Smaller list of nonsequitur changes I'd make.

[Warborn]

Bunch of stuff I think would do well in Planetside:


1) I think an armor/weapon counters system would be good. Having a much more varied system for armor/weapons which creates niche roles for various vehicles and prevents a single vehicle (the tank, in this case) from dominating the battlefield would be welcome. There is no other way to make the other ground vehicles useful in combat other than to give them a purpose, and by making them more effective against some things and more resistant to different forms of attack, you create a niche role for them. People would use a vehicle that actually has a distinct function in the game.

To give you an idea of what inspired this, see Starcraft and its counters system. Using RTS game analogies, PS is operating based on a very primitive system of balance, and it's because of that that a lot of the vehicles in the game have little function, being made superfluous due to having identical specifics emulated in greater magnitude by the tanks of each side (meaning, if you're serious about killing people on the ground, why get a Marauder when you can get a Prowler?). It would be fine if there were only a handful of vehicles, with each having a different role unique to that vehicle (as with Tribes 2), but PS has too many vehicles to function that way, unless the developers have no problem with many of the vehicles being a rare sight in the game.


2) Overhaul the Mosquito and Reaver. Reaver rockets should have much less splash damage, making them anti-armor rather than infantry spamming weapons (and don't give me any "well they can only kill 3 or 4 infantry before having to rearm at a air pad somewhere" stuff, that doesn't diminish the fact that they can easily kill a handful of infantry before having to repair/rearm). Mosquitoes, too, should be primarily anti-air; their chaingun is far too effective against infantry when combined with their speed, low cert cost, and secondary functions. If necessary, its gun should be more effective against aircraft (as per the counters system).


3) Remove or greatly reduce the damage you take from being hit by a vehicle. I can't get over how retarded this feature is. If there was one thing I'd remove from the game, this would probably be it. It's insane that the main mode of attack for any non-tank vehicle (not including the MagRider) is its goddamn bumper. Even an ANT is very capable of killing a handful of guys before being taken down, terrain permitting. This has to be remedied in some fashion. Although vehiciles smashing other vehicles is just great, as I'd never want to deprive any tank drivers of the joy of smashing a Basilisk apart in one hit, insta-death for infantry is ridiculous.


4) Make the Core Combat weapons and vehicles available at any base, although the Flail and possibly the Router should require a Tech Plant to be created. If anyone believes this will lead to there being Flails anywhere, the obviously there's a problem with the Flail that should be addressed, but sweeping the vehicles many of you paid money for, and yet hardly ever have access to, is not the way to do it. Hell, I might even buy CC if this change were to go through.

Oh, and some Empire-specific skins for the vehicles would be nice. They can stay the same shape, but they should lose the uniform silvery look and go with the colors of their respective Empire. They're pretty hard to visually identify as friend or foe at a range, especially the Switchblade and Flail (Router isn't so bad, but it's still not obvious enough).

[Veteran]

I agree with #3 and #4 the most. I can't remember the last Flail or Router I saw. The Vehicle Module should just increase the armor and ammo of the AT vehicles, while the Equipment Module should increase the damage and ammo of the AT infantry weapons. Is it just me or does the Maelstrom suck rocks? Core Combat is going to be called 'the invisible expansion' if something doesn't change.

[TeraHertz]

There is no other way to make the other ground vehicles useful in combat other than to give them a purpose

Most of them do in my opinion. I'm not going to explain them all. They're fairly self evident up sides, like being able to go over water, carry maxs, be invisible on interlink, available without a techplant etc.
With the cert reorder comming up people will have a tech plant and non tech plant option of their selected cert for the most part.


2) Overhaul the Mosquito and Reaver.

They're fine as it is. Possibly the rocket damage would be a good idea, forcing the reavers to use the chaingun. It IS supposed to be an anti tank vehicle after all. But remeber, the reaver costs 4 certs and requires a techplant.

3) Remove or greatly reduce the damage you take from being hit by a vehicle.

Sorry, but no. SO wrong. If you don't get out of the way of a vehicle, it's you're own fault. My tip for when there's alot if vehicles or aircraft about: Stay in doors or stick to the trees.


4) Make the Core Combat weapons and vehicles available at any base, although the Flail and possibly the Router should require a Tech Plant to be created.

I cant really comment on this as I don't own Core Combat. I wasn't insane enough to buy it. From what I've seen the point is that you go and get a vehicle module. Perhaps you're just being lazy :p
don't those things last over 3 hours?


5) They're pretty hard to visually identify as friend or foe at a range, especially the Switchblade and Flail (Router isn't so bad, but it's still not obvious enough).

I kind of agree with you on this one, though it's not a major problem at the moment. Like you said, there aren't that many CC vehicles about.

[Veteran]

The major problem with vehicle bumpers is that in real-life, you can easily move out of the way of a bumper by sidestepping or diving out of the way. In PlanetSide, thanks to the wonders of Client-Side Hit-Detection, dodging is usually futile and you can even die while hiding behind a tree.

Yes, I know it's not all about realism, which is exactly why vehicle bumpers shouldn't be so lethal. It would also stop those chucklenuts who jump in front of friendlies to force them to take a grief penalty.

[Warborn]

Most of them do in my opinion. I'm not going to explain them all. They're fairly self evident up sides, like being able to go over water, carry maxs, be invisible on interlink, available without a techplant etc.
With the cert reorder comming up people will have a tech plant and non tech plant option of their selected cert for the most part.

If you think it's fine that these vehicles have no reason other than this, then my next comment is that there is far too little need for any of these functions to be of any value, and that we should think about how to make the vehicles more useful that way.

They're fine as it is. Possibly the rocket damage would be a good idea, forcing the reavers to use the chaingun. It IS supposed to be an anti tank vehicle after all. But remeber, the reaver costs 4 certs and requires a techplant.

Cert points are not a tool to use in balancing things, so the cert cost is secondary.

Anyway, do you have a reason why you think the Mosquito is fine as an easy-access, air-dominating, infantry-killing vehicle that can be used to ferry you to the top of a tower or onto a base?

Sorry, but no. SO wrong. If you don't get out of the way of a vehicle, it's you're own fault.

Obviously you spend most of your time in a vehicle. Unless the driver is retarded or driving an ANT, or you're right next to a tree, you CANNOT avoid the vehicle. It moves too fast, you move too slow, and it can turn into you.

My tip for when there's alot if vehicles or aircraft about_: Stay in doors or stick to the trees.

Try playing an infantry now and then. The game shouldn't revolve around vehicles and aircraft.

[ORANGE]

First off to make myself completely clear I play as a Max/Hvy. Ass./ATV.

1. The fact that you want to get rid of damage from geting run over by vehicles is well....stupid the only times when I get run over is when its my own friggen fault you have to remember when you run in front of a vehicle that they cant always stop on a dime (especially vs vehicles)

2. The vehicles that are in the game all have fairly obvious uses to them especially tanks which are supposed to rule the battlefield.

3. Having been a pilot for awhile before switching out reaver for hvy. ass. it can be difficult to stay in the air for more than a coupla mins at a time during an assault or even defense to to all the aa so when you do get a few kills it makes up for the last hour that you just spent respawning and grabbing new reavers.

4. The mosquito is fine if anything the cannon on it in many cases can be too weak when up against air targets and it is pretty friggen hard to hit ground targets with it.

All in all the weaknesses and lack there of in the vehicles more or less balances them out. In a squad if you have 5 guys you can take out a tank with med. ass. weapons if you know what your doing. It sounds like you just need to get a vehicle Warborn and stop complaining when you get run over cause you ran in front of them.

[TeraHertz]

If you think it's fine that these vehicles have no reason other than this, then my next comment is that there is far too little need for any of these functions to be of any value, and that we should think about how to make the vehicles more useful that way.

They have a strong, yet subtle tactical value. How would you make them MORE useful?


Cert points are not a tool to use in balancing things, so the cert cost is secondary.
Really? I think they are.


Anyway, do you have a reason why you think the Mosquito is fine as an easy-access, air-dominating, infantry-killing vehicle that can be used to ferry you to the top of a tower or onto a base?

If there are alot of mossis about, man a gun turret. If you can't, stay in doors. They can't cap a base flying about. If you have to cross an expanse, make sure your mates have an AA cert, or a vehicle. The deliverer OWN mossies.


Obviously you spend most of your time in a vehicle. Unless the driver is retarded or driving an ANT, or you're right next to a tree, you CANNOT avoid the vehicle. It moves too fast, you move too slow, and it can turn into you.

Look at my certs. I Don't have a vehicle. At all. I either surge run, deconstruct, or hitch a ride.


Try playing an infantry now and then. The game shouldn't revolve around vehicles and aircraft.

Um, as above. No vehicle. No max. Try playing Werner.

[Veteran]

Cert points aren't a balancing factor for the following reason...

Imagine a gun that shot 100 rounds a second and killed any infantry or vehicle that they touched... The cost? 23 certs. Is this a balanced cert because it costs 23? Of course not. Thus, the cost of the cert is not factorial when judging its power.

I think that's what he meant.

[Rbstr]

well if it cost 23 then only Br20's could have it, and then they would had agile armor and nothing else to fight with making them very vonerable(sp). But i do agree with you just looking at it from another way.

Also i am a mosly infantry player and i think it would be ridiculous to not get killed by getting run down buy anything except an ATV, but they do need to make it so the vehicle has to be going a bit faster and if you are on one of the edges of the hitbox for the tank/vehicle you don't take as much damage. So if you get hit head on your dead, but if you get glanced you don't get hurt that bad.

[WritheNC]

As a grunt, I like the ideas...but I don't think they'll fly =\

[Nimbus]

1. Eh, the vehicles I think have pretty specific jobs already. Some just aren't as fun as others. Granted, they don't have the variation that RTS games do, but this is not an RTS either.

2. Reavers and Mosquitos are fine. Do you really think an anti armor weapon should have less of an effect on infantry? Bullshit. It's anti-armor because its MORE powerful. The rockets are fine the way they are. As for mosquitos. Mosquitos were NOT desiged to be AA. They were designed to be scoutcraft. Their machineguns should be effective against infantry.
Look, vehicles beat infantry okay? Thats what they are supposed to do. If you are running around without AA support you should EXPECT to get beaten by air opponants. Get used to it.

3. This is even dumber than the last one. You get hit by a semi going 45 mph you die, okay? No room for argument there. I can see upping the damage that a vehicle itself takes for non-tank vehicles, but other than that vehicle damage is exactly where it should be.

4. It really kind of ruins the point of core combat, but I can easily understand that. Only about half the people I know actually have it and I havent' seen any core combat vehicles for the past 2 weeks or so.

[Rayder]

1) No

2) No comment

3) No. If they got rid of vehicles crushing infantry, the weapons systems would have to be upped by at least 10x

4) No comment

[Warborn]

3) No. If they got rid of vehicles crushing infantry, the weapons systems would have to be upped by at least 10x

Sounds good to me.

1. Eh, the vehicles I think have pretty specific jobs already. Some just aren't as fun as others. Granted, they don't have the variation that RTS games do, but this is not an RTS either.

I'm not implying that it should try to be more like an RTS, only that the really good RTS games out there actually have every unit fit some role in the battlefield. There are no wasted vehicles like there are now. After all, just because the idea stems from the RTS genre doesn't mean that it can't be applied to games like Planetside. Planetside isn't an RPG, but it uses experience and leveling to enhance its gameplay, does it not?

2. Reavers and Mosquitos are fine. Do you really think an anti armor weapon should have less of an effect on infantry? Bullshit. It's anti-armor because its MORE powerful. The rockets are fine the way they are. As for mosquitos. Mosquitos were NOT desiged to be AA. They were designed to be scoutcraft. Their machineguns should be effective against infantry.
Look, vehicles beat infantry okay? Thats what they are supposed to do. If you are running around without AA support you should EXPECT to get beaten by air opponants. Get used to it.

Yeah, anti-armor does annihilate infantry easily, what was I thinking? That's why Phoenix missiles and decimators are instantly lethal to infantry, right? Or is there actually some truth behind the old axiom of realism being a tool, not a goal, on the path toward game balance?

As for vehicles beating infantry, in most cases I have no problem with it. Even if a strong weapon/armor counter system like I'm proposing were added I would fully expect a vehicle weak against infantry to be able to gun down several infantry before being destroyed itself. The point is that all vehicles shouldn't mow down infantry in two seconds, because then it degenerates into which vehicle is best at killing infantry, rather than which are best at killing what the enemy has the most of and has the greatest survivability (which invariably is the tank).

3. This is even dumber than the last one. You get hit by a semi going 45 mph you die, okay? No room for argument there. I can see upping the damage that a vehicle itself takes for non-tank vehicles, but other than that vehicle damage is exactly where it should be.

So you're justifying this based on realism? I don't think you're in any position to comment on other peoples' intelligence, bud.

4. It really kind of ruins the point of core combat, but I can easily understand that. Only about half the people I know actually have it and I havent' seen any core combat vehicles for the past 2 weeks or so.

What is the point of Core Combat? I haven't seen one, even during the 7 day instant-access bit. If you actually got something you could use regularily out of the expansion, maybe it would have a point.

well if it cost 23 then only Br20's could have it, and then they would had agile armor and nothing else to fight with making them very vonerable(sp).

Guys with nothing but Agile armor and a Jackhammer seem to do just fine.

Cert points aren't a balancing factor for the following reason...

Imagine a gun that shot 100 rounds a second and killed any infantry or vehicle that they touched... The cost? 23 certs. Is this a balanced cert because it costs 23? Of course not. Thus, the cost of the cert is not factorial when judging its power.

I think that's what he meant.

Bingo.

They have a strong, yet subtle tactical value. How would you make them MORE useful?

By making them worth a damn in combat.

If there are alot of mossis about, man a gun turret. If you can't, stay in doors. They can't cap a base flying about. If you have to cross an expanse, make sure your mates have an AA cert, or a vehicle. The deliverer OWN mossies.

Gun turrets are pretty useless against Mosquitoes if the pilot has a head attached to his shoulders, as he can easily afterburn away to an air pad and be back a minute later with full armor et al. And that's assuming that the Reavers haven't already annihilated all of the turrets from long range. As for having an AA cert, with infantry it doesn't really matter if you have a Striker or whatever, because a Mosquito can kill you before you can kill them. And although an AA MAX will make short work of a Mosquito, it's the other way around if the enemy is a Reaver.

Look at my certs. I Don't have a vehicle. At all. I either surge run, deconstruct, or hitch a ride.

I don't see your certs.

But, yeah, maybe with Agile armor and surge you have a chance. Either way, a MAX or Reinforced is almost always pooched unless it's an ANT.

Um, as above. No vehicle. No max. Try playing Werner.

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

[Nimbus]

.
I'm not implying that it should try to be more like an RTS, only that the really good RTS games out there actually have every unit fit some role in the battlefield. There are no wasted vehicles like there are now. After all, just because the idea stems from the RTS genre doesn't mean that it can't be applied to games like Planetside. Planetside isn't an RPG, but it uses experience and leveling to enhance its gameplay, does it not?

Good point, and I agree. Every vehicle should really have it's own niche.


Yeah, anti-armor does annihilate infantry easily, what was I thinking? That's why Phoenix missiles and decimators are instantly lethal to infantry, right? Or is there actually some truth behind the old axiom of realism being a tool, not a goal, on the path toward game balance?

Last I checked, they WERE lethal to infantry, it was just really hard to hit them with it. I've been 1 hit killed at full health and armor plenty of times by decimators while guarding a hack. I was twice today actually. Realism is a tool and not a goal as you said, but it is also the BASIS of the weapons.


As for vehicles beating infantry, in most cases I have no problem with it. Even if a strong weapon/armor counter system like I'm proposing were added I would fully expect a vehicle weak against infantry to be able to gun down several infantry before being destroyed itself. The point is that all vehicles shouldn't mow down infantry in two seconds, because then it degenerates into which vehicle is best at killing infantry, rather than which are best at killing what the enemy has the most of and has the greatest survivability (which invariably is the tank).
Thats true, but you have to realize that most of the vehicles WERE designed for taking out infantry. If the mowing really gets to be a problem, I would think a better solution would be to up the damage vehicles take from hitting them. The tank may be the best at handling ground issues, yes, however it's not as quick, not as maneuverable, it can't fly, it can't carry many soldiers and people wearing reinforced can't use it. Thats where the other vehicles come in.


So you're justifying this based on realism? I don't think you're in any position to comment on other peoples' intelligence, bud.

Yes, I am justifying it based on realism as the game is BASED on reality. It's not completely realistic and realism isn't necessarily a goal but it does use reality as it's basis. I don't feel the devs should make it more realistic, but they certainly shouldn't make it less if they don't have to. I'm sorry for the comment on your intelligence, but I don't see the logic in hating realistic physics in a game that uses realistic physics as part of it's basis. I hate getting run over by ant's just as much as you do but I don't think that we should be immune to their effects or that they should be lessened. A more reasonable way to deal with the problem would be to make it easier to dodge out of the way.

What is the point of Core Combat? I haven't seen one, even during the 7 day instant-access bit. If you actually got something you could use regularily out of the expansion, maybe it would have a point.

I agree totally. I saw a couple of flails during the 7 day trial thing but since then I havent' seen anything come out of those caves aside from NC and a few modules.

[TeraHertz]

I use rexo, and yeah, reaver versus me, I'm going to die if I'm stupid enough to have been caught in the open, but normaly I ament unless I've been gunning in a lib.

My point about playing werner, is that vehicles get OWNED by infantry here. I don't know of many people that don't carry at least one deci. The TR are the worst for it.
Likewise, aircraft take a beating. Fly near a base and you're guarunteed a lockon. Pissed off with aricraft? Take the airtowers. Still getting harrased? Destroy the tech plant gens. If you still fear the mossies, get an AA cert and use it till they flack off.

[Flammey]

To quote Hamma, "This thread sucks"

[Warborn]

I use rexo, and yeah, reaver versus me, I'm going to die if I'm stupid enough to have been caught in the open...

What are you, a mole? How do you play PS without being out in the open now and then?

My point about playing werner, is that vehicles get OWNED by infantry here. I don't know of many people that don't carry at least one deci. The TR are the worst for it.

You've got some horrible vehicle drivers on Werner if they can't dodge Decimator shots. And even then, it takes more than one Decimator to kill pretty much any vehicle, giving the pilot plenty of opportunity to take off and repair if he has to.

Likewise, aircraft take a beating. Fly near a base and you're guarunteed a lockon. Pissed off with aricraft? Take the airtowers. Still getting harrased? Destroy the tech plant gens. If you still fear the mossies, get an AA cert and use it till they flack off.

Most of the time, a Reaver is capable of killing an AA MAX with rockets before dying himself to the MAX's rounds, unless the aircraft is severely outnumbered.

As for taking air towers, they can still go to bases with an air pad. And even then, what's to stop them from retaking the air tower, or going to a different air tower? And with destroying generators, yeah, those can get repaired pretty easily.

As for AA certs, 1v1 you will die a quick and horrible death against aircraft, as you must know given that you're infantry. Reavers scarcely have to aim to annihilate infantry in short order, and Mosquitoes can mow down infantry like nothing (especially NC who try to use a Phoenix, I imagine, given that they have to be stationary for a moment, which gives them a lifespan of about half a second when attacked by a Mosquito). Suffice to say, if you'd come out from your hiding place and bring yourself into the open now and then to see what aircraft can do to infantry who don't have a very strong compliment of AA MAXs, you'd realize that as it is, infantry AV weapons are pretty ineffective against aircraft.

To quote Hamma, "This thread sucks"

No, it's PS and it's Doom-esque BFG = win gameplay system that sucks. It's a brainless run-and-gun which quickly bores a lot of people, and those that stick around do so almost entirely because it happens to encourage teamwork quite a bit, and if you're with a good crew, that makes it fun. Very similar to SW:G, actually. You may be too narrow-minded to realize it, but Planetside is not incredibly popular. Maybe you don't give a shit about that and are happy to sit on your ass flaming people with your hilarious regurgitated one-liners, like the utter retard that you are, but I'd actually like to see this game improve some, and judging from their plans for Outfit base ownership, the only way that's going to happen is if the community actually gives some constructive feedback.

[Veteran]

AV weapons do garbage for damage against infantry. Take a Striker in VR and try to kill a Standard grunt and laugh at how many "missiles" it takes.

I'd call them over-glorified spitballs rather than Strikers. Striker implies something is getting stricken, not just mildly annoyed. There should be a warning label on the launcher that says it could be harmful to the health of the wielder. It could have a picture of a pissed-off MAX or something. At least Phoenix has some tactical meta-game value. No such luck for the Striker.

P.S. I think the Striker is lame as hell now. Just clearing that up.

[Warborn]

Woops, missed a post.

Good point, and I agree. Every vehicle should really have it's own niche.

I just want to reemphasize that this is what the entire idea is. It's not to make Reavers or Mosquitoes or tanks or whatever worthless, it's to make the other vehicles equally desireable in, ideally, an equal number of situations.

Last I checked, they WERE lethal to infantry, it was just really hard to hit them with it. I've been 1 hit killed at full health and armor plenty of times by decimators while guarding a hack. I was twice today actually. Realism is a tool and not a goal as you said, but it is also the BASIS of the weapons.

It's the basis as far as immersion goes. If being shot by a rocket makes you turn pink and spout racist remarks, people won't understand why it's doing something completely against the grain of their mental rocket paradigm, and will dislike it.

Anyway, it takes a lot of Phoenix missiles (5?) to kill a Reinforced infantry. Conversely, it takes less to kill a MAX. It takes two Decimator rounds to kill a MAX, yet I'm sure it takes more to kill a Reinforced infantry. These are examples of game balance superceeding "realism"; even though the MAX is heavily armored, it supports gameplay for the Decimator to be weaker against infantry than it is against a MAX. Otherwise, the Decimator would become a universally effective weapon, making other weapons less useful overall (if, for example, Decimators one-shotted infantry) and basically ending up with the same sort of situation that we have now with the vehicles.

Thats true, but you have to realize that most of the vehicles WERE designed for taking out infantry. If the mowing really gets to be a problem, I would think a better solution would be to up the damage vehicles take from hitting them. The tank may be the best at handling ground issues, yes, however it's not as quick, not as maneuverable, it can't fly, it can't carry many soldiers and people wearing reinforced can't use it. Thats where the other vehicles come in.

I consider myself a very open-minded individual in regards to game design issues, so yeah, having a vehicle take more damage could probably be worked into an effective solution. I didn't want to ramble about all the possibilities, but I do acknowledge that there are many possibilites. The only thing I'm firm on is that it is a problem. There are a lot of ways to die in PS, and none of them are as anticlimatic as being run over by some guy who happens to know how to acquire a vehicle, drive it forward, and steer it.

Yes, I am justifying it based on realism as the game is BASED on reality. It's not completely realistic and realism isn't necessarily a goal but it does use reality as it's basis. I don't feel the devs should make it more realistic, but they certainly shouldn't make it less if they don't have to. I'm sorry for the comment on your intelligence, but I don't see the logic in hating realistic physics in a game that uses realistic physics as part of it's basis. I hate getting run over by ant's just as much as you do but I don't think that we should be immune to their effects or that they should be lessened. A more reasonable way to deal with the problem would be to make it easier to dodge out of the way.

My answer to this would have emulated my earlier one about immersion and rockets turning people purple or whatever, but I'll keep it short and sweet and say that, if you hate something in the game, it's a problem, and it needs to be addressed. At any rate, I'm glad at least a couple people here are attempting to view the situation objectively rather than get caught up on the "well ur playing the game wrong so stfu nothing is wrong with PS" mindset.

I agree totally. I saw a couple of flails during the 7 day trial thing but since then I havent' seen anything come out of those caves aside from NC and a few modules.

People just dive in, grab a module, and run out. They spent a lot of time (I think) working on scenery for something that amounts to little more than a variation of an ANT run.

And, to point out before someone snags me on it, I think there are other, better ways of getting people into the caverns aside from the new weapons/vehicles.

[Nimbus]

I consider myself a very open-minded individual in regards to game design issues, so yeah, having a vehicle take more damage could probably be worked into an effective solution. I didn't want to ramble about all the possibilities, but I do acknowledge that there are many possibilites. The only thing I'm firm on is that it is a problem. There are a lot of ways to die in PS, and none of them are as anticlimatic as being run over by some guy who happens to know how to acquire a vehicle, drive it forward, and steer it.
You do have a valid point. Being run over is rather anticlimactic and it can be frustrating, especially if there is just a single ANT or AMS preventing you from getting to a tower or facility. I do still think vehicles should be able to run over and kill you. They shouldn't be totally at the mercy of a single soldier with a rifle but maybe if it did a proportionate amount of damage they would think twice about weather to run or ram.


My answer to this would have emulated my earlier one about immersion and rockets turning people purple or whatever, but I'll keep it short and sweet and say that, if you hate something in the game, it's a problem, and it needs to be addressed. At any rate, I'm glad at least a couple people here are attempting to view the situation objectively rather than get caught up on the "well ur playing the game wrong so stfu nothing is wrong with PS" mindset.

I try to view things objectively. Sometimes I get caught up in the STFU mood. I can understand that mindset a little bit. It's kind of a nasty way of suggesting you try a differnt tactic around vehicles to cut back on the deaths you get from being run down. Generally if I see enemy vehicles around I get up on the walls and catwalks. You'd be surprised how long you can hold off vehicles from there.

As for AA certs, 1v1 you will die a quick and horrible death against aircraft, as you must know given that you're infantry. Reavers scarcely have to aim to annihilate infantry in short order, and Mosquitoes can mow down infantry like nothing (especially NC who try to use a Phoenix, I imagine, given that they have to be stationary for a moment, which gives them a lifespan of about half a second when attacked by a Mosquito). Suffice to say, if you'd come out from your hiding place and bring yourself into the open now and then to see what aircraft can do to infantry who don't have a very strong compliment of AA MAXs, you'd realize that as it is, infantry AV weapons are pretty ineffective against aircraft
The one thing I wonder when reading your posts, is if you've ever tried some of the vehicles you complain about. I'm not trying to be insulting, but the reaver and mosquito are actually pretty difficult vehicles to fight effectively with. They do tear infantry apart but they are difficult to aim with. It also makes them vulnerable to AA fire. Believe me, when I'm in my burster, seeing reavers and mosqs attacking infantry makes me smile because I know I've got an easy kill coming up.

[Rayder]

Reaver's rockets are annoying to aim with, but then you don't exactly have to hit your target head on. They're AV missiles, yet they have such an annoying splash radius.

The mosquito is weak as hell, it gets raped if it stops for too long.

[Warborn]

The one thing I wonder when reading your posts, is if you've ever tried some of the vehicles you complain about. I'm not trying to be insulting, but the reaver and mosquito are actually pretty difficult vehicles to fight effectively with. They do tear infantry apart but they are difficult to aim with. It also makes them vulnerable to AA fire. Believe me, when I'm in my burster, seeing reavers and mosqs attacking infantry makes me smile because I know I've got an easy kill coming up.

I was an infiltrator for about half of Beta, then I went to drive Prowlers a hell of a lot for a long time. During my Prowler driving I also picked up most other ground vehicle certs, before and after the mounted guns on vehicles like the Harasser were made 360 weapons. I also have an alt which I use to do a lot of Reaver/Mosquito piloting, although I don't use him for Outfit ops as much due to that sort of thing not being a priority for the Outfit anymore. Currently I play a sniper a lot, although I switch around a little bit.

So, suffice to say, yes, I have played the things I'm suggesting to be rebalanced. In my Prowler days I used to feel bad about how many infantry I could mow over, even outkilling my gunner at times. And although I don't think I outkill my sniper when flying a Reaver/Mosquito, I come close, and definitely get many more MAX kills.

It's kind of a nasty way of suggesting you try a differnt tactic around vehicles to cut back on the deaths you get from being run down. Generally if I see enemy vehicles around I get up on the walls and catwalks. You'd be surprised how long you can hold off vehicles from there.

If you're on a wall or otherwise, you aren't holding the vehicles off. They're holding you off. You can't win a battle by only defending. You need to counter-attack eventually, and that's when your strategy will not be of much use, and it's where I'm basing a lot of my opinions from. Despite what some others may say in this thread, unless you cower in the spawn rooms all the time, eventually you're going to have to leave the perfect safety from vehicles that you get from beind indoors. Eventually you need to go outside the walls of a base. And that's where the problems arise.

Reaver's rockets are annoying to aim with, but then you don't exactly have to hit your target head on. They're AV missiles, yet they have such an annoying splash radius.

It's a pretty huge splash radius. It's the only thing about them I have a problem with.

The mosquito is weak as hell, it gets raped if it stops for too long.

It's fast as hell though. Easy to pick off a couple infantry and then fly off, only to come back from a different angle and repeat.

[Flammey]

Calm down Warborn. I said what I said for a reason. It didn't FLAME anyone. I never said, oh, so-and-so sucks. I said this thread sucks.

Now, WHY does this thread suck????? 2 reasons.

1, because there are already so many threads out there like this one, this one thread didn't really need to be made. The ideas I've read so far are only mediocre(sp?) They aren't bad, per say, just not the greatest. That is simply my opinion. No one has to listen to it.
2, is because while discussion of what would make things better, or how to make things better in PS is a good idea, and it inspires many people to do the same, posting it on anywhere but an official forum is at best chancy, as Developers might not even see this. That might not be the point of this thread's creater, so I will ignore that part of reason 2. It is just something to think about.

The other half of reason 2, concerns the idea of change. People seem to want so many things changed, because they see something that is too powerful, or too weak, when the forget that maybe the power of the object is just right for it's act. Instead of changing gameplay, why not fix the preformance issues first? Without good performance, gameplay matters shit.

I don't have any problems with the gameplay of Planetside. I have a problem with that annoying RAM drain that happens occasionally. I have 1 gig of RAM and 40 Gigs of hard drive space that can be used by the memory system, and I still get kicked to desktop, often after being in the game for less than a minute. I would rather they fixed THAT problem, than say reducing the damage against infantry from a 12mm chaingun. And, by the way, that's not a very good idea. A 12mm chaingun IS Anti Infantry. That's what it's there for. The Mosquito is not anti air, it is a scouting plane meant to sniff out infantry movements and to counter them.

And to quote Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about That."

[Vis Armata]

There are quite a bit of vehicles in Planetside that are not being used like they could. The new certifications will help out, in that getting rides will be cheaper for grunts. Still, I think that there is going to have to be some design changes to facilitate more vehicle use.

[Nimbus]

If you're on a wall or otherwise, you aren't holding the vehicles off. They're holding you off. You can't win a battle by only defending. You need to counter-attack eventually, and that's when your strategy will not be of much use, and it's where I'm basing a lot of my opinions from. Despite what some others may say in this thread, unless you cower in the spawn rooms all the time, eventually you're going to have to leave the perfect safety from vehicles that you get from beind indoors. Eventually you need to go outside the walls of a base. And that's where the problems arise.


Ohhhh.....okay. I see where you are coming from now. See, I do most of my fighting inside facilities and towers so finding cover and high places to shoot from aren't really a problem. Thinking back to ground battles I've been in, where there really isn't any cover, yeah these things can be a problem. It's not really so much that vehicles are doing things they shouldn't but that they are doing said things too well in some situations.

[Warborn]

stuff

HURR HURR THIS THREAD SUCKS HURR HURR