The Ultimate Combined Arms Thread (Tanks vs Infantry)

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

  1. Frozen-K

    We don't think hand-held infantry weapons are overpowered. What we do have problems with is infantry being able to shoot us outside of our render range. Meaning, they can see us, but we can't see them. The reason a range reduction was proposed was to keep those soldiers in our sights so we can properly react to being fired upon. In the current game, if someone's outside my render range, my vehicle takes damage from invisible sources while giving me a general direction on where I took damage from. I'll seek cover, but it's a 50/50 shot I'm not outside their viewing range and I lose my tank.

    That being said, if the rendering issues didn't exist, none of us would have problems with it. Since they do exist, we naturally have problems. If either gets fixed, no one will really complain anymore.

    As for the engineer's AT turret, well...It really does need to be examined again.
    • Up x 4
  2. theholeyone

    What a cop out, plenty of us are concerned with game balance but because we disagree with you, you'll put us in the category that doesn't? Pretty immature response there champ. I've not said they are not OP in certain situations, just that they are not the undisputedly most OP thing in the game as you claimed.

    What is the DPS on an engie turret vs AP cannons? It is not the weapon that is broken, just the rendering issues. Your constructive way to fix it was to reduce the range on a long range weapon, doesn't sound that constructive to me. I'd suggest smaller changes, like a turn speed degradation with range, so the first 100m it is quite agile, next 150 still fairly controlable, but after that it is more or less on a straight trajectory. Makes it easy to dodge at range for a competent tanker, but gains effectiveness as the tank does when the ranges close in. Or have the projectiles destroyable by small arms fire... Suggestions designed not to nerf it, but to ensure it is not an OP render exploiting weapon; those are constructive suggestions.

    If its not a whine thread stop whining and be more constructive, address the points instead of implying I don't care about game balance.

    I didn't say it was one that always worked, but not staying in one place is less likely to get you C4'd. If you are shooting at range, secure your position first, likewise with sunderer deployment, secure the position from LAs.

    But you are asking for C4 nerfs to allow more courtyard utility, which also allows tanks to take up that position with little fear of being instagibbed from above. So I still need an explanation on how those C4 nerfs don't increase spawn shelling...
    • Up x 2
  3. Takoita

    Big no to tanks inside courtyards. Base design needs to change, yes, but you really don't want Harassers stacked on the control point - and that's what will happen if bases are made to resemble AMP stations more.

    AV MANA turret introduction was very questionable since the beginning. I'm not sure what they were thinking. It's a working proof of concept for guided missiles, yes, but projectiles not rendering is a big problem. IMHO, there should've been a hard distance limit introduced while they search for a solution.

    While as a TR player I'm certainly intrested in the Striker getting a different mechanic, I have to note that I haven't seen a single smoke-equipped tank in the last three months despite all the tankers' whine about lock-ons.

    About C4: f**k you and the horse you rode in on. All explosives got nerfed already but you still need more? Go away.
    • Up x 4
  4. UberBonisseur

    It falls under "overpowered." I guess.
    They knew the render range for infantry would be limited, it has been beta tested to death and they even INCREASED it to 300m in large battles.

    Not sure how things would play out without render restrictions.
    AV turrets would still be a pixel wide and Liberators would probably sky gods out of infantry reach.

    And it's not the only problem imo.
    Tank spam is very real. Tanks are power suits.

    Let's see how the new resource system plays out. If at the end of the day, you still have full resources after capturing a base, we'll have this massive vehicle terminal bumrush where everybody jumps into it's armored taxi and rolls to the next base

    The best solution would be reducing the overall lock-on range to 250m, while ripping off this for longer ranges
  5. Frozen-K

    Tank spam can be a problem, this I agree with. It's why I think they should revamp the vehicle system so people can specialize in some vehicles, and not be allowed to pull others. Kind of sounds like...Planetside 1, doesn't it? I have a system in my mind, but I want to get everything down on paper before I propose it.
  6. Angry Scientist

    A thousand times yes! This is perfect. It's marvelous. It's great. It's similar to an idea I had a little while ago.

    We have shields, they block all sorts of things, why not have smaller ones? There could be varying levels of them, from solid completely to where vehicles can pass through. It can add another layer of base takeover, disabling the cover shields. Walls of esamir can be revamped. It would make sense for a wall made of energy not to have a catwalk. It can be disabled, some variants could take damage and go down to concentrated fire, infiltrators could hack them, could be seen through or made opaque...

    The possibilities are nearly endless. And that's great.
  7. EliteEskimo

    No I put you in that category because you are unwilling to acknowledge the elephant in the room which is the overpoweredness of the AV turret. You keep trying to go after the fact I'm saying it's undisputed and side stepping my main point that it is OP. There were players who argued that the prenefed Zypher Cannon wasn't OP even though Liberators destroyed the first month of the game along with rocketpods users. There were players who defended infiltrators having shotguns too. I would still say it's undisputed because typically one doesn't take the extreme minority into account.

    A range reduction of the AV turret is the most practical and realistic solution because not only does it solve the problem without breaking the weapon it's extremely easy for the developers to implement. Putting new code in to make the rocket get less controllable over time takes a lot more work then simply reducing the range. The developers want easy solutions and I'm giving it to them in a way that is constructive whether you realize it or not. I realized the developers like easy and existing solutions when everyone and their dog wanted the TR to have a centered Prowler turret and the NC wanted the Reaver's nose gun to be moved up a little. What was done instead? The shells now come out of the camera instead of the Barrel, it's easy and it got the job done without breaking the game (even if I didn't agree with it). I could come up with some unique cool solution that put an all new characteristic for weapons into the game too, but that would require time that the developers don't have and it wouldn't be considered.

    Look at the save the Galaxy Thread. That's practical, it's cool, everyone wants it to happen, but it requires developer work which is why it's taking them so long to get it implemented. You know how hard it is to reduce the overall range of a launcher? EASY! and as I had stated in another post we could buff the velocity of launchers if reducing their range made them that bad. All a mere switch of numbers, no new code required!

    In terms of C4, wow.... IF you have to remain still next to a crevice of a spawn room you can easily be surrounded and C4 can easily be dropped behind you or ontop of you with a well placed rocket or two following right after to kill you anyways. It would change how they work against tanks, nothing else, and putting a tank in the red would not suddenly mean tanks would just shrug off C4 exploding on them. If the Tanker did anything less than run away at full speed they would die immediately after. Adding spawn protection in the way I suggested makes it so you can't reliably shell spawn in the first place, that's how you fix farming spawn. It won't even be possible or realistic to farm if they make spawns like the one in Eisa Tech Plant.

    As for your LA tip get real man. Do you think the players in that video didn't have their position secured? They did from targets on the ground and from aircraft in the immediate vicnity, but no one is constantly looking straight up in the middle of a field for a LA with C4 to come down and blow them up. Do you expect them to?

    Well the idea would be to have control points that tanks could fight up to but not fire directly upon, at Max guarding some of the entrances to them. I never stated I wanted tanks to touch control points, I said I wanted to help infantry get up to them without capturing them by ourselves.

    And telling me "F**k you" is highly immature. Tank explosives got nerfed several times to, do you see me advocating for their return right now? No. C4 being detonated after you died was a cheap mechanic and allowed a person to blow up a Sunderer after they died and make tank mine/c4 traps that denied mine guard entirely so you get over yourself. If you were a skilled LA you could easily fly to the back of a tank to still blow it up by yourself and still kill the majority of players in tanks which aren't dedicated tankers. If you can't be bothered to do such a thing as a guy with a jetpack than it is you who are entitled. :rolleyes:
    • Up x 7
  8. theholeyone

    I've said it is OP in some circumstances, I just took issue with you exaggerating the problem to make your point; in short, don't claim over-representation, it makes your arguments look silly.

    Depends on the range though doesn't it, 500m cap, fine, that's the same as lock on so would make sense. But I have a feeling that would not be enough for you?
    They have destroyable projectiles with the phoenix, they have advanced pathing with lock-ons, so it shouldn't be that much of a stretch. I just don't want to see the long range AV purpose nerfed when there are potentially other options.

    Exactly, it gives them the option to run when one LA C4s them, instead of being instagibbed, so there is less risk to spawn room camping.

    HALO C4ing just proves C4 does not need a nerf. You had to find a rarely used tactic which requires either teamwork or air resources to accomplish, significant setup time, to show a situation in which C4 is OP, it just shows that in the majority of case it isn't.
    Sure, I think it near impossible to defend from that, but think of the resources, time, and setup it takes to achieve that means I think that balance is maintained.
    • Up x 2
  9. BigIronRanger

    AV turrets need to go end of story they should have never been implemented (coming from a guy who plays 90% infantry).

    In all my time as a tanker in my vanguard (pretty good one too, though its not hard to be) I have only been killed by C4 twice can't remember why but i was probably farming infantry. However when i am out on the field VS other MBT C4 is not an issue at all infact i die of laughter as a light assault tries to C4 my tank and im slowly reversing they get a well aimed Ap round to the face after however.

    Even though C4 should not be a problem at all for decent tankers with 2 eyes and a gunner I think the C4 directional damage seems reasonable.

    AV turrets on the other hand are downright unforgiving i think the problem lies in that they have CONTROL OVER RANGE, UNLIMITED AMMO, CANT BE SEEN and do MASSIVE DAMAGE one or two of these attributes need to be toned down although the render distance should be fixed regardless.

    I agree there needs to be more options for tanks in regular bases rather than just camping the spawn rooms and farming infantry cause that's all tanks seem to do in PS2 although i dont blame you guys its all SOE.

    Nice post. See i can be reasonable if your post is reasonable :).
    • Up x 1
  10. EliteEskimo

    I'll claim that you are in the minority about AV Turrets because you are wrong that it isn't considered OP by the majority. If you want to grasp at straws and claim that because a small handful of people who don't want their OP toy to change said it's balanced it doesn't count.

    500m cap isn't "fine" and I pointed that out in the videos. Did you see the video with the Strikers against the Vanguard. Even if not fired upon it's likely those infantry weren't even rendering for the Vanguard and trying to shoot things that far away is extremely difficult. Guess how hard it is to point at something and wait? It's not. The Lancer can still be around 400 meters to keep its unique trait, but everything else should probably be around 300m.

    Destroyable Projectiles is fine in theory but considering how small the rocket was and the fact that it didn't move that slow meant it didn't work that well in the long run as a set back. The Phoenix only got balanced after they reduced the range of it. This game has problems with rendering things from long distances, therefor there shouldn't be infantry which have a low priority to render with a long distance weapon that can effectively match a tank's range which has to render from 750 meters away.

    If a LA tries to solo and fails that's on him for not dropping the C4 behind a still tank. As I also said the spawn room doors couldn't even be camped because you couldn't even fire at the door itself. Infantry are free to run around to flank you while being completely outside your line of sight. The fact that you can't be asked to have a HA come help you out in a MMO of this scale says all. A tank by itself in a courtyard is free XP, but if you can't be bothered to put in more effort than just hapharzardly throwing c4 in a tank's direction and clicking the mouse than I don't know what to say. It's called a MainBattleTank for a reason and should not be easily soloable by infantry under ANY circumstance.

    Halo C4ing proves the tactic exists and that I'm not making it up. It SOMETIMES requires no significant setup type considering their are pads and cliffs all aroudn Auraxis, and when it requires air resources the player would otherwise have no use for them to begin with if they are using them in such a way. It has been used on me more than once to know it's not some rare tactic. If I hadn't shown a video you'd say I didn't have proper evidence to support my case, so how many videos do you need? 2,5, 9001? Think of the vehicle resources that I spent on that tank, and the fact that once its blown up my gamestyle is effectively put on halt. No infantry unit besides the Max has to deal with that crap and it's still revivable.
    • Up x 5
  11. Aesir

    Well longrange AV should be the job of Vehicles, not Infantry, who are already kings of base fights. Infantry should not be the best option to take in both cases. Where else would there be room for Vehicles? And sadly right now the only Vehicles really changing battles are Harassers, Sundys and ESFs.

    There is no setup time from using a drop pod or jumping with drifters from a pad ...
    • Up x 3
  12. theholeyone

    Really? you're still trying to over-represent who you are speaking for, its still a bad look.

    300m I can consider as balanced if all lock ons went down to the same range. Lancers have damage drop off so I would say they need no range limit, probably be a good idea for you to write up other ranges like render dist, phoenix and raven ranges too for context...

    As I said, they are working on fixing the render distances issues so shooting the projectile should be no more of an issue than for phoenixes.

    Regardless, you have not made any effort to balance out extra courtyard utility with reduced spawn room camping have you? I didn't ask if they could still be killed with teamwork (something you seem loathe to do to protect them), I just asked about the balance between courtyard utility and spawn room shelling.

    The resource system is getting revamp to bring types down to one, which renders your argument that it requires no extra resources invalid. Infantry is the base class, you want something more powerful, you have to take care of it. Air superiority helps ground troops, its combined arms remember, get you air force to dissuade HALO C4 fairies. The more we discuss things the more your arguments keep coming down to a whine about how you get blown up too often.
    • Up x 1
  13. theholeyone

    Long rang AV is the job of vehicles, emplaced defenses is the job of infantry, and while render issues do see infantry reaching out more than vehicles can against them, I really don't think that makes infantry the ideal choice.

    There isn't, but you get an audible warning with a pod (and they need something to drop on), and drifter from a pad, well if you are anywhere near a pad you need somebody to keep an eye on that. Awareness is OP, but that's not a balance issue.
    • Up x 1
  14. EliteEskimo

    How do I over represent a vast majority of people who think the AV- Turret is OP? Perhaps I shouldn't have said undisputed because naturally a wise guy or two will come along just to pick a fight and prove me wrong but anyways...

    Render distance has been worked on since the game launched, I need results. Tankers are basing some of their arguments on the lack of them.

    For the third of fourth time, spawn room camping isn't a practical option anymore with a Eisa Tech Plant Design. Do you not see the pictures!?! There is only a very thin crevice to fire into, you have a very limited LOS which the infantry can completely avoid to get to you, and even trying to farm the spawn area is suicidal at best without a massive amount of allied support. Also if anything the utility will balance out because infantry will have more places to hide and defend themselves than ever before, ontop of the spawn room improvements of course

    I'm not even arguing with you about the C4 anymore because your points lack merit and fail to see that it's impossible for a tank to defend against such a tactic, if it wasn't apparent that the guy flew high altitude and then bails there to avoid ESF's in the first place you are unobservant. Infantry are too powerful and tanks are weak in this game, and there is no telling how long this resource overhaul will take the Dev's so in the mean time lets put things back in place and make tanks the kings of the open field again.
    • Up x 3
  15. Aesir

    Mass Infantry is the ideal choice against everything right now, Ground Vehicles, Air Vehicles or Defenses. The Power given to AV weapons that are handheld is quite a lot, but the power is not directly the issue, it's range is.

    If you say dropping on a rock far out looking over the next 2 outposts and denying most ground based Vehicles in that area is defensive ... I don't know but this is being utilized often in offensive and defensive.

    Base defenses can be long ranged, I would have no issue if a turret is mounted somewhere with Vehicle rendering instead of small AV Manas that could literally be everywhere and are very hard to see and more often than not do not even render unless they hit you, at which point it can be to late because on Mattherson you have quite a lot of organized outfits that focus fire those things.

    The issue is that those Turrets are being used all the time, during defense, during attack, to kill Sundys, instead of risky C4 attempts. Infantry with SL deploy and beacons already can be in lot's of places, put Galaxies on top of this and you can setup a offensive or defensive fire position everywhere.

    If there would be an SOI deploy field in bases that say, would be the only place you can use those AV Manas, I would be ok with them being long range. Since than it actually became a defensive weapon.

    And about not getting close to a pad or drop pods sound ... who would be stupide enough to drop directly ontop of a Tank? Most drop on a close building or high point and than drift on top of you. And drifters allow you to go quite some distance if you jump of a tower rearm pad ... All of this does not involve any resource costs beyond the C4 ...
  16. Patrician

    Well, actually it is a whine thread; you're using the phrase "combined arms" as some magic mantra to make it seem like it isn't, but I'm afraid it is.

    While it was an interesting read and obviously you have put a lot of thought into it, what it actually boils down to is:-

    1. I like being a tank operator.

    2. I like to be able to farm infantry.

    3. I don't like fighting other armour or air because my tank dies too easily that way.

    4. I don't like things that get in the way of number 1.

    5. I don't like the new walls on Esamir because it means I can't do number 2.

    I'm sorry but "combined arms" does not mean that vehicles, air and armour all are able to fight in all areas of the map at all times. PS was a "combined arms" game and vehicles involvement in a base fight stopped in the courtyard; the rest of the fight took place inside away from any type of vehicle and it worked very well.

    Now I'm not suggesting that changes aren't needed, or that amour doesn't need a more defined battle roll because it does; the areas between bases should be the province of vehicles and vehicular combat, both air and ground, while the area inside base walls should be exclusively the province of infantry, as in PS.

    Currently there are simply too many bases on continents. In PS there were between (if I remember correctly) eight and ten bases, each with two towers very closely associated, and there was/is plenty of space between each base for epic vehicle battles. Coupled with this was an "area of influence" around each base that you could not "H.E.A.R.T. drop" in that made it that infantry had to use transports to get from one base to the other. These infantry transports were very often the centre of vehicle battles (as were ANT runs too).

    (There was a cert restriction in PS that meant each player had to specialise; cert into the infantry role and you didn't have enough certs left for a vehicle, of any type. Cert into a vehicle roll and you would not have enough certs to be effective in an infantry role. This, along with the need for MBT's to be multiple player vehicles made tanks much less common in PS, but were also, correspondingly, more powerful)

    For tanks/armour to be more like you would like, I'm afraid they would have to be much more expensive to pull so their numbers would be reduced over all. Then the AV, lock-on, and all the other nerfs you want might be viable.
    • Up x 2
  17. theholeyone

    You're over representing your views by saying it is a majority view, look at the threads calling for weapon nerfs, the AV mana turret doesn't look to be the most frequently occuring one to me... It's not a case of some wise guy picking a fight, its a case of you overstating your case with emotional bias instead of have an open minded discussion on the topic.

    There is a lot of things on the to-do list for SOE, we all have to wait for things we would rather have now. I'm just saying the next GU could come with a projectile render dist fix you've been asking for for a while.

    Not all spawn rooms are at Eisa Tech.

    If you're bowing out of the discussion, it's very much a possibility your own points lack merit. I've already said I think it near impossible to defend from, my point is it's a tactic requiring such preparation it should be near impossible to defend from.

    Tanks are not more powerful than infantry, tanks get much higher K/D on average. Infantry's advantage is they are very common, and very quick to respawn, but that is not a direct strength. Many tankers show their bias because they do not seem to understand the difference.
    • Up x 1
  18. HadesR

    What range is that then since infantry render range is dynamic ? 500m 400m 300m ? .. If the range was reduced to low then the lock on time would need to be greatly decreased ..
    • Up x 2
  19. ovakin

    AV Turret range should be limited to 300m, self detonate, or lose control and started to drop like the Phoenix.
    • Up x 3
  20. theholeyone

    PS2 always comes down to a numbers game, it's by design so I don't think you will have much luck getting minor armor an advantage against mass infantry.

    I think that AV nests can be both defensive and offensive. Mana turrets and bursters, fractures etc I have no problem with, but lock ons I think are too skill-less to be so powerful in such situations.

    Base defenses are in a really strange place at the moment, effective, but easily hacked and take a really long time to repair. I think something needs to be changed there.

    Ubiquitous AV mana turrets haven't hit briggs so I can't really comment, but the ones we do find gets the engie sniped or just outright destroyed by AV fire. SOI would be a huge nerf to them, I'd just like to see the render 'exploit' fixed, it's really all that needs to happen.

    Not directly on top of, but dropping right next to them has a high success rate. Drifter from close buildings is hard to counter of course, but getting close to buildings should be a risky thing for a tank. Likewise pads, just stay away from them, tanks engaging infantry too easily is why infantry have so many AV weapons in the first place. If tanker want to be the kings in open terrain, then they need to cede closed terrain to infantry, because this isn't world of tanks.
    • Up x 1