The Ultimate Combined Arms Thread (Tanks vs Infantry)

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

  1. Jachim

    Nope. Lock ons are utterly OP already. Yes, that also means the Striker, because it's a lockon. They should be in the game for the less skilled people who can't handle good dumbfire/lancer/etc options. Turn the Striker into a min-Fracture (with less Infantry damage perhaps) and I'd be just fine. :)
  2. theholeyone

    I skim read because his post was too waffly (as in writing things about how he would like things to be, but not such a reasoned approach), then tried to read in detail the relevant bits for the reasons I was after but found them lacking so asked for more. Regardless, how about less of the personal stuff and more actual discussion lest you fall into the same trap you accuse me of... I propose we discuss the following:

    "I think the skill ceiling for long range infantry AV should be raised on both sides. Make it harder to get hits on targets from the infantrys perspective, and make it possible to avoid 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."
  3. Jachim

    I wouldn't mind reducing the agility of the Engy AV, perhaps at an increasingly difficult-to-control curve ie: close range it can turn swiftly, but at longer ranges has a harder time correcting its course? :)

    Thus allowing it to keep its current distance, but be easier to avoid if it's spotted.
    • Up x 1
  4. deggy

    The biggest problem with all the AV options usable at range is that tanks have to sit still. Unless you're driving a Magrider, you simply cannot fire on the move. Even in the Mag it's difficult. Meaning that if you want to line up that shot against that infantryman, you HAVE to sit still and let him hit you.
    • Up x 1
  5. Jachim

    This is a good counterpoint, regarding the Engy AV especially. This hurts TR the most due to our faction bonus being 'stick ourselves in place even more' lol :( I to think reducing its max range wouldn't be a significant nerf to it, plus... if you're sitting on a hill by yourself with an engy av you're not doing anything productive for your team, just farming armor. Kinda the same argument infantry use on tanks, isn't it? :)
    • Up x 1
  6. deggy

    Oh, but getting rid of tanks is good for the team!

    Right guys?


    Hey, what are you aiming at over there... All I see is a column of smoke. Hm. I'll go back to saving my team from tanks.
  7. LivesInNameOnly

    "good tankers" is an oxymoron. no one who uses a tank regularly is good. thats why they use them..
    • Up x 2
  8. theholeyone

    Yeh that is what I figured too, I guess a similar pathing system could be added to lock ons as well which would be nice. Lancers, I dunno, maybe a velocity reduction though out of the current set I think it is the best suited already as it does get fairly difficult to land shots on moving targets at range. Phoenixes, you could extend the range, but again implement a reducing agility control system.
  9. f0d

    its sad that people think things like this in planetside 2
    dedicated vehicle drivers were wanted needed and respected in planetside 1 which is why i would like the vehicle gameplay to be more like ps1 instead of ps2
    • Up x 3
  10. zib1911

    Awesome post Eskimo, been wondering if you were going to keep em coming =)

    You read something that got your goat up and started trying to derail the thread.

    • Up x 2
  11. theholeyone

    I pointed out what got my goat up in addition to some other points, it was the OP's choice to derail the thread by arguing the former instead of discussing the later. And now you're doing the same thing :rolleyes:
  12. Aesir

    Actually, you are wrong about directional damage here. Lock ons use the missile and not the player as the directional source ...

    As clearly shown in my video ...

    (This by the went live for 2 GUs ...)

    They would not need to do much of coding, just take the stuff from lock ons and apply it to C4.
    • Up x 1
  13. Taki

    The preponderance and effectiveness of vehicles in this game needs to be toned down. Personally I thing something more akin to ps1 was better all round. I wouldn't pretend to know the answer, but something needs to be done (and AV toned to suit, of course).
  14. Aesir

    You know ... Infantry had nothing on Vehicles in PS1, so if you want PS1 style you want 10m splash radius on HEAT with OHK within 5m, 10 clip loaders on the Vanguard with 2sec in-magazine reload and 5 sec clip reload. So you want the good old Infantry hard counters back ...
    • Up x 1
  15. EliteEskimo

    Well if you think the AV Turrets are OP than stop defending the people who say they aren't and saying that the majority don't think they are OP because anyone who has ever been on the receiving end of them knows that they are in fact OP. There has so far not been one person to come into the thread to argue a good case for the AV Turret not being OP. Therefore it is the majority because the other half so far is 0. Now then....

    Skimming through a thread that several players help me make over the course of two weeks and then trying to make an argument even though some of the arguments/questions you made has been answered is both asinine and rude. So I suggest you read the ENTIRE thread before making further arguments, because it's the polite thing to do and because it's a well written thread. You don't put TLDR on a thread like this.

    The evidence I put forth in not anecdotal, and I didn't make the videos so it's not my view point they are simply people using them as the game allows them to. There are loads of videos like the ones I posted and all one has to do is look on youtube for them. I offered a a total of 3 of AV Turrets videos, a picture of one being used effectively from 678 meters, and accurately described their characteristics. I posted 2 videos of Lock-On's and 1 video of the Lancer being used correctly and devastatingly. There is enough reasoning to convince anyone who takes the time to read the thread, watch the videos, and look at the pictures. There is nothing further to say.

    You shouldn't have to call in for air reinforcements for a problem that shouldn't exist, and air superiority is not always present to make this option viable. Infantry shouldn't be out ranging tanks in the first place and thus air support should never have to be called.
    On the contrary since it takes two to tango in a discussion and I entertained all your questions ontop of the whole "undisputed" nonsense and so far there has been even not one person who has made the case for the AV turret not being OP and everyone else agrees. So how could you even argue otherwise?

    If things in the game are broken then you write about how they should be and then write about how to get to the point where the game should have been. That was the style I chose for the thread. Your additional requests regarding courtyard farming and how that would be reduced were answered in the thread, and I gave further explanation on top of that.

    Raising the skill ceiling would definitely solve the issue and your way to go about it is solid, finally we are getting somewhere. However that begs the question, does SOE want to raise the skill ceiling when time and time again they have shown they want to lower it. For example nerfing reverse thrusting on air craft, having few lock ons when the game first started to have no drop laser cannons, and lock ons galore seems to point that they want to keep the skill ceiling low to appeal to the most players don't you think? Again not saying it couldn't work, but I'm wondering if SOE would be for raising the skill ceiling of something when they have been lowering the skill ceiling for many things in the game.

    Lets start a productive conversation here shall we?
    • Up x 3
  16. Taki

    Vehicles simply did not sit around spam-farming in ps1 to anything like the extent they do now. Maybe that was just base design and/or vehicle design. Either way, something needs to change in ps2.
  17. Aesir

    A single PS1 dedicated Vanguard equals about 5 of our current gunned Vanguards ... That was all base design ..
    • Up x 1
  18. Tommyp2006

    A small initial change I would like to see made to the AV turret is to make it, after 300m, lose all guidence, and continue on a straight path. I think this would be a fair, early test to see how it's long range capabilities would be effected, without making it literally not able to hit anything past 300m. This would ensure that you can still hit dumb tank drivers who sit still, but if they are smart enough to move, they won't get hit.

    IMO, all lock on launchers (yes, even the striker) should have their lock on range reduced to 300m, along with the current planned change to lock ons.

    I'd also like to see tanks get a buff to C4 resistance so that it sets them on fire, with only 5 seconds until burning to death. This would either force the driver to abandon ship, repair immediately (both of which requires him to still get out of the tank putting him at risk of gunfire), or have friendly engineer support nearby. I would even be fine with that if this was only achieved by having a "blockade" armor cert.
    • Up x 1
  19. Taki

    Or maybe vehicle design, as I said. Still, not really getting your point - I just think the current system/design needs to change from the current spam-fest.
    • Up x 1
  20. Aesir

    Agreed, Vehicle combat in PS2 feels like an afterthought, while in PS1 it was a core aspect of the game. As to why?

    Vehicles were very powerful and more often than not hard counters to Infantry.

    Bases had interior were Vehicles could not participate at all.

    Than there was the old cert system, nobody could do everything, you had a limited amount of options.

    But let's not forget the way Vehicles worked, 1-seated Vehicles were rather weak and only worked in coordination of larger numbers (Reaver/Lightning), Dedicated Vehicles gained a lot more power because the system worked 1+1=3 if it was crewed. But you could not solo those dedicated Vehicles at all because the most powerful arm was always in the hands of the gunners. BFRs ruined parts of this balance and thus many say it killed the game ...

    So in this sense speaking we already have BFRs by concept in PS2, which were the old beta MBTs ...