A serious concern about tanks.

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Most of my posts here are snarky or negative but I think I'll take a stab at making an honest one for once.

I've read that tank armament will be customizable to the point of being able to mount AA as a secondary weapon. My question to you is why wouldn't I want to mount AA as a secondary or tertiary weapon? ATG has always been the biggest threat to armor in all of these games and the only way to really protect them was to bring along another ground based AA vehicle or have complete air supremacy. I fear that by giving AA as an option you are going to essentially be forcing players into taking the most obviously beneficial choice to deal with the most threatening targets.

In PS1 you brought a Skyguard to deal with enemy air but in PS2 it seems like you can just have your secondary gunner strap on a flak cannon and go about your business while the driver deals with all other ground threats. Other than being bipedal and having ridiculous regenerating shields this was one of the major issues people had with BFRs in that they were sort of an anti-all vehicle.

[Coreldan]

One thing to notice is that for what we know now, the main turret is quite ineffective against ground troops. While Vanguard could one shot infantry in a 10m splash, you now need a direct hit. That will mean that main turret + Flak cannon will leave you awfully vulnerable to agile infantry who are gonna stick a decimator up your ass :D

This is something I was thinking about myself, but considering everything I am not overly worried.

Also, I personally sort of preferred using Sparrow MAX as NC over a Skyguard when I needed AA. Then again it was easymode-AA, but I was more mobile without relying on others.

[Graywolves]

Magriders could shoot down aircraft with ease anyways.

[Skepsiis]

Its a trade off, like a suspect a lot of things will be in this game.

You choose AA for your secondary? Means you dont have the extra AV damage another encountered enemy tank might have, or no strong AI so perhaps infantry will make short work of you. An AA gunner might get really bored with nothing to shoot at too and request a different weapon, or just go get in another tank

[Mod]

Also remember what area of the continent you are in. It could be one that is particularly hard for aircraft to fly around in and therefore you would actually be hurting your survival chances by fitting AA as secondary.

And if you come up against a similar tank that happens to be fully AV fitted? Doesn't matter how many enemy aircraft are circling round you, you are likely going to be deaded from the tank quicker.

In other words, I think it will be a lot more factors involved (I hope).

[Xyntech]

This matter hits close to home for me, since I intend to be a pilot.

Right now, I think that balancing solo MBT's against 2 man MBT's is of greater concern. Everything else can be easily balanced by tweaking a few stats.

Are tank mounted AA turrets too powerful and over represented? Nerf em back a little bit. AV or AI turrets not being used enough or are under performing? Give em a little buff.

As long as the other turrets are valuable assets, I think that they will get their fare share of use.

[CutterJohn]

This matter hits close to home for me, since I intend to be a pilot.

Right now, I think that balancing solo MBT's against 2 man MBT's is of greater concern. Everything else can be easily balanced by tweaking a few stats.

Are tank mounted AA turrets too powerful and over represented? Nerf em back a little bit. AV or AI turrets not being used enough or are under performing? Give em a little buff.

As long as the other turrets are valuable assets, I think that they will get their fare share of use.



That hits close to home for me, since I intend to be a tanker. Right now, I think that balancing air so it can have anti vehicle weapons is worrisome. When I played, if you wanted to kill vehicles, you needed to bring a tank. Now they can just fit some rockets and kill ground vehicles, how is that fair? They should just be able to kill other aircraft and not intrude on the tanks role of killing ground vehicles.




Everything is multirole. No matter what you do you'll have a weakness. Infantry/MAX units can field av, aa, and ai. vehicles can field av, aa, and ai. Aircraft can field av, aa, and ai. So why is it just tanks that everyone is worried about?

[SuperMorto]

Also remember what area of the continent you are in. It could be one that is particularly hard for aircraft to fly around in and therefore you would actually be hurting your survival chances by fitting AA as secondary.

And if you come up against a similar tank that happens to be fully AV fitted? Doesn't matter how many enemy aircraft are circling round you, you are likely going to be deaded from the tank quicker.

In other words, I think it will be a lot more factors involved (I hope).

thats a good point MOD, PS2 is making big changes to the areas you fight in. AA will be no good in a valley. Take a look at some of the screenies, you will have to suit your tank out depending on more than "whats best" it will all depend on what is in front of you too. More than one factor.

[Xyntech]

Everything is multirole. No matter what you do you'll have a weakness. Infantry/MAX units can field av, aa, and ai. vehicles can field av, aa, and ai. Aircraft can field av, aa, and ai. So why is it just tanks that everyone is worried about?

I guess the worry that people have is that the tank will be a jack of all trades, but it's not like it will be able to fill every role at once, at least not as effectively.

My only concern is, as Buzz brought up, if AA becomes too common on tanks. That's more of a concern of the battlefield being flooded with too much AA more than a concern about tanks.

Similarly, I wouldn't want tank busting variants of ES fighters to be too common.

Every variant of every class and vehicle should be both effective, as well as not being so overpowered that it's the only variant that anybody uses.

[CutterJohn]

I guess the worry that people have is that the tank will be a jack of all trades, but it's not like it will be able to fill every role at once, at least not as effectively.

My only concern is, as Buzz brought up, if AA becomes too common on tanks. That's more of a concern of the battlefield being flooded with too much AA more than a concern about tanks.

Similarly, I wouldn't want tank busting variants of ES fighters to be too common.

Every variant of every class and vehicle should be both effective, as well as not being so overpowered that it's the only variant that anybody uses.

If tanks are taking too much AA, then I roll in with my tanks with AV and plow through them.

If air is taking too much AV, i roll in with my AA and roll over them.

etc.

But really. Literally every vehicle and infantry weapon can be used, to a degree, against vehicles. Even AA. They survive.

[LordHumungusXOX]

I think it will open up the floor for more tank battles. That's what disappeared from PS1 with the BFR shitbirds and then the Reaver stealth armor buff(an nice fat "up yours" to the tard who placed that in game).

Sure, the Reaver was always a problem, especially to grunts, but the tank battles used to be stupendous. SOE sure cleared that right up with their silliness though. No more ground fights for you sir! You must turtle in your base or fly an aircraft!

[basti]

Most of my posts here are snarky or negative but I think I'll take a stab at making an honest one for once.

I've read that tank armament will be customizable to the point of being able to mount AA as a secondary weapon. My question to you is why wouldn't I want to mount AA as a secondary or tertiary weapon? ATG has always been the biggest threat to armor in all of these games and the only way to really protect them was to bring along another ground based AA vehicle or have complete air supremacy. I fear that by giving AA as an option you are going to essentially be forcing players into taking the most obviously beneficial choice to deal with the most threatening targets.

In PS1 you brought a Skyguard to deal with enemy air but in PS2 it seems like you can just have your secondary gunner strap on a flak cannon and go about your business while the driver deals with all other ground threats. Other than being bipedal and having ridiculous regenerating shields this was one of the major issues people had with BFRs in that they were sort of an anti-all vehicle.

You are forgetting something: You are not alone. If you drive a tank alone with you buddy, and no friendlys around, then you are doing it wrong.
You will have other Tanks around you. Some of them AA, some AV, some AI. And you will need all three, because you dont know whats going to hit you until it actually hits you. ;)

[Shogun]

If tanks are taking too much AA, then I roll in with my tanks with AV and plow through them.

If air is taking too much AV, i roll in with my AA and roll over them.

etc.

But really. Literally every vehicle and infantry weapon can be used, to a degree, against vehicles. Even AA. They survive.

it was always like this! stone paper scissor, and if there are too much scissors on the field, it will self regulate for more people will get stones.
it will stay a very dynamic process. for if there is too much aa, nobody would want to counter that in an aircraft, so sooner or later th aa guys will change to something different to be able to shoot at something. and this will encourage the enemy to draw in new aircraft and so on.

it was the same in ps1. i´m not worried about aa on tanks.
my only concern is, that i loved the driver/gunner system of ps1 and liked to only concentrate on driving or gunning. never liked the lightning because i had to do both with it.

[CutterJohn]

it was always like this! stone paper scissor, and if there are too much scissors on the field, it will self regulate for more people will get stones.
it will stay a very dynamic process. for if there is too much aa, nobody would want to counter that in an aircraft, so sooner or later th aa guys will change to something different to be able to shoot at something. and this will encourage the enemy to draw in new aircraft and so on.

it was the same in ps1. i´m not worried about aa on tanks.
my only concern is, that i loved the driver/gunner system of ps1 and liked to only concentrate on driving or gunning. never liked the lightning because i had to do both with it.

I agree. My preference was always giving all the tanks a second turret like the prowler, and the driver could control that, or a secondary gunner.

But what they are planning won't be bad. There will still be times you'll want to concentrate on driving while letting the gunner do his thing.

[EASyEightyEight]

it was always like this! stone paper scissor, and if there are too much scissors on the field, it will self regulate for more people will get stones.
it will stay a very dynamic process. for if there is too much aa, nobody would want to counter that in an aircraft, so sooner or later th aa guys will change to something different to be able to shoot at something. and this will encourage the enemy to draw in new aircraft and so on.

it was the same in ps1. i´m not worried about aa on tanks.
my only concern is, that i loved the driver/gunner system of ps1 and liked to only concentrate on driving or gunning. never liked the lightning because i had to do both with it.

This. Everything has prey, and everything is preyed upon. Too many aircraft means more tanks pack AA means less aircraft means naturally tanks wouldn't be as likely to bring AA, especially if said aircraft pilots moved into infantry/tank roles outfitted for vehicular genocide.

Then we have to consider no one should be fighting alone. One tank with primary AV and secondary AA, and a squad of foot soldiers equipped to tackle infantry supporting it. No good tank commander worth their salt would be so stupid as to head off into battle alone.

[Baneblade]

Well that depends on whether a tank can effectively mow infantry. If they can, then AV/AA will be the best loadout for general use.

[EASyEightyEight]

Well that depends on whether a tank can effectively mow infantry. If they can, then AV/AA will be the best loadout for general use.

If the tank driver is spending shells on infantry instead of opposing tanks, that tank won't last for very long in the field.

And since hitting infantry with machine guns while riding in a tank can be problematic (in regards to the secondary gunner not being the driver,) it's possible, but unconfirmed mind you, that ammo from an MG atop the tank might have a small splash to it the allow for a little inaccuracy. Explosive tipped rounds if you will.

That, or they'll spew so much lead with the ever slightest loss of accuracy that they'll carpet a small area for the gunner. Either way works, as long as it makes the AI option optimal over shelling individual targets or the occasional group stupid enough to remain tight in the open.

[Coreldan]

It was said that Vanguard can one hit infantry on a DIRECT hit. That's a major difference to the AI-monster the turret was in PS :D

[Erendil]

It was said that Vanguard can one hit infantry on a DIRECT hit. That's a major difference to the AI-monster the turret was in PS :D

That's the way that the Prowler is now and it's still an AI beast - even without the 15mm manned at all. And the Lightning's 75mm takes two direct hits to get a kill and I can clean house with that thing if I'm only going up against softies or MAXes.

Not bragging at all, but just pointing out that the MBT's will probably still do fine at AI with an AA/AV setup, at least at close/medium range.

Now, one advantage an AI weapon might have is accuracy and effectiveness at long range.

[SniperSteve]

Good at everything ==> Master at nothing.

I am sure things will balance out once we get some play-testing in.

[Coreldan]

That's the way that the Prowler is now and it's still an AI beast - even without the 15mm manned at all. And the Lightning's 75mm takes two direct hits to get a kill and I can clean house with that thing if I'm only going up against softies or MAXes.

Not bragging at all, but just pointing out that the MBT's will probably still do fine at AI with an AA/AV setup, at least at close/medium range.

Now, one advantage an AI weapon might have is accuracy and effectiveness at long range.

Fair enough, I have no experience on Prowler/Mag and very little on Vanguard and Lightning. I'm usually not inside an armor to begin with.

One thing they could use to balance it is slow turret turn speed as well, which would make hunting infantry harder as well. It's not like tank turrets turn instantly anyways :D

[Traak]

Also remember what area of the continent you are in. It could be one that is particularly hard for aircraft to fly around in and therefore you would actually be hurting your survival chances by fitting AA as secondary.

Describe, for us, please, what would constitute a place where it is "particularly hard for aircraft to fly around in".

[Baneblade]

If the tank driver is spending shells on infantry instead of opposing tanks, that tank won't last for very long in the field.

You can't have played PS very long if you don't know what mowing is.

[Wizkid45]

I will miss dedicated vehicles like the Skyguard for AA, the AMS for mobile respawning (spawning in a gal is cool and all buuut) etc. I dont like the idea of the driver getting control of the main gun and the gunner of a secondary. If I wanted a tank like that I'd go play BF3 (which I HATE that setup btw). Way too much action in Planetside to leave the driver to gunning duties. Mag drivers only used the main gun if they were in a position that they werent going to take heavy fire, or if they had balls of steel! :D

[BuzzCutPsycho]

Good at everything ==> Master at nothing.

I am sure things will balance out once we get some play-testing in.

LOL because that philosophy worked so well with the Lasher, right? By using the logic you're touting you create a situation where stacking multiple non-specialized weapons/units becomes far superior to using one specific counter unit. The "universal but not exceptional" balance sense has been proven to be such bull shit in various games that I don't even know why people still think it has any weight.

Examples? Let me give you some.

VS Lasher - The weapon was made to the point where it didn't need secondary fire and did general damage to both MAX units and Infantry. Turns out that when you stack a shit load of them everything gets mowed down and the need to switch to a AV weapon becomes irrelevant.

PS1 Plasma Grenades - Same as above. Who the fuck needs frag? That shit does more damage per application.

DOW2 Plasma - Turns out that an infantry weapon which can do moderate damage to all units is far superior to a specialized weapon that can do severe damage to a certain type of unit. It was because of plasma weapons that players would spam tac squads and mow over people with varied armies. For those who played back in Chaos Rising think back to Inferno bolts for CSM squads, same shit. General purpose weapon that when used in mass far exceeds specialized weapons.

Only an idiot would use a specialist weapon which can handle one situation very well over a weapon that can handle every situation reasonably well.


"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein"

[sylphaen]

Until we get an idea of tank armor/HP, I shall assume that tanks in PS2 are meant to be game for infantry engineers and air vehicles that enjoy the thrill of the hunt.

edit: btw, in PS1, the key balancing item for infantry-side vs. vehicles was jammers. If mosquitos could have been jammed as easily as ground vehicles, there would never have been as much infantry farming (or at least, those doing it would have been more skilled).

[FIREk]

You will have other Tanks around you. Some of them AA, some AV, some AI. And you will need all three, because you dont know whats going to hit you until it actually hits you. ;)

To be honest, I think we'll end up with all tanks being fitted with secondary AA guns anyway. Other than the resource cost, there is no reason not to equip one. Doing otherwise would simply be incompetent, unless you're in an uber-organized tank team with dedicated AV, AI and AA units, which is very rare.

A tank's main gun comes with a coaxial machinegun (I'm assuming the Mag and Prowler have these as well), so the driver will always have a viable AI gun.
The main cannon is typically best suited for AV and has limited AI potential (BF3 did this pretty well), so AV is definitely covered by default.
That leaves us with AA. Aircraft will always be the biggest threat for a tank, so there is absolutely no reason to choose a secondary weapon type whose functionality is already covered by the main gun+coax MG (AV+AI) over a gun that can add new functionality to the tank, and harm its most dangerous enemy.

You can always use the terrain to fight, avoid or run away from infantry or other vehicles. You can't do this against aircraft. If you don't have any AA capabilities, they will strafe you until you're dead, or until someone else gets rid of them.
But your teammates can be preoccupied, or whatever. Since the game gives you this option, it's always best to come prepared, rather than assuming that others will cover your ass. There is absolutely no reason not to take an AA gun, if only to piss off and scare away potential air threats, which would be invincible otherwise.

The only thing that can stop this from happening is for the AV turret to be cheap, and the AA turret to be exorbitantly expensive, resource-wise.

I only hope tank-mounted AA turrets will be nerfed to shit as soon as buggies with proper AA are implemented. At that point tank-mounted AA should only be useful for scaring away, not killing air vehicles.

[CutterJohn]

I only hope tank-mounted AA turrets will be nerfed to shit as soon as buggies with proper AA are implemented. At that point tank-mounted AA should only be useful for scaring away, not killing air vehicles.

Indeed. Only one AA weapon has ever been designed. In fact, it is physically impossible for there to be more than 1 variety of AA weapon. This weapon fills all niches, is effective at all ranges, and counters all targets equally regardless of their armor level, speed, or maneuverability. The only variation scientists have ever managed in this weapon is in the relative power.

[ringring]

I think it will open up the floor for more tank battles. That's what disappeared from PS1 with the BFR shitbirds and then the Reaver stealth armor buff(an nice fat "up yours" to the tard who placed that in game).

Sure, the Reaver was always a problem, especially to grunts, but the tank battles used to be stupendous. SOE sure cleared that right up with their silliness though. No more ground fights for you sir! You must turtle in your base or fly an aircraft!

This is overblown. Of course you can have tank battles even now. The only limiting factor in the size of them is the population.

Presently, if you want to roll tanks and you're worried about air you bring a SG too or a AA bfr.

Relating to ps2 however, to me this is simply about balance which we'll have to leave to the devs. I'm more concerned about the mechanics of driving and gunning a prowlie.

[Graywolves]

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein"

I like that.

[EASyEightyEight]

You can't have played PS very long if you don't know what mowing is.

I don't concern myself with morons stupid enough to run around in the open when tanks are roaming those same fields.

I took "mowing" as in regards to mowing down infantry with a minigun. Get what mowing can mean in general now?

Might have taken long breaks, but I certainly have played since the beginning.

[Traak]

I would like to see tanks actually fight tanks in PS2, not run shrieking from each other, and both sides' tanks concentrate on raping infantry while avoiding each other.

I mean, all the major tech vehicles were used for farming anything BUT each other, and usually ran away from a straight-up fight.

I don't know how the game can reward fighting and punish cowardice, however. BFR's, especially, are infamous for running in and raping the AMS, then taking gigantic leaps backwards to avoid anyone who was actually armed.

I don't see how they can make tanks focus on each other in the game, instead of Reavers attacking tanks, tanks attacking AMS's, and every other vehicle focusing on killing cloakers, all while they avoid vehicles of the same class so they don't get hurt.

I wonder how they will make it so a tank battle actually occurs in PS2? I mean tanks battling tanks, not Reavers easily chewing tanks to bits, and tanks focusing on finding and killing spawn points, cloakers, medics, and other softies.

[Coreldan]

That said, tanks werent made to hunt each other or they would've been pointless to begin with! :D

But yes, I agree. But just that generally speaking it feels weird to promote somethings existance for hunting it's own kind. If it was so they could just.. not use them and save the money. Much like few of the ideas presented on the forums where people suggest that snipers primary job would be hunting other snipers or only cloakers should have a Darklight-equivalent.

[Tasorin]

The other part of this equation is that you are not by yourself in a single tank. You are running around 8 tanks deep with 16 people in total. This gives you the ability to mix and match a compliment of AA and AG.

Strength in numbers and Independence through force. The NC way of freedom.

I think your concern though was of a one tank army in which you can just cruise around and pummel most things in a 1v1 or 1v2 situation. I concur with your position that if the flak AA cannon allows the tank to be highly effective in countering its biggest threat, something will probably have to be done about it.

[CutterJohn]

BFR's, especially, are infamous for running in and raping the AMS, then taking gigantic leaps backwards to avoid anyone who was actually armed.

Thats called using your resources wisely, and playing in an extremely risk averse fashion is the result of a large penalty on death. Its why all the major alliances in eve have reimbursement programs.. They don't get nearly as many people fighting if they have to risk their own stuff.

People didn't risk their FVs because it took 45 minutes to respawn them.

[Xyntech]

That said, tanks werent made to hunt each other or they would've been pointless to begin with! :D

But yes, I agree. But just that generally speaking it feels weird to promote somethings existance for hunting it's own kind. If it was so they could just.. not use them and save the money. Much like few of the ideas presented on the forums where people suggest that snipers primary job would be hunting other snipers or only cloakers should have a Darklight-equivalent.

Hey, I resent the cloaker darklight comment :p

That was more of a suggestion for limiting the use of darklight, not turning cloakers into anti-cloakers. It's not the best idea, but it makes sense that the class with the ability to neutralize cloakers main advantage also be the class with the least armor. Makes the fight more fair.

Snipers are a similar thing. I'd never advocate snipers primary role be to kill other snipers, but the mere fact that no other infantry weapon can match the snipers range instantly makes counter sniping a logical part of their repertoire. Obviously cloakers and A2G ES fighters would serve an equal or greater role in killing enemy snipers, but sniping is clearly an important way to counter sniping. Always has been, always will be.

I agree that a units role should never be primarily about killing the enemy version of themselves, but in several cases, it ends up being at least a significant part of their job.

Look at fighters. Is anyone really going to argue that fighters shouldn't spend a significant part of their time dogfighting? Hell, a lot of people have frequently complained about how much time PS1 aircraft spent spamming ground targets. I assume most people would be overjoyed if fighters spent more time dogfighting in PS2.

It's not like ES fighters won't still spend lots of time tank hunting, spamming infantry, hunting down Galaxies (especially if Galaxies are a lot more prevalent this time around).

The same goes for the other classes and vehicles. Tanks won't only fight tanks, but it will be a significant part of their job description.

MAXes won't only fight MAXes, but as the two heaviest infantry armors, I'm sure they will clash with each other on many occasions.

Light Assault will be the only thing that can easily reach each other in certain situations. You can bet that a lot of bullets will be traded inside of that class.

Obviously some classes, like medic or engineer, will be less likely to be hunting each other, but let's not act like a class/vehicle hunting for it's own kind is absurd.

Of course, if any class or vehicle ever became next to useless for anything other than fighting it's own enemy counterparts, that would be ridiculous as well. That can easily be avoided by making sure that everything has multiple roles they can fill and fill them effectively.

Snipers will be great anti snipers for the simple fact that they have the range to counter each other and that they have low armor, making it even easier for them to kill each other. Now, if you made it way too hard for a sniper to kill any other class, they would become relegated to being little more than counter snipers. As long as they can effectively kill other classes, they will be fine. A sniper may want to clear out the enemy snipers before going to town on the shorter ranged enemies, however a sneakier sniper may prefer to ignore the enemy snipers and pick off the other troops right under the enemy snipers nose.

[Baneblade]

I don't concern myself with morons stupid enough to run around in the open when tanks are roaming those same fields.

I took "mowing" as in regards to mowing down infantry with a minigun. Get what mowing can mean in general now?

Might have taken long breaks, but I certainly have played since the beginning.

I understand why you made your error, but mowing in PS is always referring to a very specific action. And that was what I was talking about.

[Hamma]

:lol:

[EASyEightyEight]

I understand why you made your error, but mowing in PS is always referring to a very specific action. And that was what I was talking about.

Don't try and correct me on this. It was not an error. I don't know whom you get your references from, but from my experience it wasn't always used to mean tanks making roadkill out of squishies. Stop harassing me.

[Coreldan]

When I refer to tanks moving infantry down, the image I see in my head is a big ass chaingun going off, mowing the infantry :D

Mowing down infantry does not bring any feelings of driving over them to me. Sure, lawns are mowed, as in driven over, but still.

[Xyntech]

Mowing infantry only makes me think of running them over in the context of the Magmower.

I never thought of it as mowing infantry when I ran someone over with any other vehicle.

[Wizkid45]

Mowing infantry only makes me think of running them over in the context of the Magmower.

I never thought of it as mowing infantry when I ran someone over with any other vehicle.

Same. You could apply the term to other tanks, but "mowing" in PS (for me as well) referred to mags running people over coining the term "Magmower".

[Baneblade]

I suppose when its an AMS its called bowling.

[Raka Maru]

Machine gunners often call staffing a section of field "mowing the lawn". It involves the tripod, shooting, then adjusting the dial, repeat.

[Erendil]

LOL because that philosophy worked so well with the Lasher, right? By using the logic you're touting you create a situation where stacking multiple non-specialized weapons/units becomes far superior to using one specific counter unit. The "universal but not exceptional" balance sense has been proven to be such bull shit in various games that I don't even know why people still think it has any weight.

Examples? Let me give you some.

VS Lasher - The weapon was made to the point where it didn't need secondary fire and did general damage to both MAX units and Infantry. Turns out that when you stack a shit load of them everything gets mowed down and the need to switch to a AV weapon becomes irrelevant.

PS1 Plasma Grenades - Same as above. Who the fuck needs frag? That shit does more damage per application.

DOW2 Plasma - Turns out that an infantry weapon which can do moderate damage to all units is far superior to a specialized weapon that can do severe damage to a certain type of unit. It was because of plasma weapons that players would spam tac squads and mow over people with varied armies. For those who played back in Chaos Rising think back to Inferno bolts for CSM squads, same shit. General purpose weapon that when used in mass far exceeds specialized weapons.

Only an idiot would use a specialist weapon which can handle one situation very well over a weapon that can handle every situation reasonably well.


"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein"

The "Jack of all trades, Master of None" concept is a perfectly good way to balance a weapon platform. You're just trying to fit specialized weapons into the JOATMON category and wondering why it doesn't work. I can't comment on your DOW2 example, but your PS1 examples suck. :p

The Lasher is the most effective AI weapon in the VS infantry arsenal, and for about 4 years it had one of the worst AV abilities of any infantry weapon in the game. In fact, you could kill a MAX w/ JH gold ammo, and then switch to an AMP with gold ammo and kill a second MAX in the time it took to kill one MAX with the Lasher during that 4 year span. How is that in anyway way a Jack of all Trades? Unless you're referring to the SA-like lash. But the incredible AI ability of the orbs already disqualifies it as a JOATMON weapon IMO.

Plasma is also a bad example. It does rather good damage to softies but does almost nothing to MAXes and vehicles. That's a specialized weapon. OTOH, the frag does okay damage to both and is a good example of what I'd call a JOATMON weapon. However, what do people use? Plasma, because of its specialized and superior AI ability and because if they want to attack MAXes and vehicles they use another specialized weapon - ESAV or the Deci. :)

An excellent example of the JOATMON concept would be the Lightning. It has good armour but not as much as MBT's, good speed but slower and less maneuverable than buggies, and a pair of weapons that allows it to dish out decent AA/AI/AV damage but not as much as MBT's AV, Buggies AV/AI, or the Skyguard's AA. It can be useful in a lot of different situations, but for any given situation there's a more specialized vehicle that does it better and that's generally what most people prefer to use. :cool:

EDIT: And before anyone says, "but the lightning is only a 1-man vehicle of course it's gonna be weaker..." A single MBT is better at AV, a single Skyguard better at AA, and single buggy better at quick strikes than 2 Lightnings would be. :p


Fair enough, I have no experience on Prowler/Mag and very little on Vanguard and Lightning. I'm usually not inside an armor to begin with.

One thing they could use to balance it is slow turret turn speed as well, which would make hunting infantry harder as well. It's not like tank turrets turn instantly anyways :D

Turret rotation speed is a good way to help balance a MBT's AI ability. This is also done in PS1 and it does help reduce the MBT's AI ability somewhat, at least at close range. Slowing it down further in PS2 could be an option though since PS1 MBT turrets still swivel pretty fast. The Lightning's turret swivels significantly faster in PS1 and hopefully it'll continue to do so in PS2 as well.

Oh, something else occurred to me about that Vanguard comment made by one of the Devs, about it being able to kill most infantry on a direct hit.. The exact same thing could be said of PS1's Vanguard if you consider MAXes to be infantry, which that Dev might. So it's possible that the AI abilities of its main cannon haven't been diminished at all in PS2.

[ShockNC]

Snipers will be great anti snipers for the simple fact that they have the range to counter each other and that they have low armor, making it even easier for them to kill each other. Now, if you made it way too hard for a sniper to kill any other class, they would become relegated to being little more than counter snipers. As long as they can effectively kill other classes, they will be fine. A sniper may want to clear out the enemy snipers before going to town on the shorter ranged enemies, however a sneakier sniper may prefer to ignore the enemy snipers and pick off the other troops right under the enemy snipers nose.

That reminds me that i wish Planetside would have Anit-tank Ammo types for snipers. not enough to be more powerful than an regular anti-vehicle but enough to put a dent in it or make a running mag rider blow up if I'm taking popshots at it.

[sylphaen]

Same here.

Mowing and Planetside in the same sentence = Magmowing/Tanks roadkilling footzerg.

There's even a merit for it !

http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Transportation_Citation

[Raka Maru]

Same here.

Mowing and Planetside in the same sentence = Magmowing/Tanks roadkilling footzerg.

There's even a merit for it !

http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Transportation_Citation

Hehe, I was expecting "mowing" to be in the merit description. :)

[Traak]

I think that the snipers, like just about anyone in PS, will by a silent, unspoken agreement, avoid each other and concentrate on the helpless.

It's what PS encourages. Don't they give you extra XP if you kill an almost-dead medic with a BFR? Isn't it like, 20,000 XP for that?

Maybe not. But they sure act like it is. :D

[Raka Maru]

Looking at the new sniper cloak, it's gonna be hard to see other snipers.

[CutterJohn]

That reminds me that i wish Planetside would have Anit-tank Ammo types for snipers. not enough to be more powerful than an regular anti-vehicle but enough to put a dent in it or make a running mag rider blow up if I'm taking popshots at it.

Cool. Then I get AI rounds for my rocket launchers.

[Raka Maru]

Would like to be able to hit a sweet spot on a tank with sniper round. That would be cool.

[ShockNC]

I think that the snipers, like just about anyone in PS, will by a silent, unspoken agreement, avoid each other and concentrate on the helpless.

It's what PS encourages. Don't they give you extra XP if you kill an almost-dead medic with a BFR? Isn't it like, 20,000 XP for that?

Maybe not. But they sure act like it is. :D

Snipers are scavengers. since it takes two bullets with a bolt driver (and with a long reload/swaping time to boot), it's usually not worth the effort to shoot, reload, realign, and find out the target is now hiding against a rock healing where you can't get at him.

so you end up doing what most do: pick up advance targeting implant, scan for some sucker who has his health down at 75% or below and pick him off.

and if no one is around to show their face, you proceed to play "shoot the shield gen on the BFR" to past the time.

[Xyntech]

That reminds me that i wish Planetside would have Anit-tank Ammo types for snipers. not enough to be more powerful than an regular anti-vehicle but enough to put a dent in it or make a running mag rider blow up if I'm taking popshots at it.

VS scientists already came up with this, it's called the Lancer! lol ;)

[Captain1nsaneo]

http://i40.tinypic.com/2zdxhjm.jpg

Ah the lancer, I miss when it killed infantry in 3 shots.

[Baneblade]

Yeah, Lancer 2.0 was scary for anyone not wearing purple.

[Xyntech]

Ah the lancer, I miss when it killed infantry in 3 shots.

And it's STILL the most awesome AV weapon.

I remember wanted to try out the buffed Lancer, so I certed in Rexo, Bolt Driver and AV. I ended up giving up the Bolt Driver for something else when I realized I didn't need it :D

I actually had a lot of fun with the Bolt Driver as well. Terrible fucking sniper rifle, but I still had some fun.

Back when the battles were huge, everything was fun, no matter how underpowered.

You could cert in anything and fill what ever role you wanted and there would always, ALWAYS be a use for you in the battlefield.

That is what made Planetside great. The fact that you could do nothing at all and it wouldn't hurt your empire, or you could single handedly change the course of an entire pop locked battle. The fact that you could see a need and fill it, or you could say "fuck the need" and pick what ever role YOU wanted to play, and it still helped.

Populations. I'm telling you, as important as tanks are, or anything else is in this game, massive populations are the lynch pin. That is the backbone from whence everything else great in this game stems from.

Obviously everything needs to be well balanced, but I'm not worried about the possibility of seeing twice as many tanks. That's just more targets in the field.

Worst case scenario, pulling tanks is the only way to deal with tanks. That won't give any empire an advantage (assuming ES tanks are at all well balanced) and can be easily patched to nerf tanks into a more reasonable capacity in the battlefield.

We're not talking BFR's, where we had a barely existent dev team. Tank balance is going to happen with the full PS2 team ready to tweak it.