[Suggestion] The Ultimate Combined Arms Gameplay Thread

Part 1 I am not sure about. With the proposed changes in part 2, mines and C4 would be perfectly fine as they are now. Making HA AV weapons cost resources would be perhaps a step too far.

Part 2 I agree with. Dedicated MBT drivers of solid tanks please. Lightning is fine as it is, especially if it runs supporting/supported by your proposed MBTs.

Part 3 is not a complete solution, but it goes some way. I think the liberator would benefit from a reevaluation of the arc of its main gun. It would benefit from more forward firing ability, possibly at the expense of sideways arc. Allowing it to fire almost to the nose gun's point of aim, then track straight down (with no dead zone) and continue backwards to its current rear aim limit with a little bit of left/right aiming ability would make it more deadly. A liberator like this bearing down on a tank/column would pose a very real threat likely causing them to scatter if they saw it, or get mauled if they did not.

Pat you play a lot as Heavy Assault, what do you think would be a fair amount? The idea is to end rocket spam but not make it so every rocket you miss is a dammit moment. I started out at 20-45, but maybe 15-25 resources per rocket is more reasonable?

There have been a few posts like this lately that have been really thorough and brought in a lot of great discussion. We want to see more constructive discussion about topics, but I'd just like to recommend something to future posters.

If you could break up these large posts into separate topic threads it would make it a lot easier on our designers, artists and engineers to read. Thanks and keep up the great feedback!

Yea, it's funny because heavy assault, engineer, armor and ESF are my main roles. So it's hard for me to really say. 15-25 wouldn't be completely unreasonable I think. The only problem would be if you have no territory or resources. Then the enemy could just **** you in the warpgate with armor and you wouldn't be able to do much about it.

Perhaps more and better counters for armor such as flares, more smoke options etc, would be a better alternative than limiting rockets? I'm torn to be honest.

In general I like the ideas expressed here.

I feel that Infantry has become too dominant against armor. Infantry shouldn't have such easy time killing armor units. I know the people who play infantry always complain about armor getting in their way of classic FPS gameplay. But it's a mistake to think of this game as infantry game with a side of armor. Armor should be the main force, and infantry play supporting roles.

I strongly believe that all infantry missiles at AV turrets should come with resource cost. Just like grenades, tank mines, and C4.

The ideas on MBT are interesting, but I think that the changes proposed there warrant a creation of new MBT. Instead of replacing the current ones, just add a new tank that can have 3 crew and cost more resources. Having more options is better.

I disagree that tanks should have better protection against air targets. They need a weakness. Just like AIR has a great weakness against ground AA, tanks without AA support should be weak against air. The current mechanic with weak rear armor is actually working very well for encouraging tactical gameplay.

As for changes to air, I don't see any reason to mess with the ESF afterburner functions. It seems to work well now and the proposed changes don't really add anything to tactical gameplay, they just make things more restricting. The anti-ground ESF relies on afterburner to get away from ground AA and infantry missile lock ones. The ground vs air is already well balanced with strong AA. There's no need to nerf air any further.

The fact that most ESF go with rocket pods instead of A2A missiles is actually a very good thing. A2A missiles are simply not fun and they reduce the skill potential that player can achieve. I wouldn't miss them if they were gone completely. I certainly don't want to encourage their use any further. Trying to shoot down enemy ESF with nose gun is the greatest fun a player can have in this game.

I would agree that Liberators should have better Flak armor, by about 20%, but their armor shouldn't be any more effective against ESF nose guns.

I dunno about those "XP multiplier circle" idea, it seems unnecessarily complicated. And the way ESF vs ESF combat works, you could start engaging enemy ESF that is attacking your liberator friend, but then it starts running from your or turns around and starts fighting you, and by the time you kill it, your liberator is pretty far away so your proximity circle would be meaningless, or just be completely random with little bearing on what is actually happening.

I could live with rocket resource cost .. IF vehicle ammunition cost the same ... And before you say " Vehicles cost resources anyway " .. Yes they do.. But you are paying for the advantages it gives you over not using a vehicle, not to be able to endlessly spam HE/AP/pods ..

So sure add a resource cost of 5 for each rocket .. But tank shells, Rocket pod's , Lib clips should all require the same resource cost .. And they should cost like for like .. ESF pods cost Air resources etc

I suppose if resources became an issue people could temporarily teleport to a different continent and get 100+ infantry resources per every 5 minutes, and get those resources for rockets back really fast though. I really enjoy how you're not being biased at all and trying to find the best compromise though.

Better Flares and smoke would be cool and very good to use against the TR, but it still wouldn't deal with the Lancer, Phoenix, or 800 m distance AV Turret.

That should not even have to be an option .. What happens when they lock continents ? What happens when X continent is full ?

It's possible sure, but the different main difference is aiming and landing a tank shell on fast running infantry in the field or ones that are peek a booing behind cover require a lot more aim and timing compared to most ESRL's/Lock-ons these days. Bases should be getting even better in the future and have even more cover options too. I wouldn't mind attaching no resource costs to dumbfire style or default launcher rockets since those require way more skill and aim to use.

That way people would actually have an incentive to pull out their default launcher if they ran out of their super advanced rockets. Plus keep in mind MBT's will not be cheap, now costing 450 resources instead of 250. Definitely not a unreasonable suggestion though.

Well until they do lock continents, which will require a likely additional huge resource system overhaul, my idea will work for the time being. I totally get your point though lol

The timer is fine atm it's its implementation that's the problem .. The timer should start when the vehicle is destroyed not when it is spawned ..

This will make rocket spam necessary and will make flanking tanks with C4 and hitting them in weak spots useless. They will just kill an infantryman, repair and continue. No.

On not having the new 450 resource cost 3/3 MBT not have additional rear armor, their "weakness", it will be completely and totally unacceptable if this new tank is still blown up in less than 2 seconds if you get behind it. I currently down have time to even press E to bail most of times. This rear armor buff will especially need a buff if directional damage is kept, I'm assuming it will, because otherwise a tank will still feel very weak.

Good point on not buffing damage against the ESF nose gun on the Liberator, this is a good point I hadn't considered. It will need an explosive damage buff verse rockets and flak to be sure though. The proximity range bonus to liberators and galaxies would be huge and the enemy ESF would probably have to be completely out of render distance for the bonus to go away. Alternatively, if an ESF gets within the circle it will just permanently deal out 1.5X the XP to the killing ESF regardless if the ESF is pursued outside the proximity sphere.

Another good point about A2A missles destroying air combat, these should probably have their tracking system dumbed down so they don't make hair pin turns and ridiculous movements. Nosegun fights should be greatly encourage to be sure.

How much skill the item take's shouldn't come into the equation if you aim is combined arm's .. The main problem with not having combined arms atm is that everything is spammable , which in turn removes the need to think, to plan, to weigh up the pro's and con's ..

Ie: Atm an ESF pilot doesn't think twice about sending 6 pods at a lone infantry man .. Add a resource cost and now he has to weigh up the situation .. Waste the pods on a HA or save them for a nearby MBT ?

Or

The MBT that just spams a spawn room .. Add a resource cost and he is liable to find himself out of ammo and under attack by an enemy MBT .

It would promote more teamwork .. Tank's and aircraft would have to work together more , both within their own group and in combined arms ...

That would make for a rather extreme penalty on top of everything I suggested. It will also not encourage the now rare battle tank to push forward and put itself in greater danger. Plus must consider this would the set the bar extremely high for new tankers with uncerted tanks ya know? A tanker who keeps his tank alive and does a lot to help his team should be rewarded by being able to get their tank back in the battle right away. A bigger cool down spawn timer will discourage bad tankers and zerger tankers who lose their tank immediately.

Wow, lot of effort here. I quit reading at this paragraph.

"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"



Seriously?
Are you gonna sit there and let me shoot you, reload, charge, shoot, reload and charge until your dead? Heavy damage?

Then it comes...Regardless of the skill of the user? No need to read more cause we all know where this is going. You blew up my tank with a lot of fluff added to it.

But it's one of the more frustrating points of infantry .. Kill an MBT > He's back two minute later in another one .. And if you are adding a resource cost to the AV weapons then those player's also need rewarding for removing a vehicle from the battle .. Rather than just a two minute respite while he drives a new one back ..

This idea is pretty sound in its intentions. However like you brought up with my idea once continent locking comes into play it would be too detrimental for the outnumbered force. However right now it could actually work. I would also make it so that tank shells don't cost per shell but perhaps 5 resources per how ever many the ammo tower reload clicks it makes. The gunner's shouldn't have to pay resources though, or maybe a very small amount like 1 resource per click.

If I kill 10 infantry from the battle they are back 10 seconds later and I have to kill them again. The infantry also don't have a cool down timer. Plus I could only pull another tank right away if I had been alive for awhile, it's now 450 resources so I couldn't just be a fool with my tank having it blow up immediately and expect to rinse and repeat over and over again.

I agree with that point. An expensive tank like that should definitely not die in 1 pass of ESF. I just don't want the current tanks buffed against Air.

But if we have this as a new, 3rd, tank, I'm all for it.