[Suggestion] Too much vehicle kills the game!

It is true what is said about the relationship between gunner and driver in PS1 vehicles.

Requiring a gunner to operate the main cannons on a tank = only half as many tanks on the battlefield by default.

With the driver operating the main cannons it means the ratio of tanks to players = 1:1 as opposed to PS1 having a 2:1 ratio (2 players per 1 tank). Obviously this means there is the potential for an equal number of tanks as there is players on a server or in a battle, which simply put means anyone who wants to wander from base A to base B will rather strap on a tank than run on foot.

Everyone has access to tanks (no requirements to be met to spawn tanks).
All tanks are driver = gunner, so you don't think twice about whether you want an MBT or a lightning cause there is no need to worry about not finding a gunner to operate your cannons.
Running on foot = suicide anyhow, so given the above options, why would you choose to run on foot... ever?

and my answer:
"OK you are right, a more developed vehicle (like a sunderer compared to a flash) should not cost more resources"
so I paraphrased. (EDIT: sorry if I lost you at ' more developed=better= (sundere r>flash) )
It is sarcasm. as I am using your assertion that a better vehicle should not cost more resources to mock you
However I did not mean any disrespect. I was unaware that the aim of sarcasm was to belittle the opponent.
if you wish to argue that a more developed vehicle is not a better vehicle. then I would have to ask why would you bother developing a vehicle if it dose not improve it?

further more if infantry have to pay to use better equipment that they have already paid for then why should vehicles not have to?

and lastly if you go around saying that vehicles will stop using more powerful things(like HE) just because they cost more. all you'll do is get every infantry player who is annoyed at vehicles to demand that they cost more.
which is probably why you refuse to say that, but continue to whine about the concept

PS I don't think most infantry are thinking about sunderers when they say "vehicle" as sunderers are infantry assets just like AT guns of WWII where infantry assets

ok the last one confuses me,
1st it amazes me how may people ignore(don't use) the turrets on the sunderers while the spawn point(sunderer) is under attack.
but are you complaining that you don't get to use your shotgun? witch I'll admit that if you are a infiltrator it would be as big of a change as going from a medic to a tank.
or that you don't get to be a HE tank?
but ether way I'm pretty sure most people mean ether, 'tanks' or 'tanks & air craft', when they say 'vehicles'
so rest assured those of us in our 'little infantry world' will do just as much to protect our spawner and supplier as we will to destroy the 'HE camper'



And I will finish eventually.
but there seems to be a major unbalance between infantry and vehicles;
infantry aren't allowed to play infantry only
but drivers should be allowed to play just as a driver
and if infantry has a problem then they should go AA, AT, or driver.

So I say if infantry doesn't want to go AA,AT, or driver, then fine let them be swamped by vehicles
BUT at the same time if drivers loses their vehicles then don't give then new ones until they have kill x amount of vehicles(not sure about sudys/flash as they are not aggressive therefore they should not be punished aggressively)

and Vehicles will always be here.

The trick we do in our division (vanu recon division) is that we sneak behind enemy lines and attempt to steal bases from there.

weve learned how to cut off territories and factions from receiving benefits and so we make sure our targets are well thought out.

and always keep in mind that your territory must be touching a zone to take it.

recon fights always lead to intense shootouts with other infantry. but standing toe to toe with the vehicle zerg will surely disappoint you if that isnt your playstyle.

use the galaxy it helps for sneaking in over the mass ground. and you take zero fall dmg from dropping out of it. it is a recon players best friend.

I am an infantry lover and I must say it is more fun being pinned down by infantry than it is a platoon of tank camping a spawn. Although a bigger annoying factor would be air units who are 70% more present than tanks, and deadlier as well for as a heavy infantry I find them more difficult to take out none the less get a single hit on them with my launcher. Less tanks would be good for I do prefer getting killed more by the enemy other than a friendly running me over on foot or on my Flash.

Im not sure whats worse between my english and your comprehension skills.
You didnt even understand what i meant with "developed".
A "more developed" veichle is an upgraded sundy compared to a standard sundy, i wasnt comparing sundys and flashes obviously.
Nevermind anyway... i had enough of this pointless discussion.

simple
would you stop using s-ams if it cost you more?
ANSWER no
:. making you pay for your advantage is not unreasonable

ANSWER 2 your english
I guess I should have 'comprehended' that you don't understand English and stopped trying to suggest that a fully armored, multiple seated, multi gunned, transport was an 'upgrade' compared to an unarmored single person transport.(Reductio ad absurdum)

ether way (S-AMS or '+11 seats & twice the guns') what you pay for is the advantage,
and apparently you don't think you should have to pay for your advantage

and once again I'm sorry if I lost you at ' more developed=better= (sunderer >flash)"
And for those that struggle with English : "more developed" vehicle is an upgraded sundy which is better then a standard sundy
_________________________________: sundy is '>'(better then) flash
_________________________________: Therefor sundy can be called "more developed" then flash

Thanks on derailing the thread btw...
I will try again, for the LAST time, i swear.
It has been suggested that an upgraded veichle should cost MORE RESOURCES than a standard veichle.
So i asked... WHY? Why a veichle that has been upgraded by spending hundreds of cert points, should cost MORE resources?
To make a very practical example, why my ams/racer/mineguard/dualbulldog sundy, that already costed me who knows how many cert points, should cost me MORE resources than a standard sundy?
How do you think this would benefit the game?
Do you have an answer that does not require us to read a wall of text?

ps. if i need an english teacher ill find a better one, thank you

That's ok, let's make weapon attachments cost resources too.

Ad minchiam...

wait what?

so you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that if all infantry could fight vehicles like HA then 'there would be no use for vehicles'?
1 every infantry can play HA(and some people think that the ones not playing HA are just playing wrong)
2 if every one had HA ability it would mean there is no need for HA. not vehicles
3 by proxy, are you saying you cant fight something if it can fight back?

no the only reason the tanker in ps2 thinks that there is 8:1 (infantry to vehicles) is because, your not counting the air, and because 1 person just died 8 times trying to kill you

you get advantage. you pay for advantage

same reason you have to pay more to use AT mines

You dont have to pay more to use AT mines.
Every mine will cost the same, no matter the cert points you invested into them.
Try again.

No, the reason the tanker in ps2 thinks there are 8:1 infantry to vehicles is because when he gets amushed by HA he can see all 8 of them running around his tank

Also it only takes one engineer to make his tank useless.

Infantry can deal with vehicles very well... smart infantry that is.

double post sorry

I will try again, for last time I swear.
Would ........ You........Still ....... Use .......
oh @$$% it, you'll just avoid the question like all the other times
sorry people for the multi post but I'm tiring to avoid a 'wall of text'

EDIT: OK so this is my last post(see above) so I'll reply to once more but thats it

HE should cost more to use each time the same way AT mines cost more to use each time
' cert points you invested ' so are you saying if I put certs into caring 3 mines instead of two it still will only cost me 150? or are you saying that I can cert into mines to make them more powerful? ether way the more I cert into them the more each loadout costs

EDIT:I said this is my last post, and I'm sticking to it even if it kills me
so Rusty if you want to know why 1 tank v 8 HA is incorrect you'll just have to go back and look at MarkAntony's thoughts on 1 v many

You already answered yourself, no i wouldnt stop using an AMS, my job IS providing an AMS, an AMS is crucial to win a battle.
Now what about YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION.
Why un upgraded sunderer should cost me MORE resources than a standard sunderer?
Because you have a personal peeve against anyone that likes playing a driver/pilot in this game?

Are you just trolling us?

I am the only one who thinks that, there is no problem with vehicles but with clueless forum warriors like OP?

I already payed, hundreds of cert points, i would say its more than enough.