Infantry vs. Armor/Air

[Chanfan]

In another thread, I got thinking about some old board games - Ogre/G.E.V.

The relevance being, that in those games, units were purchased according to their combat value. Heavy armor cost a bit, Light armor or G.E.V.'s (fast hovercraft) less so, and infantry was very cheap. Things are balanced by point cost.

Certainly in games like BF1942, aircraft and tanks, etc. are generally more effective / desirable than just being a basic grunt. Grunts are needed to capture and defend bases, mind you, but the vehicles are really controlled by scarcity - there's a limited number of them, and they take a while to re-spawn. If there were enough for everyone playing, most likely, everyone would be in a tank or plane (with a few exceptions, of course).

In PS, there is no point cost for vehicles. There's no scarcity, either. It's limited, as far as I can tell, by a few things: Certifications, spawn point locations vs. vehicle purchase locations, and speed/ease of transport.

Certifications aren't terribly limiting, as it looks to be fairly easy to get enough certs from training to get at least one vehicle cert.

Spawn point locations are probably a biggie, as if you spawn at an AMS or other locations not close to a vehicle purchasing point, you just have to make do.

Transport I'm not sure on. A Galaxy can make it easy for a large squad to get from point A to point B, certainly. But why wouldn't the Galaxy just take the squad to a vehicle purchase point, and have them all buy aircraft/tanks/MAX armour? (MAX's seem like mini-vehicles to me, for this purpose).

Obviously, some terrain is restrictive - bases, for instance. And some things - infiltration suits - have special purposes not found in vehicles.

But what is going to prevent, play-balance wise, everyone just getting in their favorite vehicle for most combats? I'm wondering why it would be good to bring a squad of infantry to a tank fight. Will the only time you see infantry in agile armour running around be in bases, or when their vehicle has been destroyed?

It certainly doesn't look that way from the beta - I'm just wondering what the dynamics are in PS that prevent this from happening.

[Edit] - I see in anothe thread there may be a timer on getting another vehichle - any conformation on this? It would add scarcity to vehicles.

[Warborn]

The main reason most people do not use vehicles excessively in PlanetSide is because a lot of the heavier vehicles are not one-man endeavours. For example, the Marauder takes 3 people to operate fully. One driver, and two gunners. You can't quick-switch your position, so you need other people if you want to operate the vehicle fully. That makes it fairly undesireable unless you've got a set team with you, in stark contrast to the tanks of BF1942 where one guy controls a tank (in PS, tanks are also not 1-man vehicles). So, that right there is enough to discourge most people from using the heavy combat vehicles. They need team mates if they want to actually use those vehicles properly. The vehicles that are one man are, with the exception of the Reaver, relatively vulnerable to getting blown up by regular infantry if they try and go front-line with their ride.

It certainly doesn't look that way from the beta - I'm just wondering what the dynamics are in PS that prevent this from happening.

Are you in the Beta yourself, or are you drawing your information from elsewhere?

[LesserShade]

ok, semi off topic here but Operation Flashpoint armor is how I'd to see armor done in other games. Although the driver/gunner combo in PS does look fun and I can't wait to try it out, OpF had driver/gunner/commander which was a blast because it required a lot of teamwork.

I must agree with warborn though, the necessity of teams to operate vehicles should keep their numbers low. I am somewhat concerned with over abundance of mosquitoes and reavers however.

[Warborn]

Air dominance shouldn't be a big problem. There are plenty of ways to counter aircraft, so as long as you're with a group of people who've taken into consideration the risk posed by enemy air power, you should be reasonably fine.

[LesserShade]

At least AA Max units will be in demand.

[mr_luc]

I'm not worried about that as much -- there's only so much air vehicles can DO, and conversely, there's a lot that a ground unit with AA missiles CAN do to those in the air.

You'll see heavy air traffic -- this is a good thing, a very good thing! But mostly between destinations -- when you get where you're going, the real work (taking the base) is going to be accomplished mostly by foot soldiers.

[Shark]

I think the cert point cost could be a factor too. We don't know yet what the final cost will be to say be a tank driver. And we also don't know how a tank would fair one on one with an AV MAX or a couple of AV infantry. And so far, it appears that damage done to the armor of a tank will have to be repaired. I suspect that will require the crew to have some ability to repair armor, which means more certs. That leaves fewer certs for things like weapons and medical...a tanker will probably make for a limited fighter outside of his tank.

-shark

[LesserShade]

^perhaps. It seems like so far though when you max out your certs while you are unable to have everything, you'll still be able to be a pretty versatile soldier.

Good point though luc. I suppose I was having flashbacks to 1942 where if you were a lonely soldier in the middle of a field and planes were above, you could kiss your ass goodbye because your options of downing a plane were pretty limited.

[Gladiator]

What is the AA Max is it a Vehicle or armor? Do you have to get certified to use it.:trrocks:

[Warborn]

there's only so much air vehicles can DO

You don't want to mess with a Reaver.

And we also don't know how a tank would fair one on one with an AV MAX or a couple of AV infantry.

Think about it logically. A MAX is a one-man suit of armor, a tank takes 3 people to function. A MAX can be bought at any equipment terminal, a tank requires a more advanced vehicle pad to be created. A MAX is a relatively small target, a tank is a big, tracked bullseye. You can buy MAX armor over and over again, but you can only buy one tank every so many minutes.

If you put two and two together, I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that a couple AV infantry or an AV MAX don't stand a friggin chance against a fully crewed tank.

[simba]

all you need to be a infantry dude in weapon certifications is really only medium assault which everyone should get couse there is where you get the most anti-infantry weapons-Punisher(anti-vehicle also), flechette rifle(good for close combat) and empire specific rifle(good for all-around things.
I mean all u need is medium assault cert and you got it.
And lets see, what do you need in armor to make a infantry dude?
Well I would say reinforced is the perfecet choice if ur going for infantry dude so then u only need reinforced, which probably gonna need agile to get before.
Total it is a 6 point highest, possibly 4 points also. If u want you could choose a AV weapon certification also if you want to if your punisher isnt strong enough.
Then you got an infantry for 4-8 points.

[simba]

Originally posted by Juggernaut
What is the AA Max is it a Vehicle or armor? Do you have to get certified to use it.:trrocks:

yes u need to get certified to use it ;), theres AV, AA and AI max, each MAX costs cert points, around 2-3 for each MAX.
Its an armor;)

[Warborn]

simba,

I'm not going to comment on the point cost or the certs you mentioned, but you're going to be having a time consuming run around the world if you don't buy any form of personal transportation (like a Basilisk).

[mr_luc]

Also, vehicles vs. infantry -- whether air or land -- only favors the vehicles when the infantry is exposed and there are no obstacles around (in a game).

I recently beta'd an indy game where you spawned in a hover-capable flying craft, but where you could get out of said vehicle and walk around on the ground -- the scale was actually probably close to Planetside as far as terrain size and vehicle-player size. The vehicle fire rate and damage it did was much, MUCH greater than the player's puny blaster-projectile weapon.

If I got out of my vehicle and had the other guy come after me, I was screwed if I was out in the open. I wouldn't be able to get a shot on him without him getting one on me as well, so I had to use evasive maneuvers -- and since this wasn't an airplane that has to keep flying at a certain speed, but a hovering vehicle, it was almost impossible to move anywhere; you had to be highly evasive, but he was faster and had MUCH better weapons. You could only dodge the projectiles so long, and I never once took him down in open ground.

However.

If I got out of my ship near a cluster of sheds . . .

I could duck behind cover and he had NO OPTIONS. He had to get in close -- but it takes time to maneuver around an obstacle to get a clear shot, whereas I could just pop around the side and pop off a few shots while he was repositioning. If there was an obstacle around for me to hide behind/maneuver around, it suddenly became a very, very even fight.

Remember in the PS video when that Vanu hoverthingy is attacking a group of infantry on the snow world? The guy kept popping around the tree and laying down smack on the Vanu vehicle. That's exactly the kind of difference that an obstacle can make.

A vehicle can still lock that player down -- in Planetside, it looks to me thus far like cover isn't thick everywhere, just in the more 'forest'-like areas (which we see in the video). I think that's great, an excellent mix and compromise. There should be areas, like the places with lots of trees, where a vehicle is just plain too clumsy to be super-useful. (A reaver might have a tough time in there). But like on the snow world -- cover there seems to be more sparse, so it would be a pretty difficult thing to get from one bit of cover to the other.

I think those kinds of tradeoffs are exactly what is going to make PS such a tactically -- and tactily (is that a word?) -- enjoyable MMOG.

[OmnipotentKiwi]

Good thread (original post). I share 99% of your feelings on this issue.

[Chanfan]

Originally posted by Warborn
Are you in the Beta yourself, or are you drawing your information from elsewhere?

I only wish. No, just from what I've seen of the beta screen shots and journals. Discussing such things from actual beta observations would probably violate the NDA, and if I were in beta, I wouldn't want to do anything that might get me booted out (or worse). :D

Later posted by Warborn
Think about it logically. A MAX is a one-man suit of armor, a tank takes 3 people to function.
<snip additional reasons>.
If you put two and two together, I'm sure you'll come to the conclusion that a couple AV infantry or an AV MAX don't stand a friggin chance against a fully crewed tank.

Excellent point. A 3 person tank should be at least as effective as 3 individuals - probably more so, given the other limiting factors.

Back to the earlier item posted by Warborn
The main reason most people do not use vehicles excessively in PlanetSide is because a lot of the heavier vehicles are not one-man endeavours�<snip>�So, that right there is enough to discourge most people from using the heavy combat vehicles. They need team mates if they want to actually use those vehicles properly.

I agree this also is a limiting factor, but given the heavy reliance on teamwork, and the natural advantages of getting in a squad, it may not be all that limiting.

I'm still interested about the time limits on getting new vehicles.

Originally posted by OmnipotentKiwi
Good thread (original post). I share 99% of your feelings on this issue.

Thanks!:thumbsup:

[NapalmEnima]

I think everyone's going to WANT to be in a vehicle unless they have something to do (attack, defend, repair, whatever) inside that base.

As was mentioned earlier, people spawning at an AMS don't have the option spawning themselves a vehicle, so getting from their spawn to the base is going to be Quite Hazardous.

That's why base assaults will want some sort of vehicular assistence... A transport to shuttle (Galaxy, Deliverer, or Sunderer) them back and forth, some heavier vehicles for covering fire (reaver, tanks), whatever.

Assault teams will also be deeply interested in disabling the defender's vehicle pad, either by blowing the terminal itself, blowing the generator[s], or (the ultimate goal anyway) hacking the command console.

One of the beta journals mentioned that a hostile AMS was deployed within the walls of a base, making life DIFFICULT for the defenders. The attackers didn't have this wide open space to cross on foot, and reinforcement time was reduced.

A friend of mine and I are planning on using a Deliverer as a transport for a relatively distant AMS during attacks. Since Deliverer's FLOAT (non-dev info) the AMS can be on the other side of a body of water, making it that much harder to locate.


As far as Vehicles vs Infantry goes, I'm with mr_luc. Open space = dead infantry. Provide some decent cover for the infantry to use, and you've got another matter all together. A relatively large group of AV-equiped infantry might be able to take down a combat vehicle before suffering significant casualties. Say 4 to 1... so 8 for a 2-crew, or 12 for a Prowler. I wouldn't be suprised to find that 12 lancers/strikers/phoenixes would do enough damage to toast any vehicle in the game in one volley... 2 at most for the heaviest of the heavy.

[Mauser101]

NapalmEnima-

That's a pretty cool idea for using the Deliverer. Keep in mind though that deploying the Deliverer across that water will cut it off from any other vehicle support. That Deliverer will not actually be able to get it's troops up to the front lines and survive a return trip.

I plan on relying heavily on the Deliverer. As bricks on wheels aren't very fashionable I'm sure I'll end up being the driver as opposed to hitching many rides in them though.

For those that recall the fileplanet video... Remember how it took roughly 2 pheonix missles to take out that Thresher, and the enemy AMS took 2 pheonix missles up the tailpipe without going up. It appears the devs are doing a good job of balancing that weapon. (it also seemed fairly slow and slugish, though I have no other missles on video to compare it to) I wonder how a Skeeter will hold up.

[mr_luc]

Yeah man, it's all about the obstacles.

When I saw that one shot of the fight in the valley (kind of orange-looking terrain) with the visible AMS shield, and NOTHING BUT BARE GROUND and valley walls, I got this weird panicky feeling in my chest imagining myself there . . . no jetpack, no skiing, and no vehicle . . . I would be screwed! I felt naked and agoraphobic just looking at it.

But I analyzed that feeling and realized it was a good thing. We know perfectly well that there are places that vehicles will have a hard time maneuvering (forests etc), and Gun Towers and the like are refuge for infantry. And of course the VAST majority of the fight for a base will be fought on foot. So the vehicles need to have a bigger purpose than just ferrying people around. I think that valley shot (and my paranoid, ex-Tribes-1 reaction to it ;)) shows great promise for the place vehicles will occupy in PS combat.

Realistically, if a battle for a base is going on, wtf is a Mosquito's place going to be? With that many people on either side, SOMEONE (more likely multiple someones) will have AA, and will use it to take him out. Even a bigger aerial gunship will be vulnerable in pitched battle for a base, where its greater mobility will not help it to track down a single target.

Instead, vehicles will own the areas in between. Every Galaxy that is ferrying troops to a base is prey for an enemy Mosquito or Reaver, looking to take it town. Every group of heavily armed MAX armors, plodding down a road from the AMS they spawned at, is prey to a tank that can move much faster than they, and can waste them from range with its massive cannon. Every ANT, every AMS, every group of soldiers that is not already AT a destination will be prey for the air and land vehicles that are patrolling the area.

Heck, there could be some incredible battles. I mean, at first I was thinking 'Gun Towers, HAH!' But now . . . I mean, you can't deploy the AMS within an enemy SOI, so there's distance implicit there. That distance will likely be large enough that people in vehicles will be able to hunt down the attackers in transit. If there are 5 ordinary infantry versus one Reaver, I'll run for the Gun Tower. That thing might actually be really useful if it's in between the AMS and the base.

K, I've got a Planetside Erection again.

[NeoTassadar]

:huh:
There's not much cover I've seen that you couldn't splash-damage the guy to death. Plus there's the secondary AI machine gun on the tanks. If you're in a forest, maybe. But tank drivers are not likely to go near those places.
Flaw (slight) in Warborn's point. Buggies take same number of people to use fully. Will a buggy stand a chance one-on-one with a tank? I know there are certain circumstances, but realisticly. You are missing possibilities and less obvious pros/cons with MAX/infantry vs. Tank, though. Tank's pilot(s) can jump out and repair (if engineer), MAXs can't. Many things can come from the fact that those pilots can bail. They'll probably balance for those when they become apparent in the beta, more likely around time for open beta. Because when there's more people, they start to get creative.

[Mauser101]

The following three pictures give me great hope for a Jungle Warfare type of combat to evolve in Planetside.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=231

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=216

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=207

I can see squads of players moving through a forest hin the hopes of avoiding enemy vehicles. At the same time, I can see squads of harashing snipers and stealthers haunting those forest like the VC of yesteryear.

In the high grass of the second picture, a sniper will have pretty good concealment. Just look at how much of the harasser is covered.

I do hope that some of the forests are rather vast, and that some are a bit darker with less sunlight penetrating the leaf canopy.

EDIT: 1st link fixed

[NapalmEnima]

I mean, you can't deploy the AMS within an enemy SOI, so there's distance implicit there.

Where'd you get that idea? Remeber that journel entry I mentioned, where the enemy AMS was inside the base's walls?


K, I've got a Planetside Erection again.


TMI!!! :sick:

[Moleculor]

I thought there was one more limitation.

A specific person could only get a specific vehicle every few hours from a certain spawn point. And that kind of vehicle can only be obtained a certain number of times in a time period from a point.

[NeoTassadar]

The first link is to reply, Mauser.
In that environment, a sniper would have a tough time because no line of sight is going to last long enough to be sure. However, I'm going to be stealthing in there with a knive, melee booster, and eventually silent walk until people get the picture and stop going in the forest. :D

[mr_luc]

I didn't know the tank had an AI machinegunner.

That SERIOUSLY sucks.

As for cover and splash damage -- wait a second. Does splash damage go THROUGH static objects?? I would think that if I'm on one side of those big-ass PS trees, and a rocket hits the other side, I don't take any damage . . .

If the splash won't go through a static object, then I should be ok. As long as I can see it coming (rocket, grenades etc) I will have at least a fighting chance of getting on the other side of my obstacle from the explosion.

If splash damage goes through static objects though I am going to be irritated. I mean, if I can put a huge rock between me and an explosion, I should be ok.

[Jakal]

The SOI of the base can get disabled spomehow. I think if u blow the generators the soi goes down.

[Warborn]

Plus there's the secondary AI machine gun on the tanks.

Wha? Where on earth did you hear that? There is no AI gunner on tanks. You want the gun to shoot, you get someone to shoot it for you.

Flaw (slight) in Warborn's point. Buggies take same number of people to use fully. Will a buggy stand a chance one-on-one with a tank? I know there are certain circumstances, but realisticly.

No, a buggy won't. Does a buggy move a hell of a lot faster than a tank though? Yes it does. It also has other advantages over a tank too, like a better anti-air defense due to its smaller size and the gun mounted on the back. Buggies are also much more agile than tanks are. And I'm pretty sure buggies have a slower rebuild timer than tanks do. So I really don't see any flaw in my logic.

Tank's pilot(s) can jump out and repair (if engineer), MAXs can't...

If you jumped out of the tank while it was under fire you would not be getting back in. This isn't BF1942 where you instantly zip inside the tank. It takes a second or two to get into whichever compartment you want to enter, and you've gotta do it from a specific spot (ie. with the Prowler, the driver enters the tank from a hatch in the front, while the gunners enter from either side).

Also, MAXs can use health terminals to get healed, just like infantry, so it's not like MAXs are incapable of healing themselves.

Remember how it took roughly 2 pheonix missles to take out that Thresher...

Two missiles and a lot of gunfire from the surrounding infantry. And, remember, the Thresher is a less armored type of buggy. So you can get a pretty good idea of how much it'll take to put down a tank.

[LLMerc]

AI = Anti-Infantry not Artificial Inteligence

[Warborn]

Three cheers for misnomers.

[NeoTassadar]

Thanks for explaining that one for me, Merc. I elaborate NOT machineGUNNER, machineGUN.

Okay, luc, only an idiot would try to splach through a static object. I'm talking slightly behind and to the side.

Warborn, I was only referring to your basing superiority on players used for a single unit. I know you weren't using this as an absolute, and it is a good idea on how to judge things, but as always, there are many exceptions (though it is good for majority). As for repairs, I was talking about instant recovery AFTER a skirmish. Doesn't sound like THAT much, but it is enough to require thought while balancing. Also note: "(slight)"

[mr_luc]

No my question was 'does splash go through static objects?' -- as long as it doesn't, I'm sure I'll be able to survive attack by at least single-player vehicles, as long as I have an obstacle.

I ask that because in other games, like DAoC, splash damage was purely distance-based, so it would go through anything.

As long as Planetside isn't that way, I feel good about my chances. :) I mean, I can't see that Vanu hoverbike 0wning the player that movie was being recorded by. It has to be facing you to attack you, and it doesn't appear to be able to hover sideways (vehicular strafing) . . . the same issues apply for almost any single-person vehicle (except for the planes, they can hover sideways right? still, for reasons mentioned, the infantry would probably survive the encounter).

AAAAARGH I CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS GAME!!!!

[Warborn]

Warborn, I was only referring to your basing superiority on players used for a single unit. I know you weren't using this as an absolute, and it is a good idea on how to judge things, but as always, there are many exceptions (though it is good for majority).

That only applies when you compare combat specialized vehicles like a MAX or its veritible "bigger brother", a tank. For all intents and purposes, a MAX is like a one-man tank after all.

As for repairs, I was talking about instant recovery AFTER a skirmish. Doesn't sound like THAT much, but it is enough to require thought while balancing. Also note: "(slight)"

Both repair equally then, in that regard. The Engineering skill is required to apply the armor-restoring items to yourself or other players, and it's also required in order to repair a vehicle. And the need for health restoration on a MAX is offset by the fact that a tank requires far more repairs than a MAX to be repaired from a critical level, and that there are numerous ways to restore lost health when not occupied with fighting.

[Chanfan]

So, given the timer that must expire before you are allowed to fly/drive again, do you think that is the major scarcity/limiting factor that will force people to be infantry part of the time?

[OmnipotentKiwi]

Originally posted by Chanfan
So, given the timer that must expire before you are allowed to fly/drive again, do you think that is the major scarcity/limiting factor that will force people to be infantry part of the time?

Question is, how long is the timer? :)

[Zatrais]

Heres how i feel it should be

Outside, home of the vehicles

Close to bases, mix of infantry and vehicles since the infantry is spawning from AMS's and getting deployed from APC's and whatnot.

Inside, all infantry.


As for MAX vs empire tanks, best way to take out a minitank, is a bigger tank :D

in other words, the heavy tanks will be MAX killers hehe.

[mikkyT]

AA MAX = anti aircraft
AI MAX = anti infantry
AV MAX = anti vehicle

for the guy who asked...

[mikkyT]

OMFG I cant wait to get into one of those forests I can see it now...


1) Equip up with Infiltrator-Guerilla load out, AMP, ACE, REK, Ammo, Knife. Melee booster and Silent Run.

2) Drop pod into forest.

Enemy1: Hey whats that, drop pod... quick into the forest.

3) Stealth up.

4) Stalk me some enemy butt!

[Crimson Haven]

Jungle warfare would be amazing man. Imagine these few instances.

1)This one's particuraly impossible if the trees are too close to each other.

You are a mosq pilot, being chased by 2 others mosqs. U run for it, diving deep into the forest. A great star-wars like chase begins. U turn right and left, and the enemy mosq locks down on u. Then u keep turning and the missile hits the tree. U dive upwards, until 10 meters above the forest, then dive in again. Now you are behind the enemy. U shoot 2 missiles at both of them, and they try to run for it. Finally, since they are clumsy NCs the crash onto trees.

This would be awesome. I hope the devs make a forest with trees far to each other.

2)This one's kinda cool. Reminds me of war movies.

Your squad enters the thick misty forest. Recon has given u info the enemies are in a base near the forest, so u all take this route for cover. It was too misty to see anyone at all. All of a sudden, purple lasers begin shooting at you. Vanu!! All of you run for cover behind trees and rocks. Then after shooting massive amounts of bullets, the thick mist disappears and u see them. Tens of Vanus right in front of you.

All Hell breaks lose.

3) Best tactic is if ur retreating and theres a forest nearby, just head in. Then tell some of your mates to ambush the enemies if they dare chase u all. Nice tactic.


Personally....I wanna see more TR MAX SSs!!! Hamma!!! :love:

[NeoTassadar]

Originally posted by Warborn
Both repair equally then, in that regard. The Engineering skill is required to apply the armor-restoring items to yourself or other players, and it's also required in order to repair a vehicle. And the need for health restoration on a MAX is offset by the fact that a tank requires far more repairs than a MAX to be repaired from a critical level, and that there are numerous ways to restore lost health when not occupied with fighting.
My point was that a MAX cannot repair unless:
1. He/she has an engineer certed infantry buddy
2. He/she goes all the way back to a base
However, a tank will very likely (if these people know what they are doing) be self-sufficient in this sense, at least for a while.

And with that, I was just promoted.

[mr_luc]

Man . . . I want more close-up shots of the Vanu MAX!

To me, it looks like the only 'Leet' MAX -- the others look big and powerful and bulky and so forth, but damn. The Vanu MAX (from what I can see) is SEXY BABY.

Have there been any GOOD Vanu MAX beauty shots?

[Warborn]

Originally posted by NeoTassadar
My point was that a MAX cannot repair unless:
1. He/she has an engineer certed infantry buddy
2. He/she goes all the way back to a base
However, a tank will very likely (if these people know what they are doing) be self-sufficient in this sense, at least for a while.

And with that, I was just promoted.

A MAX is no different from Reinforced or Agile armor in terms of getting repaired. It's not like they're some unique thing that nobody is ever going to be able to fix. There'll be plenty of medics and engineers capable of restoring damage armor and fixing broken bodies. Getting repaired honestly is no big deal if you're not in combat and are with an actual squad.

[Mauser101]

Crimson Haven-

I believe the Return of the Jedi, Endor bike chase scene will be able to be replicated with Skeeters. I point you at the following PICTURE. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/viewer.php?img_id=198)

One thing I'd really like to do is put together an anti-vehicle squad armed with Pheonixes that would haunt the edges of the forests. The intention would be to bring down five to ten missles onto vehicles within striking range of the forest.

I expect AMS to be deployed in forests relatively often due to the extra concealment.

[NeoTassadar]

Originally posted by Warborn
A MAX is no different from Reinforced or Agile armor in terms of getting repaired. It's not like they're some unique thing that nobody is ever going to be able to fix. There'll be plenty of medics and engineers capable of restoring damage armor and fixing broken bodies. Getting repaired honestly is no big deal if you're not in combat and are with an actual squad.
It's not THAT big of a deal, but a MAX cannot be self-sufficient with repairs because it cannot use the equipment required. It can carry them to serve as a pack mule with guns, but it cannot repair itself, the MAX needs an infantry engineer friend. The tank does not.

[Warborn]

Originally posted by NeoTassadar
It's not THAT big of a deal, but a MAX cannot be self-sufficient with repairs because it cannot use the equipment required. It can carry them to serve as a pack mule with guns, but it cannot repair itself, the MAX needs an infantry engineer friend. The tank does not.

The MAX can heal itself via terminals. Tanks cannot. Although it'd need an advanced medical terminal to restore its armor, a MAX will never operate alone, so the chances of having an ally capable of repairing nearby is reasonable. Every footsoldier will require their health to be restored and their armor repaired, so there will be people around to heal and repair a MAX. There is, as far as I'm concerned, no significant difference between healing/repairing a MAX and repairing a tank. Both require the Engineering cert to be repaired, one needs medical too, but medical can be covered via terminals, implants, or other players, so there are many options there.

[NapalmEnima]

Someone was asking about splash damage?

Short answer:

Sold things block damage.


Long answer:

Any time you're within the potential radius of a blast, various parts of your body cast rays to the center of the blast. You take damage in proportion to the number of rays that actually make it to the blast point. It isn't known to the general public which parts cast rays, nor how many rays there are.

Vehicles, terrain, and other players can all block these rays. Anything at all in the game world will block them ('cept the grass/groundcover stuff, but that's just there to look pretty). You can take one for the team. You can hide behind that MAX buddy of yours.

And that rocks.


I can see NeoTassadar's point. A tank, operating on it's own in the field, can self-repair, providing a crew member has an engineering cert. A MAX, in that same situation cannot. But not all crews will have a member cert'ed for engineering (though they should).

And I can see Warborn's point. No MAX should ever be by itself. But it will happen. Support personnel get killed. Someone respawning at the AMS may not want to wait. The player in a MAX could just be a lone-wolf idiot. It'll happen.

And when it does, someone in a combat vehicle (tank or gunship) will own them. I don't see a single skilled AV MAX beating a single, skilled Lightening pilot... I see roadkill, and a banged up fender. And then that pilot will hop out, whip out the eng tool, and fix that fender.

[Mauser101]

Since the Lightning is a single person tank, I actually do see a likelyhood of an AV MAX taking out a Lightning in a one on one fight. As a matter of game balance I think the Lightning will be pretty lightly armored. It is ment as an escort vehicle after all.

It's the Prowler, Magrider and Vanguard that said AV MAX will have to truly be wary of.

That said, I really do not see many one on one battles occuring in this game. And I think it's pretty pointless for people to keep using examples in the context of a one on one fight. I believe that the first thing people will do in this game when they log in (if they are not affiliated with an outfit) will be to set their flag to looking for squad and tail around with a group until they invite the player in. I know I personally will not want none affiliated lone wolf players taggin along with any squad I'm a part of, they be detrimental to my squad's BEP and likely will cause TKs.

[NCG JMan]

Originally posted by mr_luc
No my question was 'does splash go through static objects?' -- as long as it doesn't, I'm sure I'll be able to survive attack by at least single-player vehicles, as long as I have an obstacle.

I ask that because in other games, like DAoC, splash damage was purely distance-based, so it would go through anything.

As long as Planetside isn't that way, I feel good about my chances. :) I mean, I can't see that Vanu hoverbike 0wning the player that movie was being recorded by. It has to be facing you to attack you, and it doesn't appear to be able to hover sideways (vehicular strafing) . . . the same issues apply for almost any single-person vehicle (except for the planes, they can hover sideways right? still, for reasons mentioned, the infantry would probably survive the encounter).

AAAAARGH I CAN'T WAIT FOR THIS GAME!!!!

I read somewhere (I think a dev report/post..don't remember where exactly) that they are using the "ray" system when it comes to that. Which means that you can seek cover behind objects and should be okay. I can't say with certainty though. At least that's how I interpret it. Anyone else know for sure? :confused:

[NeoTassadar]

Originally posted by Warborn
The MAX can heal itself via terminals. Tanks cannot. Although it'd need an advanced medical terminal to restore its armor, a MAX will never operate alone, so the chances of having an ally capable of repairing nearby is reasonable. Every footsoldier will require their health to be restored and their armor repaired, so there will be people around to heal and repair a MAX. There is, as far as I'm concerned, no significant difference between healing/repairing a MAX and repairing a tank. Both require the Engineering cert to be repaired, one needs medical too, but medical can be covered via terminals, implants, or other players, so there are many options there.
I have already pointed out that they would have to go all the way back to a base (that covers terminals). And I said they would have to have an ally (infantry-engineer) to repair them. Although I did ignore the health factor (which tips it more to the tank). They would not be SELF-sufficient (the tanks can). Your original post I was arguing was a hypothetical one-on-one full crewed tank against a MAX. I'm really not on either MAX or Tank side. I think it will be, at most (I think), a 70/30 fight for the Tank. Otherwise, there would be no point to AV MAXs besides hunting AMS/ANT. Glad we've been able to stay more calm than the Incompetent/Molecular stealther argument (no offense, guys).

[Warborn]

I have already pointed out that they would have to go all the way back to a base (that covers terminals). And I said they would have to have an ally (infantry-engineer) to repair them. Although I did ignore the health factor (which tips it more to the tank). They would not be SELF-sufficient (the tanks can).

All I'm trying to say is that getting fixed up after a fight won't be a big deal for either a MAX or a tank. Both require someone to have an Engineering cert to fix (which a tanker may or may not have, although most likely will of course) and neither will be seen alone very often, given how vulnerable they are to certain attacks.

Your original post I was arguing was a hypothetical one-on-one full crewed tank against a MAX. I'm really not on either MAX or Tank side. I think it will be, at most (I think), a 70/30 fight for the Tank. Otherwise, there would be no point to AV MAXs besides hunting AMS/ANT.

Hm. It's really hard to pin any kind of ballpark percentage on it. If the battle is taking place on a relatively flat landscape and neither side moves, the tank will win due to the fact that it simply has far more armor and far more firepower. However, a smart MAX user will not be so stupid as to engage a tank on open ground in a shot-for-shot sort of manner. The main advantage that a MAX has over a tank is mobility, after all. MAX armor can use stairwells in bases to get up to elevations the tank cannot fire from. MAX armor can use (to a lesser extent) the various pre-built fortifications inside the perimeter of an installation to shield itself from fire. There are probably a few other instances where a MAX would be able to use its mobility to its advantage, but I think I made my point. Now, while doing so may not result in the MAX's victory over a tank, 1v1, it'll certainly give the MAX a longer lifespan against the tank, which can be enough for your allies to come in and help take the tank down.

Just do realize that a tank is a relatively slow, unwieldly piece of hardware that is completely devoted for combat. It is god on the land-based, duking-it-out battlefield. Taking out such a powerful vehicle will require a lot more than simply guns. It requires thought, and in many cases, allies. Unless, of course, you're part of another tank crew yourself, in which case, have fun with it.

Oh, and by the way, the role of an AV MAX is (IMO) partly for shelling the shit out of infantry, and for attacking tanks and other vehicles from a more mobile, 1-man (as opposed to 3-man in the case of a tank) fighting unit. While a tank will definitely blow a MAX to hell in a hand basket, a MAX will have more options available to it than a tank -- chief among them the ability to go into a fight fully equipped and ready for battle without having to scrape together two other guys to serve as gunners like a tanker would.

[NeoTassadar]

I already said it wasn't that big of a deal, just enough for consideration while balancing stats. Sure the devs have thought of it already. An AV MAX should have a fighting chance, but the others, I would say the best option would be to run until your ass atrophies.

[Warborn]

Well, you're wrong, the MAX shouldn't have a chance against a fully crewed tank, but I think this discussion has reached an impasse, so I'll leave it at that.

[NeoTassadar]

Agree to disagree? We don't have any real proof, so sure. Agreed. :D
Intelligent debates always nice.