The Ultimate Combined Arms Thread (Tanks vs Infantry)

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

  1. Cpmartins

    Please, the AV turret videos Eskimo linked? I can do better than that, unfortunately my setup can't record reliably. Me going 40/0 while setting up in a moderately favorable position is NOT anecdotal. And I'm not even a exceptional player. AV turrets ARE OP. There is NO reasonable discussion to be had about that, the ONLY discussion to be had is how to get them in-line to other AV options because, as it is now, engineers are the best option for taking out armor at long range.
    • Up x 1
  2. theholeyone

    1. Disagreeing with the basic meaning of the word isn't the best way to show your point has merit, but each to their own.

    2. They mean incidental as opposed to systematic in that context. Your examples are incidental in that they occur by chance and without intention to represent the average use. Learn the launguage, disagreeing with the dictionary just to save face on the internet does you argument no good.

    3. It is your own fault if you stay in a position where you cannot back up. I think you should try harder to multitask, easy to say it can't be done, harder but more productive to actually do it. That's not my logic at all, and I'm confused as to how you got there...

    4. So try and get C4 composite put in so there is a counter, that is something that will likely get more support that just a C4 nerf.

    5. You need to think about the meaning a bit more, it's doesn't mean chance in the motivation of those in the anecdote, but chance in why that anecdote was picked to be representative of AV mana use.

    6. Using a dictionary to your own advantage? By chance are you writing it yourself. The following says nothing about general agreement, but a lot about universal agreement as per the definition I was using. It's from wikitionary btw.
    "undisputed (comparative more undisputed, superlative most undisputed)
    Universally agreed upon; not disputed
    Unchallenged and accepted without question"

    7. Just take a read through, and see how far you have derailed you own thread in order to avoid admitting your errors in the use of the language. Why do you got to such lengths to avoid admitting your error here?
    • Up x 1
  3. Jachim

    The main issue I actually have with AV Turrets and C4 is they do not in any way promote teamwork or the 'combined' aspect of 'combined arms'. AV turrets especially have no real challenge or counter. They can simply sit out there, and if they get fired upon usually have enough time to let go of the turret before an enemy shell even hits it, in which case they can set it up seconds later and continue.

    Skill in use is irrelevant, it's the same issue as snipers for infantry. They only annoy and hinder singular enemies and in the grand scheme, do not in any way contribute when the enemy has, essentially, limitless numbers. AV turrets can sometimes turn the tide on battle, and when used in groups, with others to support, not sitting on a mountaintop a mile from the battle, they can be very good. I love my AV turret, but I also am right there with my armor, repping them, hopping on and firing a round off whenever I can, etc.

    AV turrets with the current range, are basically just snipers for armor. Their range being reduced would help FORCE them to actually play as a team and I'm all for that. At least snipers can't destroy 450 resources in a few seconds flat and simply annoy the enemy.

    C4, I've argued many times before, is a solo-players wet dream. It's specifically designed right now to allow a single light assault, or pod-dropping heavy/medic/engy/etc to OHK (don't try to argue that it's not OHK, you only pull the trigger once, no matter the setup time).

    There are no teamwork needs for C4 at all. It's perfect and cathartic to use, and makes you feel good when you ruin some tankers day, but it forces 'teamwork' from the tankers more than it does from the C4 user ie: your gunner has to constantly look around you at all times else the C4 fairy flies in. The only excuse the C4-user has is 'well be more aware next time n00b lololololz'.

    It should not be able to OHK a tank. Period. There shouldn't be any need for a tanker to cert into C4 resistance, but I would take that over the current system, but honestly, the C4-users should be forced to work in teams, just as a tanker is forced to work as a team to avoid them.
    • Up x 2
  4. theholeyone

    Both are specialised items which require specialised counters. So while they do not promote team zerging, they do promote team work in a combined arms sense.

    AV mana nest's ideal counter is an air raid, calling one in is team work. Setting up an AV nest in the appropriate place is beneficial for your team by stopping an armor swarm.
    C4 doesn't get much benefit from being used as a team, but as you say, it forces the other side to use teamwork to counter it. Though, there have certainly been times when it is used as a team, with some members distracting the tanker so one can plant C4 on it. Imo it is a necessary weapon to prevent tanks running amok and camping everything in CQC.
  5. Cpmartins

    AV mana nests counter is anything that can get them. Infantry, harassers, Air, etc. Setting up and AV nest is beneficial, too beneficial, too easy, too inexpensive, too CHEAP. Do you FINALLY see the problem now? 10 AV turrets CANNOT DENY a 800m radius area around them. Please stop trying to defend this ****. It's embarrassing. It breaks Armor game EVERY TIME anyone runs into it. I've been on both ends of that game. It's pretty entertaining when you get to be on the giving end. Not so much the other way around.
    Oh jesus are you STILL going on about the camping thing? I'm done trying to discuss anything you you. Failing basic reading comprehension. I guess I'm CAMPING you right now in the forums right? Well, according to you, I AM!!!
    • Up x 1
  6. EliteEskimo

    1. See the cool thing about words is that they have multiple interpretations, but indeed to each is own. I'm merely defending a well written thread that you are trying to soil by claiming it's full of exaggerations and bias when in actuality all you have on me is the word undisputed, to which I found a definition that matches exactly what I was saying, and can be replaced with "the vast majority" which in all honesty accomplishes the exact same thing lol.

    2. No the videos I used are great for describing the the average use of the AV turret at long range in a battle with tanks. They didn't hit every shot, but they still were very effective. It's clear the people weren't some MLG characters, just your average user!

    CPMartins who posted above you is the perfect example as not only does he tank a lot he also uses the AV turret . He's telling you the videos aren't anecdotal and that he can do better. CPmartins is a skilled indivdual, and he's telling you that he can do way better thus meaning those users were definitely average if not below average and still rolling face with the AV turret. I used a definition of the dictionary to prove you wrong, I didn't make it up lol! Third definition down on the link

    3. Ya it's my fault for using cover in the middle of a battle, probably hiding from AV turrets or lock on's, and having a random LA come flying over me. Or ya it's my fault that a noob tanker parked behind me well I was focused on killing a tank infront of me. Sure completely avoidable...:rolleyes:

    4. I already have, and might make another thread about it in the future. As of right now certable C4 armor hasn't been accepted, and while I won't have you to argue with about it other people will argue MBT c4 armor is OP. It's a lose lose situation really.

    5. I don't need to think about the definition, it's put in words for me in the dictionary.
    " based on incidental observations or reports rather than systematic evaluation."
    incidental- "occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation"

    Nothing in the videos I posted happened by chance, the users weren't MLG pro, they were average players, and they were up on hill tops to farm armor because they knew what would happen if they deployed an AV turret there which is why they were there in the first place. Therefor they are not up there by chance either. There is nothing anecdotal about those films, and would you look at that, another player right above you disagrees with you about that as well.

    6. As I have shown you with links I'm using the dictionary's definitions. I"m using Merriam Webster and the free-dictionary, they were number one when I was looking up words in Google to make sure I had the definition right. I'm not getting into a "whose dictionary is better" war with you, but the fact is I found two separate dictionaries which in fact proved you wrong. Once again the videos represent the average user, in the average long distance scenario with armored targets present. All the videos had people in those spots because they knew that if they were there they could farm armor. Nothing in the videos was by chance, nothing in it was cherry picked, and therefore once again non of the videos are anecdotal evidence.

    7. Frankly a lot of the points you brought up someone at some point or other would bring up making it entirely relevant to the discussion and not derailing the thread. I'm merely eliminating criticisms of my ideas put forth while bumping the thread keeping it noticed so more people can take notice and comment. On a side note you got me to use the dictionary and learn that there are multiple definitions of the word undisputed. I'm actually enjoying myself at this point. :)
    • Up x 1
  7. Aesir

    I think it's save to say that we agree to disagree on those points, I stated why I think it's not enough. It's again just a cheap fix avoiding the elephant in the room. Vehicle combat overall needs to change and Tanks need a defined role because right now they serve no purpose, they got nothing unique about them that screams "We need Tanks to do this" ...

    PlanetSide 1 avoided this entire topic. Spawn Rooms were underground inside bases. They only had locked doors as protection which could be opened by everybody except MAXes. There were painfields in there but once Infantry was able to get in, the terminals and more importantly the spawn tubes could just be destroyed by Infantry.

    So once the Infantry Zerg reached the inside of the spawn room it was almost over all the time and the defenders had no option to spawn anymore. Which often lead to the defenders massing up Vehicles in their next base and clearing the outside of the base again, destroying all mobile spawn points of the attacker and than resecure the CC.

    Base fights had a very organic structure to them in PS1, atleast that's how I saw it. You pushed with your Vehicles towards it, cleared the courtyard using both Infantry and Vehicles, than Infantry pushed inside, took out important key elements of the base and started the cap. The Defender usually had 2 things he needed to defend depending on base design.

    In some bases the CC was up top and hard to reach for the defender and also they had to cross Vehicle terrain for a few meters(AMP) or the CC was up top and had multiple ways in from the top(tech) or the generator powering everything, including spawn was on the top(biolab, perhaps the worst to defend base).

    And than there were dropship centers which shared the Interlink main facility which was a pure farm fest. Hence why it was called Interfarm ...

    Point is, the current system looks just like a ripoff from battlefield combining MCOMs with Conquest ...
  8. theholeyone

    1 and 6. Yes there is multiple interpretations, but none of which I have seen show undisputable to mean, only in dispute a little bit.

    2 and 5. What was your method of selection to ensure the videos were a sample representative of the average use? I was under the impression you just picked some youtube vids at random. Or in your dictionary words, what was your intention or calculation used to select the videos then? how do you know they were average players in average situations?

    3. It's your fault for not having an exit strategy in the case of LA fairies.

    4. All the best for that then.

    7. All good then, I'm glad I'm getting you part of an education (what school level have you got through btw?), I'll continue to endeavor to round out the job.
    • Up x 1
  9. theholeyone

    Fair call, we've both made our points I think, now just wait to see where SOE goes with it.

    I like that approach also, anything to create more of an end to work towards as attackers instead of spawn camping waiting out the timer is likely to be an improvement.

    Simply put, bases need courtyards and Infantry AV weaponry needs to be toned down a bit. I agree.
    I also really like this idea:
    Seems almost like a perfect solution. Those shields could be powered by an additional shield gen, which would then ofc mean an additional objective, and we're in dire need of more objectives anyways Imo.
    • Up x 1
  11. FABIIK

    Interesting idea, but itseems a bit out of place to me... Kind of an 'artificial' gameplay modificator...

    You mean like the upcoming dome shields?;) As long as it improves gameplay I'm all for it (that's not to say that I think that we need dome shields. quite the opposite actually). I believe that those shields could be easily designed so that they fit into the environment, unlike dome shields Imo. Nevertheless because they're dynamic, and thus not always active/ visible in the first place.
  13. Jachim

    Yet again, forcing those opposed to AV turrets and C4 to have the means and methods to 'counter' solo-players. Players whos entire means and methods DICTATE SOLELY that they are only in it for themselves and their own satisfaction and are not in any way helping their team.

    Sorry, I cannot agree with you on this obviously. I also hope that SOE takes a stance that, perhaps, is in between our differences.

    That is, of course, if they even take this entire thread seriously at all, which... knowing their past... I find doubtful.:rolleyes:
  14. theholeyone

    Team play is a different issue from balance. There is always going to be things that when used solo require a special counter. Even things like solo libs require AA. Solo tankers require AV. Is the problem that with AV Mana turrets the solution is not direct fire? What is the problem with C4 guys, as that is an easier and more direct counter than AA.
  15. Thrustin

    Yes yes, keep on complaining that C4 promotes lone wolfs while you're steamrolling that other infantry squad with your solo MBT. Hypocrite.

    As long as it takes nothing more than one person to drive a MBT, it should take no more than one person to remove it from the battlefield.
    • Up x 1
  16. Greenies

    Narrow train of thought though.
    C4-ing a tank does not take the same type of effort bringing and affording a tank does.
  17. vanu123

    AV turrets are fine and just need some game wide tweaks to render distance. Rocket launchers are also fine if anything the Lancer needs a buff, but I could care less. Lock ons are fine outside of the striker against ESFs. C4 is fine the way it is because if you stay mobile, look up, get a gunner, run prox, and dont put yourself near cliffs and towers, you reduce your chances of being C4d to effectively zero. Most of these problems will probably be fixed when the resource revamp goes into play.
    • Up x 1
  18. DuckSauce


    Also, if C4 is a problem
  19. miraza

    I agree that AV turrets are ridiculous because the user can sit in perfect safety without being noticed by anyone. But C4? You put yourself in a lot of risk and there's so many variables that go into getting off a successful C4 run that includes the response time and situational awareness of the tank driver, gunner, and whether the tank is surrounded by infantry (you know, combined arms) who are paying attention. To consider C4 'OP' betrays more than a little bias.
    • Up x 1
  20. Thrustin

    Narrow train of thought though,
    Driving a tank does not take the same type of effort bringing and affording C4 does.