The Ultimate Combined Arms Thread (Tanks vs Infantry)

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

  1. theholeyone

    You get air to go kill them.

    They didn't reduce the range of the bursters, they increased CoF. Which is akin to what I've been suggesting of raising the skill ceiling on long range AV to make it easier for vehicles to dodge at range.

    My tone may have changed because people have for the most part stopped making silly claims and are engaging in debate.
  2. theholeyone

    It's not that I'm still trying to insult you, its that I'm fine with making a counterpoint to whatever you post about me, or about your views on your writing style. It isn't a popularity contest son, I don't care how many others on here agree with you or me, its how well you make your point that determines how good a point it is, and yes, writing style helps a lot there.

    It is good for a showing a weapon at its best, but that is anecdotal evidence, what can be done with a weapon by a skilled player will often look OP when it is used thusly against low skilled players. This is why you should back up your anecdotal videos with reason, figures, numbers etc. You said it was not anecdotal, but it clearly is, you must see why I have grounds to say your writing style has a tendency towards exaggeration?

    I just hoped there would be something simpler to counter the C4 nerf than a base redesign on about 2/3rds of the bases. There's not, so I don't think it is a good enough balance to put directional C4 damage in.

    It goes both ways, for mobile and/or alert tankers, we can't just go get C4 and destroy them so we do need to call in combined arms. For immobile and/or unalert tankers, they then need to go get combined arms of infantry to protect them from C4. Its a spectrum of course, and sometimes player from either end will get lucky, but as a general rule it works. I've suggested a fix to the AV turret and other long range stuff as that currently does detract from the combined arms approach, but C4 does not.

    You seeing it as an insult instead of a criticism you can take on board for self improvement says more about your approach here than mine. You could still ignore your own ego and go for the discussion if you like, but again you've chosen not to.

    I'm saying they are not indisputably so, as evidenced by the dispute (my reference to you being a TR tanker, thus not subject to striker fire) about that. How is that still a difficult concept for you to grasp? I said right below that there were render issues and it would be great to shoot back at them, how you get from that to assuming I think they are fine is lacking in logic.
  3. zib1911

    I am sorry I can't take you serious when your first few post were essentially troll posts, now after much drama you now want to be reasonable.

    Yes you did not read the post and started arguing the post = troll posts.

    I am not trying to score points or be cool, its just you have proven that your not worth the time of reasoned debate, many others are coming here and being reasonable, I think that might be why you are being more reasonable this late in the game.
    • Up x 2
  4. Aesir

    A simple solution would be to give Tankers a C4 resistance defense slot item either new or buff up top armor to include it because there is no reason for the top Armor upgrade other than Liberators strait above you because how of how the ground/air attack detection works and even with top Armor a Dalton will kill you just as fast, it only grants a benefit against Zephyrs and Shredders.

    The outcome of this simple solution is Mineguard 2.0, everybody will use it, especially the ones that want to farm Infantry. Yes it will put them at a disadvantage against Tanks using other defense options ... but if you run around in an Infantry space using it, chances are high that Infantry will take care of enemy Tanks, while you farm around.

    Do you know what could be an alternative simple solution that worked in PS1 and didn't blow up Tanks unless they were in a minefield? Common Pool EMP grenades, able to be equipped by EVERYBODY. EMP grenades that made Tanks unable to fire for a set duration, making them helpless and more often than not drove them off because you could keep them disabled as long as you had nades.

    Which on paper looks like an awesome idea to actually remove C4 from everbody except Engi, give LAs a throw-able AV alternative. But in reality, I would use that on my Engi to win pretty much every Tank on Tank battle, jump outside, throw a EMP and blast them, meaning this would need other limiters, because PS1 had Vehicle enter and exit animations that took time ... no hot seating or instant teleportation. Making them also do FF would totally make them the best awesome grief tool in the world ...

    Meaning overall, there is no simple solution ... no matter how smart you think an simple idea is, there will be ways to exploit them unless you go through the process of what everybody would do with given tools or other adjustments ... I could come up with several more "simple" solutions and most of the time I will find a way to exploit it ...

    So we need a sound system that takes all aspects of the game into account!

    I don't need to defend Eskimo, he can talk for himself but you should consider one thing. This thread is to make the world better on a general basis, not just the TR Tankers view, I will speak up for any issues regarding NC that I think are to be regarded, I'm pretty sure deggy will speak up about issues of the VS/his point of view. Currently all You and Eskimo have been discussing about were mainly C4 and AV Manas, which both are common pool weapons.

    So I don't see the reason to drag in the empire hate into this, atleast before this has been resolved, because those are the biggest deterrents for every Tanker. The other thing is, what is the reason for those deterrents?

    Well this revolves around every Infantry Spawn room on every base... and we both know that those deterrents do not work. In my outfit we call it "Spawn Suppression", I personally hate doing it because its boring to point your gun at 2 exits and wait till the base flips. It's boring as hell. But this changes not the fact that Players(mainly Infantry Players) will go and grab their Tank to just do that.

    We need something to prevent spawn suppression, but also something that inspires other activities around a contested base or within a contested base for Tanks to do. Maintaining Vehicle supremacy used to be important in PS1, in PS2 Infantry supremacy is currently the way to go in almost every case. Vehicles(not just Tanks) need to play a more important role in taking a base.

    Those changes can come from a multitude of options, base design, buffs/nerfs, resource system, vehicle design(how do they work) and so on. The suggested changes in the OP will push a little bit into that direction, but in general, we as Tankers(all true Tankers) want something to do that is not farming spawn rooms after Infantry pushed all the way for us to do this ...
    • Up x 2
  5. theholeyone

    So you can't look passed your perceptions of the poster to address the content? Pity that.

    Oh and posting an 'I'm done replying to you post' is always about scoring points or being cool, otherwise why not just actually be done replying and not post it...

    You can think what you like, the problem here is people getting all b*tthurt and addressing the poster rather than engaging in constructive discussion. It takes two to take a topic off topic, and while I'm sure I have not tried to do that, I realise others think I have. So my question to them is why haven't they taken their own advice? I mean why would you reply to someone you think is derailing the topic?
  6. EliteEskimo

    1. Saying my writing is poor is not constructive criticism and of course you don't care about how many people think my post is well written and how many people disagree with your insinuation that my writing is poor. If you did care you would realize you're wrong and that this is a well written thread. The points we solid, the points were well supported, therefor people liked it and agreed with it and did not agree with you.

    2.If I'm going to show the aspect of the AV turret being OP, which is its ability to shut down armor at far ranges, then the videos are going to support that by showing it doing that. It's not anecdotal evidence if I'm trying to display their extreme effectiveness at range. Furthermore I used three separate players using the AV turret in three separate spots with only one thing in common, that being they were being used at long range and their long range which is what makes the AV Turret OP. This whole Anecdotal evidence claim you keep using against me holds no weight. This is the definition of why Anecdotal evidence isn't reliable. Anectodvidence is unreliable according to definition "Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases" The vidoes aren't cherry picked, and naturally threads have a limit of how many videos I can post. The videos represented how AV turrets are used at long range. The situation the videos are representing is shutting vehicles down long range, so what type of videos should you expect to find?!? Videos of long range infantry AV options shutting down vehicles. That's not anecdotal evidence, it's evidence of them shutting down vehicles at range!:rolleyes:

    There are no exaggeration about the traits I said the AV turret had, they were all true. Oh and in case you haven't caught on, there are almost no reliable stats or numbers that could be used regarding the AV turret since most sites have been proven to have errors. To my knowledge you can't find a spread sheet that separates a weapon's separate vehicles kill by a particular vehicle type so you couldn't use data of that kind. Players have encountered that same issue with C4 and HA Launchers. They are used to kill infantry and other vehicles besides MBT's so data can't be used to show they are OP against MBT's. Cupboy used to have something like that but he shut it down because everyone was using it for their agenda or something like that.

    3. Originally myself and many other tankers wanted blockade armor for MBT's, but the developers never caught on to that and instead changed proximity radar slightly, but it really did nothing to solve the issue. Directional Damage seems like a good way to go, it rewards infantry with a solo MBT kill if they flank the tank, and it heavily damages the tank if they don't manage to do that. No other device in the game can kill a MBT outright like that by an infantries hands and not have a counter. Mineguard counters mines, why is there no C4 guard?

    4. I wanted to redesign the bases to increase the roles of tanks within bases from none to some, as is on Indar. That has nothing to do with C4. I want to get rid of spawn farming because it's a boring no skill activity, and infantry hate it so it should be taken away. C4 currently is spammed by infantry who would rather lob C4 at a tank until it dies then to call in air support or use AP Tanks. Infantry being a hard counter to infantry and being a hard counter to tanks isn't combined arms. Even still since tanks are spammy, expensive but spammy, I think infantry should be able to kill tanks for getting behind them. If you think about it, for your average zerg tanker it won't change much. But for dedicated tankers than ya it will even the odds and give us a better chance of reacting and surviving rather than just dying to C4 being lobbed from above.

    5. I'm taking it as an insult because this thread was made with the help of numerous people over 2 weeks, it makes solid points, it presents sound examples and evidence of everything in question being OP and you are wrongfully calling it Anecdotal evidence and then saying it's a poor thread with exaggerations.

    Meanwhile several people besides myself are telling you that you're wrong, loads of people are saying it's a great thread, a well written thread, and you say "I don't care what other people say it's not a popularity contest" HOW CONVENIENT FOR YOU TO USE AS AN EXCUSE! You're wrong about the thread, your criticism is not constructive, your requests unreasonable if not impossible, and myself and many others within the thread believe you're wrong whether you choose to accept it or not.

    6. They AV Turret is undisputedly OP, and I even got you to admit they were OP when you originally would not say so. Saying they had render issues is not saying that "they are OP" , how hard is that for you to grasp? Even if they do render they are a spec, a single pixel infantry effectively blowing up your tank from 650M away would still be OP even if it and its missile rendered because hitting a single pixel is next to impossible to fight back against. No one in the thread is defending them in their current state so unless you're playing devils advocate, which is annoying as can be, then stop saying that you can dispute that the AV turret is OP because you can't without ignoring loads of evidence of it being OP.
    • Up x 1
  7. theholeyone

    A defense slot for it is a fine idea, I'd say it needs to be visible like the other composite plating so C4 fairies know what they are dealing with.

    EMP grenades do need a buff imo, but other classes should still have C4, tankers just shouldn't get into a position where an infantry can get close enough to stick C4 to them. But, in accordance with this, turret stabilization should also be a thing, passive cert line, or maybe something in a weapon slot. In addition to that, an alternative set of MBT abilities should be brought out (I've suggested some elsewhere, though it was as much comical as serious).

    It was a throwaway comment meant to illustrate that players from other in-game demographics would dispute the AV mana being the most OP thing. I really didn't think eskimo would get all up in arms about me pointing out his exaggeration and derail his own thread trying to justify it.

    I'd prefer if spawn suppression was prevented through the base capture mechanic, not base design overhaul. I mean once a base has been locked down to that state, what are the chances of it being saved? why do we have to wait out the clock?
    How about one final infantry push into the spawn, one entrance has a hackable console next to it in an little alcove so defenders can get in there quick and stop a hack. But if attackers do hack it, they can stream in that one entrance, and hack something inside the spawn room (while taking damage as per normal, cos medics rule) to flip the base completely and without delay.
  8. theholeyone

    1. I've pointed out why it is poor, exaggeration and lack of unbiased reasoning.

    2. The videos are not representative, you may have picked them randomly, but what is uploaded is biased towards high skill to start with, so yes it is still, by definition, anecdotal.

    3. C4 guard is a fine idea, directional C4 damage is not because getting C4 onto a tank that can OHK you is not as easy as you make it out to be.

    4. You can't just lob C4 at competent or supported tankers, it drops pretty much directly below you, so it takes a skill differential to get it onto a tank.

    5. The best thing you can do is take the criticism constructively, because your OP really isn't as good as you think. And you still can't seem to realize anecdotal evidence is "A limited selection of examples which support or refute an argument, but which are not supported by scientific or statistical analysis." Your videos are limited, they are not supported by scientific or statistical analysis. You look bad by disputing this point because it is obvious I am right.

    6. There actually are a few people arguing that AV turrets are not OP (so it still is not undisputed), but due to the rendering bug/exploit I am not one of them.
    • Up x 1
  9. Aesir

    Hence why I stated the use of top armor, because it's mostly useless, while being visible. But again I would use it over any other defense option because it removes one deterred for me. Meaning I can reign more supreme in Infantry space, meaning I can easier camp your spawn ..

    Anybody not running it still has the LA C4 drop deterred to worry about while not gaining that huge advantage over me. It would be the biggest buff the Vanguard, since I do not need side or front armor, I actually run Nanite Repairs right now because it is not interrupted by shielded damage. The Vanguard would become quite the beast with this change, since I can easily out repair HA Launchers and have cover against AV Manas in close environments. This would also bring back the old HEAT/Vulcan setup for Prowlers for the very same reasons ...

    Again, the point is just a defense option is not enough ...

    Just because you should not get into a position does not mean you are not able to get into it. I once had a Vanguard inside a biolab and if it would be effective I would still be able to do it ...

    The entire reasoning for C4 is based on the fact that Tanks are going where they are not supposed to be going, so why not slap some giant walls around the spawn room or make it underground(PS1 style), which on a logical stand point makes way more sense than C4, because C4 is not only affecting Tankers, it also affects Maxes, massed up Infantry, Sundys and so on.

    C4 seems to be a poor excuse to give the LA a purpose, to make stacking Infantry harder because of the lack of Infantry collision(PS1 had it), poor base design like spawn facilities at the edge of a base as a corner defense building(seriously who made that? ), which often has been excused as "our engine can't do this". Lack of doors and their associated locks to be hacked open, changing the MAX gameplay as indoor Armor. The list goes on and on.

    PS1 had so many innovative features addressing so many issues we now face. While it's sequel looks like a carbon copy of a bad BF series game(the last good one was BF2142) going 2000 Players no ticket limit Conquest mode.

    I personally am sick of all those cheap design work around by SOE to give us a sorry excuse of what it could have been, a better PS1. Since PS1 had it's issues, it's not the messiah that's going to save PS2 because the two are so vastly different know, concepts that worked in PS1 need rethinking because of missing limitations/features in PS2.

    The AV Mana turret is strong at what it does, it deterrents Tanks and other ground Vehicles within your operative range. It's doing what it's design to do. It's issue is that you can setup everywhere, so you can deterrent Tanks everywhere except close range Infantry has other options to deal with Tanks.

    Which in the end means that Infantry just has to many, to strong options against Tanks, Long range you have AV Manas, mid range you have ESRLs/LockOns and short range you have Decis/C4. Now tell me, at what options have Tanks to take out Infantry on long range? Even if they would render in the first place that is ...

    Either the AV Mana loses range or availability in form of resources/limited ammo or deploy zones ... but it can not stay in it's current form.

    You are suggesting Battlefield style here, we already got enough of this. PlanetSide as a brand advertises it selves on hour long base fights. It needs to distance itselves from Battlefield as much as it can in this way, otherwise it will always just remain the big clone of Battlefield.

    Parts of what made some PlanetSide 1s battles so epic that some still have memories of how they fought for hours just for a single bridge comes down to the fact that it was a huge giant stalemate that either got broken by Vehicles on the outside, Infantry on the inside, the third faction or by totally epic maneuvers done by organized outfits(gen holds anybody? ), short timed re-secures. Simple said, it was everything except being Battlefield.

    The easiest way to keep Tanks from camping spawn rooms is to make spawn rooms totally inaccessible for Tanks and add in multiple ways out of them. Again, just put them underground and add in several exits. Doors and glass windows were totally good at keeping me out last time I tried to rocketpod with a Reaver into the upper levels of an Techplant in PS1.

    PlanetSide 2 needs to go back to learn some lessons from it's predecessor and kick off with a total reboot ... I so wished for PlanetSide Next, I hate SOE for every thing they turned PlanetSide 2 into ... I stopped seeing PS2s potential after Launcher were most pointed out problems were nowhere nearly addressed and all the patching up of game mechanic flaws started ...

    But again, hope never dies ...
    • Up x 1
  10. theholeyone

    I think a defense option would be enough, at the very least it seems the best place to start.

    C4 fairies against maxes is one of their main counters in CQC, grenades and rockets all do mass damage to groups too. I think LAs with C4 is a good thing, promotes use of varied tactics. They often get away from the medic-swarm approach as they fly places in which they are un-revivable.

    As said before, I think the AV mana could primarily use a rendering fix, and also some tuning to the flight path's agility, but nothing more than that.

    I haven't played battlefield. Hour long base fight would still be possible due to the ease of response against a 'base' hack, what it would be designed to deter is 5minute long spawn camps, which I think most would agree are not a good thing. In fact with the threat of an enemy's rapid advance down a lattice lane it may encourage defense, and result in longer fights.
  11. jihon83

    Bear in mind that this game's version of "combined arms" is using the term very loosely because there isn't any real limit placed on making use of any of the "arms", so to speak. With their high pools of HP, varying resistance to small arms fire, and weapons that either deal a lot of damage quickly, or deal heavy damage over massive areas, non-infantry assets in this game are meant to be, and are, a lot more powerful than infantry. It seems like Maxes and vehicles are balanced to be relatively rare, and difficult to both maintain and acquire, as they have the capacity to kill so many others. Unfortunately, this game's balance of resources doesn't follow that line of thought, with every player have a relatively sizable pool of resources, ways to generate those resources fairly quickly, and access to every class and vehicle, it's entirely possible for masses of tanks and planes to appear. It doesn't even taken any organization, so much as the sight and people thinking, "oh, easy experience". It's part of what makes this game's "zergs" so annoying; and I think it is what comes to mind when most people complain about the balance between infantry and everything else. The power of the vehicles makes sense, but how numerous they are doesn't, and I honestly think it kills gameplay. Just a while ago, I stopped playing on Waterson thanks to a TR zoid that was too heavily shadowed by a zerg. It wasn't thanks to the skill of the outfits like NUC, Legion 13, and the Imperial Reach; rather, it was just being annoyed by all of the tanks and aircraft that were following them. I don't mind that uphill battle or even losing to well-organized teams, even with trying to find "some way" to get around a Max rush, but I don't find anything fun about seeing a spawn surrounded by Prowlers and knowing that a murder of Liberators are hovering just above the doorway. Unfortunately, in a game like this where armor, planes, and robot suits are so cheap and powerful for their cost, "combined arms" is reduced to a lot of players just scrabbling for EXP and making other players think, "this isn't very fun..."
  12. lothbrook

    I really wish they'd make you cert into being able to pull vehicles, its so annoying pulling my vangaurd driving out of the warpgate and running into a friendly zerg where 3/4 if not more of the vangaurds don't even have the shield certed, i almost want to just destroy vangaurds without shields just because i know they'll be more in the way than actually useful. Then maybe we can get tanks with some real survivability and infantry will run from tanks and now the other way around.
    • Up x 1
  13. EliteEskimo

    1.Your reason for it being poor have been disproven by myself and by over 2 dozen other people who thought otherwise. So far the odds are stacked way against you for it being a poorly written thread. Why not stop now and stop digging yourself a deeper hole. I already said there isn't exaggeration and yet you haven't proven there is except by making claims that I had disproved. There will always be bias a person has, I limited it to the best I could by having roughly a dozen people proof read my thread and I spent about 2 weeks to make sure there was as little as possible.

    2. The videos are representative, and you're assuming the people in the videos are highly skilled but they are not. They are putting a dot on a target and waiting for the rocket to hit it. That's not skill, that's just how the weapon works and it works really well, and for you to think otherwise is ludicrous. If you look for AV Turret videos that's how they all turn out more or less.

    3. Finally some common ground! I already have stated that getting C4 on a tank from the ground is hard and getting the kill is commendable and in my first post I had said getting C4'd from the ground is almost always your fault. What I also said is that it isn't nearly as hard as doing that same thing from the air and coming out of the sky, and high above where no one expects you to be coming from. The only reason I didn't pitch C4 guard or Blockade/Composite Armor is that it's been pitched by lots of people including myself, Compass, Deggy, and others numerous times. So I'm offering the next best thing, directional damage, which makes sense if you think about it because all damage on a MBT with the exception of mines are directional damage on a MBT.

    4. Of course you can't just lob C4 against dedicated tankers and expect to win, but then again the majority of people in tanks right now are zerg tankers with little to no situational awareness. Directional damage wouldn't matter for the majority of situations because a tank with no situational awareness gives you all the time in the world to get behind it since that type of tank is normally still and not checking its surroundings. That's why the change would work, people with a dedicated playstyle of tanking would see some benefit and those who used their tank as a Taxi would still die to C4 just as they did before.:)

    5. How do I take criticism constructively if the criticism is both not true, and I frankly don't agree with it. Since I play in a tactical outfit if I ever mess up I am told about it, and I learn from it and improve from it. Saying that my evidence is Anecdotal when it's not does not help me. All the videos were short because people's attention spans are short and a few minutes is all most people need to understand the point I'm trying to make. However since you're one of those unique cases that likes long videos I went to the trouble of finding one for you.

    How do you even use statistics or scientific analysis on these videos, the message they get across is so dang easy to understand I'm having a hard time understanding how you do not. You can see vehicles being destroyed at ranges they couldn't fight back at by one or a few infantry.There's nothing to measure when the answer and evidence is right before your eyes. The statistical and scientific analysis you're asking for to my knowledge doesn't exist, but if it does feel free to go get it and bring it in this thread to discuss it. As of right now it doesn't exist since it's not available to me, thus your Anecdotal claim against my thread is riddled with holes.

    As a refresher I'm arguing the AV turrets/ rocket launchers are too powerful because of how insanely good they are at killing armor at long range, these videos show that so you don't need statistical scientific analysis. Right now what you're doing is that you asked for Bigfoot, to show that the AV turret and launchers are OP at range, then I happily I brought Bigfoot in the room. Then after a few minutes I take bigfoot away and you say "But where is the statistical and scientific analysis, why can't I have more to prove he is real, all this evidence is Anecdotal" That's what you're doing right now and it's ridiculous. You aren't right, and no one is agreeing with you or jumping in the middle of the conversation to say I'm wrong. In fact you have multiple people coming forward in the middle of our conversation to say that you're wrong.

    6. Oh there are a few people defending it out there are there? Well there were a few people defending the pre nerfed ZOE MAX and prepreprenerf Hacksaw Max and saying it wasn't OP either. You're nitpicking and being the devils advocate, or you're just a grammar junky who is jumping all over me for using the word "undisputed" . You know the vast and overwhelming majority of people think the AV turret is OP, it's to the point that the AV turret being OP isn't even controversial. It's been OP for that long. Just because you know of a few Jack Wagons who defend it you felt the need to try to tear down the thread and call it bad? At the end of the day that makes you look bad not me.
    • Up x 2
  14. deggy

    I disagree. Tanks are obviously not balanced around rarity, they're balanced around numbers. A tank that get focus-fired by a group of infantry doesn't have a chance. A group of tanks can hope to distribute the damage and survive.

    But tanks are NOT more powerful than infantry right now. My tank is actually a liability whenever I pull it. I only use it because I'm trying to justify putting cash and certs into something I'm enjoying less and less.
    • Up x 1
  15. theholeyone

    1. Not to my satisfaction they haven't. You have exagurated by saying it was indispudetly hands down the most OP thing ins the game, I point out some dispute over that, so that was definetely an exaggeration; likewise when you say video evidence is not anecdotal. Those are basic english concepts, you can't point to people agreeing with you about other things as validation you are right.

    2. Still anecdotal.

    3. It is easier doing it from the air, but that's because awareness is OP, not C4. C4 fairies don't move faster than running infantry, they don't have any cover, the only thing they have is that inept tankers don't often look up; so it's not LA that should be punished for tanker's ineptitude, it is tankers, and they are.

    4. So if we currently can't expect to win by lobbing it at experienced tankers, and if it was changed to direction damage we could still instagib inept tankers, why do you want to make the change at all?

    5. You need to doubt your own conclusions about your writing style. You've posted two clear exaggerations you still think are fine.

    Stats an science analysis you need to show the frequency those things occur, anecdotal evidence shows what can occur (gameplay vids), stats and analysis shows what does occur as an average. It's like showing a lib vid putting a fully mag upgraded tankbuster round into a vehicle, saying it is OP, the vid would be anecdotal, and not backed up by gun accuracy, and widespread mag size certing, and even oppourtunities to get a lib into that position to begin with.

    You're showing what they can do in the right situations, and what they do with a rendering bug currently in play. I'm saying this is not a representative showcase, and thus is anecdotal evidence. Bigfoot is a poor example because it is a case where anecdotal evidence is enough (its not describing population trends), the above lib example should explain the difference better.

    6. Yup, I am getting at you for using exaggurative words like undisputed when there is a dispute. The correct way to deal with my type is to say, yes you're right there is dispute and I'll change that, perhaps with a roll of your eyes, but proper grammar is important to make a proper case.
    • Up x 1
  16. f0d

    i agree 100% with the quoted above
    when ps next was announces i was ecstatic - finally the game i loved was going to get a sequel
    but they changed their minds and gave us ps2 instead and ever since i first played it in the tech test i was disappointed

    its too late now though they wont be changing the game as much as it needs to be changed because it is out of beta - only small incremental changes will ever happen now which plain ol sucks :(
  17. jihon83

    Tanks have the capacity to kill "a lot" more infantry than their costs denote. It's a testament to both their power and how cheap they are. Like I said, that's why they are the building block of any "good" zerg. It's also a big part of why this game can become annoying. I think the best option is to make resources matter and tie together the entire faction, so armor, planes, and suits can't be spammed, but only pulled relatively rarely by new people and blindly hungry "power gamers". If a faction only had so many resources to dole out for "specialty" infantry items, armor, and air, it means some real thought would have to given about what is pulled, when, and by who. That'd be especially true if there was priority based on BR, or if priority became a part of the "Acquisition Cooldown" Certificate process. As I said before, it isn't the outfits and experienced players that are a nuisance, but the swarms of Cert-hungry people who just blindly fire on spawn rooms and park on hills that make playing the game a chore. The "Dark Army" is a reminder of that.
  18. EliteEskimo

    1. When I said it was indisputedly the most OP thing in the game I was going off a few things which you need to consider. 1. The number of people who tried to defend a weapon when a nerf thread was made about it. 2. The amount of people who use it, like to use it, but still admit it is OP. 3. It's used by all three factions meaning it's used more total players than faction specific weapons thus it's being OP is more widely spread than faction specific weapons. Add those things up and it is the AV turret is undisputedly the most OP thing currently in the game because it is a universal weapon that belongs to no single faction, which naturally helps people agree on the fact that it is OP, and this also means there is no faction bias clouding peoples minds when the AV turret comes up.

    You look at any nerf ZOE Thread there will always be Vanu defending it for one reason or another, if you looked at any of the old Hacksaw Max threads there were NC defending it. You look at past and present AV turret threads and you get tons of people supporting the idea it is OP and very few people saying it is not. Thus it is hands down the most OP weapon in the game. :)

    2. It's not anecdotal, this is what happens when AV turrets are allowed to snipe armor from long ranges. It happens EVERY DAY on Mattherson. It's not a cherry picked situation, or a video I altered with bias or hand picked because it suited my agenda, these are random average skill people using the AV turret at long range. If there is armor present the videos accurately describe what will happen. These aren't situational videos, they are videos showing what will happen if you use an AV turret and are not incompetent at using it.

    3. I think that awareness isn't OP, all you have to do is look around every now and again and be aware of your surroundings. The fact is that people often don't look up, because all there typically is above them is absolutely nothing or aircraft which don't pose an immediate threat. That means that the lack of cover often doesn't matter if people aren't look where you are in the first place. Secondly the lack of cover is an advantage when flying through the air because hitting a LA out of the air with a tank shell is no easy task. If you have cover to get some splash damage it helps tremendously.

    Your thought that Inept tankers are the only ones that don't look up is false, preoccupied skilled tankers in the middle of a fight don't look up and that's where I often find myself dying. If you look up in the middle of the fight you are giving your enemy an advantage. If your gunner isn't helping you kill the tank trying to kill you, you are at a disadvantage. Everyone is punished, not just inept tankers.

    4. You can't expect to win lobbying C4 at experienced tankers, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try because if you catch them distracted that's all it really takes. Just because you pull C4 as a LA doesn't mean you have secured the kill is all I'm saying. However I want to make the change because often I am moving in the middle of a fight and often I keep all my sides covered and front covered. The death comes when C4 lands on my hull, which isn't hard to do considering the flat box shape of the Prowler. Getting the C4 to land behind the Prowler is a little bit more challenging on a good tanker, but if you do get behind me then you net the kill.

    5. I explained my so called exaggerations in number one. There is also no analysis in existence that is also available to me to use to show what occurs on average. If it was available I obviously would've used it, and from what I can tell if it suited your cause you would also have used it against me. Asking me for something neither of us can provide is not reasonable and foolish. I'm showing what they can do at long range, which is where they are OP, which is why I'm showing why they are OP at long range. They are balanced at Medium range and short range, but are way to effective at long range. I also displayed videos where the render exploit wasn't present, there were videos where they were being shot at, but since the distance was so large the force being attacked couldn't fight back. Even with the Render bug gone the AV turret would still be OP, maybe not undisputedly OP at that point but still very OP;). Ever try to hit a Pixel 500-600M away twice in row in quick unison so the engineer dies? It's arguably one of the hardest things for a TR tanker to do.

    6. I changed what I meant by undisputedly the most OP thing in game by describing to you the elements I was basing it off of. Given those elements it is the most OP. If you want to argue it is not undisputedly the most OP thing in the game by the number of Max users or pilot users think then fine by me.
  19. theholeyone

    1. It seems so, it also seems the one thing you weren't going off was the definition of undisputedly :rolleyes:

    2. It still is anecdotal, as it is not supported by science or statistical analysis. Read the definition, learn to understand it, then use it.

    3. Awareness is OP in the sense it gives a player a massive advantage. If one is shooting at an LA, they could also use the time to move their tank. Preoccupation is a form of ineptness, as is getting into such a situation where you have to choose between one or the other. It's not a common one, nor one to be ashamed of, but it is inept in the sense that you can do better.

    4. That's the point, you want it nerfed because you cannot be bother to ensure it is countered, or want to stay out of the situation it is found in. Its a difference of opinion I doubt we will ever agree on, I just don't think tankers need a buff to playing inside courtyards, its unlikely to be a tank vs tank combat scenario.

    5. Your excuse for why the stats analysis is absent is irrelevant, the evidence is still, by definition, anecdotal. By correctly calling your evidence anecdotal, my point was that the average use (skills, situations, render flaws, tank cover) of such weapons is unknown, and anecdotal evidence may well skew the perceptions. If you could have provided evidence with more substance that would have been great but I did not really expect you to.

    6. Trying to back yourself with a bunch of sub-clauses up isn't really a way to change what you meant. Stating you have changed what you meant is more like 'ok, undisputedly was a poor word to use, but I still think AV Mana turrets are overpowered and the biggest problem tankers face'. Would saying that really have been so difficult?
    • Up x 1
  20. EliteEskimo

    1. I will agree to disagree:D

    2. I would disagree and I'll use your definitions against you Mr. Dictionary. The definition of anecdotal evidence is that it is "based on incidental observations or reports rather than systematic evaluation." Incidental - "occuring merely by chance or without intention"

    The videos I displayed did not have recordings that occurred by chance and the people were not recording by chance! The people in the video knew that if they put AV turrets or lancers or lock-on's where they did they would annihilate armor, because armor was present. It wasn't your flawed example of a liberator getting one shot by AP Vanguard, that is chance. People don't pull Vanguards just to shoot down Liberators. But people do purposely drive out to a hill in the middle of nowhere when they see a battle with armor taking place to destroy tanks where the tanks can't fire back and get lots of tank kills. That isn't chance or incidental it's just how you use an AV turret, and if you get a good view point of a battle then what happens in the video will happen to you more often than not.

    3. Sometimes you can't always back up when a LA is coming at you, because there is a noob tanker parked behind you or a rock or tree. Preoccupation is not a form of ineptness in tank because you are a massive target and you have to give most if not all your attention to the tank infront of you or else you will lose. By your logic if I can do better by not being preoccupied, in a massive combined arms game full of targets, a LA can do better and flank me with C4 rather than merely drop it ontop or beside of my tank. :rolleyes:

    4. It's not a courtyard specific buff, it's a buff that for the sheer fact there is no actual counter for C4 other than situational awareness. Which at times can be completely be negated from LA's coming out of the sky. We'll agree to disagree though

    5. The evidence isn't anecdotal because the situations aren't by chance, the players were there for a reason, the weapons behaved how they were supposed to, the players counted on a certain situation unfolding, and it did and luckily someone recorded it for me to use as evidence for something that happens every darn day. Furthermore not having some scientific evidence available is completely relevant if you are going to criticize me for using all the evidence I had at hand to use. It's still great evidence and I don't think it's anecdotal once again because the videos recorded a situation that did not happen by chance or by accident.:D

    6. It doesn't change what I meant, I merely went into depth about how I came to the conclusion I did. ALSO a definition of undisputed is that it is "generally agreed upon" I would argue that it is the most generally agreed upon thing in game for being OP so technically it was the right use of the word. You may argue otherwise, but that is a correct form of the definition of undisputed and I did use it correctly. Argue as you may Theholyone but now I'm using the dictionary to my advantage, cower in fear!:eek: