the true reason(s) for AV being bad

[DeadTeddy]

if you look at the game, the devs tried to base it on current warfare but with futuristic weapons.

now, we all know a tank is not something you can blow up with a man portable guided missile, and definately not with a laser. despite the latest breakthroughs in weaponry (like chainguns with 1/2 KG bullets) in the real world you don't blow tanks up, you disable them. that's the first problem, planetside has no sector damage. this has been discussed and we know it can't be changed any time soon.

the second problem is with camo. you can't exactly call blue, yellow, red and purple cammoflage. the varied terrain and the fact many people don't use flora will make it really hard to make a good suit. but when a soldier is in the field, he doesn't run around shooting, he's hiding so the big mean tank won't blow his head right off.

I've been to gadna, which is usually 5 days in bootcamp only it's for 11th graders and they don't send you to jail for being a bad boy. I was there twice, once 5 days and once for 10. we had a field day in which we go outside the base and learn several things:
-how to avoid being spotted
-how to move as a squad
-escaping grenades without being sniped (real fun :D )
-cammoflage
-eating canned food without puking

I don't expect the devs to allow me to take branches from trees and give me sand to roll in to change the color of my uniform. there is absolutely no way conventional cammoflage can be programmed into planetside.

the only thing I can think of is to allow infantry to sort of "fade" when you're away from them. so if you're over 10 meters they are 90% transparent, if they move, and by that I don't mean walk, I mean move, incluiding moving the mouse and equiping, they are 70% and when you are under 10 meters from them they're 60%. this applies only to crouched infantry that hasn't walked for over 5 seconds.

I know this is weird but it's really the only possible way to implement cammoflage.

[Biohazzard56]

What does this have to do with AV? and also its a great idea but Planetside isnt supposed to be realistic

[EarlyDawn]

Your points are valid but what does camoflage have to do with Anti-Vehicular weapons?

[Doppler]

His point is, AV soldier standing on open ground. = AV weapon flapping in the wind just waiting for a main gun shell to land on his head.

[Rayder]

^ Yes, but in RL one soldier CAN take out a tank, but since this is a game, to hell with realism!

[Onizuka-GTO]

Yes! The Hell to Realism! Now where is the Plasma Link Gun for the Vanu?! >.<

[DeadTeddy]

yeah I kind of forgot to write the main point XD

was a bit tired I guess. in RL a soldier CAN take out a tank but he CAN'T go one on one with it. hell, 5 on 1 is a lost cause. that's why they hide. this applies to all infantry but AV has it worse then everyone.

[Queensidecastle]

The Fix for AV is logically very simple. I am sure the Devs are aware and want to fix it, but it is much more of an engine/balance/coding issue. All they would need to do is tweak each AV weapon to do different damages to different models. For example a Phoenix could stay at 250 for a MAX suit and be increased to 400 on a Tank. Another example is that a Decimator could be tweaked down to where a single grunt with 3 ammo boxes of inventory space can no longer own a MAX by himself but still maintain its potency against vehicles.

1) Tone down the damage decimators do against MAXs and people will start to cert AV
2) Adjust damages to different vehicle classes per weapon so that AV wont unfairly maim MAXs abut still be effective against vehicles.
3) Address the inventory space issue. One reason people dont Cert AV is because the Deci does a better job for a fraction of the inventory space. I am confident that it was not meant to be this way

[Spee]

Im certed AV and SA on my Terran character.

I am a swirling maelstrom of armored vehicular pwnage.

[DeadTeddy]

not everyone is willing to pay 30$ to have a chance to own veichles.

[Neon Apocalypse]

yeah, but one troop running around next to a tank will most likely die, its the dudes from a distance away with lancers, strykers, and phoenix's that you gotta worry about, and being in a tank its hard to kill that person, PS doesnt need camoflauge

[Onizuka-GTO]

its the dudes from a distance away with lancers, strykers, and phoenix's that you gotta worry about


You mean just Strykers and Phoenix.

Lancers are useless, except for Max hunting. And that only happens if your behind then, they haven't see you, and they aren't moving.
:rolleyes:

Oh but Lancers are great at killing Spitfires Turrets. Best sweeper ever, should place it in the Special Assault group.

[BadAsh]

yeah, but one troop running around next to a tank will most likely die, its the dudes from a distance away with lancers, strykers, and phoenix's that you gotta worry about, and being in a tank its hard to kill that person, PS doesnt need camoflauge

I agree with this. The key to success in PS is being in the right place at the right time with the right gear. Screw one of those 3 elements up and get owned.

Hence I don't pitty MAX users who whine about the decimator... how many near instant kills have AI MAX units gotten against infantry? There it nothing wrong with a little payback and MAX Rambo prevention.

I can't tell you how many times I've been fighting a group of enemy infantry and then noticed they had an AI MAX in the group... I die nearly instantly once he gets a bead on me. So I respawn and come back with a decimator and kill him with 2 shots while dodging his instagib cannon and enemy infantry. Then I get the hate /tell calling me a "cheap" or "pussy" deci user.

So when you nearly instantly kill me with your walking tank that's ok, but if I burn you with a not-so-instant kill weapon it's somehow cheap? People crack me up.

Anyway, back to AV... If you stand out in the open you are going to get owned. But, if you stay on a tower roof or on a base wall you have much better chances. This is especially true for Phoenix users. That weapon simply owns because you can smack an enemy while being behind 100% cover.

The Striker just needs it's weapon lock issues resolved and it will be a decent weapon... maybe getting a small damage boost... maybe... Also something should be done about it's dumb fire mode... the COF of that is just stupid... make the thing shoot reasonably straight please.

The Lancer needs a damage boost and a conversion from it's current ammo to use the standard Vanu energy packs. Someone figured out that if it burned up 15 ammo per shot it would have the same ammo/space usage as the current larger Lancer ammo boxes. It would just give the Vanu more flexability which is supposed to be their strength anyway.

[Rbstr]

The Fix for AV is logically very simple. I am sure the Devs are aware and want to fix it, but it is much more of an engine/balance/coding issue. All they would need to do is tweak each AV weapon to do different damages to different models. For example a Phoenix could stay at 250 for a MAX suit and be increased to 400 on a Tank. Another example is that a Decimator could be tweaked down to where a single grunt with 3 ammo boxes of inventory space can no longer own a MAX by himself but still maintain its potency against vehicles.

1) Tone down the damage decimators do against MAXs and people will start to cert AV
2) Adjust damages to different vehicle classes per weapon so that AV wont unfairly maim MAXs abut still be effective against vehicles.
3) Address the inventory space issue. One reason people dont Cert AV is because the Deci does a better job for a fraction of the inventory space. I am confident that it was not meant to be this way


This is what need to be done, except the deci should be put into the AV cert group also, its AV plain and simple, so why is it in the SA class?

[Spee]

Lancers are useless, except for Max hunting. And that only happens if your behind then, they haven't see you, and they aren't moving.
:rolleyes:




I get as many kills, if not more, with the lancer than I do with the phoenix, or the striker.


Lancer + Bolt Driver + a lot of distance = You unstoppable.

[Rayder]

There are 2 types of armor, infantry and vehicle. MAX armor is sadly classified as vehicle, when it should have it's own. Simply solution, complex execution.

[Onizuka-GTO]

I get as many kills, if not more, with the lancer than I do with the phoenix, or the striker.


Lancer + Bolt Driver + a lot of distance = You unstoppable.

Really? I guess if you attack fatally damaged vehicles with a lancer you can kill them. But one-on-one with a fully undamaged tank, a lancer is simply useless. To even get a tank to 50% (Vanguard)
it takes at leased 3-4 Lancer boxes. That's if you managed to land every shot. and if you can, the Vanguard probably got no driver and your too close to it.
:groovy: :lol:

[Rbstr]

dude you realize the prowler has that same amount of armor as a van right? and the mag while having a little less armor is alot harder to hit.

its the same way for all the AV not just the lancer

[Doppler]

I was going to say myself, the situation you described describes the phoenix as well. If one guy even has a prayer of destroying a vehicle theres most likely no one in said vehicle. It takes 7 Phoenix rockets to take out an ANT for gods sakes.

[Onizuka-GTO]

Wel lthen i guess AV really needs to be change. What's good about AV, if it cant even be used to take out vehicles? :rolleyes:

[Spee]

Really? I guess if you attack fatally damaged vehicles with a lancer you can kill them. But one-on-one with a fully undamaged tank, a lancer is simply useless. To even get a tank to 50% (Vanguard)
it takes at leased 3-4 Lancer boxes. That's if you managed to land every shot. and if you can, the Vanguard probably got no driver and your too close to it.
:groovy: :lol:


You wont kill ANYTHING with AV unless its fatally damaged. I played my Terran w/striker today. I emptied about 4 boxes of striker at a van, and it didnt even seem to mind.

Ive come to determine, however, that The lancer and the Striker are the same. One clip = As much damage as one clip from the other. However, Lancer enjoys a longer engagement range, and the striker enjoys lock-on. Depending on situation, both are useful.

Undamaged Lightning Vs. Striker, at 30m, strafing each other. 2 ammo boxes from striker = dead lightning. However, you cant do that with a lancer.

But, what you cant do with a striker is sit at 400m, and just plink away merrily at thier armor whilst they scramble to try and do something about it. It's an AV sniper rifle, nothing more.

While, yes, the lancer is completely useless indoors, a weakness that the Striker doesnt suffer from, I have killed many, many things with my lancer. 3 clips of lancer + 1 clip of beamer (I ran out of ammo, I was in agile) = Dead flail, AND the humiliation of being owned in an armored vehicle by a BEAMER.


In short, Both the striker and the Lancer have thier usefulness. However, the striker enjoys a greater amounts of engagement, since the most crucial battles are CQB, and the striker can actually be used in such an environment.

Lancer is outdoors. Only.

[Dharkbayne]

:rofl: I pwned a chaingun MAX in standard armor w/ a beamer back in beta, in a tower spawn room

[TeraHertz]

In flashpoint multiplayer, as a LAW soldier, I used to own everything on the battlefield. From snipers to tanks, to helicopters, I'll hit it, and it'll die.

Why? Becasue I had time to get track, and lead the target properly. They couldn't see me, and I could get AT LEAST two LAWs into any target before anyone even saw me, IF they ever saw me. The massive ranges I used and very effective cover WAS the weapon.

I would drive off with me and a sniper in a humvee, find a chokepoint or enemy base, and while the sniper killed anyone that looked our way, I'd wipe out aircraft befor they took off, and shilkas, then call in air strikes.


Now put everything in flashpoint into planetside graphics. You suddenly loose almost all cover, and stand out like a beacon. For some reason even at maximum ranges a single trooper sticks out even if he's crouched.

[Veteran]

"dude you realize the prowler has that same amount of armor as a van right? and the mag while having a little less armor is alot harder to hit."

Let me point out yet again that the Prowler doesn't have nearly the same amount of armor as the Vanguard.

Go be an engineer for a while and find out for yourself.

[Doppler]

Flashpoint was the shit, i love ambushing squads of guys after lying motionless for half a match.

[TeraHertz]

"dude you realize the prowler has that same amount of armor as a van right? and the mag while having a little less armor is alot harder to hit."

Let me point out yet again that the Prowler doesn't have nearly the same amount of armor as the Vanguard.

Go be an engineer for a while and find out for yourself.


Would you say it has less or more?
Persnaly I find the prowler takes more damage per Lancer shot, wheras the vanguard shrugs them off as though it hadn't even been hit.

[Veteran]

Prowler has around 4500 armor, Van has 6,000 and Mag has around or slightly more than 3,000.

This is based on how many 32 point shots of repair juice it takes to bring them from the brink of destruction to full health.

God knows I've sat there for endless minutes repairing empire tanks and I'm pretty sure about this. It takes almost two full canisters of nano-juice to fix a Vanguard, and far, far less for a Mag. Somewhere in the middle for Prowler.

[Doppler]

I've always felt that the prowler should have the heavier armor of the two, its obviously larger and bulkier, additionaly if you think about it whouldnt the three man vehicle have that much more protection?

And this from the rabidly antitank guy.

[Onizuka-GTO]

Prowler has around 4500 armor, Van has 6,000 and Mag has around or slightly more than 3,000.

This is based on how many 32 point shots of repair juice it takes to bring them from the brink of destruction to full health.

God knows I've sat there for endless minutes repairing empire tanks and I'm pretty sure about this. It takes almost two full canisters of nano-juice to fix a Vanguard, and far, far less for a Mag. Somewhere in the middle for Prowler.

Thank you! :love:

I told you i wasn't delusional. *Glare menacing at Rbstr* :groovy:

[DeadTeddy]

prowler has 2 gunners, that means one for taking out planes and infantry while the other takes out veichles. that's the reason the prowler has less armor, it needs less in a heavy combat situation. it's based on the idea that if nothing is alive, nothing can kill you.

a van 1 on 1 with a prowler, both have the same chance, specifically at range, cause missing with a van is a much bigger problem then missing with a prowler.

[Veteran]

The 12mm gunner could be far better spent driving an escort Skyguard, a Flail or another Prowler.

The 12mm gun is far too weak the justify the expense of a third soldier.

Also, a single man can drive a Vanguard and jump in the turret to use it like a Flail. No such luck with Prowler.

Prowler loses on many levels. It's absolutely no surprise that if you study Thottbot, you'll see that Prowler is by far the least certified empire tank.

[Queensidecastle]

I will agree that the 12mm slot could be better spent say bringing a skyguard to the action but you have to remember that the Assault buggy cert costs 3 points and it costs nothing to man the 12mm. Also you now have 2 guys who can do repairs and under coordinated armor collums this is excellent