The Ultimate Combined Arms Thread (Tanks vs Infantry)

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

  1. deggy

    Thanks :D I'm starting to run out of signature space to display my various interests, I'll have to come up with a way to compact some of it.
    I really like these ideas. I'd lower the damage a little, too, an AV Turret does more DPS than a Magrider AP gun and that seems a little wonky to me.
  2. Van Dax

    yup more dps than any rocket launcher too, it pretty much out lancers the lancer on top of it all (render distance range, higher alpha, higher dps, infinite ammo,...)
    • Up x 1
  3. EliteEskimo

    It's a constructive criticism thread which offers solutions for every criticism put forth. Somehow to you by stating I disagree with the way something is in the game automatically turn an entire thread of solutions into a "whine thread" ...bad logic is bad.

    1. I like being a tank operator - glad you could figure that out:)

    2. Hmm you state I like to farm infantry when I offered solutions to remove infantry spawn farming entirely? Or is wanting to be able to fight infantry that renders to me if it can shoot at me equal to "Wanting to farm infantry"? Reading comprehension fail.

    3. I said that one of the greatest things I and other tankers enjoyed in the game was fighting other armor. Wow it's becoming so obvious halfway through the post that you didn't take the time to even read the thread.:rolleyes:

    4. If by getting in the way of being a tanker you mean things that destroy my tank quickly that I'm helpless to fight back against then yes. What a ridiculous request I'm making I know!:eek:

    5. I can see by now that any time a tank kills infantry it is considered "Farming" to you. Update your definition, because killing infantry in an open field or around a contested base is not farming. Farming suggests they have no chance of fighting back which considering the number of AV options infantry have is a load of crap.

    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.

    Oh really? Last time I checked aircraft still can impact all the new bases on Esamir and infantry can go anywhere a tank can to have an impact. Tanks used to be able to impact substations and many other other bases and now they cannot or their ability to do so was incredibly diminished. Tankers don't want to be excluded since other than bio lab domes infantry and air can impact every part of the map in some way. Indar is combined arms balanced, but with bad spawn designs, Esamir no longer is due to the sheer amount of walls and terrain everywhere.

    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.

    Apparently you never played Planetside 1, because there were courtyards that were vehicle accessible in Planetside 1! But I do agree it needs to be more like Planetside 1. Tanks should be able to fight right up to the point without being able to fire directly on the point itself.


    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 All I want right now if for infantry to not out range tanks and be better at taking tanks out at range than tanks can. I'm asking for a minor Armor Buff in this thread, in that the only thing I asked for was for C4 to do directional damage against tank armor.
    • Up x 3
  4. theholeyone

    Only because the OP tried to defend his poor writing instead of discussing the real points of it, it's very difficult to have a balanced discussion when the initial premise shows that much bias. I mean is there anything at all in his first posts from an infantryman's perspective?
    • Up x 1
  5. deggy

    He's a tank driver. Would you prefer that he post from an infantry point of view and make things up or that he just leaves it out because it's not his chosen role?

    I play both tank and infantry. The long-range AV is out of control. When I can sit at Quartz Ridge and hit a Sunderer deployed in the bay at Indar Excavation, something is wrong.
    • Up x 2
  6. Brayton

    Why isn't this guy one of the design team members?
    • Up x 1
  7. theholeyone

    I'd prefer he recognize he doesn't speak for overall game balance, and be more open to a discussion which includes that point of view. I mean look at my first post in the thread; I pulled him up for overstating the mana turret thing, pointed out SOE were working on a projectile rendering fix, agreed with him about it being good to render turrets but asked what he would do against them, then offered my views as an infantry player about C4.
    He then discounted most of what I said, argued about the Mana turet still, and accused me of rushing a response just to say he was wrong. That is not how to go about having a balanced discussion about combined arms.

    In response to your own veiws, I think the skill ceiling for long range infantry AV should be raised on both sides. Make it harder to get hits on static targets from the infantrys perspective, and make it possible to dodge projectiles from the tanker side. As a discussion premise I think figuring out if that is a goal shared by both sides should be established first, then figure out the ideal way to go about that. The OP basically said 'I'm a tanker and I don't like these things so pls nerf' which I disagree with both the stance, and the approach.

    As an aside, on briggs there are not many AV nests set up at all, we've tried both Lancer and Striker nests to great effect, with some of us struggling to aim the lancers well, but at what appeared to be targets who had no idea where we were (no projectile trail render). Using the strikers it is a different story, very easy to aim and get kills with out to longer range. Using Mana turrets, the biggest issue is depression, followed by snipers and air; they just aren't that hard to deal with. All in all, I don't think AV nests are that big a problem in a combined arms game. In fact last night just 5 of us demolished a striker nest of around a squad strength, one sacrificial galaxy and two liberators to clear them off the ceres farms rock. What I'm saying is, yes AV nests can be very effective again vehicles, but they can be taken out with an equally specialised response, not saying there isn't room for balance improvement of course, just giving a bit of context to hopefully convince people to raise the skill ceiling instead of just nerfing it down more.
    • Up x 1
  8. joe smo

    in a lot of cases it is just snipers/ other infantry, I have seen mass AV turrets covered by lock-ons and AA MAXs that annihilate armor at range and eat aircraft that try to respond. I been in a situation were I have been in a tank and get instantly destroyed by infantry AV at range, only to pull an aircraft to support the armor that is (some how) left only to get vaporized/ driven away (I tried again) by infantry (MAX's are infantry).
    • Up x 1
  9. jake taylor

    great post eskimo, a few thoughts on the entire issue.

    if people want to keep the long range av weaponry i think its fine, but when an av user gets a confirmed hit on you he gets pushed to the top of the rendering priority and gets marked for you in a similar fashion the air lock-on spotting.

    as for the whole courtyard point, i think that tanks should have more roles they can fulfil, maybe a single point that they can capture which is isolated from the rest. an example would be a hangar outside a base or something similar, something that keeps them fighting even if its not in the main area.

    lastly i agree with the c4 thing, drop poding or squad spawning and insta gibbing tanks and sundys is too easy atm and even if you only get one before you die its still a win for you since you can respawn and do it again in 1:30m. though i think that it should just be a certable upgrade similar to the harasser.

    • Up x 2
  10. theholeyone

    That is quite a high level of organization, an equally specialized response would be a high alt AI max (supported) insertion. Finding out that is what is required takes a bit of resources and deaths of course, as does the counter; but imo, the element of surprise should be OP.
    And there is always that other response of just going a different route, one of the AV nest downsides is immobility, running out of things to shoot and having a lengthy and somewhat risky process of getting to a new site.
  11. f0d

    my thoughts on the situation i have posted in a few other threads (just going to straight up copy it over)

    "i said this in another thread but it certainly applies to this thread/subject also.......

    esamir changes were a good thing all bases should have been like them from the beginning
    imo its pretty much been infantryside from the beginning apart from tanks swarming and spamming bases which i was also very much against - yes tanks spamming bases was a bad thing

    - all bases in the game should have been similar to esamir bases

    - vehicles should have been certable from the beginning (as in you cant use one unless you "unlock" it with certs) which would have stopped or at least slowed down the vehicle spam

    - MBT's should have been separate driver and separate gunners from the beginning (again to slow down the spam of them requiring them to need a gunner to be useful)

    - more distance in between bases outdoors making it almost impossible for infantry to run from base to base like they do now and require vehicle transport to get from base to base (making transport vehicles more useful)

    - 5 minute timer when getting out of vehicles should not have ever been in (it stops vehicle drivers from getting out of their vehicles at a base and going inside and fighting)

    - the resource price of them should not have changed like they did a few updates ago (so dedicated vehicle players can still play their playstyle without having to wait at the Vterm for enough resources when they lose a tank)

    - dumbfire rocket damage should be slightly lower

    - lock on infantry weapons shouldnt be able to shoot such long distances and be so powerful

    - squad deploy and squad spawn beacon timer should be increased

    i expect nobody to agree with me (especially infantry specialists) except maybe dedicated vehicle drivers from PS1, they know how much fun the vehicle gameplay was in that game
    requiring vehicles in between bases and not having to always concentrate on infantry outdoors (either running from them or shooting at them because of them being a higher threat than most other vehicles) was much more fun than the vehicle system we have now

    im not delusional - i know none of these things will ever happen in PS2, im just saying its how it should have been from the beginning and now vehicle specialist are suffering from SOE making wrong decisions from the start in regards to vehicle gameplay and making planetbattlefield instead of a sequel to planetside 1

    PS2 should still be in beta imo - and now that its been released they cant make the major changes that are needed because people will complain too much"
    • Up x 1
  12. EliteEskimo

    Oh excuse me Mr. Fine, but how do you allow them more utility in courtyards without increasing their ability to shell the spawn room?
    *When a whole section was dedicated to how to stop shelling spawn room.*

    "Problem With Spawn Design And What Needs To Be Done About It
    Now one of the biggest gears that infantry have to grind about tanks is spawn farming, and I know many Tankers understand this and wouldn't mind this boring part of the game to go away. It takes little to no skill to farm a spawn no matter what unit you're playing as, infantry can use C4/AI Mines/Maxes, and then every vehicle in the game can blast spawn doors to smithereens given the right loadout. At the vehicle level this needs to stop at the ground level spawn entrances at the very least. How would we fix this problem you ask? Through a design that was recently implemented at EISA Tech Plant on Esamir!:eek:
    Notice the limited field of view and that I can't directly hit the lower spawn door with my main turret
    If one were to even try to keep their tank parked where mine is in a contested base it would only take a matter of seconds before a LA flew over a building or tossed some C4 off the walls to do me in.
    As wee can see there are also several spawn accessible locations for HA's to shoot rockets down upon a tanks in the courtyard area, in addition to having metal sheilds on ground level to use a cover while attacking.
    As you can see it makes this design extremely hard to try to shell inside the main spawn area, and driving right up to the little crevices leaves a tank extremely prone to being C4 from the roofs above. Not only does this design not take much work on the developers part , since they just have to slightly alter an existing design for other bases, but it will also then justify tanks having a role in courtyards which brings me to my next point"

    The fact is you ignored a large portion of my thread to go after a small questionable use of the word choice of "undisputedly" is ridiculous. Literally no one else pointed that out or even cared, but you decided to wage a full scale war against me because you felt the need to defend a select few Jack Wagons who don't think the AV Turret is OP. The vast majority of the thread's writing/ word choice was accurate in the claims that were made, and again you choose to disregard the rest of the thread to go after that 5%. Furthermore when I say it's hands down the most undisputedly most OP thing in the game I'm speaking as a Tanker for Tankers as a group. You ask what Tankers think is the most OP thing used against them across all factions I can without a doubt say that the AV turret will make the top 3 if not the first. How about you get over it, admit the AV turret is completely OP in its current state and put this shenanigans filled debate behind us?

    The majority of people consider the AV Turret OP, I feel extremely confident in saying that. If you ask for the opinion of the AV Turret in the vehicle discussion section on whether the turret is OP against tanks or not you'll see where I'm coming from. As for you saying tht you haven't seen any threads complaining about the AV turret. OPEN YOUR EYES! There is one on the front page.

    Tanks have been screwed over by render distance since the Annihilator, and since then it has not stopped being a problem. I put up with it because tanks were inexpensive, but now that they aren't a lot of this crap is now unacceptable.

    Not all Spawn rooms are Eisa Tech?!?!?!? The whole point is that they take the EISA design, which happens to be the best anti-farm spawn design, and apply it in a similar fashion on all major bases. That's one of the major points of my thread, get rid of spawn farming. Why am I still talking about this to you when I put detailed pictures and explained it very clearly and well. There is always bias in life, but the difference is whether it is significant or not. I worked directly with several people on the forums to make sure it was as least possible as possible.

    I'm not bowing out of the conversation butyou are saying that something should be undefensible tactics that infantry can use against tanks and I'm saying there shouldn't be. Furthermore jumping off a cliff or pad or high terrain is not "significant preparation" and flying 2 minutes to a battlefield at high altitude and then dropping out of the sky is also not significant preparation.

    Infantry respawning fast is a powerful strength. It means that you can do whatever shenanigans against me at 0 cost and even if I kill you you're back 15 seconds later to try again. The thread however is not about comparing the passive abilities, so I do not wish to go into that.
    • Up x 2
  13. EliteEskimo

    I'm speaking for Tankers and people of Combined Arms Outfits that use Armor. There are some views that I will not accept under any circumstance, such as the claim that the AV turret is not OP. You want to defend an obviously OP tool I will not look kindly upon that. SOE has been working on a projectile rendering fix since the Annihilator, it still isn't fixed so I don't accept the "just wait" argument when an entire playstyle is literally being shafted in the mean time. You rushed a response because some of the questions you asked me were outright answered in the thread, and naturally that made me displeased after spending weeks on this thread and working with numerous people to make sure it turned out right. Where did I say I'm a Tanker and please nerf, I gave substantial evidence for every single one of my points and you ignored them. For the Av turret in particular I gave pictures, I made numerous points, and posted 3 videos of it being used at extreme ranges.

    You are on Briggs, well come to Mattherson where outfit organization is at the pinnacle in Planetside 2 and where every day AV turret/ Lancer nests are found all around the map. The VS outfits on our server are great with their Lancers and AV Turrets, and some of them are MLG status. Infantry should not be better at killing tanks at range than tanks are under any circumstance or it throws the game out of whack. The AV Turret has lots of ridiculous traits that make it OP so yes naturally removing them will be nerfing it because it can not stay as powerful as it is for the range it has.
    • Up x 2
  14. Rift23

    1) Heavies have to pick a AV or AI primary.

    2) AV turrets have ammo and cost resources to deploy (with a carry limit)

    3) Remove damage falloff for everyone besides VS and buff BARs to OHK with a headshot through Nano-5

    4) AP round to the face=DEDZ

    #1 and #2 cut down on the rocket spam and stop people from being able to mow down infantry then blow up tanks with ease unless they have a terminal/sundy nearby which can be destroyed/hacked.

    #3 and #4 makes armored vehicles necessary for getting across open terrain and No Man's Land in general and cut down on infantry zerg. And besides, even Master Chief dies to a tank round in the face.

    Not just talking about tanks, platoons will actually have to mount up in Sunderers and Harassers---the armored fast moving transports intended for this purpose and storm into the base where all the objectives are. Once they get inside all the Snipers/AP tanks in the world will be useless (contrary to what the baddies think).
  15. theholeyone

    I just happen to be one who has an aversion to people who overstate the facts to make their case seem more valid. all you had to do was admit it was an exaggeration in your first response to me instead of trying to defend the exaggeration for a number of posts afterwards, doesn't sound too difficult does it?

    Those were different suggestions, and the base redesign is not one that is as applicable as directional C4 damage. Though that is not so easy either, as all direction damage currently is player to player direction, so they would have to code in more to detect C4 to tank direction.

    You're still going on about it, saying you have majority backing for your opinion is an empty statement. Spend more time giving reasons, and less trying to inflate your own opinions. I agree it is OP due to the render exploit, but I don't think it is OP by design, or that it is all that high on the list of PS2's biggest problems. you tend to try and make your point behind a wall of emotionally biased text, just stick to the facts and points at hand and I think a more balanced, more constructive discussion will result.

    Infantry currently have not defense against long range tank shelling do they? This requires no preparation at all, aim and click, OHK. So to put it in perspective, you're fine with that, but think infantry should not have the ability to OHK a tank in return? That's the point of disagreement here, you think that is so indefensible, so easy to do, so common that in conjunction with the differing resource costs, it prevents tanks from having significant utility on the battlefield.
  16. theholeyone

    Dude, are you even reading what I write? I've said multiple times the render exploit makes the AV mana turret OP. Why are you trying to say I think otherwise and force an argument?

    I skim read because it was mostly waffle, I don't think I missed much tbh, next time try a TLDR.

    I didn't ignore the evidence, I just classify it as anecdotal and offered my own counterpoints, you need to offer more reasoning than that if you want to sway others to your viewpoint.

    If outfit organisation is king on matterson, why don't you guys call in reinforcements to mop up the lancer/AV mana squads when they are identified?
    Again, I agree infantry should not be better at killing tanks at range, but where I disagree with you, is that I think they should have some long range AV capabilities, skill based and skill countered.
  17. Hands Down

    I skimmed through your post and have not seen mention of the number one reason why MBTs are currently obsolete in PS2 - harassers. That is all I have to say. You have made some other good points in your post, but what I see on the field is harasser kicking MBT between legs, easily and effectively. Until that is fixed, only enthusiasts, adventurists and new players will use MBTs.

    If I missed your mentioned of "harasser problem" I will happily stand corrected. My point still remains, currently the main problem with MBTs is they are obsolete in comparison to harassers.
  18. Jachim

    Your tired excuses accusing all who wish to make Armor relevant again in this game are getting tiresome. You really, really need to find better material, and actually challenge his points directly rather than making some childish list up to pigeon hole his argument into 'Armor = infantry spawn campers only and thats it'.
    • Up x 1
  19. Jachim

    If all you did was skim his post and demand more 'reasoning' from him, you're simply here to play devils advocate. This is why forums fail at making any headway. You just talk past the person, plugging your ears yelling LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU TANKS ONLY FARM INFANTRY AND THATS IT LALALALA.
    • Up x 3
  20. Jachim

    I actually disagree, I find Harassers a good way to flank armor. Today, our Friday op for Imperial Reach had us firing on a larger force of Vanu zerg armor coming from allatum while our infantry squads were assaulting Crossroads Watchtower. The VS rolled up three Harassers on a hill behind and began picking us off hard. It was pretty good and I think was a great use of Harassers. :)

    If Armor didn't have to worry so much about the 90 other things that can destroy it with impunity, it'd be very balanced!
    • Up x 2