Why this game drives me crazy...

Aren't those the NS small arms weapons?

In RL, longer barrel guns have hard times in room-to-room combat because it's hard to turn corners. In RL, players can't shuffle side to side (except that one lawyer guy on youtube) and swap/pop Medkits and Primary back and forth to dodge bullets and insta-heal. In RL, players can crouch and go prone. In RL, you get the jump on someone and shoot them in the back from point blank with appropriately lethal ammo, and they don't hop around and then turn and take you down.

I specifically only want to use 2 combat systems in order to provide for 2 player demographics.

I usually do pretty well in tinkering with systems to get them to work as intended. (or close given goals and constraints)

I just don't want to misread/misunderstand you.

The notion of what constitutes a "different combat systems" in your view is still not clear me.

Agreed. Plus the problem of the skies are a deathtrap due to the lethality of enemy Air and the death sentence that is trying to run away from enemy Air once engaged.

Very few people at launch could fly Air well. And most that could were doing lots of A2A, which meant death to most those trying to fly.

I played at Launch. I was pretty much full Infantry. And I did hate Air when it showed up. But I really didn't face if much back then.

That said, I fully understand that if we rebooted the game to At Launch specs, people NOW would use the Air from them to be much more devastating. Which is why I would take the Core of the game then, but fix the things that were broken like Air.

Agreed. I would not just use game At Launch. I would modify it to cover and remove all the stuff you are talking about. For the very reasons you are mentioning: the OP stuff was bad, an having it in would enable people of today to quickly jump on it and break the game.

What I am saying, is that I would attempt to capture the types of positive gameplay I liked from Around Launch. Faction colors on uniforms, usable Instant Action, etc. I would also nerf the OP things from that time. And I would add many of the later additions that I feel were good for the game (like SMGs).

I've already said I would want to take the problem elements out. The experience at launch where OP stuff was in game, but not discovered yet, could be mimiced by just removing it from the game.

A Pity Timer is a design trick that tracks a player's success rate on a low probability outcome event. And then makes sure that player only has to perform the event a set number of times before achieving success. This ensures that a very unlucky player will still get the item after x number of tries.

It is adding an artificial floor to a player's performance, to ensure that they can get at least some minimal results.

As I said, I would want to take the problem elements out. The OP stuff that was in game then would be removed from the game.

I am not against things being more fatal. Most the problems with Skill Gap occur because damage mitigation and slower TTK allow the more skilled player to survive long enough to turn the tide with superior Aim skills. So my solution is either fast TTK (higher damage, easier aim, or less damage avoidance/mitigation) or less disparity in TTK.

Why do you mention Auxillary shields?

They had the potential for it. And it would be removed.

I would mimic the better gameplay I experienced at launch, where this was not a factor.

As I said, I would want to take the problem elements out. The OP stuff that was in game then would be removed from the game.

I don't think this was needed At Launch. I think it was needed later to help New Players catch up to veterans in terms of being able to field a competitive loadout quicker. Almost all matured MMOs have this same problem of New Players starting too far back, and many add shortcuts to get them up to speed/power at the game's target level of Player Competent Loadout.

No Kill Cams either.

I would add tracers. I would probably add Kill Cams.

I know it was there. I didn't run into it much. Regardless, I would remove that from the game.

None of that bothers me.

I was there then, I had to grind my pitiful Certs and make do with starting gear. Almost everyone did. People still had fun. It was a simple setup, but it worked. I also don't want people to Power Creep to fast.

I'd rather reward grinding with more choices for Loadouts, and not actually more stuff crammed into a single Loadout.

I would actually fix all the terrible guns to make them have a role and so people want to unlock and use them. I did my extensive testing of VR and spreadsheets back in the day, I knew how to fix many different guns (and with consulting+date+testig I can fix the rest probably).

This is incorrect.

EVERYONE was new then, most players had very similar experiences. The game handled the New Player experience better because the Devs were focused on making the New Player Experience good... because everyone was new.

Instant Action actually worked. There were no opponents with crazy Loadouts. There were no opponents with confusing Camos (Griraffe was closest). There weren't Beacons everywhere.

I would have made add the Spawn Room changes.

We didn't see big jumps in Unlocks until people got and figured out Medkit spam. And I would remove Medkit spam from game.

I had a very good time At Launch and Around Launch. I played it from then up til end of last year, I would take out all the OP stuff that sucked.

Some people like Jar Jar. I still don't want him as he was in Phantom Menace.

Make Hossin an optional access Continent, or a special Rotation. Or just FIX Hossin: remove those plants Vehicles get stuck on, defoliate half the map, remove the bottlenecks, make those hills so you can climb/drive over them.

Vehicle and Spec Ops Targets in open spaces to affect bases or flip VPs. Knock out perma Air radar, knock out trains, etc.

Missions setting Spec Ops Team deep into enemy bases to Sieze/Defend special strategic modifiers. Etc. Cut loose and explore it.

They have reviews of the game At Launch. People liked it.

metacritic.com - 84/100 (lowest rated were 70/100)
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/planetside-2/critic-reviews

gamespot.com - 8.5/10
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/planetside-2-review/1900-6401787/

ign.com - 9.0/10
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/12/01/planetside-2-review

As I said, I would want to take the problem elements out. The OP stuff that was in game then would be removed from the game.[/quote]

I'm talking stuff that would be even easier to use than that. A gun where if you shot someone in the back from close range, you'd actually pretty much guarantee killing them before they could kill you. But a gun that if you ran into someone face-to-face and they were higher skilled than you and using a "skill gun", you would lose.

Can't really give you a precise answer to this question, because planetside 2 kept surprising me. For example, by BR 60+ I was close to losing interest as I feel that I have sunderer driving and engineer class more or less figured out and was at that point not really interested in other aspects of the game.

Then my old outfit organize a training session to teach how to C4 vehicles with light assault. I was hooked and start learning how to hunt vehicles with drifter and C4. As a light assault I have to fight much more than a sunderer driving engineer, so in the process I started learning how to use auto shotguns. To my surprise, the auto shotguns felt powerful and I can actually kill ppl with it.

That got me into planetside 2's gun play and finding the shotguns too limited in range, I start trying to learn how to use other guns. Having more experience in shooting planetmans now, I discover that the guns that I previously sux at are actually quite effective once I know how to use them. Not only that, trying to shoot planetmans in the head is actually a fun thing to do.

I look up youtube videos and start learning burst control, cross hair placement, proper mouse sensitivity etc etc. I know there are plenty more to learn because good players still beat the **** out of me regularly. There are also stuff like cqc bolt action sniping that I hasn't been confident enough to try yet and I still sux at using semi automatic weapons. I still regularly encounter useful new tricks that I had never seen before.

So to answer your question, I think I will figure out PS2 combat eventually (or at least, believe I have), not everything, but the bits that interest me. I have little desire to master squad leading for example. A computer game has finite complexity after all. As for how long, maybe in 2 years? Discounting beta, I started player 2 years ago and I figure I am 1/2 way there.

Way too many posts to just say what is the actual truth.

"this game is a laggy turd, and people with tier 1 computers (or playing on settings that are so low, they are getting the proper FPS - 45-60 in all fights) and the best connections will destroy you all of the time".

Just read that and let it go. Become one of those people with a new computer and move to a city that has tier 1 internet, or don't b!tch.

100% FACT: The only people that will say those 2 things don't matter are the ones that already have them.

I did a bit of anticipation. Him landing, him aiming for my head.

That wouldnt work too well. I expect Infils and LA's to become OP in many ways if they almost automatically win with a backstab using a noobtube like that.
The noobtube as I understand it is high risk, high reward (defeat of a higher skill player), and moderate skill. The skill required to operate it teaches the player the skills he needs to improve in normal play until the player forsakes the noobtube for other weapons that are better in the long run when you've gotten more experienced. Its not supposed to be superior in specific situations.

That said, PS2 can definitely use some noobtubes, and alterations to the existing wannabe noobtubes like coyotes and lockons

It was like this before for most players, and it was not a problem. It is still like this now for some players, and it is not a problem.

In the old system, where this kind of gameplay was standard, it was regulated by controlling the individual Class TTK speeds/mag/range/etc. by limiting which guns could be on which Class. And then Devs calibrating those from there. And it worked well. TTK was not the single biggest consideration in a gun, because Kills were more reliable based on other factors: surprise, range, cover, etc.

The problems came with Power Creep and players figuring out how to stack damage Mitigation effects. ADAD, Medkit, etc. all work to decrease TTK. TTK climbed to the front in terms of importance, because these mitigation effects are more effective against slower TTK and low Mag weapons (and weapons needing stationary fire), and the faster TTK weapons were better counter to this mititgation. The problem also intensified as gameplay moved Infantry away from open field battles, and more toward clustered shorter range battles tightly around bases. And Lattice further added to the problem because it greatly narrowed the predictable direction from which attacks happened, which makes Infantry combat less about mutli-direction exposure and flanking.

I don't want to confuse jargon, so I will stop using the word Noobtube to refer to the group of Weapons I would implement. Instead, I will call them CrudeGuns, and the other ones FinesseGuns.

I would definitely want to explore the range of guns between these Crude and Finesse. Guns adding progressive elements of Finesse to get interested players to develop their Finesse skills.

But the core Crude gun would be simple, not require complicated use, and it would reliably kill ADAD, Medkit, etc. mitigation if it got the jump on them from close range. And yet would be tuned so that players of above average skill would get better results from a Finesse Gun.

ESF needs to be totally overhauled. And I'm just talking A2A and Vehicles operation. G2A/A2G is a whole different area, and one to cover as well.

You can keep the existing controls, and put it on a selectable ESF Control Type. Then make a new Type along the lines of the one we talked a long time ago about: players able to fully control their VTOL, etc. Get it so most players can get into the sky and fly if they want. Check budget to see if VR learning/tutorials for Vehicles is an option. Bring back Thermal, and nerf Weapons to reduce OP of Air.

Also, add in weapons that require less Aim, add in Aim Assist tools, and modify Coyotes or Lockons to provide a way for a set number of lower skilled pilots to take out a higher skilled one.

Also address the problem of narrow Loadouts. Fire Suppression needs to be nerfed, or other stuff buffed so that it's not just an auto-select. Or, if it is to be an autoselect, then just make it standard.

Also, start stats on Vehicles Destroyed and from what source (like was it doen while using a Vehicle). Then tracking things like Aces, etc. This gets people more off the pure K/D fixation for Vehicle combat. I'd also add in parachutes or other escape, it's silly to have a future game with no parachutes, and it puts too much emphasis on K/D for Vehicle combat.

I've been playing since launch, and I don't know what you are talking about? Power Creep? Which weapons? If anything, the power creep of the Infil has been the biggest with the introduction of SMG's and the upgraded burst-variants of Carbines are incredibly powerful flankingtools for LA's. Additionally things like the Heavy shield have been nerfed and Nanoweave has stopped functioning against headshots. So I'm not sure what kind of powercreep we are talking here. Weapons like the Orion are still one of the better weapons, despite also having been nerfed (along with other accurate weapons to prevent them being too omniversally useful at any range).

How about this:
We change how current underbarrel weapons work. Rather than having to switch to them, you can fire them instantly with a single buttonpress without interrupting your normal fire, and another buttonpress afterwards to reload it. To make it not OP the current underbarrel attachments would get nerfed. The bad stuff when you use one would be a sudden increase in your COF, possibly to maximum.

If say the underbarrel shotgun deals 500 to 750 damage per shot if you hit all pellets, it's a pretty damn good flanking weapon. Get in, blow someone away and only 2 or 3 more hits required to kill, and best part is that you can fire it while simultaneously firing your normal gun. Before they swapped to their medkit they are dead.
Add other underbarrel attachments as well, such as underbarrel solid-slug launchers for longer-range damage stacking or a micro-range flashbang.
There you already have somewhat what you propose: Crude weapons would be underbarrel shotguns with a higher chance of dealing damage and due to it's operation a shorter range meaning the COF increase isn't as much of a problem. And more finesse weapons like the micro-flash that require high initial accuracy and then the player's skill to finish off an easier target.

Except for bringing back the old Thermals and having a set amount of players kill a higher-skilled one it sounds good.
The problem with having a set of lower-skilled players take out a high-skill one is that it would support those airball squads (forgot the proper term there). We've already seen how that ends. The airball squads form to have a chance against high-(single)skill players that otherwise pick them all off. Then the high-(single)skill players get together as well to counter the airballs, the airballs grow in size to counteract eachother... And then anyone not organized in an airball who joins the air-game will take to the air and get ripped to shreds because they come up against 4 enemies at minimum, unless by some sheer luck they happen to have a friendly airball nearby, which is probably only going to happen once.

A lot of it was just stuff that wasn't in abundance yet or unlocked by many yet at Launch. Some of it was stacking stuff. ADAD + HA Shield + Medkit is one instance of Power Creep. Scout Radar on abandoned Flashes. 2x C-4. Camos. Fire Suppresion, Max Ammo Rocket Pods, Thermal. Squad Beacons. That kinda stuff.

At first you just weren't seeing that stuff show up. Then when it does, it starts hitting everywhere and changing the game radically.

Also, I am not saying that Power Creep was the main problem in PS2. I am just saying it was one of the factors that changed things. Players figuring how to use all this stuff and discovering the power of things like Banshee are another area ("Knowledge Creep") that changed things.

I have 0% experience with underbarrels, so I can't really judge that suggestion. But I am down if it works for what I covered.

What about classes that currently don't have an underbarrel option? Give them one?

Cool.

Ideally we'd see various guns in-between too. Kinda training wheel guns for people to cycle through as/if they improve.

Thermals gotta come back. It's just murder on old people's eyes. The problem with Air was poor G2A and OP A2G, I'd fix that and bring back Thermals. I have no interest in making the game extra hard to see and play.

Gotta have the "set amount of players kill a higher-skilled one". We're not segregating players, we're expecting random units to show up, and random skill level players. Sure, better players and units will have superior results, but only by a set amount *if* they are just slugging it out vs. superior numbers of enemies. Hit them with enough bodies in an open fight, and they should go down. I would not make a mass audience game where one elite player can hold off the entire enemy army.

I flew ESF a lot. I flew it solo almost all the time. Though I did join some "Airballs" (Gank Squads).

You ALWAYS got Aces and or Gank Squads. Even without opposing Aces or Gank Squads. Just as guys looking to farm and grief average player Air. Either way it was butchering. The problem was not Aces or Gank Squads, it was that they were allowed to fly into and easily hunt deep in enemy territory.

Add perma Air Radar (when over enemy territory). Add G2A AA missles in PMBs. Make enemy Air/other units have to coordinate and punch their way through for things like Spec Ops, taking out Air Radar and SAMS (with likely both Regenerating in 5-10 minutes), so Air can penetrate and support Spec Ops missions. But for frontline combat or inside their own territory, they don't have to face that stuff and so are motivated to operate there.

Also, Air combat was/is dumb. Guns that shoot slower than WW2 with ancient weapons aiming systems. It was an exercise in eyeballing physics that doesn't make sense for a future war game, and that put the onus on high aim skill to get any results. Just dumb. Easier to hit targets, more emphasis on flying smarter and not just camping an enemy warpgate and dodging better. I get that it was "neat" in a skill test sense, but it remains unusable as a unit for most players, with a joke of making air reliable to any side.

I have a feeling you are operating under completely different definition of "power creep" than the rest of us. It doesn't mean "stacking" either or learning how to wring every drop of use out of edge cases. If you can do that sufficiently, that's just called "being OP."

At the very least, all of things you mentioned have always been in the game, if not in their current form then in a significantly more powerful form. Since then, more than half have been adjusted in some way that they're not nearly as powerful as they used to be. Rocket pods--how dare you bring that up--are the most prominent example on your list of something that has gone from ridiculously overwhelming to fairly mundane due to the developers' efforts.

Save for the MAX, they all have underbarrel options. Either through the Carbine category (Light Assault, Engineer) or the Battle Rifle category (everyone except Light Assault).

Power Creep to me is not just new released stuff, but also stuff that was already in the game but isn't accessed (or isn't accessed at greater frequency) until players level/cert/etc. up.

If Power Creep by term does not fit that, let me know. And I will make up my own term and use that.

Agreed. As I have stated, much of the gameplay I praise about near launch wasn't because the OP items weren't there, it was because much of it just hadn't hit gameplay yet (most players just hadn't unlocked or figured it out yet). Any effort to mimic that early play would coincide with removing those sleeping elements that were in place at that time.

I agree that much has been done over time to fix many offending gameplay elements.

But you also have:
1) changes that I feel detracted from the game
2) many things that weren't changed, and hijack changed the way the game is played

Yes, I agree with you guys that original Rocket Pods were monsters in power. And I agree with their nerf.

That said, I very much don't like the current state of Air.

Well, it's good to know each class has access to them.

Now, how practical are the weapons they are on? Battle Rifle as I recall is a bad weapon in many engagement types. Is the underbarrel to be some CQC monster to help make up for the BR's lack at that kind of role?

Wouldn't it be easier to just design these new guns from scratch?

Power Creep, Isn't things that are OP from the get-go.
Jesus.

You could just look up the terms yourself before using them!

Which translates to: People not understanding the game, makes the sheer OP nature of At-Launch-Weapons okay.
This is the ****test way of balancing: As it requires the majority to be incapable or oblivious to a weapon's ability, or unable to even access it - which leads to it making more sense to have such a weapon gone in the first place if it has to be in all but truth gone.

In order to mimick it, we must literally attempt to ensure all forms of skill with any weapon, system, terrain knowledge is all rendered null.
Do not try to have the Golden Era, where everyone was unaware of how-to-use and barely had anything.

At that point, your Golden Era is surpassed when the game was not released.

Everyone has changes they feel aren't the right ones; Called difference of opinion.
You could actually get specific here, so we know what you believe "hijacked" the game.

And what is wrong with air's present state? Thee whom has wanted the Game's At-Launch Air-weaponry for like 3 bloody posts.

You don't know what classes had weapons with under-barrels?
You don't know how practical they are?
You whom talks about at-launch being best?

Designing entirely new weapons from scratch, results in new weapons that will be compared to, used against , used with, and by themselves with the old set of weaponry;
Which include:

• Assault Rifles
• Sniper Rifles
• Light-Machine-Guns
• Carbines
• Small-Machine-Guns
• Battle\Scout Rifles
• Rocket-Launchers
• Sidearms (diverse category)
• Shotguns

Which all have more than singular weaponry in those weapon classes.
So, you'd have the new weapons competing with all of these, in weapon classes, and against weapon classes.

This also leads to massive bloat in weaponry.

Specifically, weaponry near identical, rather than side-grades - Unless a hundred & one side-grades is the goal, which would defeat the point of designing entirely new weaponry.

I am old. Words change over time, some just had more vague usage. My current usage is not valid. I will change wording. I am not gonna look up and spot check all my jargon, I am just gonna rely on people correcting me. Like I do for others. All good.

I can set any point I want as my ideal point. And I can adjust the game to deliver that experience.

I understand that vets will get more out of older systems due to experience and knowledge. I can adjust for that somewhat, other stuff I will have to figure if it makes a big enough deal or not.

I appreciate that everyone has different things they like. I am not looking to build the game to my sepecific taste, but to be a general audience friendly game.

Did I just post on this stuff?

ESF is bad on both the pilot side and on the pilot's victim side. I will just cover the ESF pilot's side first.

The ESF is just too hard to fly and get results from for most players. I can appreciate maybe some Loadouts that could be hard to fly, but I think the stock ESF should be something people can hop in and fly well and do ok in. I don't like the free swinging vector on the engine as a default. I get that it's "neat", so I would just make a new Certline that lets players pick that, or one in which they can control the vector of the engine.

The ESF vs. ESF combat is far too rewarding for high Aim/Dodge skill. I would add in more Aim assists. Maybe just make the ESFs have bigger hit boxes, bullets higher velocity, etc. Explore bringing back equalizer stuff like Coyote and Lockon. I know Ace's hate this stuff. I really don't care about building an Air game fort the <5% of the population that is Aces.

I would add Perma Air Radar that covers Air that enters deep in enemy territory. Likely things like SAMS in PMBs for said areas, etc. Spec Ops Hardcore Squads can knock em out and set up Air Strikes, but Air can't just camp enemy Warpgates.

That is correct.

I (shortly after) Launch (but before 1/2 Prowler AoE) was the best game state for the average player. Crown and all.

Yup.

Kinda. Lotta weapons just aren't used that much. Same with a lot of Loadouts options. Same with Hossin. But some people bought that stuff, and PS2 does not have a good refund policy on changed weapons, so it'll be a lot less toxic to just make new weapons.

And the way PS2 works, you don't need to make a bunch of new weapons, just a handful... and make em good enough to use. Cause lotta weapons just aren't used that much.

They will be guns for casual players. High skill players won't bother with them, unless they want to Aurax em.

Words like that, haven't changed at all, since they refer to a specific concept created relatively recent in word terms.
As well, You have the mighty google, and 8 thousand dictionaries.
Most do not think to swing around words-they-know-exist, without checking if it actually means what they think it means..
Aka you do not want to accidently say "I am a ******* idiot" in a language you aren't familar with, simply due to thinking the words used mean "I am a charming Intellectual"

Those of the truly old, would think of this first.
The point of Jargon is that is means a specific thing, and is used in a specific context for that thing.
"Watering Hole" in one profession means something entirely different in another profession.

You completely missed the point.
You have stated your version of PS2's golden era, was when no one had a clue how to use anything.
This implies, in order for the game to return, people either must never understand, or nothing in PS2 is meant to be capable of use beyond absolute-novice-level.
Neither is a grand thing to say when referring to a Golden Era.

People become veterans.
Systems that are similar, are easier to use by those with experience with the other systems.

You literally speak of removing, adjusting, and returning PS2 to your version of the Golden Era.
And removing specifically "all" that is disliked.
Which would be 100% of the game, given people disagree on everything.

Flight controls for this are horrid; We all know.
Full Control over the vector of the engine, isn't just a simple thing - That's effects the entire way you fly.

Aim assists?
With Aim Assists, any accuracy is further rewarded..
As well, how do you prevent this from being used outside of fast-paced air-to-air combat...

Reavers have the largest hit-box , Go ask them how they like having a massive surface area.
After all, Hitboxes aren't specific to one type of combat; Larger HB's, mean easier hits on them by anything.

5% of the smaller population that is fliers.
Lock-ons are easily spammed; And become more effective in numbers... as in Gank Squads.

Every ESF has built-in-radar.
Most ESFs use Stealth - Which blocks radar.
Aircraft already are easily spotted, most & I'd agree with them, being near permanently spotted if not running stealth just reinforces the need for stealth which isn't built-in; Which is bad.

PMBs already have the most defensive capabilities for handling aircraft, and wise pilots can demolish them.
PMBs also have the best defensive capabilities in general.

That's a **** ton of weapons, and that's just one per.

In order to be "good enough to use", they must be superior in some fashion to the other weapons.
And which case, that means either they are a niche weapon, which requires skill in a particular fashion or are out-right superior to other weapons.
More guns, means more un-used guns.

Any gun will be more useful in a skilled user's hand.
If it has any value to a new player, whom can't operate the game with any skill - It will be vastly more powerful, and an amplifier of Skill in the hands of anyone else
As in order to be useful, it must act as an amplifier of skill, to account for the lack of skill in the user.

I don't care about coming across as a charming intellectual. I do mean general good will and want real opinions.

This method works for me. Say what I think, get corrected and fix what I need to, continue.

I probably started using these terms in Warhammer Army Book Discussion, EQ, etc. I probably used it in incorrectly with a group that was also using it incorrectly. I will adjust and appreciate the heads up.

"Old" is relative, and in gaming it's a pretty broad category. Old people tend to be lazier and less prone to editing themselves.

Word.

I will try to use Power Creep better next time. And/Or get a better handle on it.

It was when most people didn't have a clue how to use anything. But more specifically, it was that most people weren't using anything in unwanted ways.

Similar, but different enough to clarify.

Kinda.

There are a lot of things that people learned to use that don't bother me, and that don't threaten that early era gameplay. I'd be happy to leave that stuff alone.

The other stuff, I can either take it out, or just reduce its effectiveness, or buff the effectiveness of everything else.

It can be fine when referring to a Golden Era. Eden and the whole apple thing is fine for some things.

Sure.

Just gotta watch out for leaving toys they can abuse in-game. Or letting them abuse them but to lesser effects.

I feel pretty confident I can create a version that would fit well for the average gamer.

* Juggling that with the existing average PS2 vet would be tricky, but doable. (thought they'd grumble)
* Juggling all that with the monetization goals of DBG would be tricky, but doable.
* Juggling all that with DBG Dev per agendas would NOT be doable. Gotta just cut them off. They are dead ends.

Especially for the average gamer.

I have learned to use them very well to move around, and better than most other ESF players in Air combat (though not close to Ace level), and I find them neat/fun to use. But I fully recognized they are not sufficiently accessible for an average gamer, which they need to be.

Maybe with a robust VR Training and Tutorial they could be, but that's just maybe, and I don't see that happening anyway.

It would have to be a lot of trying different setups out and seeing which ones felt good. And then having average players try them out and see if it worked for them. And then having advanced players try it out and get their feedback.

On ground it would only matter vs. Infantry and sometimes Harassers. Everything else is easy to Aim at.

Don't give any HUD Aim Help on Inafntry. Can make it only vs. Air, and that should be fine.

Vanguard Primary, Dalton, and other ESF are the only thing I really fear with a large profile. I'd be happy to remove the Vanny and Dalton OHK. And ESF profile thing gets less of an unbalanced issue when they they both have big profiles.

I already covered Air having problems flying into enemy territory.

I don't have a problem with Gank Squads. They are just Air zergs, and we know PS2 loves zergs. We see Gank Squads or Aces anyway. I prefer having both than just having Aces that can't be stopped.

We might reduce the Ammo of Lockons to small numbers so they are only good for ~3 strikes. Limiting impact and forcing more downtime to resupply. We can lower their damage too.

I'm talking Air showing up on the Big Map. So everyone can see them and go hunt them down.

Change Stealth to Jamming and just have it reduce Lockon Timing.

Remove Stealth as an option. Change Stealth to Jamming and just have it reduce Lockon Timing.

I would be fine having free standing SAMS too, that either ground Vehicles, Infantry, or custom Air Strikes can take out.

Guns just need a role to be used. And be able to deliver at that role better than other options. Or be better at more roles, and "good enough", even if they aren't the best at many/any of them.

The more frequent and reliable that use, the more they will see use.

True, but some will be a lot more powerful than others in the hands of the skilled. Also some guns can be the best choice for a lower skill player, but a higher skill player could get more power out of a different gun option.

True. But you can make other gun options which are poor for a lower skill player, but that perform well for a higher skilled or more experienced player.

That was an example, of someone thinking words meant one thing, but it meant something entirely different.
To those who understand, you call yourself an idiot; To yourself, you think you called yourself charming.
That is a glorious example of a miss-understanding in of itself;
You didn't get what I said, which was about not understanding what you actually say.

Your method of randomly using words that 'sound' nice, cause more confusion & work for us all, including yourself than simply not using Jargon rather than straight-words.

Jargon is to save time & confusion, not add to it.

You... literally... just insulted every single 'old' person, usually referred to as wise, as lazy.
Implications are not your thing. at all.

Unwarranted ways;
Aircraft to kill anything : used exactly as designed.
HEAT was designed to kill infantry; It was used exactly as built.
In fact, everything was a weapon of death, and used to kill.
The only times when it wasn't 'warranted' would be... I actually can't recall a time.
They are weapons; They kill.
Any use of them, show-cased the literal flaws in the weapon's at-launch-stats.

Any abuse of them?
Like to do what? Achieve a kill?
Is it abuse to kill someone at point-blank range with a sniper?
An LMG from a mile away?
Have to be very specific.

There is a very fine line between using a tool to its fullest potential, using it creatively, and using it in broken ways,
Yes, that's a three-way line.

Grand example being use of the AP cannon round on the Vanguard for anti-air work.

Vector control, affects all manner of flight.
As well as vulnerability of flight targets - If you control the vector exactly, you can control the output of it.
This enhances the mobility of aircraft, and grants greater control over its movement to the pilots...
And less capability for others to predict the movements.

Auto-aim, affects weaponry, all ESF weaponry can damage armor & infantry.
This includes tanks; The most stationary & largest ground targets.
Allowing the pilot to be more accurate, and focus more on evasion, without a loss.

How the hell do you make it HUD specific to aircraft?
Would that not make it require the target to literally be in the cross hairs to even activate?
In which case, what is it doing exactly?

You don't have a problem, with 5v1 odds of aircraft slamming down pilots, with lock-ons & similar around their own warp gates, and doing it map-wide with the fastest thing in planetside.
A proper air zerg, isn't a gank squad; it's a bloody mob of Liberators & ESFs, attacking everything in a lane.

If it's limited to 3 shots; Having more aircraft automatically counters the downside of this weapon.
And amplifies the damage taken by the outnumbered side.

So you'd **** aircraft over, to be targets on the map, unable to hide or similar from larger aircraft forces.
Making them effectively useless, unless they outnumber enemy aircraft map wide - as if they didn't, they'd be tracked from the warp gate, and mobbed till they died.

Reduce lock-ons, while being visible to literally everything; Well those aircraft are dead to anything that flies to catch them.

Having massive missiles, capable of knocking down aircraft, which in your eyes, are rendered as spotted 24\7, literally makes it near impossible to fly without outnumbering the enemy in every way possible.
As well, these would work best in PMBs, which can deny everything but a zerg with a 1/18th of the people... and some even stop those.

The role of a gun, is to kill.
The purpose is to kill.
The methods it provides to do it, is what is different.
Unless it is superior, it is no different than the other weapons in the same methodology of use.
In which case, has less purpose or point in using it.

That's exactly the point.
If they aren't superior in some fashion, they won't get used.
If they are superior in some fashion, only they will be used.
This is why you don't have multiple guns doing the same job with the same method.

Someone skilled can turn the magscatter into a weapon of death, rather than a joke of a RNG shotgun pistol.
In order for it to be useful for a new player, it must be grand at something... which is even easier to achieve with said weapon, with skill... which is gained by use of it or other weapons....


Every bloody gun presently is like this.
Starter weapons exist already!
Gauss Saw (As much of a joke it is, for it to be the starter weapon)
Orion
CARV

Which is, NC, VS, TR.
And that's just for Heavies.
Each class, has starter weapons, which function well enough to get the job done.
Come with attachments for free.

At Launch, you didn't get attachments, so it's a better start these days than back then.

I think here you're trying to find/claim some personal value on this thread. Please don't. Just stick to the topic. I don't care about challenging or partaking in your journey to manhood. Though I wish you the best in that.

Likewise, I am not looking to impress anyone with my big boy pants. This is mostly just theoretical discussion. I appreciate the on topic exchanges.

That sounds pretty nonsense. But I can appreciate I am often an idiot and may be missing all kinds of stuff. Especially generational stuff. I rely on shared goodwill and common goal to mutually clarify speed bumps, and keep the discussion going.

That's why we use it and clarify. Not looking to re-invent the wheel.

Don't get fixated the trees, if you can make out the forest. If you can't, then we can clarify the trees until you are on board.

Call a duck a duck. Different groups tend toward different traits. Sure, old people are typically much more experienced (though not in new tech, etc.) and usually have built up knowledge, but they still trend toward being lazy (in a relative sense). Some of it's physical, some of it's motivation, some of it's lack of just being a spaz kid.

I'm not writing here to pave roads to the human heart. I'm here to ballpark some issues, and cover various (non-prickly) various random other stuff along the way as desired.

I think you are confusing the Potential Game at launch and the Actual Game As Played at launch. I am just talking about the latter as a model for the game experience I would steer towards.

I get that cavemen had all the ingredients they needed to make rocket ships. But they didn't. And we can simulate a Cave Man world to rocket scientists, but putting them in an environ where those key rocket ship ingredients just aren't available.

Abuse as in achieve a power level with them that exceeds the max level intended.

And using it in a way that's engaging for players (users and victims).

At the end of the day, I want it to be engaging, but within the power bounds of the model.

I hate the Vanguard AP Cannon as AA. I would either remove it or add it to all 3 MBTs.

That's fine by me.

I'd work on getting the actual movement/flight from a pilot in a good place first. Then make sure weapons systems felt good. Then worry about power levels and AA, etc.

If I can get an ESF that's fun to fly and accessible by casual players, that is a huge success. I can generally get the rest through concepting, tinkering, testing, and then balance.

I'm just talking about a HUD that shows a visual for where to lead your bullets vs. other Air. And then just not having the HUD provide this for non-air.

In terms of typical aim assist, you can have the system only do this for specific units determined by Dev. And then make those Air units, or even just ESF really.

Dev tools can be set to id off specific targets. Often by sticking a tag on that target, and then having game check for that tag. So the HUD can hone in on units with the "HUD Target" tag, and then just stick that tag on other Air.

I think DonAlfrago is the king of Gank Squad running. After that, it's just small 2-3 ESF teams of hunting Gankers, or the very rare posse of bored-or-pissed-off Aces. I have run into the odd 2-3 Lib Ganks or 2-3 of mixed ESF/Lib group, but they're not overly common and the Libs usually eventually get separated having to deal with sustained range damage.

I didn't do it often, but I have flown with DonAlfrago. And I have flown against him as well. I've see him experiment with different Air (saw him running his group in a Valk once), and I think they'd probably accept non-ESFs joining them (they are very friendly and open), but it's usually just a bunch of Scythes.

I don't mind players using numbers to solve a problem. I WANT that to be in the equation.

The idea is that dedicating more people can at least provide an answer, even if that answer is very costly and limits the broader work that those units could have been doing in less of a clump.

Things like Lattice are poor because (among other problems) they bottleneck gameplay, so there is no real cost to clumping, because it's all linear target consumption anyway. I'm not saying Lattice doesn't have good points as well, and I do think it's a good band aid to the problem of zergs avoiding each other in a non-Lattice system.

I'd make it so Air can't reliably cross into enemy Airspace. And definitely not linger. Put the focus on the front lines.

Almost any AA players will tell you that Air is terrible when it lingers in zergs over an area in range of AA.

Air vs. Air.

I'd make it so Air can't reliably cross into enemy Airspace. And definitely not linger. Put the focus on the front lines.

I'd make it so Air can't reliably cross into enemy Airspace. And definitely not linger. Put the focus on the front lines.

Almost any AA players will tell you that Air is terrible when it lingers in zergs over an area in range of AA.

PMB or maybe standalone.

It's sometimes a deterrent, sometimes a way to pressure enemy forces (divert them, move them off a facing, etc.), sometimes it draws attention from ally units, etc.

Depends how narrow it is. A gun can be not superior, but still hold value because of it's jack-of-all-trades role.

Yeah, I'm down with that in general.

You still have things like convenience (more bullets means less resupplying, etc.), etc.

As I said, you can give the Pro a special gun they uniquely can outperform at, and they won't bother with the noob gun.

They don't perform up to the power level I want on either new or average players. So I'd bump that up, or reduce the Elite players down.

Pros and cons. If it's behind a grind wall, can be bad for new players. Also, I would DEFINITELY make player Loadouts public, so New Players could emulate Loadouts of other players and not just guess at what to Cert/buy into. Basically the "decklist" concept from CCGs.

It was trying to get you to cease with any Jargon, and simply be straight about what you mean.
Less confusion caused, more discussion on the intended subject is the result of less confusion.

The point of Jargon, it's meaning is known, and used, in that context properly; Which grants clarity with less words.
Otherwise it sows confusion, which defeats the point of using it.

The Potential game at Launch, had ESFs with Lol-Pods, HEAT shells with a massive radius, Liberator Daltons being the end all to any target.
The At-Launch-Game had all of these weapons sitting there, with those same stats.
It is akin to saying in a game of base-ball, while one team had more people on the field, only so many stood at the plates so they were equal - Which by the way, wouldn't be equal.

The Game played at Launch, had vehicles with all these capabilities.
Sure, in the first ******* hour, maybe vehicles weren't massively used - But in that case, your golden era requires people to be unable to use anything to any level of skill, or use any vehicles at all.
This is a game of Infantry, Vehicles, and Aircraft.

The max intended.
Lovely, use a weapon well enough, and it is abuse; since that is based on perception...
Every sniper, tank, heavy, or aircraft has abused and can abuse every inch of their tool set.
How so? You can fire off a sniper rifle in close range, scoring a one-hit kill faster than they can kill you.
You can literally use a Tank's weaponry to shell aircraft if given the proper angle & target.
You can literally hover in the blind-spot of all ground targets & fire, as aircraft.

You see to think you want that, but your words do not follow that.

The Vanguard being used as AA, is something you apparently don't understand:
It requires the vanguard to either be on a hillside, with an aircraft inside that firing angle.
It then requires the shot to land, which if aircraft weren't hovering near the ground or not sitting still, would be incredibly lucky to hit.
It's a situational trick, used to destroy oblivious aircraft - and it takes Skill to achieve.
As well you can't stop it, without allowing aircraft to hover in-front of a tank's main cannon without a damn.

This isn't to mention, all tanks can achieve it; The Vanguard' just has the easiest time doing it.

So basically, it's fine to allow people the ultimate control over vector as an option, which I doubt would be default..
Which changes the entire way AA can predict the aircraft's movements, positions and similar....
"make it feel good" and then worry about the bloody counters which already can't function well?

A predictive HUD display, on enemy aircraft.
That requires it to first track a specific target, since in order to aim the shots, you will have it leave your cross-hairs in your leading attempts.
Or did you forget ESF weaponry is fixed-point weaponry?
As if you did, then recall only Valks, Liberators, and Galaxies have turret-based weapon systems.
And even then, in order to lead your shots, you must move the cross hair off target.

You apparently missed the point of what is a gank squad, and what is an air zerg.

Numbers make your weapon work for the group with more people, and unable to function against said group.
How? As they already have more targets than ammo, while the reverse isn't true.
Add in each ESF adding the full damage of the weapon, and it's only practical in gank squads, or against lone targets.

The Lattice prevents people from avoiding all enemy resistance till they run out of ways to go.
This is what they did on the Hex system; Any time a defense put up any resistance, they melted around it, and went ahead anyway.
You couldn't stop any attack, since it could just weave around any resistance till the warp gate.
Clumping was worse on hex, since it literally couldn't be stopped in the first place since no choke-point would force it into a meat-grinder.


Aircraft is meant to strike into enemy airspace, and defend allied airspace.
If aircraft are spotted by default from the very warpgate, No airdrop from a gal, wouldn't be tracked by enemy ESFs in that Gal's own territory.
You'd have the side with the most numbers sending aircraft squads across their enemy's territory to shred all aircraft as they left the warpgate.
Or the side with less people having no ability to use aircraft without being shredded by ESFs.

The front line, which can see every single aircraft in the sky...
As much as it is annoying, aircraft need to not be seen-24/7 on every map system, in order to actually function.

Most AA tell you, that AA weapons lack the damage capabilities, range, or DPS to actually kill aircraft.
Victims of A2G tell you aircraft lingering or hovering are the worst.

A massive *** missile silo, capable given the description of blasting aircraft apart from a grand range...
Where all aircraft are visible - aka Construction gains the best AA system...
One that could guard hives easily from Gal drops, making them literally immortal.

The purpose of a gun is to kill.
They are built with the intent , idea, and capabilities to kill.
Only Anti-air weapons in this game are designed to deter, the real AA guns were designed to destroy the aircraft & kill the pilots.
The purpose of firing it, that, that can be to distract.

If a weapon is superior in a role, and has wide-range of uses (jack of all trades), it is better than weapons built for the same role.

Unless there is a cost to those more bullets, why bother not taking them, if there is only an advantage here or there?

Reduce the Elite Players down... or buff up the power of the starter weapons...
Which in turns buffs those with Skill.
Do you not understand how skill works?

Sherlock.
New players today have it better; There is no pro or con.
They have the attachments for free - not a grind wall, they had that wall back at Launch.
Player Load-outs public.. For starters, new players won't have the gear to emulate the one thousand different combos from a hand full of people.
Second, that doesn't help them at all with skill - it tricks them into thinking the gear makes it possible, not skill with it.

There are guides for that. Many of them.
Blindly copying load-outs of others, does not grant the skill or knowledge needed to run the load-out properly.
Some of my load-outs require a literal knowledge of how every tool works exactly, for it to function well at all.
And when to use the tools:
One is a medic build, that only functions properly, when it is used to support allies.
Without allies to reinforce, and without it being a specific type of situation, the Loadout is inferior to my others.

Add in implants, which can be used creatively, by people, to allow certain tricks, and it becomes even more of a folly.
How so? During the process of 'looking at load-outs', without understanding why they are like that, the player doesn't design or think of what works for them, not someone else.
Which is turn, cuts them out of the experience of how-things-work for them specifically.
Some people are a great shot; Some are not.
The load-outs between them, will be totally different in results even if the Tools match.
As well, they won't learn some load-outs are better in specific situations; They'll be reliant on someone else to dictate what works.

They don't learn how to make the load-out, by being told to believe "these load-outs are what works, nothing else"

Yeah. We've covered this. We're just gonna shoot for "best efforts". If there's confusion along the way, we just clarify and then move along.

You Baseball Analogy is very bad.

I think we've covered this. But I will cover it again.

I would model much of it around gameplay just after Launch. But not all of it. The rest I would adjust to fix the stuff I didn't like at launch.

I would include Infantry, Vehicles, and Aircraft.

That is correct. That is what Designers do, they determine what limits they want and then set them in the game.

As you/I already covered, abuse is based on perception. And in my case it's my perception as Designer.

I am fine with Sniper OHKs for the most part. I would likely give Prowler and Mag OHK on Air options (give Prowler the option to toggle simultaneous barrel fire, give Mag the ability to adjust vertical aim on Primary). I am mixed on G2A/A2G, and would likely revisit it AFTER I have changed the Air controls to ones that worked better for the average player.

I am familiar with the Vanny OHK on ESFs. I have died to it a number of times. And I have looked into how they set it up.

And it's not as limited as you propose. It was a pretty high % of NC AA vs. ESF. I have been Vanny Sniped on the back Crown platform by a guy west of Crossroads... he did it twice. It's also much easier for multiple Vannys who spread out, and so can cover each other (if I run across that as an ESF, I just don't try to engage). Not to mention the Scythe pancake is an easy target. I literally hunted NC less because of Vanny OHK.

Lightning can't, not if ESF has health and Fire Suppression.

Mag can, but they have a hard time elevating their Primary.

Prowler has a hard time landing both Primary shots.

I died to Vanny OHK with my ESF, I have barely died to the others at all.

Yup.

I'd probably end up just gutting the offensive power of the ESF.

The HUD tracker/suggestor can jump around to targets nearest reticule by default. And players can toggle on locks on specific targets (or unlock), or players can cycle between targets. Other games have this kind of stuff to borrow from.

Well, there is the air zerg where a bunch of terrible pilots grab a ton of ESF and do a crude alpha strike on a target area, and then get blown out of the sky by various threats. That can be an effective one-shot deal, but it's pretty sad overall. I've sometimes found my ESF flying alongside an ally version of that, and I just watch them die like moths very quickly as they hardly know how to fly. I've also encountered them as the enemy ESF, and basically you just back off and then pick em apart from the edge.

Other than that, it's just Gank Squads of varying sizes. But since they are masses, they can be called zergs. And they are a lot more functional than those airballs of ~20 terrible pilots. Once in a blue moon you'll get a big air to air battle of 10 vs. 10 ESFs, but that's usually more of a throw down unsustainable grudge brawl, and there is no real strategic achievement other than fun.

As I said, DonAlfrago stands out as the only real Gank Zerg I know of. Where he uses Air effectively in both locking down the skies and in providing support massive strikes on ground targets to aid ally pushes.

Other than that, Air is usually most effective in A2G in support of ally pushes when there are only a handful of them and they operate solo and with concealed attack runs. Cause giant lingering airballs are just melted by AA.

Are we talking Lockons here? It's sometimes hard to figure out what you're referring to, cause you don't reply to specific sections. You spam it out.

I totally agree that Lattice prevents giant zergs from avoiding each other and just steamrolling empty bases.

I'll just add what I wrote in a thread on reddit:

Hardcore Organized Players want to achieve formal objectives quickly. They are not looking for a "casual fun" or fair fight, they are looking to stack their advantages (both Squad only and common pool advantages) and rush an objective before defenders can react, in order to power game an objective and win.

Likewise, some non-Hardcore Organized Players and some non-Organized Players join massive Zergs and rush an objective before defenders can react, in order to power game an objective and win.

In contrast, some non-Hardcore Organized Players and some non-Organized Players are just looking for a "casual fun" or fair fight. Often including the ability to get into such a fight quickly.

Mixing these groups has long been a major issue for PS2, especially when the Devs actually change the game in ways that buff/nerf/help/hurt any of these 3 groups over the others. And notably, the first 2 groups are basically seeking to NOT interact with the opponent, they'd rather steamroll formal objectives.

By current/past Designers that I would not have doing Air.

Air is actually really bad at this. Not to mention waiting at a base for an attacker to show up is typically met with failure to find targets.

Air only spotted by default if it flies past the frontline and into uncontested enemy territory.

Air flying either in their own territory or on the frontline does not spot by default.

As I said above, perma radar only affects units flying over ENEMY territory.

Auto-spot would only affect them if they fly deep into enemy territory.

Also, I flew ESF a lot, and I could do fine even while spotted. You just can't fly reckless.

I would most likely nerf Airs firepower. I would also give G2A Lockons as default to HA.

I hate Gals ability to bypass PMB defenses. I would remove that.

I would also nerf PMB ability to get more than a certain amount of VPs, and the ability to undo those VPs. And probably make PMBs weaker overall.

A lot comes down to figuring out what the role of PMBs are, and figuring out how Spec Ops teams want to interaction with them. And *maybe* if PMBs and average players can/should have any way to interact with each other on a decent level (which they largely currently don't).

I am sure you play the game you want. And that's fine. But as a Designer, I have to take into account how weapons affect the game space beyond just kills.

Long range AV can push back armor from encircling a base, allowing the Defenders to punch out. Well positioned Tanks can keep enemy Sundies from setting up on certain fronts. These things are real and in game.

When I want to crack a zerg, I don't do it by just killing. I do it by driving off air, driving armor and sundies off positions, and then the allies can break out or ramp up a flank assault or more pressure.

Some jack-of-all-trades aren't the best at anything, but they are so flexible they are still worth using.

Some weapon options provide more ammo than others. I used to take Hornet over Pods sometimes just cause it had massive ammo and so didn't require the pita constant resupplying that Pods do.

Often. And what I don't get, I give myself time, research, consulting, resources, etc. to figure out.

No.

Instant Action is a very evil joke. The default player navigation takes people to Hossin an death traps. That right there is murder on new players.

Plus the sheer amount of non-intuitive map icons is a mess. Camos that completely mask the factions. Vets with ****** out farm machines. Tutorial videos that are so outdated, the stuff they show isn't even in the game anymore. People who play Koltyr just to grief noobs.

The nightmare of the New Player experience is well documented. Just as the high reviews of the game at launch is well documented.

Everyone was starting new at launch. It was a level playing field (for most).

People can make up their own minds. They can see what the average player is using, not just top players.

And don't delude yourself into thinking top players only use stuff they can use. Default ESF is frequently the same build across players: Stealth, Fire Suppression, etc.

You actually dismiss the notion of Public Loadouts as a knee-jerk reaction with likely very little real thought. Whereas this is a cornerstone of what I feel is key player support info, that would make massive positive impact.

Public data is largely old and outdated, with very few sources tagged as being such (Wrel did it on his stuff, kudos to him on that).

Public data that is old and outdated becomes part of the problem. Confusion and misinformation.

You're just arguing to argue.

Decklists work. Like night and day difference. Even when the maker isn't explaining all decisions. Players can figure things out, test and try, or talk to each other to find out stuff.

Again, Decklists work. Only out-of-touch idealists claim that Decklists and game data like Oracle can't be used by players to help inform their decisions and gameplay.

I spend hours in VR, then reported findings on forums... so others wouldn't have to. If you want to re-invent the wheel (and do so with a terrible version of a wheel) then you can ignore the Decklists. The beauty of Desklists is that people like you who don't want them can just ignore them.