To make this game popular

Yes, I agree more depth and strategy is needed but removing aircraft to ground attack ability hardly makes this game BF or COD. In fact it make it less like them because it would spread out more.

It's all probably too late now anyway, the game is what it is. It's just it got to here by nerfs and buffs to fit a model Sony had in mind, not to give players what they wanted. Eg people obviously liked MTBs but instead of making it more MBT friendly for big battles they introduced lots of anti MBT things from terrain you can't drive on to lock on missiles and aircraft. To fit with a percent they had in mind for MTBs.

But if you think the game has to be exactly how it is to be Planetside that's BS. Planetside is scale of environment and players and being perpetual. But yeah it could do with more depth and tactics.

Lets see how a person who understand combined arms concepts would say that:

Flanking as a tactic in both large-scale and small-scale battles is literally made IMPOSSIBLE without friendly anti-aircraft and air assets when enemy air is present.

No-one said asymmetrical gaming was easy, but it certainly is interesting if one is willing to be an actor instead of a victim.

Excuse me if I'm wrong but you don't sound like someone who has much experience executing tactics.

Assembling an armor squad, finding volunteers for Skyguard duty and waiting for everyone to reach staging area takes too much time. And what usually happens is that end result of such operation isn't more profitable kills-wise than just spending the same amount of time lonewolfing with rest of the zerglings.

tfw you're non-cloaked infil/any other class going to flank an enemy position and you get killed by an ESF/Lib that flew near by and happened to have thermals on or eagle eyes

You're wrong. No problem. Let me know if you'd like to see my DD-214.

Well then, you'll get what's coming. Don't blame the other guy or the game because you didn't take the time to effectively organize.

You got to laugh at the conceited BS some people spout. It's okay if you're 2 guys in a lib, or 1 in an ESF though isn't it.

IMO there should be a BUK missile system available, that one shot kills all aircraft, to make it properly combined arms!

? Hate much?

Hit points for any target is indeed a lazy way to code modern games, but unfortunately, it also puts the least strain on computers.

However, one hit kills doesn't define combined arms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms

why dont just separate air-game, make AIR bases, aircraft will fight for landing pads, make resuply for aircraft only at WG, all the res they must cap it.

That's cool. But I was referring to leading in Planetside, not actual RL military. Show me a youtube vid of you leading Planetside squad instead.

You cannot effectively organize on the micro level. That is why I think you don't have much experience leading.

Game mechanics don't reward squad micro-management enough to justify necessary time investment.

Organization in Planetside is mostly about large platoons doing Redeployside.

Feel free to prove me wrong by linking youtube vid which shows good example of squad organization.

edit: And obviously vid needs to show more elaborate tactics than "Everyone grab Lancers, go to squad wp and shoot dem tanks"

Light aircraft should be able to target infantry but they shouldn't have any weapons with splash damage and should be much less resistant to ordinary infantry weapons. Galaxy should only have air defence weapons that don't target downwards fully.

I woulnd't go so far to make aircraft unable to harm infantry and tanks. But I'd add game rule which allows aircraft to remove no more than 50% of vehicles and infantry HP.

Same would apply for anti-aircraft guns of course.

Problem with aircraft is that they are OP in small fights and useless in large fights. This damage restriction would solve both problems.

Aircraft could weaken large vehicle columns but not destroy them. Skyguards could weaken aircraft but friendly interceptors would have to finish them off.

You're wrong. You will continue to reinforce your position, but only because it fits the narrative of your agenda.

This is a combined arms game. You don't need to be prepared for everything, but don't be surprised when the thing you didn't prepare for waxes you.

I don't have an agenda. As a matter of fact I'd really love to be proven wrong so I gave you a challenge to find me one Planetside youtube vid which shows successful squad or even platoon organization that is more elaborate than "everyone grab X, go to Y and shoot Z".

Or maybe I could join the team you lead and see for myself? We can end this discussion once and for all. Or maybe not as you probably don't have any squad leading experience and your position is purely theoretical and unrealistic.

This guy is just here to be an elitist, don't mind him. DBG, this is pretty true so I don't think there is really a need to delete this post. If you must then I wish you luck in enforcing Communist censorship.

After leading Blackhand Squad in WW2OL for years, I am retired.

Anyway, I'm not going to try to talk you out of your defeatist viewpoint. I've learned that people can only outgrow that...and its a very personal journey. Good luck.

I'm not surprised you have no leadership experience in Planetside but at least you admitted it.

"Those who know the least speak the loudest"

This guy also leads squads on TR connery without using a mic. I especially like how he mentions about the fact that he "leads" people which also means just yelling a lot at pubbies.

Of course it wouldn't make PS2 close to CoD, but would it really solve the problem?

It could help if devs finished what they once had in roadmap: domeshields. They could be a partial solution for infantry hating aircraft. They were like energy domes surrounding some bases and could be enabled as benefits for the owners of a new kind of base, the Interlink Facility.

Both Interlink Facility and Domeshields were ready, fully developed, already pushed to Test Server then they suddenly disappeared without an explanation like tons of other stuff (Drones, Flamethrowers, and so on).

My point is this games dramatically lacks depth. Game designers seem to think the best for of content is kill farming and helmets collecting, this is why Planetside is not so popular as it could be. This is crap, if they think they can entertain players forever by making them grind, fighting without a real reason, without any strategy, well they're doing a huge mistake.
Just look at what they put in the Wishlist: Prestige cosmetics. /facepalm

Where is intecontinental lattice?
Battle Islands?
Resource system with the ANT? Holy **** that had 1500 unique likes on the Roadmap and it has been cancelled.
New and more relevent territory benefits?
When are we going to fight for resources?
When will territory control matter / have some kind of influence on what we are doing?
Why don't they change Instant Action and Redeploy so that those who want no downtime have an option, and at the same time we put the word "end" to Redeployside?

We are basically like hamsters running in the wheel, we're going nowhere, this game needs new content and more depth ASAP.

Why would anyone want to play a completely segregated Planetside 2?

If I want infantry-only I'd go for Battlefield (and only play certain maps), Call of Duty or <insert infantry-only FPS>.
If I want armor-only, I'd go for War Thunder or World of Tanks.
If I want air-only, it's War Thunder, World of Warplanes for realism and Ace Combat for arcade.

Planetside 2 is a combined arms game and has made sacrifices in all departments (in an attempt) to create a balanced inter-unit-type experience. When you forcibly tear the links between these units apart, it becomes three bad games overshadowed by everything that specializes in a specific unit type.

exactly, if you dont want the interaction between infantry tanks and air, you are in the wrong game.