The Ultimate Combined Arms Thread (Tanks vs Infantry)

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by EliteEskimo, Aug 15, 2013.

  1. Ender

    SOE came to your door and said, "hey, want some free crack?" Sounds like a pretty devious sales pitch to me!
    • Up x 1
  2. EliteEskimo

    So Giggly I'm a little interested in what would you do to fix this problem other than what I had suggested? Perhaps make tanks spawn only at Tech Plants and Warpgates but give them their splash damage back and an armor buff?
  3. Giggily

    The problem is that, outside of Esamir, buffing tanks back to previous levels would basically crap on the infantry game again like how it was around launch. Their idea of separate spheres for infantry and vehicles, with some overlap, is a good one, but it just wouldn't work right now.

    Hoever, if SOE ever does get around to redesigning Indar and Amerish to have walls and points inaccessible to tanks then I'd be okay with buffing them pretty substantially so that they can absolutely murder infantry outdoors again, and making them a lot more tough. If that isn't an option then I think that the HA needs to choose between carrying an LMG and carrying a Rocket Launcher, which would actually make them vulnerable to infantry instead of just peerless gods of destruction.

    I'd make it so that AV weapons aren't nearly as usable against infantry, even if it isn't realistic, and nerf the reverse maneuver for ESFs to make it much more difficult to do with rocket pods. Then make ESF A2A a lot better at killing liberators, and increase Lib damage enough to be dangerous to buffed tanks again. Then make it so that galaxy pilots det XP for ferrying users, remove the "reinforcements needed" menu, and add some upgrades for the galaxy so it can actually have a role outside of man delivery.

    So, ideally, the exteriors of bases would be areas where infantry gets killed by vehicles except at longer ranges, but have bases that vehicles just can't interact with at all so that infantry can be relevant.
    • Up x 3
  4. MarlboroMan-E

    You mean PS1? :eek:
    • Up x 1
  5. Aesir

    I agree with your concept and also agree with MarlboroMan, this is the core concept of PS1. In short points and things I would like to add.

    - Separate Infantry and Vehicle combat via base design
    - Increase power of Vehicles or reduce power of long range Infantry based AV
    - Re-balance Infantry based AV usage against Infantry, except MAXes
    - Re-balance the Heavy Assault class to either excel at AI(meaning LMGs would need a minor buff) or excel at AV by carrying a Launcher instead
    - Make ESFs chose between A2A or A2G or suck at both
    - Re-purpose Air support Vehicles(that was the name of the cert for the Lib, Gal and loadstar in PS1).
    - Limit spawn options
    - Create reasons to run Air Transport and ground Support(like sharing exp with everyone that dropped with you out of that Gal)

    Things I would like to add in a short form on a concept basis to actually give us a metagame ...

    - Remove current resource system and replace it with a system that takes the Warpgate as a center of origin for basic resources
    - Remove all personal stockpilling
    - Transfer resources via the Lattice diminishing potential income for every jumped base, making you have more resources closer to your warpgate and fewer the further away you get away
    - Bases and Outposts store a certain threshhold of resources(depending on base type/size) which will be didstributed via the bases terminals or SOI
    - Have Sundies drain their Infantry resources from the SOI they are within or run on a limited supply that also get drains with the pull of the Vehicle
    - Add the option fill portions of resources into a Vehicle to support the Lattice system manually as a squad sized Vehicle objective
    - Add the option to cut/reduce the Lattice resource supply and benefits one base behind as a squad sized indoor objective
    - Add the option to destroy portions of stored resources by overloading the Silos
    - Add the option to potentially "steal" resources from an bases Silo using Resource Vehicles at a basis Resource Silo(friendly or enemy)
    - Add a new separate outfit resource which can be gained at different types of bases, to be spent on outfit system based rewards, like powerful Vehicles, base upgrades, temporary boosts to Infantry of said Outfit. But also outfitwide customization/unlocks, like special camos/icons/trims/swag/etc.

    - Add crewed Vehicles or version of current Vehicles in a crewed format
    - Improve output of crewed Vehicles but let them require more than 1 person to reach said output
    - Add depth and re-balance/change Vehicle customization to allow for more important choices.
    - Streamline cert progression across the board

    - Add the option to hack spawn room shield doors and the option to destroy the spawn tubes(painfield should still be active)
    - Change base design to increase base sizes and add a combined arms layer in form of a narrow courtyard which Vehicle can enter if the shield have been destroyed but have severe disadvantages against Infantry.

    I'm very sure not everybody will agree with the stuff I added but I think those would be sensable changes to make the game better. This of course is my opinion on it, you are free to flame the crap out of this ...
    • Up x 2
  6. CleanUpGuyCZ

    I think we need more free room, not full with bases, barricades, small hills... just more free space. And also less shell drop for the main gun, a coloxial MG, stabilizers so shooting while mooving is somehow possible, and more survival ability against low caliber guns like the bazilisk. A channel for chat and voice chat inside the vehycle would be also very usefull and showing your gunner targets also (like spooting). Btw automatic weapons need significantly more ammunition in one mag. The Vulcano is a minigun and has 60 rounds in his magazine, but the infantry chaingun can have up to 200 rounds, what sense does this make? (and I'am sorry for gramatical mistakes)
  7. Van Dax

    so, what if we pulled out a bunch of the lame small bases and created lattice choke points with infantry resistant bunkers.
    The bunkers are protected with what are essentially massive aegis shields and have lots of AI turrets. Tanks are needed to blast down the energy shields rocket launchers can't be fired out because its not a fancy one way shield so tanks are needed to defend the shield. The majority of the actual bunker is an interior base suitable for infantry fights but the exterior is living hell for infantry trying to assault.
    Two kinds of these guys could be made:
    The two way valley pass type, goes in at quartz ridge and similar bases
    and the compound type that has three or more facings, we can use these to replace awful bases like snake ravine (made for small fighting but its position makes it important) and ones like the stronghold which are good in theory but the defenses are usually quickly bypassed by infantry rushes.

    2 benefits: tanks become more useful and longer ranged weapons get more use.
  8. Kid Gloves

    I don't think simple removal of the 'lame' bases is the way forward. Instead, I'd like to see a nice variation of bases that require infantry to hold and bases that are essentially speed-bumps but are still built around a higher amount of vehicle play.

    To make the vehicle bases work, both sides need to have a fairly clear way to bring their vehicles to the battlefield.

    Tanks (both MBTs and Lightnings) do feel very weak in the game compared to the plethora of AV options, and part of this is how common they are. I love the idea of a tank actually being scary, but this has to be countered with tanks being rare.

    What I would love to see is a fairly simplistic specialisation system that sits outside of the certification system. This would dictate what vehicle(s) you would be driving / using today, and what classes. Pick two vehicles and three classes. Re-specify after a set time limit (3 hours? 6? 12?).

    This means you have to make a conscious choice to be a MBT driver, rather than simply 'sure, I'll grab one' - because choosing MBT means not choosing something else. Furthermore, having these unlock at certain BRs (with everything unlocked by 20 at most) means it gives new players something to aspire to and a reason to chase that BR.

    By making it sit outside certification it doesn't mess with the existing cert progression, though obviously you would be prohibited from sinking certs into something you haven't yet unlocked the right to use.
    • Up x 1
  9. bPostal

    Sorry, I just kinda skimmed the OP. Also, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of the thread because at 16 pages long I'm sure by now it's just a few guys yelling at each other. So when reading this, take what I say with a pinch or two of salt.

    Really kinda pointless to post anyway but one thing kinda bothers me about the original post...If we're talking combined arms they why are we talking about armor fighting infantry? Shouldn't it be armor and infantry and air (and maybe some logistics) fighting armor and infantry and air (and maybe some logistics)?

    I could be misreading the post but it seems less 'combined arms' than 'Tanks need a better role in PS2'. Also, I disagree with just about all of your points (Again, just referencing the first post).

    I'll give you this, as far as I'm concerned this is the primary role of armor. The need for a unit to establish a forward operating position can only really be filled by armor (with air and infantry support to fully utilize the breach in enemy lines). Currently though I don't really see the need for dedicated armor (as sad as that is to say) with armor pushes being an anti- (armor) zerg tactic. Pulled on demand rather than placed on call if you get my meaning.

    As long as we can agree that (In the interest of fair and balanced game play) if the infantry can't damage the tank (because the infantryman is out of render distance or what-have-you) then the tank shouldn't be able to damage the infantry.

    Why can't the same be true of infantry out in the open fields then? I agree that vehicles should be extremely strong outside of bases, but infantry should be just as strong inside the base (and to a lesser extent the cy). Those examples of good CY designs (primarily the Amp Stations) have been noted for their previous lack of infantry cover. Cover that is much more vital to an enjoyable facility fight than simply letting the tanks in to spin circles once the outer shields are down. As to spawn room placement, I've always thought that it's placement is indicative of poor base flow. The flow of combat in and around bases has gotten better, but spawn room (and subsequent battle flow) placement still sucks in at least three quarters of all bases on Indar and at least half of the bases on Amerish.

    You've made some concessions when drafting this post, but I view the underlying issues (as stated above) to be larger than you make of them.

    One thing we do agree with is that by reducing the number of potential tanks on the field at once (hopefully by replacing them with a driver/gunner style Heavy MBT) we can increase the quality of combined arms engagements by bringing the rest of the weapons and tools into balance.

    Now back to what I can only assume are (at least) two people named something like 420XYOLOXSMOKE and xXxUrAP3nisF@gxXx to fight over some silly *** thing that one of them said about five pages back.
  10. EliteEskimo

    I will say that one of the biggest issues that this game has right now is that bases are so close together that tanks aren't really required to escort Sunderers, and a ttimes infantry can literally run between the bases more often than not. In my opinion SOE needs to make the larger bases more epic in design, and remove smaller bases and perhaps replacing them with check point areas which are defensible but aren't there to do anything but make a stand at. Like a bunker with turrets before you get to EISA Tech Plant. How close the bases are in the game disgusts me, and the few places that do require Sunderers or transport, like the frozen rivers of Esamir, or the Deserts of Indar are an AV turret heaven. Another option could be to have infantry spawn at a certain facility once they die in that immediate area and the next lattice link next to it, but they must have a vehicle drive them there before they can than spawn there. This would bring back more Sunderers to guard and destroy and would help usher in the return of the Majestic Sky Whale A.K.A the Galaxy.:D
    • Up x 1
  11. EliteEskimo

    1. I never said infantry shouldn't be able to damage tanks, I stated that they shouldn't be able to out range tanks or shoot them while they are invisible. This is why you don't skim the OP's first post your read it in depth;)

    2. Infantry can be powerful in the open field, but they only should from a certain range. None of this 400M+ garbage that makes them the kings of the open field. All AV weapons should be effective between 300-400M because that is around where infantry stop rendering. Infantry still definitely deserve a place on the battlefield, but without becoming Anti Tank Snipers.

    3. A way to reduce the number of tanks on the battlefield could be as simple as making them spawn only at tech plants and the warp gate, at this point I highly doubt they'll make MBT's crewed vehicles. However the Heavy tanks or "Tank Destroyers" they've hinted at sound like they would be.:cool:
  12. LT_Latency

    They is nothing they can do.

    This is how massive battles work in a video game. I play infantry alot when you look at a massive battle you go what is going to kill and and be a pain in the butt,

    Most of the time the answer is tanks. They can one shot me from any range. So all the players grab weapons to shoot that threat first. When 6 to 15 people are shooting at you, your are going to die.

    If you make tank weapons stronger you just guaranteeing that even more people will be trying to kill you and you will die even faster.

    In a battle of 50+ people a high fire power unit will die if it sticks it's neck out and nothing can fix that because people will engage it to protect their own lives.
  13. ForumSidePro720