Vehicles, AV weapons, and the role of Infantry

[Teek]

I'm not going to write a huge post here, just want to put up a few thoughts I had when I played PS, and what I think would be good ideas for PSN.

When someone says Planetside to me, I think two things: 1. One of my favorite games, and 2. OMG there was a lot of vehicles.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love vehicles. I think they're missing from a lot of games these days, and that some of my favorite fps games, Halo, Planetside, and Battlefield, all had vehicles.

But the difference between the games I just mentioned are how vehicles are implemented. In the BF and halo games, vehicles are collectively spawned at a controlled rate and are valuable assets to the team. In Planetside, however, players spawn their own vehicles, which can be fun, but can also cause some problems. Now, FYI, I'm not saying the spawn system should change to that of BF or halo. This is Planetside, I wouldn't want that kind of mechanic to change that much. However, I do think vehicles were, for the most part, overpowered in this game, and that even among vehicles themselves the balance was often out of whack.

Firstly, I think tweaks could be made to how we spawn vehicles. In Planetside, we were cursed by an abundance of vehicles. I literally could get a tank, drive around a bit, get blown up, and by the time I respawn and get to a vehicle terminal, I would quite often be able to get the same tank again, or something similar. Tanks were far more popular than any other vehicle, given that they were the most powerful but also still fairly easy to get. There doesn't really seem to be a downside to getting a tank, other than that if you are the driver, you might not be able to gun (unless you used the lightning.) I've heard other players bemoan the lack of usage of ground vehicles, like the buggies, and I specifically cannot remember seeing very many ground transports either.

This goes into my second point: infantry were grossly outclassed by tanks and other vehicles. AV weapons would take dozens of shots to bring down a main tank, and you rarely lived long enough to get that many shots. To beat a tank, you either needed to bring a lot of rocket launchers, or your own tanks (or a reaver.) Naturally, it usually made more sense just to get a tank, since it was so powerful and didn't require you coordinating several squads of guys just to take out one target. Because it was better for infantry to be in tanks than out, you only used infantry in the last phases of base and tower assaults, or in specialty roles like sniping. If my theory is true, than its no wonder that we didn't use many ground transports: either they were replaced by using air cav to get around, or most troops were in tanks.

In closing, I want to emphasize that I don't feel we should excessively remove vehicles from the game, nor remove the system of individual vehicle purchase. However, I think we should either
a) nerf vehicles, buff AV weapons, or strengthen transports, or maybe a combination of the above. Strengthen the role of infantry in ground combat apart from just getting out of vehicles to fight inside a base, or repairing tanks.
b) make vehicles less common. Maybe increase spawn times, or make it take more resources to get vehicles. Maybe increase cert requirements of many of the heavier tanks. Just try to make it so that vehicles have more value, rather than there just being tons of easy to get heavy tanks.

My greatest wish for Planetside Next would be to expand viable play styles. Vehicles should feel powerful in the game, but they shouldn't be so central to gameplay. Infantry should also be viable in combat, and should be worth transporting around, both in air and on the ground.

[PsychoXR-20]

I don't agree that vehicles were overpowered, I felt they were just right. The vehicles in BF2142 (the closest game IMO to PS) had some OP vehicles. The mechs in BF seemed grossly imbalanced, even grabbing the engineer class (I think that's the one with the AV weapon) I could never kill on of those things.

You mentioned vehicles versus infantry. I really don't believe that infantry should be on equal footing, or even close. Vehicles should be stronger than a foot soldier, and only a very, very, very, very, skilled player should be able to go toe-to-toe with a tank and win, and only in the most ideal situations (say in a courtyard where the infantry can stay up on the base walls where the tank can't reach him). It SHOULD take 3-4 well coordinated infantry to take down a tank, otherwise what would be the point in having vehicles?

do agree with the spawn timer. Good players can forget there even is one. I would buff all vehicle timers to 10 minutes minimum, and not have the timer start until the original vehicle is destroyed.

[Bags]

I rarely have problems with vehicles on my BR27/CR5 that I mostly grunt / hot drop with. Some of my best K/Ds have come from MA battles with lots of vehicles. Jammers and trees are your friends.

[CutterJohn]

I don't think much needs to be done other than making the tanks by far the best vehicle out there. Those really were the most horribly OP vehicles when it came to dealing with infantry.

You don't want to buff infantry AV much, if at all though. This is still a team game, and half the issue with ESAV was nobody used it right, which was a fault of people not practicing teamwork, and poor distribution of rewards. A dug in ESAV team was insane. a squad of lancers would just annihilate vehicles, and with the indestructible terrain, could be impossible to kill by those same vehicles. I've done this before, in outfit ops. Its just crazy what focus fire AV can accomplish.

[Warborn]

Infantry should have been the primary method of killing enemy infantry and, obviously, taking bases and towers. Vehicles should have had more specific niches, with more emphasis given on fighting other vehicles. From there, infantry AV probably could have been reduced... maybe. I'm not sure on that. Either way, it was a bit silly that basically every vehicle designed to fight ground targets was focused on killing infantry. They all competed with each other, and as such in a lot of cases vehicles were obsolete in most situations, or all situations, simply because they couldn't kill infantry anywhere close to others.

Using rock-paper-scissors is overly simplistic, but the general idea works. More variety in vehicles and their niches, with more vehicles being designed to counter certain other types of vehicles and not everything being good at killing infantry.

[DviddLeff]

As a Mag driver if I run into 4+ infantry we are screwed especially if they have any cover. If I had an instagib main cannon that would be different however.

Infantry vs vehicles is fine overall; but infantry need more cover to make use of out in the world.

[I SandRock]

I think in BF vehicles ARE way more powerful because they are so rare and yet so strong without many enemy vehicles to counter them..

I think vehicles should remain as powerful as they are currently, but the focus should be put away from these vehicle dominant fights and reach more of a balance of infantry fighting. Currently the only real infantry fighting happens during base fights.

By making the terrain les vehicle accesible you can change this focus. Let vehicles stick to the areas around the main roads. With forests, swams, rocky areas, water, etc. blocking their paths. Make them force back the enemy infantry into these areas with covers and surpress them, not letting them out of the clearings towards the bases. Then it is the task of your air units and infantry to clear them out of their cover completely.

I'd hate to see PS vehicles reduced to an extension of your armor like they are in UT2k4 - UT3. You use vehicles there to do a little more damage and take none, jump out before they explode and continue on foot. PS is not that kinda game, it's not how war should be.

[DviddLeff]

BF's vehicles are an issue because you cant pull your own vehicles to counter others; some smacktard will have taken them already and driven it into the sea, cliff or generally wasted it.

The vehicles verses infantry in BF are pretty balanced; rockets take them down a lot quicker than in PS, and there is little better than sticking C4 all over a tanks rear and running off giggling, primed detonator in hand.

[I SandRock]

BF's vehicles are an issue because you cant pull your own vehicles to counter others; some smacktard will have taken them already and driven it into the sea, cliff or generally wasted it.

The vehicles verses infantry in BF are pretty balanced; rockets take them down a lot quicker than in PS, and there is little better than sticking C4 all over a tanks rear and running off giggling, primed detonator in hand.

Yeah but only an idiot uses a BF tank to just drive straight into enemy fire :P If you hang back and nuke from a distance you can reap the kills. Especially if your gunner is an engineer and will jump out to repair. Or you just hide behind a building. All the noobs jump in a tank and drive right in the face of the enemy just to get C4'd or rocketed :p

[DviddLeff]

True, but the problem is that the maps are too confined in Rush modes; meaning that infantry cant flank the tanks that do that effectively.

[Timantium]

I think most vehicles should be stronger than infantry head to head. Some infantry AV is way too ez mode to be honest. I think the infantry AV could maybe hit a little harder, but be dumb fired like the deci or the lancer.

Squads should have to work together to take out tanks. The mag cannon takes several shots to kill infantry so for all it's strengths I never really felt AI farming was one of them. the Vanny and Prowler have guns that are super powerful against infantry (too powerful), but the tanks are slower, less maneuverable than the Mag, which would be a fair trade if the TR/NC AV weapons weren't so easy to aim...

So the VS get the best tank with the most advanced maneuverability, but it is completely negated against NC/TR infantry because their AV weapons are EZmode and it takes multiple rail gun shots to kill them anyway.

Then the TR/NC tanks, which do get owned by the mag, kill infantry in 1 hit most of the time and the only way VS can counter them is sticking their heads out and shooting a big laser gun at them.

So I would say that, in some cases, the OP's argument is completely unfounded. I have never really felt much of an advantage (against infantry) in the magrider. I definitely could stand to see some reduction in the splash dmg for the big prowler cannon and the vanguard heavy cannon.

[I SandRock]

The thing with the magrider isn't so much that it takes several hits but more that the prowler (not too sure about vanguard) has an arching projectile path which means you can actually shoot over cover and into enemies.
The magrider is very powerful in ranged and when you can see the enemy clearly due to it's accuracy but when there is cover or hills it sucks in that regard

[Bags]

The thing with the magrider isn't so much that it takes several hits but more that the prowler (not too sure about vanguard) has an arching projectile path which means you can actually shoot over cover and into enemies.
The magrider is very powerful in ranged and when you can see the enemy clearly due to it's accuracy but when there is cover or hills it sucks in that regard

It gives up arching projectile for a straight shooting projectile. While the prowler and vanguard are much harder to use at range, the magrider shines.

Balance my friend.

[I SandRock]

It gives up arching projectile for a straight shooting projectile. While the prowler and vanguard are much harder to use at range, the magrider shines.

Balance my friend.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

They are balanced for their AV play, but not for AI due to the situations i described and the fact it can 1 shot AI. And it's definitely not that hard to aim. Not only have I seen medium-long ranged shots hit my first try I've recently had the honor of claiming a hacked vanguard and the projectiles path is pretty predictable. And that's when I had never used one before.

[Bags]

Isn't that exactly what I said?



Very clever, sandrock.

[Robert089]

So the VS get the best tank with the most advanced maneuverability, but it is completely negated against NC/TR infantry because their AV weapons are EZmode and it takes multiple rail gun shots to kill them anyway.

I find I can kill Magriders much easier with the Lancer, with my striker they will pop out of cover, shoot, then hide again before my rockets get close and I watch them explode against the rock they hid behind. With the lancer this is not a problem, especially with the tanks having such huge hitboxes. Just look at the size of the prowler!

[Wrath]

I think as people have said here and in other threads its not that vechiles are op its that the enviroments you get in PS outdoors all tend to favour them. i'm sure in PS:N a few different map types and it'll be fine, tanks and the link should always be over powered vs infantry in the right situation with long sight lines and such.

there just needs to be more maps where sight lines are more closed in and such so infantry and shine more.

[goneglockin]

News of PlanetSide Next has brought me out of the woodwork.

Now I've said this years ago, the real problem is that vehicles shouldn't be fighting or farming infantry, they should be fighting other vehicles. If you gave vehicles something like loadout options, allowing them to specialize in different types of vehicular combat... it would probably be fun enough to stand up on it's own.

The sphere of influence should be an EMP field, indiscriminately disabling vehicles that enter it if they don't get out fast enough. The vehicle spawning area for each base would be moved towards the towers and become a mini-base, outside of the SOI.

It is here that infantry/vehicle skirmishing would occur as defenders try to keep the vehicles rolling out and attackers try to keep them pinned in. Once that mini-base falls, it's infantry's time to play, in an area much more suited to urban grunt battles than the cramped courtyards that were filled with vehicle weapons spam.

So infantry gets their infantry fight... and ppl who would rather play destruction derby can spawn out of the base, grab a vehicle, and try to cut off the attackers in the SOI.

It creates an environment where vehicular and infantry fights are coexisting simultaneously, with little blending at some points.

One of the biggest problems with PlanetSide was the distinct phases to the fights. Vehicle rushes through the field, spammy tower fight, spammy base fight, vehicle rush. I really got tired of the parts that didn't interest me especially knowing the infantry portion was very short lived, usually, and very cramped.

That's why the early days were the best, because not everyone knew the formula and people would just sit outside and exchange MA fire before everyone had the mossie cert to farm these people.

Anyway, the way things worked before were not optimum- that's for sure.

[Canaris]

News of PlanetSide Next has brought me out of the woodwork.

Now I've said this years ago, the real problem is that vehicles shouldn't be fighting or farming infantry, they should be fighting other vehicles. If you gave vehicles something like loadout options, allowing them to specialize in different types of vehicular combat... it would probably be fun enough to stand up on it's own.

The sphere of influence should be an EMP field, indiscriminately disabling vehicles that enter it if they don't get out fast enough. The vehicle spawning area for each base would be moved towards the towers and become a mini-base, outside of the SOI.

It is here that infantry/vehicle skirmishing would occur as defenders try to keep the vehicles rolling out and attackers try to keep them pinned in. Once that mini-base falls, it's infantry's time to play, in an area much more suited to urban grunt battles than the cramped courtyards that were filled with vehicle weapons spam.

So infantry gets their infantry fight... and ppl who would rather play destruction derby can spawn out of the base, grab a vehicle, and try to cut off the attackers in the SOI.

It creates an environment where vehicular and infantry fights are coexisting simultaneously, with little blending at some points.

One of the biggest problems with PlanetSide was the distinct phases to the fights. Vehicle rushes through the field, spammy tower fight, spammy base fight, vehicle rush. I really got tired of the parts that didn't interest me especially knowing the infantry portion was very short lived, usually, and very cramped.

That's why the early days were the best, because not everyone knew the formula and people would just sit outside and exchange MA fire before everyone had the mossie cert to farm these people.

Anyway, the way things worked before were not optimum- that's for sure.

Turning the SOI into some random crasy EMP weapon isn't something I'd like. The whole point of vehicles is to break a bases outter defense grid to allow the infantry access to the interior of the base. I think not allowing vehicles to get into a bases SOI would just rob the game of to much playability.

[goneglockin]

Turning the SOI into some random crasy EMP weapon isn't something I'd like. The whole point of vehicles is to break a bases outter defense grid to allow the infantry access to the interior of the base. I think not allowing vehicles to get into a bases SOI would just rob the game of to much playability.

You don't really articulate well as to why.

The biggest problem with the people who play this game, and still is, I see- is there's what works in PlanetSide as you know it and little else considered.

Vehicles would still be "breaking the outer defense grid," we're just moving it a bit farther out... However you want to justify the need for a buffer or whatever the gimmick or poetic license behind the game mechanic, the need for a buffer for infantry play is real.

Interior base fights were some of the sorriest displays of FPS gaming I've ever seen. The novelty of their being absolutely nutty quickly wore off... and we soon saw things like max crashes, where we'd literally line people up and run them in hoping sheer numbers would break the monotony.

This is not what people, normal people, want to play. PlanetSide NEXT modeled closely on it's original will suffer the same fate as the original. I realize what forum I'm on and that some of you still play, couldn't imagine that, but I really hope things are radically different in concept and function.

The basic principles were sound, but much of it was complete guess work as to how to make it really play well as no one had ever really made such a game before. Judging by late in it's 2nd year, play well, it obviously did not.

P.S.

What's funny is that some of us are in our 30's now or closing in on it pretty soon. I have little time for ForumSide, so i'll check back around when I do.

Later.

[Timantium]

The sphere of influence should be an EMP field, indiscriminately disabling vehicles that enter it if they don't get out fast enough. The vehicle spawning area for each base would be moved towards the towers and become a mini-base, outside of the SOI.


So, this means I get to camp the vehicle pad and I don't even have to go into the base SOI where the infantry will be using base defenses against me?

I think this idea would really splinter the game. The whole point of having air, ground (and perhaps navy) vehicles is to add them to the conflict. If the elements of the game do not have synergy then what's the point.

We would end up with the people who love vehicles simply driving around the edge of their own SOI baiting people to come in (like some timewasters do at WG now).

Plus, how would we get an ams even close to the bases if we can't drive it into an enemy SOI. The more I think about this idea, the less I like it.

[Hamma]

Interesting discussion.

I honestly don't feel there was ever a major issue with Infantry vs Vehicle combat. They should most certainly be powerful vs infantry.

But they are weak against a team, and that is what this game is about.

[Canaris]

You don't really articulate well as to why.

You are quite correct I didn't articulate it very well, my apologies :)

Okay to expand on just why vehicles should be allowed into the bases exterior.

The base defenders have on paper a much simpler job, cover the entrances and force the attackers out by using all means at their disposal. Plus they have the advantage of closer spawn chambers and access to the vehicle terminals.

The attacking force has to overwhelm the defenders position and bottle them up at the spawn chamber or at least hold the CC area until it can be hacked, now you usually loose a lot more attackers taking a well defended base.
The attackers have then return to the fight via either the closest tower or set up AMS and to get new vehicles for a fight the attackers have to return to another base which is a lot farther away from the action.

For this reason you should be able to have vehicles enter the courtyards to help bottle up the defenders inside while the various pushes for the CC or Generator are made.

Forcing them to remain well outside the base I think gives the defenders just to much of advantage that would slow down base fighting into a crawling stalemate of back and forth.

The reason why vehicles allowed into the base is so important is it can give the attackers that little breathing room to regroup and push.

I've seen plenty of sieges broken by a smaller determined defense force and then turned into an attack route as the defenders push back out and follow the enemy home and take their base.

Tactics and luck determine base fights not what vehicles are around although they help.

Hope thats a bit better of an answer :)