Why play Infantry?(And an idea)

Wrong.
The main objective is "have fun". To do that they give you goals to pursue. Capturing continents is the macro objective. But you can cut that down into smaller and smaller pieces. To capture a continent you need to capture bases, to capture bases you need to capture the points. To capture and maintain a solid hold on the points you need to have a way to respawn people nearby. To have a spawn nearby you need to bring in a Sunderer, to bring in a Sunderer you need vehicle support. To get to the capture point you also need to control area, and to control area you need to be able to prevent enemies from entering, IE kill them... The list goes on. And each objective can be pursued and completed by players.

However, many players have fun by tracking their statistics, to see if they improve or to gauge how good they are, however flawed the stats may be. What's the most valued statistic? Kills vs deaths. And you don't farm deaths.

So the objective isn't to out-Zerg an enemy. Yes it works, but there are consequences to Zerging. You Zerg in one place, it means your own forces are getting Zerged somewhere else, because the faction population in general can't be too far apart anymore.

You are very small-minded about how you think of (stragetic) value. You assume that unit value means that if you take it out, it stays out. But why should that be the case? The value is that if you take it out, you should be capable of taking control of the area and making sure that new Skyguards can't get so close to the frontlines anymore.

And why does that make destroying turrets stop mattering? If you stop being able to secure the turrets, then the turrets are repaired back up and put to use. That's value. If you do have the power to secure the turrets, you can prevent the turrets from popping up again. Even if you can't control the area, you can still repeat destroy the turret, discouraging people to use them as the time they can be active is far to short to be effective. And it works.

Actually it isn't. PS2 doesn't allow for "surgical strikes". The effort and manpower required to prevent, say, a Valkyrie drop on the right location, or a small group of Wraith Flashes, heck even a few Harassers, from taking out a "high value" target is far too great. You can't protect these things from small surgical strikes.
PS2's allure is in the fact that things don't stay out of the fight. You can destroy things 50 times, but if you don't discourage the users or control the area, you are doing a futile thing. That's not about DPS, that's about the ability to control, which requires strategy as well.

Plain dead wrong.
A Zerg has more units, and can destroy things faster than anybody else. So if you add a timer or make things "high value targets", then all you've done is make sure the Zerg can destroy these high value targets faster and then not have to worry about them. In the meantime the Zerg has less trouble keeping their own high-value targets up, especially since they have more players, each capable of replacing a high value target, making destruction of Zerg property kind of the same as we have it now, while the players fighting the Zerg are heavily penalized.

Again: You punish the players who attack a Zerg if the high-value targets are hard to replace. Since the Zerg will have enough players to replace the high-value targets but the opposition won't.

"spammability" is the games biggest strength. And the communities weakness. Because according to the community, firing a Carbine is already "bullet spam". Screw that. The ability to pull what you want, when you want it is great. They should make vehicles even cheaper, and then let players pay for one-shot force multipliers like special ammo types for infantry and tanks, temporary buffs available to the tanks for resources, new utility AV weapons etc.

You're still typing too much to bother reading. Try proof reading it then cutting it down to 1/4. You've got great ideas now and then but there's just too much babbling getting in the way of them.

Sorry, I should have gone into greater depth with that post. In my defence I was tired.

To summarize the entire series of graphs in as short of line as possible: The graphs demonstrate the direct relationship between usage and kills over a number of different metrics.

The first graph was mostly for an easy reference, but also restates the starting metric of population size. The difference between the Betelgeuse and P2-120 HE is about 2x-3x more users, in favour of the Betelgeuse of course.

As you said, the second and third graphs are quite self-explanatory. They act as supplementary evidence to my claim.

The KPU is more "background information" oriented than the above graphs, but also supports the statement that time and kills are directly related. Each of these four graphs supports this statement clearly.

The fifth graph, KPH, is where things get interesting.

Here we see that despite the Betelgeuse having two or three times the number of users getting kills than the P2-120 HE, the average difference in the number of kills between the two is only about 10-15 more kills in an hour. That is to say, a population less than half to a third has an almost identical performance than its competitor.

This very same average difference of about 10-15 is in the number of kills between the GODSAW and P2-120 HE, in favour of the HE. This is also despite the fact that there was about 1.5x-2x more users with a SAW than in an HE-prowler. Despite having almost double the population of the P2-120 HE, the SAW most often fails to achieve more kills in a single hour of use.

The P2-120 HE isn't underperforming in the least. It gets far more kills per a single unit compared to the SAW & Betel, which are not "more effective than an HE Prowler" as Chingles would have us believe.

Units do have value
Destruction of property is important strategy
If you can't keep something destroyed (IE by area control), then you don't have enough power
PS2 isn't build for 'surgical strikes' as it takes too much manpower to defend against one, and the gameplay of defending against a possible maybe sometime in the future surgical strike while you are bored is bad and boring.
Zerging isn't an objective. There's a million small objectives that the player can achieve.
Making units more expensive and adding high-value targets favors the Zerg, as the Zerg can easily replace high-value targets, while their opponents won't be able to. Also the Zerg has a higher rate of destruction, meaning that if units become these "if destroyed they are gone for some time" the Zerg will have an easy time taking care of it.

If you want to say anything to "disprove" this, first read my previous post to see why these things are true.

is 12 v 1 really reversing the situation?

so you wouldn't 1v1, and i agree, its silly to try too.
this kinda agrees with my point that there is no contest between a dude with an LMG and a HE tank.
i'm not saying the HE tanks will get more kills, i've already said earlier in this thread that the reason LMGs have higher KPH than some HE weapons is because a large portion of the infantry game takes place indoors.
but when it comes to anti infantry effectiveness there is no contest between HE tanks and infantry.

It's classic risk vs reward. Should I risk sending an A2G ESF to the small fight where it can mop up, even though I don't have an A2A escort? Should I place a Skyguard on that hill for optimal sight lines even though I can't spare a tank to guard it? But you do raise a valid point, guarding empty bases is boring, worse than current AA duty, so some sort of automated defense or radar would be necessary. There just needs to be more variety in tactics besides out-DPSing your opponents. Preemptively taking out the spawn system at a Tech Plant or Bio-Lab is the most interesting small squad tactic this game has. And construction has potential. Everything else feels like two teams turning on fire hoses and spraying LAs and Sunderers at eachother, and whoever has the most water pressure wins. I'd just like a little more chess and a little less Rock'em Sock'em Robots. Nothing wrong with Rock'em Sock'em Robots, but there are plenty of other games that do it better, and I'd personally like to see a little more thought and care go in to people's actions.

Why play infantry? Besides being able to sit on an enemy point for more certs than you get killing a tank? Being able to sit on an already capped point and still get exp? Besides putting down two ammo packs and being rewarded for pressing F? Shields? Holding a med tool over a body? Pressing G? Getting far more opportunities to get certs than vehicles do? Being able to flip bases? Take cover in towers? Never spend nanites unless you have to? Guaranteed having something to do?

I mean if all of those things go down the drain I suppose that you could get a tank. And sit outside a base fight. Shooting random players stepping out. Then get tank busted. Or c4d. Or rockets. Or etc.

There's many more ways that risk vs reward can be executed. For example, in the current PS2 gameplay you can attack your enemy. The risk is that they defend against your attack and push forwards while you are recuperating/respawning/returning to the front. The reward is pushing your enemy off their position and getting one step closer to your goal.

With the high-value unit system, besides that it favors the Zerg, you instantly have to give up immense amounts of ground the moment you use your high-value units, basically having to let the enemy take a base before you stand a chance of going up against them again.

I don't want more automated defenses. They make sense somewhat for current player-made bases to fill in the gap for absent players, but for full bases? No. The radar could be an idea. A set of early-warning systems and low-danger area-denial systems. Like a minefield generator that keeps spawning mines in a large area that deal 5% damage against a tank each, or maybe just a slow painfield. Unless you don't stop your tank it's highly unlikely you'll die, but it does slow you down and give warnings that someone is there. Laser fences, "camera's" that simply ping the map or auto-spot enemies that walk through their line-of-sight... Could work.
But you would still need to have a solid way to prevent Zergs from simply overpowering everything. And ways for players to respond to the early-warning systems, as they won't help if it's not fun hanging around close enough to deal with any threat that's detected.

The answer is Synergies.
Currently two players who ignore each other but are hanging aruond the same area is almost as strong as two players who actively work together. The skill and knowledge required to become more powerful is extremely high, not something the average player can or will execute.
Players should be able to buff each other, and debuff the enemies. Infiltrator darts are a kind of debuff, showing the enemy positions and making your team stronger. The goal would be that teamplay is encouraged, that teamplay is intuitive and that you can do it with anyone at any time. It shouldn't matter what classes team up, or that one is in a vehicle/aircraft and the other running as infantry. They should have some way of cooperating.

That's instantly a good way to counter the Zerg. Current Zergs are beasts of necessity. They tolerate their allies because it helps them boost their KD and capture territory, but they are in a constant competition to try to get the kills. This gives the edge to smaller teams that work together.

I agree with everything he wrote. Imo the main reason why PS2 lacks depth is there is basically no way to outmanoeuvre the enemy and opportunities to play something else but "force multipliers spam" are way too rare.

Part of the problem imo remains in the fact the biggest focus has never been on objectives but on kills farming. Just think of the whole directives system.
It all makes many tactics simply useless. Basically: if you can do it in a Vanguard, it's stupid to do that in a Lightning.

I really don't see what enjoyment you get being a full time tank driver its less fun and just plain boring my only conclusion as to why people play tanks full time as oppose to infantry is the fact they want to improve there K/D ratio.

Same reason why people play sniper in this game to improve the K/D ratio , Personally I play Medic and my K/D ratio is awful probably cos I'm a crap shot but do I care? of course not, Am I a good player ? well yes in a support role I do my job but as a killer no I'm rubbish.

This game is all about risk vs reward , Infantry put there *** on the line all the time they risk there K/D ratio without a second thought only the truly skilled infantry will probably clock out with a + in there kills ratio.
Like tanks snipers sacrifice the fun element of the game for the stats element and like tanks snipers can get instant kills without being to skilled.

The Crux of this debate is whether to play infantry and have tons of fun and not be bothered about stats or sit in a tank all day and pad your stats firing the same gun over and over again.
To be honest I don't know why you full time tank drivers don't go and play WoT the devs never intended players to be full time tankers I'm sure more than likely it was intended for casual tankers who were having a bad day as infantry , pop on for an hour in a tank have some fun then back to infantry.
What were seeing now is people who sit in tanks all-day and I can only presume its indeed to pad there stats there not driving tanks for fun , how can it be fun to be in the same tank over and over again.

Players don't mind being killed if they have an equal and fair chance in a pvp game but two of the biggest killers in the game tanks and snipers require very little skill for 1 shot kills and that has to be wrong and in my view why ps2 fails to keep new players its a proven fact if a new player thinks he's been farmed he will quit.

This isn't aimed at anyone just my observations of playing 20 yrs worth of MMOs and PVP games.

thx.

It's easy to flank, but the time spent maneuvering isn't well spent. Between the time it takes to move, find a target, relocate, find another target..... That guy you took out has re-spawned and traded kills 3 times. Like Demigan keeps illustrating, t's all about how much constant firepower you can bring to the fight to hold ground.

Truth.

Different strokes for different folks. After 20 years of MMOs you should know that different people are attracted to different roles, and not only for combat effectiveness.

1) Yes, because i was referring to 'optimum area of effect' not numbers of players, and anyway, there could be 12 tanks sitting below the bio lab, none of them could shoot back so it would only be a matter of time. Since you didnt state whether or not the infantry would attempt to fall back into cover, im going to assume they wouldnt, and therefore assume the tankers are complete morons aswel.

2) But i am 1v1ing the tank, i dont stop fighting against the enemy just beause he cant see me or the opposite. Im still fighting a war against the other empires. Defeating your enemy isnt about who kills the most, not in this game, and beating your enemy doesnt even have to involve killing at all. If i take a base, or defend a base from a vehicle zerg simply by sitting on the point i have won that engagement, since engagements arnt decided upon who wins a 1v1, they're decided upon which empire takes / holds the facility or continent.
How many times have you been defending a base against a zerg and been top of the scoreboard at 'battle ended' with the most kills, but still lost the base? I have many times, just yesterday i have more kills than all the VS on the scoreboard put together, as did 2 other NCs, we still lost the base because there was literally 200 VS. Kills dont mean **** in this game.

I guess you have to ask yourself; do i value the game as a whole, do i play for the big picture; or do i simply care for small isolated 1v1 engagements that mean nothing.
Which one the devs are balancing for tbh ive no idea anymore.

i agree, but this thread seems to be full of people attempting to say that a heavy is as effective as a tank, and that simply isn't true,
a bunch of heavies running towards your base won't have anywhere near the impact that a tank zerg does.

Ehhh.... kinda depends, tbh. The main question is "what are you trying to achieve?". If it's just about kills and K/D, the tanks are almost certainly more effective. But if it's about taking bases... the heavies are a way bigger threat.

Just as an example : I was a stalker infiltrator, and I had about 2 rounds left in my pistol, because I hadn't been able to resupply since previous fight. And yet, today I captured a base. All by myself. While I was outnumbered 8:1. And the reason I captured that base rather than ending up dead, is because there were four 2/2 Magriders zipping helplessly around the base, achieving nothing. None of them were prepared to get out of their farmwagons, so me and my 2 rounds of ammo capped their base out from under them! If even ONE HA had come after me, I'd probably be dead and they'd have saved their base.

Very interesting points made here.

I just wanted to note that i (and many others) tank,not to boost our KDr but because we find the armor vs armor gameplay rewarding.It gives me a much greater sense of impact when i destroy enemy vehicles(especially Magriders ),than doing a nice killstreak with a heavy.It just sends them back to their spawn.With the Prowler i remove their spawns.

What really baffles me though is how some people suggest that you can have equal cert gains while playing infantry.Unless you are one of those godlike Pros i see on Youtube, i dont think its possible to reach a steady 25000-35000 score/hour i have in my prowler with my gunner onboard.