The Ultimate Combined Arms Thread (Tanks vs Infantry)

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

  1. EliteEskimo

    1. At this point I've pointed to you definitions that have proved you wrong and yet you ignored them so GG I guess.

    2. When I picked the videos they were indeed picked at random, in the videos the players don't come off as advanced and as CP Martins posted above you he can be far more effective then they could thus leading one to believe that the players in the videos were average since Martin's is a skilled player that I actually know in game. The funny thing is though from your comments it seems you haven't been on the receiving end enough to know any average joe and keep a cross hair on a tank in a open field which has no where to run. You can try to say that these players aren't average, but then that is for you prove, and from what I've seen they aren't special only people keeping the dot on the tank or Sunderer. Either way you know the videos aren't anecdotal and at this point you as grasping at Straws.

    3. Sometimes it isn't possible because you need to find cover that very moment or lose your tank, it's becoming increasing apparent that you don't even drive tanks meaning you can't stay relevant in the conversation

    4. Ya if you don't give a crap about tanks which obviously you don't since you don't drive them regularly, because leaving things as is isn't for the best.

    7. Ah so it has finally happened, you've gone from skimming the thread to asking questions that the thread already answered to back to trying to insult me. Lol I was wondering how long you could keep the act up. Apparently Zib did have you pin pointed from the beginning. I'm finishing up my final year at my university and if all goes as planned will graduate with honors in my class. Oh but excuse me for admitting to learning multiple definitions of a word. It was fun using your own tactics against you, but now that you have no points left and are merely insulting me and grasping at Straws for your points I think it is time to end our conversation because now you are in fact derailing the thread. See ya:)
    • Up x 1
  2. DeadliestMoon

    Eh, I was with you until I read the "tanks should help infantry capture points" part. No, capturing points should be up to infantry only.
    • Up x 1
  3. Shadowyc

    Think he meant help them get close to the point so infantry can capture the point. It'll still be up to us, tanks and whatnot will just be a lot more useful than "Point Cannon at Spawn, Open Fire."
  4. theholeyone

    1. No you haven't, on the sites you listed I couldn't find the definitions you spoke of.

    2. So you had no intention or calculation to select the videos to ensure they were a representative sample. Even by your convoluted definition they are still, anecdotal.

    3. I play LA a lot, and get killed by tankers a lot, and tank a bit myself. However I don't blame other things if I set up in a poor position, I don't expect my tank to always have an out as you seem to. They cost 450 resources, that should mean they are a bit hardier than most units (they certainly are) but not ready to counter anything the game throws at them.

    4. From a tanker's perspective maybe not. But it is a combined arms game, o infantry needs to have a go too.

    7. Insult you? Dude it was just a question as I'm curious, no need to be so precious. I think you're looking for an excuse to bow out because you have now done more research and know your initial claim were flawed; you could just say so, it's not like you're going to lose face at this point.
    • Up x 1
  5. SuBs

  6. KlyptoK

    "good infantry" is an oxymoron. no one who uses infantry regularly is good. thats why they use them..
    • Up x 5
  7. KlyptoK

    Hey, I'm still reading this thread but I did want to stop and say you guys are making the discussion very difficulty to follow. There is a lot of derailment, drama, reiterations of the same opinions and personal issues scattered throughout it on both sides. IMO it's a lot of spam that I have to read through, but I'm still going to try and read the whole thread anyways so I can properly enter the discussion.
    • Up x 1
  8. EliteEskimo

    Hey Thurstin, it's nice you could relate to most of the thread and I'm glad I could have a reasonable LA in the thread. Sorry for the delay in response but I had to deal with people calling my evidence anecdotal. Not all bases need to be completely vehicle accessible, but I do believe that all bases need to be able to be impacted by vehicles in some form .

    Courtyards are my favorite because at least that way infantry have a good chance at fighting back up close and at medium range where they should be fighting in the first place. There are other bases on Esamir that vehicles can't impact by going inside, but they can impact by shelling everything inside to kingdom come. I'll do it if I have to but I personally find it boring, the certs are nice, but certs don't mean much when you have limited time to game. As a LA assault player courtyards help you use building and cover to flank tanks better than you normally could out in the open, and this is why I like the balance of courtyards. Vehicles can fight right up to the buildings with generators, but can't capture the buildings without the help of infantry. Infantry can support tanks in courtyards, tanks can support infantry as they fight up to the buildings with generators.

    As a tanker I want more roles, I want to help out my outfit more on the battlefield, and currently on some bases I'm forced to wait outside twiddling my thumbs. I can't park my tank without it disappearing, and I wish it wouldn't disappear so I could hop in my Max suit and Gatling gun down some infantry along side BWC's Infantry task forces. I'm actually thinking that would be a good idea, like a sorta optional dispawn timer which after it counted down it could bring up a question on whether you wanted to keep the vehicle spawned. It would give you 60 seconds to decide, and if you said yes you could keep the tank spawned, if you said no it would disappear, and if you didn't answer it would disappear.

    I'm sort of confused by your last statement, you want to up the armor of tanks, and increase the damage of AP/HEAT Rounds (It sure would put Harasser's back in their place :D), which I obviously wouldn't have a problem with. However if we upped the armor of tanks wouldn't that serve as an indirect or passive C4 nerf? I know you wouldn't mind some sort of Blockade Armor, which I may in the future try to make my own personal thread toward, but I've never heard you suggest an Armor buff before:eek:

    1. "Generally agreed upon", second one down under Thesaurus. But look dude I'll tell you what, I'll agree that to avoid confusion in the future I should use statements like " The Vast Majority" to account for a small minority if there is one. It's more or less accomplishing the same thing, which is to say that the AV turret is so OP the discussion about it being OP generally isn't even controversial , it's more of an accepted fact since the vast majority of people of all factions agree it is OP. It's along the same lines of undisputed, but again I didn't account for the extremely small minority saying it's not OP.

    2. You can't bring calculation into the videos, if you can please explain how, and the burden of proof is upon you to show that all four of those players I showed aren't representative of the game population. I gave my reasoning as to why they are representative and I had another person come in to back up that those players were likely the average AV turret user. CPMartins is a good shot with the AV Turret, and from what he saw those people were okay but certainly not as good as him who is above average. Bad AV turret users are easy to kill, but the average ones I bump into sit up on far away hills like shown in the videos.

    3. A MBT should have an option to counter something that Instagib's them when both the Sunderer and Harasser doThe Harasser can be just as if not more effective at killing infantry, and its survivability makes it roughly as good as killing other tanks if it can flank the tank. Tanks are slow and and require to be still more than Harassers to be accurate, therefor they are easier target to hit with C4 and it makes sense to give them composite armor to cert into.

    7. How could I not find what you said insulting,
    You are saying you're glad I'm getting part of an education, which is implying I never had part of any education to begin with. Why is my level of education relevant, it adds absolutely nothing of relevance to the discussion and I'd rather not getting into an academic bragging contest. Then to top it off you basically go on to say you'll continue to try and give me part of an education by continuing "your endevor"? You're not fooling anyone lol...
    • Up x 1
  9. theholeyone

    1. Oh I see where you're going wrong. The first part of the sentence is not a definition in itself, it is just part of one. The other part that follows says 'not subject to dispute'. In that context generally agreed upon just means people have actually thought about it; which actually makes that definition more specific than the ones I used. But that definition still makes your first use of the word wrong. In future, why not just state your opinions as your own? Saying thing like the vast majority agree with me, sounds bad unless it is self evident or supported, and in both those cases it would make the statement superfluous anyway.

    2. We've been over this, an excuse as to why you can't get anything better than anecdotal evidence does not elevate the anecdotal evidence you can find, to something more. What goes on youtube is not average use, what youtube finds in a 'random' search is likely to find popular ones, which again selects a biased subset of use. A couple of guy's opinions on what is average use, is also anecdotal, because you haven't done any work to ensure those guys opinions are representative of the average.

    3. It does have the option, but that is all it is an option, if you choose to play in such a way to remove that option, it is your own fault. I've already said I'd like to see turret stabilization a thing, to give tanks more mobility. It's about giving more options, rather than taking some away from one side to help tanks be stop, point, and shoot, which requires less skill.

    7. Oh it was condescending, don't get me wrong there, but not insulting. It doesn't imply that btw, it's like if I said I was getting you part of car, could be some windscreen wipers for a car you already have, nowhere is it implied you do not have other parts. Like I said, you're being a bit precious and looking for insults where there are none. I honestly would have guessed you education level as lower, I found it of interest to see if my guess was right, clearly it was not; if I had to guess again though, I'd say it was in a course having little to do with the english language and it's subtleties, perhaps something like computer sciences. As in #1, and #2, you're still not quite understanding the words as they are defined, so I will continue to endeavor to explain them to you.
  10. Naivesteve

    I play all sides of this game; I have most cert lines and equipment. If you honestly think the AV turret is not overpowered I have to LOL. Better yet, groups of lancer teams picking off armor well out of render distance is a fun and rewarding gameplay mechanic (sarcasm).

    I use the AV turret all the time, it's an absolute joke.
    • Up x 1
  11. Unclematos7

    Terrans with Anihilators? This can't be real.
    • Up x 1
  12. Takoita

    Now, my response to yet another C4 whinefest was needlessly confrontational and somewhat childish, but all 'arguments' in favour of nerfing it (and that's what it people here ask for, make no mistake) I see here were refuted quite effectively in that 'C4 vs MBT' monster of a thread we had a little time ago (I think there were whole two of them going at the same time). If you've forgotten it already, I invite to use the search function and refresh your memory.

    I don't want to come off as a troll, but OP still seems b u t t h u r t about his posts being laughed out in that discussion. For all his stated desire to be constructive he seems to refuse to consider that his choice of positioning may be incorrect despite numerous posters repeatedly pointing out it to him.
    • Up x 1
  13. EliteEskimo

    1. No the vast majority are agreeing that the AV Turret is OP is widely known and accepted. You have likely not seen more than a few people that think it is balanced and this thread alone speaks for itself if the videos and everything else didn't already . I can see you arguing about me using a definition slightly wrong, but if you argue that the majority of people don't realize and agree the AV turret is OP you are instantly losing credibility on the subject at hand.

    2. No one else has had a problem with the videos and what they display, only you have, they aren't displaying chance situations in game and you know it but for some odd reason are trying to argue otherwise. These videos offer perfect examples of what is wrong with Launchers and AV Turret and suffice as evidence for the vast majority of people or in other words everyone but you so far. If you can't admit that the videos are a great examples to display what is wrong with launchers and AV Turrets you are hopelessly biased.

    All you would need to do is regularly play in a tank during a large battle to know all the videos I posted are a daily and constantly occurring situation. To suggest otherwise is foolish. You have no Mathematical or Statistical Analysis to offer me as your definition of "proper evidence" for this thread, and you know it's not obtainable, so you are now nitpicking the thread and the videos to be a jack wagon if nothing else.

    3. There is not an option to completely counter C4 on your tank. There is no direct counter for C4 on a MBT, a direct counter for C4 would be composite armor which only exists on Sunderer's and Harasser.

    7. Well considering you find yourself to be intellectually superior to myself it's pretty dimwitted of you to not understand that people get mad/insulted when you talk to them in a condescending nature. Having a lack of an education is typically associated to being arrogant or stupid or both. So by talking to me in a condescending tone, thinking like I had a lack of an education (which came off in your wording whether you attempted to hide it or not), then asking what level of education I had, then saying you will help provide me with one is a completely valid reason to be insulted because you're basically implying I'm stupid.

    Furthermore you car example is a horrible one, because while you may only be trying to provide me with wipers or the correct definition of disputed, you are at the same time calling the entire car a poor piece of machinery, or in your own words
    So what it comes down to is you being socially inept, or the fact that you don't care about being rude/disrespectful towards myself. Take your pick.

    What I said was helping infantry get up to the points but not being able to capture them by themselves. I'd never want a situation where tanks could capture a base without the assistance of infantry because than it would detract from the whole combined arms aspect of the game I"m trying to strengthen.:) .

    Laughed out? My posts weren't laughed out they were literally trolled hard core, a thread was started with myself in the OP's post to attack me, and I was the target of numerous baseless ad hominems that held no weight against me or my playstyle. I was constantly accused of liking to spawn farm infantry and being a tank baddie when there was no evidence to suggest that. Furthermore Takoita behind the scenes I talked to several LA's and they all agreed that giving MBT's a type of composite armor would be balanced. Jak, Mythricrose, and Thrustin to name 3. However since the developers decided to basically mess around with proximity radar as their attempt to fix the problem, which did nothing by the way, I decided to bring up a different solution. Making C4 directional would still allow you to solo a MBT if you got behind it, it rewards you for flanking a MBT the same way you get rewarded against a MBT using any other AV threat. But LA's want to be special and just instagib it even if the C4 lands on the ground infront of the tank with front armor facing the C4.
    • Up x 1
  14. theholeyone

    1. Have you done a survey? Whineside 2 is not really the place to go for unbiased info. Not really worried if you take the suggestion or not, but I'll call you out on BS next time too. Nice to see you've acknowedged you used the term wrong though, cross #1 off the list, progress!

    2. Its still not a popularity contest. No, quite the opposite actually, the problem is they aren't displaying chance situations, there is a very real bias away from pure chance, and that is what makes them anecdotal, in addition to there not being enough to be a representative sample anyway. They do show what is wrong with them, which is also why they are an anecdote, they are made to show a specific thing, that is bias.
    I know I'm nitpicking, but you keep trying to tell me your anecdotal evidence is more than that, admit it is not and I will have less to nitpick about.

    3. I didn't say there was a hard counter option, but driving away from where the C4 is, is a soft counter option.

    7. Does it look like I care if you get mad when I condescend to you? I actually find the tone of your posts condescending when you keep exaggerating things, the implication is that you opinions are worth more than mine because you talk your own opinions up by claiming they are representative of the larger proportion. Your posts are what imply you are stupid and arrogant, no need to shoot the messenger for saying so.
    You really can't take criticism can you? Saying your writing is bad is not a personal insult, its a suggestion that you improve your writing, that is why I've stuck around to try and help you do that.
    Definitely the latter, though there's a dash of the former in there too.
  15. Thrustin

    Of course. There should be two "types" of bases, in terms of how vehicles influences them.
    One type which can be affected directly by vehicles, such as the amp station with its courtyard or other, more open bases, where you can be directly involved in the fight.
    The other type is indirectly affected by bases, as in you cannot directly enter the base due to walls or terrain, and neither shell its spawn rooms, but you affect the "logistic lines" of it, such as incoming sunderers or tanks, or whenever the resource revamp happens, the resource gathering vehicle. Such bases are like biolabs, or some of the newly designed bases on esamir.

    I fully understand that point, and these scenarios still should continue to persist. However, like mentioned above, there still should exist certain bases which you cannot directly influence with vehicles. Just so you have a little variety and pure infantry fights.

    I never really understood the purpose of the vehicle timer, it personally makes no sense to even have it in. This thing should be manual. If I want to despawn my vehicle, let me do it whenever I want, if I want to keep it, let me keep it for how ever long I want. If people are afraid of griefers despawning their vehicles before you destroy it, you can add the same mechanic as to the redeploy function on infantries.

    A lot of people think I'm some sort of MBT-hating C4 fairy, because of my stance on C4. It's actually quite the opposite. I love tanks, even though I suck at the big ones, mainly drive lightnings myself, if at all. But I think the tanks in PS2 are a joke.
    Infantry rocket launchers cut through MBT armor like butter, if you drive a AP MBT, you need to backtrack from a charging heavy, just because it has no splash and you have no coaxial MG. If you hit infantry with splash from a HE shell, it survives the hit, no matter how close it was.
    Currently when I see a MBT, I do not really fear it. I know I can get rid of it if I really wanted to. I would love to see them being the behemoth they deserve to be.
    Don't get me wrong, I don't want them to be godlike. Mines and C4 still should be a serious threat to them, as should groups of heavies.

    I'd like to see changes in the following:

    1) Bring back splash on AP.
    2) Make the inner splash radius one shot infantry.
    3) Remove the HE reload nerf
    4) Up the rear armor and the side armor a little.
    5) Buff AP/HEAT damage on all kinds of vehicles in accordance to the buff above, AP more than HEAT. That is, all AP rounds on MBT, Lightning, Liberator, Base defenses, etc.
    6) Several buff the base defenses armor and fire power. They should withstand with ease fights of 2 vs 1, with some skill even 3 vs 1.

    Currently infantry is better at countering vehicles than vehicles are. With above changes, I'm hoping to make vehicles the king of anti-vehicle combat.
    • Up x 1
  16. Vortok

    Infantry AV range is an issue, as right now you can often defend a base under attack while you're a base away. 300m actually risks being too short, though. The last thing we need is for tanks to be able to shell infantry while infantry can't fight back. Somewhere between 300 and 350 is probably the sweet spot, but I don't know enough about infantry render distances to have a more specific distance since when they render can vary so much. AA range can probably stay at +100m from ground lock on range, given how fast air vehicles move. The 500m range on air lock ons at the moment is a bit silly as well, though I suppose we'll see how the incoming AA lock on changes play out. Making infantry render from even further away wouldn't help anything (especially in large battles where they barely render 100m away) - they're too small to actually shoot back at and it would just let vehicles spam an area with explosives hoping to hit stuff.

    The AV turret can't just be changed to 'loses control and fires straight after a certain distance' because that still wrecks Sunderers from miles away since there's plenty of time to line up the target - plenty of people can already line up the target and then jump out of the turret while it cools down to be a bit safer from return fire if they're close enough for that to be a factor. Either it gets a lot of drop or just detonates/disappears past a certain range. Likely needs a tad more than lock ons since it has to fly there, often not in a straight line.

    The main reason that it isn't seen as such a big problem is that many servers realized continental conquest is meaningless (Either Mattherson needs to get with the times, or the server just likes to troll with anything available - which is pretty likely based on stories about its average playerbase) so a lot of people stopped camping on random rocks to deny vehicles and instead just farm at bases. When/if we get a 'metagame' that's significant enough to pursue, you can bet people will start pulling out long range AV/AA nests far more frequently.

    As for courtyards, vehicles contributing to base captures is nice, but there needs to be a clear area (beyond spawn camping) that infantry has a major role, if not the only option. If you talk to infantry players they'll tell you plenty about AI Harassers squeezing into areas of a base that most tanks would consider it suicidal to be at. Vehicles helping get to the points, or helping with one of the points maybe. Helping capture all of them? We had that and it was a bit much even before Harassers were released.

    2 C4 killing tanks is fine. What I don't like how much damage a single brick does. It's enough to set a Lightning on fire reducing its speed and maneuverability and pretty much puts a MBT on the borderline of red health as well. 1 C4 + a rocket (not even to the rear) is a monstrous amount of damage. C4 is also an issue against MAXs. Getting gibbed by a single C4 from full health is not fun or interesting and all too easy to do as a panic response. Not quite sure how flak armor interacts with a MAX's innate resists, but max rank flak should let the MAX survive 2 C4. C4 also does a bit too much to Sunderers, in my opinion. The damage in general is just a wee bit high all around. I don't feel that making it easy for tanks to survive 2 C4 is the answer, though. Tanks are spammable and a lot of the ones that are spammed are HEAT or AI focused, so infantry needs a way to deal with them effectively at close ranges with more than two classes (and the MAX is of questionable effectiveness at close range).

    Eisa is a terrible base to tank at, even moreso than most Tech Plants. A lot of bases in general are just terrible to try to defend in a vehicle though, which just leads to attackers sitting in vehicles against defenders spamming infantry unless an organized group does a counter push from another base (because if you don't group up, you just piecemeal yourself into the attacker's vehicles). Plenty of Esamir bases in particular have very few places, if any, for defending vehicles to retreat to. Center of Esamir is just rough for defensive vehicle play in general.
  17. MarlboroMan-E

    Great posts, even if I disagree with almost everything you said. Well thought out, and well written - but with a massive bias towards tank play, and not combined arms play. I personally use my lightning tank to great effect.
    • Up x 2
  18. Vastly

    This is a point I've made before. Base defense isn't a combined arms game. When the fighting reaches the base, the defenders generally don't have any vehicles, these need to come from somewhere else. Allowing vehicles any major role in this phase of the battle simply doesn't improve gameplay for anyone who isn't in it for a turkey shoot (unfortunately, many people do jump in tanks for exactly this reason).

    Your points about using vehicles on defense are also well made. It's easy to get a group of infantry together to mount a defense. It's a lot harder to get a group of vehicles together for defense and having numbers on your side is much more important for vehicles than it is for infantry. Noone wants to risk their resources pulling a vehicle on defense because they know it's likely to achieve little more than give the enemy free certs.
  19. Jachim

    HAHAHAHAA. Wow. There is maybe two people defending C4 as it currently is implimented and the vast majority of repliers (on that thread and this one, go read it again pal) feeling it should be fixed.

    It's a terribly impliemnted system that severely imbalances the gameplay and that thread you claim resolved the dispute in fact only inflamed it further. C4 is childish and silly, it's made simply for solo players to suicide kill tanks currently and it needs to be nerfed. :)
  20. Jachim

    What? Do you even know what combined arms means? Tanks and infantry.

    Not infantry and infantry with maybe one tank off in the distance being useless (ie: how it is now).

    Bias? lol.