Ultimate Vehicle Thread- "Vehicles kind of suck to play; We should change that" [+Base Overhaul]

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by MrNature72, Jun 26, 2014.

  1. Foxirus

    Infantry are also the only ones capable of healing allies, Reviving dead players repairing turrets, Capture points.. Vehicles are already a tactical variable, They can kill anything thrown at them with little to no problem provided they don't allow said target to get with in hugging range.


    How is ANYTHING an infantry can carry more effective at killing than a tank or an ESF? C4, Tankmines, All these things cost resources and are by no means more effective at killing than a tank would be. An infantryman can carry enough c4 to kill ONE TANK if you use no other sources of damage. A tank can carry enough ammunition to kill an entire platoon before needing to reload its ammo supply.

    Would you stop with all the weird names and call them what they are in Planetside 2? Skygaurd, Max, Tanks. I don't care to read the added Higby literature and waste time trying to decipher what you mean by them.


    And this is what I was talking about. This exact wording is a vehicle format intruding on an infantry job. Scouting and marking are infiltrators, Maybe an infil with a flash, But it does not need to be a dedicated "special" vehicle. Infiltrators can't kill tanks or vehicles, Why would you want a vehicle anyone can use to have their primary task?

    It is the infantries job to be SPECIALIZED. That is why we have Medics, Engineers, Heavies, Infiltrators, Light Assaults and MAXes.




    The sad thing is, That is what this game is about. Zerging the point in whatever form you can. The game is built entirely around zergs.
  2. Kalivix

    I'd remove the entire first bit, not read it yet as I tried to and found the first bit full of weird brightly coloured fist pumping people and couldn't be bothered trying to pick out information from it.

    I realise the later bits might have information but seriously that first epileptic fit inducing section will turns people off bothering to pay attention to the rest
  3. Kanil

    I can't say I'm a fan of making NS vehicles become non-NS. Thinking back to how much better TR Harassers were than anyone elses, for example.

    Between the faction specific blanket changes, and the Flash specific abilities, the TR one would be quite superior to the NC one... I'd much rather gain speed, agility and stealthiness (compared to NC, at least) on a fast, stealthy vehicle, than I would gain velocity, damage (both irrelevant to the short range OHK shotgun) at the cost of speed, and stealthiness. The added HP and rider resistances would be nice, but probably not enough to offset the TR gains, and result in a comparatively less survivable vehicle.
  4. SpartanPsycho

    Read through all of it. He is expressing how frustrating the vehicle metagame is
  5. SpartanPsycho

    Okay then why is the map so big? Planetside 2 would die in an instant if it became a TDM like CoD. Everyone would take their money and give it to BF3-4 where it's still fun in vehicles.
  6. GaBeRock

    Vehicles are already getting nerfed, if the game had any less to do with vehicles, the game would have nothing to do with vehicles.

    Infantry cost no resources, and you know that. Consumables are optional, and, excluding C4, there's no situation in which you'd have to use one. C4, by the way, only needs to be used when your opponent used resources. The other distinguishing factor about consumables is that they take absolutely no skill to use, at all. At least with HE, you have to aim to get your farm on. You don't have to aim a medkit or a mine. Finally, infantry resources are cheap compared to vehicle resources. A free to play member can use two medkits per minute, paying members can use four, and that's accounting for the upcoming resource revamp. A lighting takes 7 minutes to pull, an mbt, more.
    • Up x 3
  7. GantryPengy380

    I absolutely LOVED pretty much every idea in this thread. Especially the one in this sentence, and I quote: "This would couple brilliantly with the upcoming resource revamp; Bases would need more Nanites to feed more powerful armor and air batallions." That idea could eventually lead to having a power source that you could fill up (like the NTU silos in the original Planetside) and a new thing (tool for a class or a vehicle, does matter)(like the Advanced Nanite Transport vehicle from the original Planetside). However, I have to agree with whoever said that vehicles can't heal or revive people, capture a point, or hack terminals and the like. In response to him, vehicles SHOULD do everything they can to help the attacking infantry capture bases (except spawncamping like we see today). This guy's ideas would give vehicles more options to help capturing bases, and the EXP rewards would be literally worth fighting for.
    • Up x 4
  8. Foxirus

    Really? C4 is cheap? I have to pay 100 resources for every brick of C4 and 75 for every tank mine I use. To destroy your vehicle efficiently, I have to pay for half of it. Then those options either have to be run over or within hugging distance to use. Infantry DOES cost resources and consumables are NOT optional with a majority of scenarios. Go try and kill a blockade sunderer that is an active spawn point WITHOUT using consumables, See how far you get. I doubt you ever step out of the comfort of your warpgate if you aren't in a vehicle.
  9. GaBeRock

    I'm posting this under the assumption of the resource revamp. That should have been obvious, as I didn't mention how vehicles have to suffer through aquisition timers. Regardless, consumables take no skill to use. You don't need to pay the resources for them up till you're already assured of victory, wheareas for vehicles, you're always liable to get killed by lockon spam and c4 fairies long before you encounter another vehicle.

    By the way, this is my players page: https://www.planetside2.com/players/#!/5428109895932771009/weapons
    Notice how my top 4 infantry weapons have more kills than all my vehicles combined. I'm not someone wanting vehicle superiority for the sake of vehicle superiority. I'm someone who actually desires meaningful combined arms unlike, it seems, you.
    • Up x 2
  10. Foxirus

    Oh are you now? Because noone knows how the resource revamp is going to be when it comes to the finalized version. What is on the Player Test Server is most likely not going to be the end result, Look it up. You are just trying to change your argument around now because yours got smashed. As for why you didn't mention the timers? I bet every vehicle you use has a fully certed acquisition timers, which makes the time you have to wait not even matter.


    Do you even PTS? Because if you did you would know that C4 on the revamped system acts just like it does on the live server, You still have to go to a terminal to resupply it once you have used your 2 bricks, The ONLY difference is that you can no longer stockpile consumables.

    Consumables take no skill to use? How about you try running towards a tank to C4 it and see how far you get. If anything, Vehicles (Not counting ESFs) take less skill to use than consumables do. Just look at what you want to damage and click. Thats it, Vehicles in a nutshell.

    If you are getting killed by C4 fairies and lock on's, Thats just you being a poor excuse for a pilot in whatever vehicle you choose to run. Pay attention and watch your surroundings. I don't very much care to visit your player page, Its probably an alt anyways.
  11. GaBeRock

    More unfounded accusations. It looks like you've just reverted to Ad Hominems, as you've realized your argument is false anyways. It's also hilarious that you mention me "changing my argument." Yeah- I did change my argument. I changed it from "don't make vehicles useless" to "this is why you're beliefs would make vehicles useless" because you decided to re-define your original statement despite being provided with direct quotes, from you. Regardless, my argument as it pertains to infantry/vehicle balance specifically concerning the killing ability between vehicles and infantry has been the same the whole thread: infantry cost no resources, and consumables requife no skill, so vehicles should have a definite advantage.

    For some information, The most certed I have a timer is my ESF timer, which I believe takes 8 minutes currently. Every other timer (save that for my flash) takes longer. Check my stats, which I helpfully posted earlier. Notice how many kills I have with C4. I can say pretty definitively that it doesn't take a whole lot of skill to use c4. Sure, there's the risk of screwing up and getting nailed bt the vehicle, but so what? If you didn't deploy the C4, you didn't lose anything. In fact, I have almost as many kills with c4 and tank mines as with a prowler. And I do, in fact, pts. I've had the client for a little over three months now, and did quite a bit of testing both over this past month and before hossin came out.

    And by the same token as your final statement, if you're getting killed by vehicles, you're a poor infantry player. All it takes to kill any tank is two c4, and if you can't hit an ESF or liberator close enough to farm you with a rocket, you have a problem.
    • Up x 2
  12. MrNature72




    Jesus christ, both of you, and everyone else involved in this argument.

    Look, neither of you are going to agree. You're both going to spiral down into argument, de-rail this thread, and that's a one-way ticket to a lock. WH*CH IS EXACTLY WHAT I DON'T WANT.

    My ENTIRE GOAL is to bring people together on singular concepts, backed up by intuitive and detailed ideas. But at the core, it's the simple, singular concepts.

    And in this case, I'd like to ask all of you to agree on this one thing:
    The current state of vehicles, and the relationship between vehicles and infantry, both versus each other and in there general role on the battlefield, is no where near where it should be, boring, total trash, and needs to change.

    B*tchin' at each other, getting angry, and believing the other is a completely uneducated dimwit is proving you both to be quite the opposite: fairly educated individuals who are well capable of backing up their arguments. But you're both also HARDHEADED AS F*CK, MAN. So the best thing you both, and anyone else involved, can do, is to agree to disagree on the little details, but to agree together on the point made above.

    If we all want to see this game, and it's producers, actually rely on forumside content to work on patches, we need to stop getting mad at each other. We don't need to agree on everything, absolutely not. But we need to understand that as long as we're some huge mess of shouting, angry ball of p*ss and rage (the bad, indirect kind), they're never going to listen to us.

    Think you both can do that? Because I will not see this thread locked due to some inane argument between two fairly smart individuals who just refuse to get along, and decide to duke it out on my (metaphorical) lawn, right in everyone's sight. Stop the argument, agree to disagree, realize the vehicle-infantry relationship is trash, and if you have to continue the argument, PLEASE do it in a private chat between you two.
    • Up x 4
  13. ColonelChingles

    Geez Mr. Nature. It'd be a terrible shame if someone came along and
    STARTED AN INANE ARGUMENT
    All over this nice thread you got here.

    But you know, I bet for something like... a donation of 5SC you would be protected against any unfortunate thread-locking postings that might have otherwise cropped up.

    I'm just looking out for you, is all. Capisce?

    That'd be in unmarked SC only of course. No funny business.
  14. Colt556

    All the way back in beta I said vehicles should be far rarer, but far stronger. The less spammable something is the more powerful you can make it without it being overpowered. Infantry should fear even just one single tank. They shouldn't view it as some annoyance, they should view it as some unstoppable killing machine that requires an entire squad to take out. However to go along with that there should only be like one of these tanks at a battle because they're difficult to obtain.

    I STILL firmly believe that SOE botched tanks when they made them follow the battlefield style of tanks. Battlefield style tanks work because there's a hard limit of them per map. They don't work when you can have 100 tanks vs 100 infantry. So even years later I still firmly believe they should change MBTs back to the planetside 1 style of having a driver and a gunner, MBTs should be the ground equivalent of the Liberator.

    -Make them harder to get. Cost more resources in this new nanite system. An MBT is strong, it should cost 750 nanites. You wanna take an MBT?: Pay up buddy. Same for libs. Lightnings and ESFs are weaker so they'd be significantly cheaper, like 400 or so nanites.

    -Remove secondary weapons from ESFs, they should be required to specialization like everyone else out there. You wanna farm ground troops? That's fine, that's a legit strategy. Equip some rocket pods and go at it. But now you only have a primary weapon and that primary weapon is now rocket pods, so if an enemy ESF gets on you with a rotary or A2A missiles, well needless to say you're pretty screwed. You give up A2A power for A2G power, that's your choice.

    -Make MBTs require both a driver and a gunner with an optional top gunner. MBTs should be very powerful, as I said above they'd cost a ton of resources so they need strength to justify their cost. This change goes to add even more cost in the form of manpower so that MBTs can truly be the terrifying beasts they're meant to be, with an insanely high resource cost and a mandatory crew of two, you'd see far less MBTs in the field.

    -Add in delays for entering/exiting or switching seats. For example, say a TR wants to farm some infantry with his HE gun, so he drives to a hill, parks, and then presses F2 to hop in the gun. Unlike now he doesn't instantly hop into the gun, there's a 2-5 second delay before he can actually utilize the gun. So for those 2-5 seconds he can neither drive, exit the vehicle, or even shoot, he is entirely defenseless. This would discourage one-manning tanks as it presents a very high risk. All movement actions would have this delay. Switching seats has this delay, exiting the vehicle has this delay, entering the vehicle has this delay, and this delay is applies to every vehicle in the game. You shouldn't just be teleporting around your vehicle on a whim.

    -Change the resource system. This isn't directly tied to vehicles however instead of nanites being per player, they should be per base. Say a tech plant has... 100k nanites total. It uses nanites for everything, as I said above an MBT costs 750 nanites so whenever ANYONE pulls an MBT from that base, it's drained of 750 nanites. If you pull a lib, or even a flash, it drains nanites. Turrets slowly get auto-repaired but this also drains nanites, same for shield gens and everything. Every base would have their own nanites. This means that you might find yourself with no bases nearby that actually has resources to pull vehicles, meaning you have to pull them from farther away and travel over. This gives attackers time to win the day and it also forces defenders to put a little more thought into coordinated defense. Also opens up new roles beyond just mindless fighting, so people can finally be the space truckers they want and haul nanites to bases to resupply them.

    -Drastically reduce the repair speed and/or make it so repair speed is crippled when under fire. To go along with the following changes we can't just have tanky vehicles sitting with an engi behind them repairing up all the damage. So basically if you wittle down a vanguard to the point it starts smoking it's gonna have to pull out and if it only has one or two engineers it's gonna be out of commission for a couple of minutes. Repair speed is part of the problem with current vehicles, we want a system where vehicles are just tanky with slow repair times than vehicles being paper tanks that can be fully repaired in 10 seconds.

    -Increase the health of the prowler/vanguard. Now we're in the fun stuff, the prowler and vanguard should be tanky. They should be more akin to real life MBTs in terms of tankiness. That rear armor? Yeah, sorry bub, that's almost as strong as the front. You may need one less rocket to the *** but it's still gonna take a lot of punishment. MBTs should now tank a LOT of damage. It should require an entire squad of HAs firing on them to kill them. The Vanguard would be the tankiest, but slowest of the three tanks. No matter what direction you hit it from it'll just laugh at you, but it's not moving around in any sort of timely manner so feel free to wittle it down, after all infantry can respawn, revive, and run around the rocks and cover. You'll win the day. Prowlers would rely more on speed than durability, but they can still take their share of hits. All three tanks would be as vulnerable to tank mines as they are now, that'd be their achilles heel along with air power.

    -Decrease magrider's health. The magrider is suppose to survive on it's maneuverability, it shouldn't be taking hits to begin with. If you get hit in a magrider you screwed up, stop being a scrub. As was mentioned the magrider should be able to move in any direction at full speed. 60kph left, right, back, forward. The magrider has no sense of 'forward', it can go where it pleases. This increased maneuverability means it's very difficult to land a hit on you, as such you don't get to tank what few hits they do land. If even a single rocket hits you you're going to feel it and you aren't going to like it. An AP vanguard/prowler could basically one-shot you, so make sure you evade like your life depends on it, because it does. However to go along with this none of your weapons would have any bullet drop and their velocity would be just as great as the other tanks. Basically as you can see, what I'm getting at is the magrider would be a superior long-range sniping tank. Dodging attacks and laying down accurate fire. But if you get close to a magrider, it's as good as dead.

    -Add proper turret stabilization. Whether you're moving stop speed or stationary your accuracy should be the same. In real life tanks can snipe a plate from two miles away while traveling cross-country at 40 miles per hour. It's absolutely insane that tanks in PS2 have no turret stabilization. So this would be added to all tanks in the game, no matter how fast you move, no matter what bumps or hills you drive over your turret will be stabilized to hit what you aim at. Obviously super rough terrain will be too much, but traveling the deserts of indar, the frozen plains of esamir, your accuracy should be perfect.

    -Swap around the MBT abilities. I always felt the factions had the wrong abilities. The Vanguard should get the lockdown ability, it's tanky, very slow, it doesn't need to move it just takes hits to the face and keeps fighting. As such it can lock down for increased shell velocity. Lockdown wouldn't be like the prowler's current lockdown, it's not meant to increase dakka, it's meant to turn the vanguard into artillery. As I said, when locked down the vanguard's shell velocity goes through the roof so it can hit things from a long long way away. As well if locked down with a HE cannon it GREATLY increases the splash and damage, I'm talking like a 5 meter OHKO radius. However it suffers from a slower reload speed when locked down to compensate. When using an AP gun it'd really just increase velocity so you can snipe enemy vehicles and heat would get similar changes to the HE but on a far far less drastic scale.

    The Prowler on the other hand relies on speed, that's what SOE always said, the TR is all about going fast and spamming bullets. As such the Prowler would be the one with the boost instead of the magrider. However the boost wouldn't merely be a speed boost, but a boost to everything. When activated the tank will move much faster, turn faster, reload faster, and fire faster. Everything is about staying on the move and throwing as many shells down range as possible.

    The magrider relies on fancy alien tech and so they're the ones who get the shield, not the vanguard. Unlike the other two abilities there's really not much to change to the shield, it'd really just be what it is now, a quick "oh **** I messed up, pop the shield!". Since magriders would be paper tanks this'd give them a little extra survivability if they were caught off guard. But like now it wouldn't last long and have a very long cooldown, so magrider drivers would have to use it properly. The goal here isn't to make the magrider super maneuverable and then negate it's weakness via the shield, the goal is to just give them a little something extra to compensate for those errors we all make.

    -Change MBT guns. Since MBTs are far more cumbersome to get and use they need not only the durability, but the firepower to go along with it as well. As such the HE should do what it was originally intended to do. HE guns should be devestating to infantry, OHKO at 2m and all that good stuff. However it'd do absolutely nothing to enemy vehicles, even the harasser would laugh at you if you shot it with HE. AP is the same in the other direction, while tanks are very beefy to most weapons AP is one of their hard counters. Just as how anti-tank mines would still do absurd damage to tanks, so too would the AP guns so while a vanguard may be able to soak up an entire squad shelling it with rockets, an AP prowler or magrider rolling up could dispatch it in much the same time it would right now. Tank hunters are a very viable option and always should be. HEAT would be a proper middle-ground that doesn't decently against infantry and vehicles, but nothing spectacular. Basically, tank guns would go back to what they were before the endless stream of nerfs. But as tanks themselves are far more rare I don't think anyone would complain if there were 5 tanks doing this rather than 20.

    -Add in a performance slots to the lightning to change it's behavior. I remember back in beta one of the complaints people had over using the lightning is they didn't like the "feel" of it, they didn't like that it relied on speed rather than armor. So really make performance/defense slots stand out. Allow players to turn their lightnings into mini-vanguards that are durable but slow, or mini-prowlers that rely on speed and constant movement. Hell, since we're going all out with vehicle changes add a vanu variant that gives it the ability to hover around like the magrider with the proper decrease in durability. That way vanu players still get the fancy hover tank without actually getting the all powerful MBT if they want to go solo. With these changes you allow solo players to keep the tanking experience they have but with the firepower that a lone player should have.

    -Add in a REAL galaxy gunship. Players should be able to ditch their passenger seats in favor of adding cannons to the side of the galaxy. For those of you who don't know this http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Galaxy_Gunship was a galaxy gunship. It had two powerful mortars on one side that allowed it's gunners to pound ground targets. So imagine in PS2 slapping a vanguard cannon on the side of a galaxy and that's a galaxy gunship. Not silly bulldogs, but big powerful meaty cannons.

    -Nerf the ever living hell out of infantry A2A power. Oh I know I'm gonna get flak (ha ha) for this one if anyone even got this far, but hear me out. We want all styles of play to work together. As it stands infantry A2A is too spammable. Rockets are free, ammo for them is free, a squad with A2A rocket launchers can clear out the skies, for free. Burster maxes aren't really part of this as they cost resources same as vehicles do. Onto the next point to explain why I want this.

    -Buff the every living hell out of vehicle A2A power. The skyguard should be the single most feared thing any pilot could ever think of. They should wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat because they had a nightmare of a skyguard. Even one lone skyguard should clear the skies of even galaxy gunships. So if you've got a skyguard near your base providing AA, you really don't have to worry about any sort of air power. However the skyguard, and to a far lesser extent burster maxes, are the only real reliable AA in the game. This means your opponents can set out on a mission to kill these so that they can get air dominance. Think about real life, nations don't send planes over hostile territory until ground troops have cleared out AA in the area. That's the sort of feel I'm going for. So if you want air power in a region but the enemy has a skyguard, well saddle up boys we're going full spec ops here to kill us a skyguard so that the fly boys can actually do their job.

    Due to it's absurd power against air a lightning with a skyguard turret would be FAR more expensive than a normal lightning. But as I said, you only really need one to deal with anything but the most zergiest of air power, so it's worth it. This change may not work so I'll freely admit that for those of you still reading, I just want to increase the cooperation between ground and air and if infantry can spam AA like they do now, well you can't really go on a mission to take out their infantry now can you? Also if you remember back to when I said ESFs would only have one weapon it means your own air force would have a field day with rocket podding ESFs.


    And I think that's most of the big stuff I'd do to vehicles. There's probably more I'm forgetting but overall, for those who actually read all my nonsense my goal would be to make vehicles far more rare, but far more powerful. I'd rather one tank that can put the fear of god into all the infantry in a base than 20 tanks just camping a hill shelling the spawn point. I doubt most of my ideas would work in the way I've mentioned, but eh, this is all wishful thinking anyways so why not.
  15. ColonelChingles

    Loving the Skyguard buffs:


    That's what should happen if a Galaxy decides to fly over a Skyguard nest. That's why you have recons and escorts, people!

    Though you do mean G2A (ground-to-air) instead of A2A (air-to-air) here? Unless you mean Light Assaults trying to C4 ESFs. :p
  16. Colt556

    Rofl yes, that was my mistake. Basically in my ideal world the only thing that'd be really reliable against air would be skyguards, bursters, and base AA guns. The more static and cumbersome to use, the stronger it is. This allows ground forces to actually target them and take them out so air can come in and support them. Infantry still get their rockets but they're more just to scare away air and make infantry feel like they're contributing more than anything. This is a general theme you can probably tell from my post, the harder something is to field and use, the more powerful it is. The easier something is to field and spam, the weaker it is.
  17. Thesweet

    Ac
    Ps1 was about zerging, however, there was the option for smaller tactical fights. MAXs in ps1 did not take bullet damage, a squad could clear much larger numbers using a MAX infantry swap keeping the enemy guessing and disarray as to what weapon to have out. Ps1 also had toxic grenades also helped to break up larger numbers, something that current gamers can't handle.

    Yes this game should be about infantry, yet vehicles are also apart of the game and should be better intergrate to support the infantry with firepower. I think a reduction of their view, aim, rotating speed and loading should be considered with the addition of infantry bringing up targeting data form them. Make vehicles very powerful but only with the help of nearby infantry. Skill and fun shouldn't be about k/d, skill should be good team-play.
  18. iccle

    There will never be a real tangible place for vehicles or air in this game until it becomes a requirement for all infantry to rely upon vehicles or air in order to travel to reach the front lines. At the moment there is no requirement, infantry can just teleport wherever they wish completely ignoring lines of vehicles/aircraft. There is no way to disrupt this movement of infantry and no place for vehicles in controlling the influx of infantry reinforcements for defense. The only time vehicles can make an impact in this respect is defending vehicles destroying an attacking forces spawn beacons or sunderers. Infantry can travel anywhere in Auraxis faster than an ESF with afterburners.

    Because of this a lot of infantry do not see any real value in having vehicles or air why would they, all they see is the vehicles around a base waiting on them spawning (vehicles pile up around bases because they have no other choice if they want to intercept the traveling infantry), coupled with the fact that most bases offer about as much vehicle/air cover as a chocolate umbrella then it is no wonder vehicles in particular are in the sorry state they are currently in.

    SOE cannot make any vehicles/air more powerful against infantry until they offer secure places for infantry to play without being subjected to vehicle/air ordinance. It is clear from the design and ignoring repeated requests to 'fix the spawns/bases etc' that SOE are completely happy with infantry being repeatedly spawn camped since beta as a core part of the game. The efforts to address this issue have largely been superficial and amount to nerfing the crap out of vehicles/air vs infantry or increasing infantry survivability vs vehicles in order to gloss over the fact that bases are not safe for infantry against vehicle/air ordinance.

    Another point that is brought up in the forums regularly is how to defend against the vehicle/air zerg that turns up at a base, the short answer is more often than not you cannot, if you are at a small facility you have to redeploy. Every small facility has the vehicle pad on the outer edge/wall and ejects your defending vehicle one at a time crew-less, into whatever attacking force is outside waiting, you have no time to crew up and no time to gather enough vehicles/air for a viable defense against this kind of attack. Your only option is teleport out and go to another base and hope you can get your vehicles and crew together and back to the base you want to defend before the capture timer runs out.

    MBT absolutely needs separate driver/gunner it is equivalent to the liberator in terms of the destruction potential yet does not require a crew, the only comment I have ever seen from SOE regarding this was some flippant tweet by smed almost 2 years ago along the lines 'its more fun this way' well smed, for farmers sure, but for everyone else its not. Infantry resent it and rightly so, it makes one of the most powerful force multipliers in the game far far to easy to use by a single person, liberators seem to have no trouble getting at least 2 occupants, and the introduction of the harasser just showed how many people were completely willing to crew a vehicle where the driver just drives and gunner guns, also I never have trouble getting at least one gunner in a sunderer.

    Until at least some of the above changes then wanting better vehicles (which i would love) is just a pipe dream.
    • Up x 2
  19. Foxirus

    You should relax and be happy. Threads only get locked when it devolves into mindless offtopic insults. If anything, We are raising your threads post count with on topic arguments as to why things will and will not work. The more posts and likes a thread has in it, The greater the chance of being spotted by a dev becomes. We are arguing about vehicle builds and changes, Which is what this thread is involved in.

    Of course, You use so many random colors the first dev that wanders in to the first page is either going to do one of two things:

    1. The dev is going to go into an epileptic seizure from the use of bright colors

    2. The dev is going to read the first section of your thread and assume its just a joke, leave and ignore the rest.




    Last but not least, Lets get back on topic. While some of your post is acceptable, None of it is going to happen. Why? Your changes require massive coding and reworks to the current vehicle system. They are not going to do any of it. How do I know this you ask? It's SOE. The only thing they are going to do is Nerf/buff a system they feel may be doing to good.
  20. Foxirus

    Several things here. All the accusations I have made are from what you have said. You tried to say C4 on the new system has no risk and thus is no skill. The C4 on the new system is no different than the old system minus the fact you can no longer stockpile C4. Obviously you thought it was a pay per use which allowed you to just drop as many as you wanted as long as you could afford the resources, Which is not true.

    You didn't provide direct quotes on what I said either, You chose and cut one line out of an entire post to try and change the point of what I was getting at; Vehicles are at a good point in the game right now and do not need these changes made. Majority of the mentioned changes have already been done/undone in one form or another. My beliefs do not nerf the vehicles, They simply leave the vehicles where they are in the current step in the game which currently would allow them to remain more powerful than their PTS variants. Don't worry, I won't bother arguing with you after this point, Just watch how everything I am saying comes to fruition. Not because I want it to happen, But vehicles in their current form are extremely powerful and you for reasons known only to god, Can't see or utilize this power.

    Enjoy tanks after the next update ;3





    Hmmmm... If you can screw something up, That means it must take skill to use without screwing up... HMMMM... I think I am done arguing with you on this topic now after this post, You have already destroyed your own argument plenty of times.

    I've got the track history of the devs backing my argument side up. Look at all the nerfs that vehicles have gotten: Harrasser, Iwinshield, Liberators Weapon systems and Durability, lolpods, The future tank update that nerfs pretty much every aspect of the tank weapon systems.

    Do you think they are handing out these nerfs because they just feel like it? No. Majority are getting the nerfs because the vehicles have too much power. Power that strangely enough you seem to be unable to see or use.


    With that I will say one final thing; SOE will not do these revamps. They are risky, and require complete recoding of certain aspects of the game. Some of these have even been done in the past and then removed or nerfed into oblivion. I am not calling for vehicles to be nerfed, I am simply calling for them to remain as they are now, As I feel they are in a fine point in the game. That's not gonna happen though, Enjoy your upcoming tank nerf.

Share This Page