There is a link between the rise of "infantryside" and the downfall of the games popularity

I describe you the consenquences of dying as infantry playing dumb, and you go on to repeat yourself that infantry carries no cost at all. What should I say to this, bravo? No comment.

That is in place to prevent that particular force multiplier from being spammed, and is a thing that doesn't even touch anyone who is an experienced tanker. I already explained you this point but you still bring it up like it's undisputed fact, I won't go on with this discussion if you don't place some actual counter-arguments.

Infantry doesn't get a nanite cost. Infantry is the basic unit, it is NOT a force multiplier. Force multipliers are more powerful than infantry and they have to be regulated in some manner, because they are more powerful when compared to the free basic unit.

Yes, getting farmed, dying over and over again and watching from the spawnroom while you lose the base are not costs of dying in your book, got it.

There is just.. so much wrong in here. Punishment for losing a base is that you lose position, you are losing the alert, the enemy is one step closer to your warpgate, they are outplaying you. I like how you like to mention competitiveness and how players aren't organized but then state something outlandish like "There is nothing lost when you lose a base". Also, FYI, control of Amerish gives you 50% less cost for consumables, which is for infantry. MAXes are also, for all intents and purposes, infantry, they operate in the same areas.

Face it, infantry are the basic unit of the game, force multipliers need some sort of limit to their spammability compared to the basic unit, because they are more powerful. The game won't become "16th infantry combined arms battalionside 2" no matter how much you preach it here. The people in charge of this game are smarter than that, thank goodness.[/quote]

Why do force multipliers have to be something that is not Infantry or, rather, anything that is not Infantry-centric? That sounds like a fairly hasty categorization of game elements.

If you're standing around in your spawn room because lanes of fire and entrenched enemies make it hard for you to get out alive, the base has already been lost. Whether though misfortune or failure, the gates have been undone and the battlements swarmed. There might have been a chnace to fight while most things nasty to you were outside but they then worked their ways into the nooks and onto the ledges that give them wonderful line of sight.
It may as well be the enemy's base, even if you own one shanty in it. It's not like having one teleport closet in a Biolab means you own the Biolab.

This video was clearly before the Magscatter got buffed. I would assume that therfore this was also before the hitbox exploit was fixed as well...

Infantry are the crew of ground and air units, also, there are maxes, that are infantry-centric force multipliers. The game devs had this in mind while designing this game, it's not a hasty categorization.

You didn't understand the context of what I wrote, he said that there is no cost of infantry playing dumb and dying, and I described that when you and your infantry team play dumb against a better infantry team you are obviously going to the spawnroom very soon. Everyone has to play smart to have fun and win, he claims it's only vehicles that have to.

That explains why I never use the Magscatter. For anything.

It's fancinating how so much hate comes out when you bring up that infantry have been getting progressively stronger as vehicles get progressively weaker.

To be fair, if you are stupid enough to stay inside the spawnroom while you are being spawncamped andlosing the base you are doing it wrong. Realize that the base is already lost, and redeploy elsewhere in order to either pull a counter and come from a different angle, countering the campers, or setup a defense at the next base in order to prevent the enemy from getting to a position where they can camp. Rushing out the same doorway 20 times and dying instantly is stupid, yet I see people doing it every day.

You know what they call it when someone repeats the same action over and over and expects a different result? Insanity. You know what they call it when someone realizes the state of the situation and adapts? Being smart. Be smart, not insane.

One could argue that force-multipliers are also regulated in the sense that they cannot change their loadouts with a moments notice and adapt to a new situation. Infantry on the other hand, can do JUST that, and are therefore able to deal with almost any situation if they aren't in an already lost battle (like you being spawncamped). (Ground) Vehicles are also pretty much forced to specialize to be competitive against their counters, leaving them vulnerable to everything else. Yes, and AP/ES-AV + Stealth + ES-ability is vulnerable to infantry if the infantry isn't stupid, and is also very vulnerable to air.

Another thing to consider besides nanite cost, is time. Infantry are going to be able to join the fight almost immediately after dying, especially considering the options available for spawning, like beacons, Sundies, Valks/Gals. Even if the base in question has a tank-terminal, it often isn't viable to spawn your tank there if you are defending the base, due to it being very unsafe. Tanks have to be pulled from terminals that aren't found in every base, already implying they are often going to spend time traveling before even getting to the fight. That very travel time can also be incredible dangerous depending on the terrain/situation, in the sense that you are moving without allies and you are vulnerable to enemies jumping you (especially aircraft). Then consider that you also need a Tech Plant or you risk having to travel upwards of 5 minutes (sometimes more actually) before even being able to join the fight.

Imagine the uproar if sometimes infantry-players would have to wait 5 minutes after dying before being able to join the fight again Yet we put up with it, and you are just ignoring it like it doesn't exist. Many infantry players would simply quit, and that's a fact.

That REALLY depends on how you are using your tank. If you are playing it safe and farming from within your zerg, you aren't a tanker, but rather a farmer. The tankers I know and respect prefer trying to have an impact in the larger fights, which often requires you to run significant risks as you aren't able to sway the outcome of such fights sitting within a friendly zerg or 300+m away. Also keep in mind that many of us aren't hesitating to pull a tank without the situation being "just right" for it, often increasing the risk further.

Going off on flanking maneuvers alone (or with a second tank) can be incredibly risky, but can also be very effective. Sometimes it just isn't your day though, and you are going to lose tanks. Acting like the nanite cost is irrelevant is naive. If you had included people with membership that get additional nanites then it would've helped, but just experienced tankers? I call BS.

Don't tell that to me, I know better than that. I was explaining to Mr Chingles here, that dumb infantry players are going to get really punished for playing dumb. He claims that "infantry can be incompetent and have fun", that is obviously not true.

Yes, but again, force multipliers are much better at what they specialize compared to infantry. An AP tank is going to kill another vehicle faster and effective than a squad of heavies. Which brings me to, if you're in an AP tank and you come across 5 heavies with cover, you should pull back until you get more armour or infantry support. Very vulnerable to air, again, your air support better be there, or you'll suffer. If you come across a vehicle or a group of infantry in the open, well, enjoy your kills. Rock, paper, scissors. Nobody's preventing you to switch to another loadout for your tank on your next respawn, too.

Yes, this is a limitiation of a force multiplier. You overhyped some things and shown some extreme situations, when most of the time the travel time from you to the battle is 2 minutes tops. Otherwise, what do you propose? Tanks materializing out of thin air on your last position so you can get back to doing what you were doing when you got C4'd because you stood in one spot, unaware?

It does happen, infantry en route in a sundy, people running over hills to the next base, people willing to stick to their lane and wait the enemy's push. I don't see that uproar anywhere, now?

Force multipliers need their limits, to prevent their chain-spawning and abusing. You get two tanks in a row (one tank, three minutes, second tank). If you got in a situation where you spent those 2 and you're out of resources, tough luck. You didn't adapt to the situation. You already have systems to lessen this, and those bonus resources for membership are probably one of the rare pay for advantage elements of the game. Your mistakes are much more forgiving, and frankly, I'm not a fan of that being included.

Otherwise, imagine there was a lack of nanite costs for vehicles. What would you place instead? WIthout this, vehicles could be pulled with impunity, no one would ever be able to push a lane between bases outside of outnumbering the enemy in vehicles 2 to 1. You would see tanks everywhere because they're free, lenient force multipliers that make individual players feel stronger.

Hey, nobody bullies Mag-Scatter on my watch! http://ps2.fisu.pw/killboard/?name=hegeteus&count=1000

When it gets a tighter hip fire spread, call me, I'll use it over the bestperado or the rebel

The exact same things apply to tanks of course. A tank that is being outgunned by either long-range infantry AV or opposing armour or air can only cower behind a rock, which isn't much "fun" at all.

Again, the only differences are that:
1) Infantry can get out of an unfun fight and into a fun fight much faster and with much less risk than a tank, by the magic of redeployside. Tanks, on the other hand, have to slowly drive from fight to fight, during which they could be destroyed as they withdraw.
2) Infantry do not have to pay a cost if they do not play intelligently... they are not denied the ability to participate as infantry. Tanks on the other hand do pay a cost and must play intelligently, or they are denied the ability to participate as tanks.

The infantry bias of the game is huge. Either make infantry cost resources to spawn or make vehicle free to spawn. It is that simple.

Heh, nice.

But in all seriousness, it's really not hard to get a lot of kills as a stalker, especially when you don't even need headshots.

I would argue that infantry can play MUCH more relaxed than vehicles can and still have fun in many more situations than it is possible with vehicles. But of course it relies on whatever the individual defines as "fun", so it is difficult to put forth something that applies to everyone. However, infantry are rarely punished for losing a base for instance, since they can just redeploy over to the next fight and continue fighting within 30seconds TOPS! If you lose a base in a tank (and perhaps die as well), you are going to have to fall further back and pull the tank, and god forbid you it was a Tech Plant you lost, as that will increase the time drastically in many situations. Infantry are always going to be able to find a worthwhile fight with some action, but a rather large amount of fights are practically off-limits for tanks, because of the terrain and/or population diversity.

Well, if they weren't better at what they specialize in, what would be the point of the vehicles in the first place? You are giving up so many things compared to playing infantry, that if you werent more effective in the single role you specialize in, then it would be useless. Also, keep in mind that most infantry weapons have a higher KPH/KPU than the HE-weapons had even in their non-nerfed state! I wouldn't claim those very HE tanks are much better at what they specialized in. They were perhaps better at farming in SOME situations, but they are practically useless for gaining ground in fights that aren't already decided.

No, that is a blatant lie, unless the HA's are terrible. And if they are terrible, I would like to claim that the AP tank is terrible aswell and in that case, it's most likely going to die at the first thing sneezing its way. Try getting 12 lock-ons/Lancers/Phoenixes together and just coordinate your attack slightly and they won't even be able to get close.

Wait, now I'm confused. Let me explain why: You claimed a full squad of HA's kill a tank slower than an AP tank would. An AP tank typically kills another tank in less than 10 seconds. 5 HA's (less than half of a full squad) will therefore (according to you) require ~20seconds (or more) to destroy a tank. That doesn't seem so dangerous to me Oh was your claim before exaggerated just slightly?

Here's the thing, tanks aren't only used within huge friendly zerg clumps, as that isn't where they shine in having an impact on the larger fights in my opinion. You aren't going to sway the tide of a large fight sitting and firing at targets your 50 other allies could also fire at, but rather by breaking off from the zerg and attackin from unexpected angles, enabling you to go after the highly prized targets (such as experienced enemy MBT crews, Stealth Sundies, Sundies in cover, etc). Once you break away from your allies (even as little as 50-75m) your air support quickly falters and for some reason often will not help you. Meaning you cannot always rely on air support if you want to actually be effective, rather than just farming rookies.

So, a single AP tanks meets 6 HA's of equal skill in open terrain without cover. What dies first? That's right, the AP tank does. Enjoy your deaths. Rock, paper, scissors my ****.

Right, let me change loadout and have to drive 2 minutes to get to the fight, but wait, when I arrive the fight has changed and suddenly something else is needed. That actually happens surprisingly often in a game such as PS2, at least if you are a vehicle-regular. It's not something infantry players are going to notice much though, for obvious reasons, like being to adpat to and counter anything at a moments notice.

Have you ever tried tanking on Esamir? Only 1/3 chance of having less than 3-5 minutes travel time. Amerish often also has quite incredible travel times if you don't have a Tech Plant (and the Tech Plants themselves aren't neccesarily the most defensible locations there). I don't play on Hossin, so cannot comment there. Often you don't neccesarily want to go to the nearest available fight, as it might not be suitable for a tank (Bio Lab fight for example, or underground/treetop base) which also increases travel time. Whereas infantry can redeploy and get to any fight within 30seconds or so. And if they are going to join the same fight they were in, they can do so almost immediately. A tank simply cannot do so often. I've used MBT's for over 1k hours, I don't think I overhyped it as much as you would like.

I'm not proposing a change, I'm simply stating things the way they actually are, from someone who has spent a LOT of time in MBTs, and therefore know many of the limitations. The travel time can be VERY annoying, especially if you aren't playing at prime-time, meaning you are even more exposed to enemy aircraft and likely to spend more time traveling (meaning more time being vulnerable to aircraft).

Wait, you claimed tanks never spend more than 2 minutes TOPS to get to a base, how can a Sundy (which can be pulled from ANY base) suddenly need 5 minutes? You are contradicting yourself here. Feel free to elaborate, but I simply cannot see how a Sundy can spend 5 minutes unless you are trying to flank the enemies (time I didn't include in the 3-5 minutes for tanks to get to the fight, if you include the flanking time [and cat-n-mouse games] then it can take significantly longer for tanks). Sundies are also MUCH safer to use between bases for infantry, as they can actually defend themselves competently against aerial threats.

Rarely is it going to take 5 minutes to run from 1 base to another, and IF it takes that long, it Means there is fighting to be done on the way, resulting in them not wasting 5 minutes getting to the NeXT fight. They could also just redeploy back to their base, spawn a Sundy (which is needed for the assault anyways) and get there even faster, and help their faction to boot. Even people playing like ******* (running to the next base without Sundies etc) aren't going to spend 5 minutes running without a fight, unless the enemies abandoned the next base.

Wait, this actually happens? I thought everyone was busy being spawncamped and not bothering redepping to the next base, at least based on all the complaints

Because most of the examples you gave aren't even close to requiring the aforementioned 5 minutes.

Or you just got plain unlucky? It happens, especially in a game of this scale, and when you aren't zerg-humping your allies like some little CoD kid. But I guess most people just see tanks and immediately think they are only staying in groups. Let me give you a heads-up, if you see a tank in a large zerg, chances are its a rookie. The best tankers are almost always breaking off from the zerg in order to do their own thing, as it is generally much more effective. Breaking off from the zerg leaves you vulnerable to many things.

I'm not proposing a lack of vehicle costs, I'm simply responding to your arguments. I'm not trying to get tanks to be free or anything, I'm simply refuting claims I think aren't entirely true.

"We want more balance between all aspects of PS2's Combined eco-system" =/= "Vehicles should shoot nukes"

Remember that people who are fighting against this thread.