Eurika! TTK and vehicle changes explained.

[IMMentat]

It hit me a few minutes ago (then I had to source an appropriate pic, which took an age).
I can guess where PS2 is headed with its squishier tanks, aircraft that are lightly armoured but potent and troops with anti-entrenchment weapons (jetpacks, MAX suits and grenades).

Get out your notepads children, its (re)learning time.
Blitzkrieg#Methods_of_operations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg#Methods_of_operations)

http://i49.tinypic.com/2mn3nlc.jpg
(sadly they ran out of purple ink so it was substituted with brown and black :p)

Soz for the huge image but I can't find a way to thumbnail the image until clicked.

Frankly i'm looking forward to it.

[SniperSteve]

huh? o.O

[Stardouser]

You want low TTK to create salients and pockets? Not that that will happen unless something is done to encourage battles to happen in the field first.

[Raymac]

As a Californian I'm obligated to point out "Eureka".
Also, this tactic already worked well in PS1, hence the invention of the Max Crash Team.

[IMMentat]

Aye silly spelling mistake (can't edit it out).

TBH I found that the staying power of the vehicles in PS1 tended to force most engagements to within handheld AV range of the nearest spawnpoint wall.

Vehicles could ignore incoming fire, killed the perpetrator then retreated to beyond a hill to repair. The biggest threat was running into a minefield mid-run.

I would rather be excited and optimistic than bemoan every way PS2 is trying to level out the playing field for the average ground pounder.
After all, we are finally getting a new version of the white elephant MMO of the millenium.

[The Kush]

huh? o.O

Lol for real

[Blackwolf]

huh? o.O

It's simple really. The answer is 9.

I believe the idea is that tanks are being geared more towards offensive weapons rather then beat-alls while infantry are more defensive and will hold lines better against tanks and infantry. Where as in PS1, if you weren't in a vehicle, your best bet was to avoid enemy vehicles.

I can kind of see where it's going. Tanks were never impervious to infantry shenanigans and typically required infantry support unless it was an actual tank battle. As for the blitzkrieg reference, I have no clue. I'm guessing that by gearing infantry towards a defensive role (being effective against vehicles but absolutely lacking any kind of real mobility), natural battle lines will be drawn and infantry will have to dig in and hold those lines while tanks do what tanks are meant to do, move forward.

[Coreldan]

And to further correct as a finn who has been forced to study half a year worth of koinee greek, it would pretty much end up as "heureka" as in the original written form (greek) it was (translittered) ̔eureka, and the " ̔ " in front means it is pronounced as an "h". Buuuuut quite often your common westerner just ignores the extremely inportant spiritus asper from the beginning :D

Thus, eureka would pretty much be a whole different word.

[Stardouser]

And to further correct, it would pretty much end up as "heureka" as in the original written form (greek) it was (translittered) ̔eureka, and the " ̔ " in front means it is pronounced as an "h". Buuuuut quite often your common westerner just ignores the extremely inportant spiritus asper from the beginning :D

Thus, eureka would pretty much be a whole different word.

Original written form would look like: ΕΥΡΗΚΑ - lower case is a modern evil! And so are those accents and breathings, I hated that stuff in Greek class. Well, actually they were invented sometime during the Koine Greek period, I can't remember.

[Toppopia]

I wonder if later on they will add the digging of foxholes. Would really turn into trench warfare. :D

[Kurtz]

You want low TTK to create salients and pockets? Not that that will happen unless something is done to encourage battles to happen in the field first.

This is why spawning on the SL is a bad thing for PS2 as is the ability to spawn vehicles close to objectives.

The only way Infy should be able to get close is via GAL or AMS.
The only way a vehicle should be close is if its dropped out of a GAL.

Otherwise you lose the travel to the objective, which removes the battles in the field.

[Stardouser]

I'm not sure if those are actually related to pockets and salients! But as for squad spawning, it's a good thing but ONLY if it's squad-LEADER spawning. If it's squad leader only spawning, the squad leader will feel pressure to stay alive, and that means staying back, and letting the members go first. That will have impacts all around, but especially at base assaults, as he will not want to go charging into the base to die and be forced to respawn at a galaxy.

Actually, I think what removes the battles in the field is that the game world is so small there is simply no temporal opportunity to intercept them - when an assault forces rolls out, they will, simply put, reach their objective too quickly, they will be knocking on the amp station door before you can get people in position. Well, Galaxy assaults definitely, ground assaults maybe not.

[Xyntech]

It will be fascinating to see what the balance is like once larger numbers of players start playing in beta. Hopefully people keep an open mind to the change at least enough to try it out and see if it works. It could end up being pretty brilliant.

I don't have any experience with WWIIO, but aside from possibly that, this would be one of the first times that a game has tried out this style of vehicle combat on this scale.

And of course, should it not work out that well, they can always fall back on PS1's style, which would stand as the only other tried (and true) vehicle combat model on that scale.

[basti]

Blitzkrieg? YES! WE SHALL DESTROY! :D

[IMMentat]

As I understand it (from tidbits of info), squad spawning replaces or provides an alternative to the "hart shuttle" functionality of planetside.
Its outdoors only with a longish re-use on a random/selected squad member.

A drop-pod thunders down from the sky, slams into the ground and puny trooper number "I'm 86d" runs carefuly from the smoking crater gun ready, only to get quickly taken down by the enemy that watched the whole event from the relative comfort of a chest-high wall/rock/window.
MUTE OR VOLUME DOWN BEFORE PLAYING.
GotR Drop Podding - YouTube
Not a fab vid but shows how the droppods used to look.

Planetside1 HART sequence - wait around in the sanctuary for an automated shuttle to get to the drop-pod interface, select an outdoor area to drop on, click "drop here" then watch the orbital coffin decend onto the landscape.

But yes my main point being that co-ordinated combined arms will probably be the key to victory, no more massed air, massed tanks or unsupported troops, ROFLstomping the average defence back into its own base doors.

[Mechzz]

Blitzkrieg? YES! WE SHALL DESTROY! :D

Uh Oh, we remember the last time the Germans got all enthusiastic about Blitzkrieg. Glad u're on my side matey :)

[Timealude]

I just cant wait to hear what info Hamma has, if he has anything on TTK for us. Come on E3 and AGN night!

[Serpent]

This definitely seems interesting, I am intrigued by the Blitzkrieg idea.

However, they need to be careful not to make vehicles too easy to kill. It sounds strange, but it's true, TotalBiscuit's Night Ops shows him using only 2 C4 to destroy that mag tank.

[IMMentat]

The radius of the C4 seemed small, TB didn't die and he was fairly close. so had the mag had a gunner, minimap/awareness or support then TB would have been of little threat (it took TB a good 60-90 seconds to find the tank in a position he could C4 it in)

[Haro]

I agree with the OP, any changes that give infantry more chances to participate and actually make a difference in open battles outside of bases is a good thing. It makes ground transports worth more, and infantry worth doubly as much: infantry with AV weapons or explosives now are truly effective tank killers without needing 20 of them, and other infantry can act as very effective defenders, keeping friendly tanks safe. Tank columns can now act more like their real-life equivalents, a balance of offensive, defensive, and support capabilities, rather than what they used to be in PS1, just units almost always comprised of tanks (and maybe, MAYBE some anti-air, since air cav and libs were really the only things besides other tanks that could match tanks besides the BFR.)

[Serpent]

The radius of the C4 seemed small, TB didn't die and he was fairly close. so had the mag had a gunner, minimap/awareness or support then TB would have been of little threat (it took TB a good 60-90 seconds to find the tank in a position he could C4 it in)

I get what you're saying, but what if there are a huge amount of infantry running around with C4? Tanks can't defend themselves all that well unless the AoE on the main gun is extremely powerful.

[captainkapautz]

I get what you're saying, but what if there are a huge amount of infantry running around with C4? Tanks can't defend themselves all that well unless the AoE on the main gun is extremely powerful.

Easy, restrict C4/boomers to classes that fit, imo either Engineer or HA and make it replace one of the "extra toys".

I'd be for going oldschool PS1 and making ACEs turn into boomers, that way it's engi-only and the Engineer would have to think about using it.
Do I try and blow the unsuspecting tank, lay some mines to protect the base or maybe a turret would be better?

[IMMentat]

HA have the man portable AV weapons, why would they need C4?
Mobility troopers and stealthers are the logical users of remote detonated explosives. They can get in, and retreat easier than others)
Engineers will have access to mines which arguably suit support mechanic better (lay and pray instead of close the distance and run away). Real support troops have better things to pay attention to than if they can make it to one vehicle before it runs-away or kills them, like keeping the base in one piece and laying down supressive fire for the other specialists.
I get what you're saying, but what if there are a huge amount of infantry running around with C4? Tanks can't defend themselves all that well unless the AoE on the main gun is extremely powerful.
Run away! spam the main gun (when possible) and secondary (hopefully) AI weapon and call in support.
Vehicles in enclosed spaces have always been sitting ducks to infanty, thast what backup is for (Saving Private Ryan has several good examples).

[captainkapautz]

Do I read this right, you want cloakers and LA with C4?

[ArmedZealot]

Do I read this right, you want cloakers and LA with C4?

Cloakers had boomers in PS. I don't see what is so wrong with this.

[IMMentat]

It's not a case of #want#.
Role wise they make the most sense to use C4 properly.

It is the same reason I am hoping HA dont get all the gun variety.
Engineers and Medics make for useful indirect fire plarforms (grenade launchers) due to their position in battle while mid-range weapons like shotguns and the prolific submachinegun help ward off tougher targets.

[captainkapautz]

Cloakers had boomers in PS. I don't see what is so wrong with this.

I meant explosives like seen in the Night Ops video.

[Elthbert]

Vehicle combat is what makes PS 1 unique (notice the present tense) if tanks are going to be squishy there is no real reason to play it over any other game.


I really hope they get these vehicles more appropriately armored.

[captainkapautz]

Vehicle combat is what makes PS 1 unique (notice the present tense) if tanks are going to be squishy there is no real reason to play it over any other game.

What?

Yeah, no other games with vehiclecombat, or infantry and vehicles.

[Elthbert]

Cloakers had boomers in PS. I don't see what is so wrong with this.



boomers can't be placed on vehicles. That is a big difference.

[Elthbert]

What?

Yeah, no other games with vehiclecombat, or infantry and vehicles.



Not like planetside. A Vehicle in say battlefield is not a force multiplier like it is in planetside. Further, you don't have whole combats of mixed vehicles in varying terrain with infantry and the like. No, PS's vehicle combat is unique.


Even in the pitiful pops it has today, you ca still occasionally get a real field battle with mixed armour, light vehicles and infantry.

[captainkapautz]

Not like planetside. A Vehicle in say battlefield is not a force multiplier like it is in planetside.

Depends which BF you're talking about.

Further, you don't have whole combats of mixed vehicles in varying terrain with infantry and the like. No, PS's vehicle combat is unique.

Bullshit, every BF to date had combined arms combat, from BF1942 up to BF3.

[Elthbert]

Bullshit, every BF to date had combined arms combat, from BF1942 up to BF3.



Not like Planetside. Because the "combined arms" are just not that unique.


Let me put it a different way, if vehicles were as unimpressive in real life as they are in BF they would have never been used in combat and all combat vehicles would just be transports to the battle field for the infantry.

I never had that feeling in planetside, every vehicle had its niche, and that niche mattered, and, could completely alter the outcome of a large battle.

[SupaFlea]

So basicly if you have say a 8 man squad armed with AV rockets, with a bit of communication they could destory 4 tanks at the same time or 2 if it takes more rockets than c4. so I guess convoys and tanks out in the open will be scarce since 8 soldiers can hide behind a hill or in terrain alot better than a huge vehicle.

Another scenario
a 2 man team 1 arms with rocket other c4, they quickly sprint apart so the turret can only shoot 1 of them, the rocket guy gets his round off and get shot and kill the other finishes the tank off with c4.

Lets not start with how much damage a couple of cloakers could do since not every tank is gonna have someone with DL unless it becomes a crutch like PS1.

I played PS1 for about 7 years and to me vehicles were supposed to be deadly and something for even a squad of soldiers with AV to think twice about engaging, thats why vehicles were the best thing for taking out vehicles. I can see they are trying to edge a lil towards BF3 where a solo player can survive out in the open if they are smart but the whole idea for Planetside for me was teamwork.
How fast will a max crash be nullified if tanks are taken out with 2 C4 which an "Agile" can carry.

[captainkapautz]

Not like Planetside. Because the "combined arms" are just not that unique.


Let me put it a different way, if vehicles were as unimpressive in real life as they are in BF they would have never been used in combat and all combat vehicles would just be transports to the battle field for the infantry.

I never had that feeling in planetside, every vehicle had its niche, and that niche mattered, and, could completely alter the outcome of a large battle.

Have you ever played any BF before 3?
Did you even play 3 or are you just parroting what other people have said before?

[Elthbert]

So basicly if you have say a 8 man squad armed with AV rockets, with a bit of communication they could destory 4 tanks at the same time or 2 if it takes more rockets than c4. so I guess convoys and tanks out in the open will be scarce since 8 soldiers can hide behind a hill or in terrain alot better than a huge vehicle.

Another scenario
a 2 man team 1 arms with rocket other c4, they quickly sprint apart so the turret can only shoot 1 of them, the rocket guy gets his round off and get shot and kill the other finishes the tank off with c4.

Lets not start with how much damage a couple of cloakers could do since not every tank is gonna have someone with DL unless it becomes a crutch like PS1.

I played PS1 for about 7 years and to me vehicles were supposed to be deadly and something for even a squad of soldiers with AV to think twice about engaging, thats why vehicles were the best thing for taking out vehicles. I can see they are trying to edge a lil towards BF3 where a solo player can survive out in the open if they are smart but the whole idea for Planetside for me was teamwork.
How fast will a max crash be nullified if tanks are taken out with 2 C4 which an "Agile" can carry.


I agree its a definite swing towards infantry... I hope that this is just that they are balancing aircraft first, and then moving on to other vehicles.

[Elthbert]

Have you ever played any BF before 3?
Did you even play 3 or are you just parroting what other people have said before?



I have not played 3 but a few times... I played the others quite a bit, BF 1942 a lot.

So I acknowledge, BF3 may have fixed this a bit. not saying it has, I just haven't played it enough to form an opinion.

[Toppopia]

Have you ever played any BF before 3?
Did you even play 3 or are you just parroting what other people have said before?

i have played Bad Company 1 and 2, i like 2 alot more than 3, mostly because enemies can't spam anti-air weapons, and killing helicopters requires skill in bad company 2, not just who can equip a stinger and shoot.

And yes, i know you were talking to a specific person, but i felt like sharing my life story.:lol:

[Elthbert]

I think the idea that these quick ttk are "explained" by a desire to allow rapid movements are BS. Infantry being queen of the battlefield does not lead to rapid movement, it leads to trench warfare.

[captainkapautz]

i have played Bad Company 1 and 2, i like 2 alot more than 3, mostly because enemies can't spam anti-air weapons, and killing helicopters requires skill in bad company 2, not just who can equip a stinger and shoot.

And yes, i know you were talking to a specific person, but i felt like sharing my life story.:lol:

LoL @ Helicopters in BF.

Funny how you bring up the easy to kill BF3 chopper, as that had to be fixed with buffing missiles or nerfing the chopper, dunno which, because a chopper piloted by people who know how to use used to literally destoy everything on the map.

[Toppopia]

LoL @ Helicopters in BF.

Funny how you bring up the easy to kill BF3 chopper, as that had to be fixed with buffing missiles or nerfing the chopper, dunno which, because a chopper piloted by people who know how to use used to literally destoy everything on the map.

I liked them better in Bad Company 2, but me and a friend flew a whole Caspien Border Rush as attackers for the whole game, got over 30 kills in the chopper.

[Stardouser]

i have played Bad Company 1 and 2, i like 2 alot more than 3, mostly because enemies can't spam anti-air weapons, and killing helicopters requires skill in bad company 2, not just who can equip a stinger and shoot.

And yes, i know you were talking to a specific person, but i felt like sharing my life story.:lol:

BF3 choppers are overpowered for a couple of reasons:

1. Both pilot and gunner get countermeasures. Stingers are annoyance due to lock-tone spam but that is all.
2. The CROWS MG on tanks and the mounted .50 on jeeps are crap and don't threaten choppers enough.
3. SOFLAMs are too easy to avoid by learning to fly a pattern that takes you past a tree or something every few seconds. SOFLAMS are crap anyway, they ought to work like real life laser designators, they should NOT be working against aircraft unless you have the skill to use it to guide a missile to an aircraft in flight.

Despite what I just said, choppers were nerfed from BF2. BF2 choppers could quite easily rape for 100 kills in maps like Sharqi. However, the key is that whether a chopper has 30 kills or 100, people hate seeing a chopper crew on the top of the leaderboard with 0 or 1 deaths, and that's still the case even if kills are more often 30 or 40 than 100.

[Toppopia]

BF3 choppers are overpowered for a couple of reasons:

1. Both pilot and gunner get countermeasures. Stingers are annoyance due to lock-tone spam but that is all.
2. The CROWS MG on tanks and the mounted .50 on jeeps are crap and don't threaten choppers enough.
3. SOFLAMs are too easy to avoid by learning to fly a pattern that takes you past a tree or something every few seconds. SOFLAMS are crap anyway, they ought to work like real life laser designators, they should NOT be working against aircraft unless you have the skill to use it to guide a missile to an aircraft in flight.

i was talking about the transport choppers, but in BF3 they were horrible to use where as BC2 they were fun and actually deadly.

[Stardouser]

i was talking about the transport choppers, but in BF3 they were horrible to use where as BC2 they were fun and actually deadly.

Oh. Well, engineers sitting in transport choppers repairing in-flight is a very stupid mechanic that ruins suspension of disbelief and proper combat imo.

[Toppopia]

Oh. Well, engineers sitting in transport choppers repairing in-flight is a very stupid mechanic that ruins suspension of disbelief and proper combat imo.

It got worse when they gave said engineers XP for repairing the choppers... :cry:

One awesome thing about attacking transport choppers, getting a LMG and shooting at them, only worked well in BC2, but got quite a few kills doing that, even killed the pilot at one point. :lol: