deadly), perhaps the Vulcan if you're TR, or maybe a long range Fury/Marauder/ something of a similar nature. I'm don't think the idea would be to give you something like a Halberd or Sunderer Bulldog or else people might try and take it as a 1/3 super Lightning. I think option be B would be more your style, however again since many people have different team tank game styles option C, giving people the ability to choose between the two, would be for the best.

    2. Regarding the HA and rocket Spam, resource cost will become necessary for them if there is no longer any MBT Spam. Rocket Spam already destroys huge tank zergs, if that spam is condensed on a few MBT's in larger battles they would still likely be taken out quick with unlimited rockets at the disposal of the many HA's.

    3. Your equip only Terminal Idea for the Galaxy could work, but then we'd still have the problems of unlimited rocket spam from mountains and canyon walls, unless the Galaxy only could switch load outs but not resupply rockets and if they could resupply rockets it would have to be at 10-25 resources a pop. Rocket spam from mountains is something that is detrimental to the games overall experience, it's fun for those who do it, but it steams everyone else off big time.

    4. The most annoying things about medic's with C4 is when they suicide rush you when you're repairing your tank. I wouldn't be frustrated if it was the LA, because that's their job, but carrying high explosives is way out of the defined roles of a medic. Almost every infantry that can carry C4 seems to be carrying C4 these days, which is sorta bad game-play wise. Engineer's try to suicide rush me with ATM's but they always die since I have max level mine guard, which is basically mandatory if you're going to try and play as a front line Tanker.

    Otherwise interesting suggestions!
  19. EliteEskimo

    Hey Pat we normally agree with most things and I'm happy to say again this seems to be the case. However something you posted had me confused.

    1. You don't think that rockets should cost resources, but in another sentence you posted " Also I am not opposed to increasing resource cost to reduce spam." How would you intend to reduce rocket spam? For instance if several 3/3 MBT come out of SW Gate on Indar and are being instagibbed by a 100 of Lancer HA's engaging in indefinite rocket spam from the canyon walls, as was on Mattherson on Indar last night, how would you propose to stop that? Buffing Armor helps deal with rocket spam but in really large battles it still might not be enough, what do you think?

    Remember the assault on Snow Shear Watchtower on Esamir that one night when I was rolling with your outfit's full Platoon and every Sunderer and MBT that came within 300m of it instantly died to Phoenix rockets, even behind cover, what's to stop that from happening again if rocketspam is allowed to continue?
  20. Pat Cleburne

    By resource cost, I meant armor resource cost. So,what I would like to see is for SOE to buff tank armor ratings considerably to make them harder to kill by HA rocket spam, (phoenix as you mentioned), then increase the resource cost to pull armor so they couldn't be spammed as quickly. I think that would serve both infantry and armor, as infantry wouldn't have to deal with the amount of armor they usually do, and armor wouldn't have to deal with being instagibbed left and right.

    Granted, I don't know how much armor and resources should be changed, but I think there is probably a magic number that makes the game more fun for everyone.

    Now, if they did make rockets cost resources, they would have to make them low. They couldn't be the same as say, claymores and tank mines. If so, it would be cost prohibitive to play an anti-armor role.