I LOVE vehicle spam, it's NOT the problem of this game

[Rolfski]

There, I said it. I know I will get fried for it in this forum, that recently seems to be "hijacked by drama queens" that only see doom for this game, so let the flaming begin.

The promise of this game is that size matters. It's the sheer scale that makes me having a blast every day I play it. Seeing my screen filled up with endless armor columns and huge swarms of air puts a big smile on my face every time. It makes me feel being part of a big war.
I also love the power this game is giving me. I can be anything at any time with almost no restriction. If a situation demands for it, I can instantly switch to the appropriate class or vehicle to handle the situation. It's this freedom that gives me a lot of joy in this game.

Lately, I'm reading a lot of suggestions that want to limit my power and freedom or want to turn this game into a small scale tactical shooter. Screw that, it's not what I signed up for in this game.

You can still have a very strategic game without limiting peoples ability to do whatever they want. Limiting vehicle spam (increasing timers and costs, etc.) is a solution to the wrong problem. Instead, the game should focus on giving me more power to fight vehicle spam: better launchers, deployable AV and AA turrets, artillery call-ins, etc.

I will probably not make myself popular by promoting vehicle spam but I truly see it as the essence of this game, so it's time to stand up and voice a different opinion.

[ringring]

Water runs downhill, it's NOT gravity's fault.

[james]

So you want a game where you get farmed by libs and HE tanks

[RodenyC]

I doubt that I am the only one who wants to stay in a tank to have a fair chance of fighting.But I might be wrong.

[psijaka]

So you want a game where you get farmed by libs and HE tanks

Not sure that I agree with the OP, but that's not what he is saying at all.

Instead, the game should focus on giving me more power to fight vehicle spam: better launchers, deployable AV and AA turrets, artillery call-ins, etc.

[Rolfski]

So you want a game where you get farmed by libs and HE tanks
I want a game were I have a fighting chance against them.

[p0intman]

I want a game were I have a fighting chance against them.

Having a fighting chance means drawing a line at what is, and what is not acceptable. To give infantry their place on the battlefield, where it matters, in a combined arms engagement may actually mean having to reduce vehicle spam.

[ShadetheDruid]

You can still have a very strategic game without limiting peoples ability to do whatever they want. Limiting vehicle spam (increasing timers and costs, etc.) is a solution to the wrong problem. Instead, the game should focus on giving me more power to fight vehicle spam: better launchers, deployable AV and AA turrets, artillery call-ins, etc.

I get what you're saying and I agree that having lots of vehicles around is fun, but the issue I have with more powerful AV and AA as a way to counter zergs is the effect is has on people who are rolling around in smaller groups rather than in zergs.

[Crator]

Didn't think the majority of posters suggest limiting vehicle spam in PS2. They just want a game that allows the game to be more dynamic/better in the area of infantry fights.

Due to the nature of PS2 (Free-to-Play) with the resource system, they made the game have open ended certification system. Sure, some have suggested limiting vehicles, and to a degree that might help some. It's hard to say on that one actually. I really think making more defensible bases/towers is the way to go to helping this issue though. Better deployables could help a lot too I think.

[Rolfski]

I get what you're saying and I agree that having lots of vehicles around is fun, but the issue I have with more powerful AV and AA as a way to counter zergs is the effect is has on people who are rolling around in smaller groups rather than in zergs.
Smaller groups should not go head-on in armor but play more tactical: capping smaller or secondary objectives devs said they will add to this game or defend bases that I expect will be more defensible against zergs in future updates.

[Sledgecrushr]

I think lots of vehicles is great if the bases offer some kind of counter to that spam. Im really hoping that within the next few months the devs release some defense fixes for outposts and bases.

[Canaris]

I have no problem with vehicle spam, they just shouldn't be able to bring it inside bases is all, leave a lil something for the poor infantry, no?

[Thunderhawk]

Hey OP, I'm with you !!! (sort of).

Whenever we have a Prowler Zerg hitting us (and this happens often on Miller), we actually look forward to the ensuing Tank battle that starts up.

We - luckily - have been blessed with some good outfits on Miller regarding knowing how to play the game without resorting to just whining on the forums because a 5 man squad cant do anything anymore.

The TR and the VS seem to be the dominant factions on Miller, but slowly the NC are starting to get their act together and I've seen quite a few outfits spring up that cause us problems.

(I wont be naming outfits here as its not a e-peen contest)

Anyway, back on topic,

We have regular Tank battles, The area between Hvar -> Allatum -> Xenotech Labs -> Peris -> Ceres farms, and this occurs very often, and is some of the most fun fights you can have on PS2.

1. HAs taking out column after column.
2. AA MAXes being a right pain in the ass for ESFs.
3. Trying to sneak in that Rocket volley before a Skyguard sees you. Never hovering or else you're dead in 2 seconds.
4. Tanks shelling each other from a distance, trying to flank them, using terrain as an advantage....engineers running down the front line repairing vehicles.

I really dont see half the issues you guys mention here on these forums tbh, and I don't know, maybe the TR and NC on Miller actually know how to counter mass air and mass tanks and come at us with similar numbers.

Case in point, we had about an hour, (yes one whole hour) fight on the 2 bridges that connect Regent Rock and Mesa skydock south of Peris.

We had footsoldiers, shooting at each other moving forward then moving back, we had tanks comign in and trying to move forward only to be pushed back by HA's and Rockets, we had air battling it out overhead with Liberators being scared away by Launchers / ESFs AA MAXes / Skyguards....

There's enough in the game to counter everything if you have enough numbers and varied set ups to do this.

Moaning about being vehicle camped in a spawn polint is your own fault for continuing to spawn there, you have options, you can spawn elsewhere and come back with your own vehicles....

Anyway, just saying, yes the game needs fixing, but what I see is this :-

1. Render Distance is the single biggest hurdle the game has to finally becoming truly epic when it comes to battles. Also Infantry only rendering at 100-150 meters compared to vehicles rendering up until 600-800 meters means that infantry tend to shoot you with Lock on weapons far before you ever get to see them, which to me is totally retarded. Also their weapons dont leave a trail and the projectiles only render when the infantry render, so you are being hit by invisible missiles.

2. Build walls around all bases (Like AMP stations)

3. Build roofs over main bases (even have as shield)

4. Make spawn rooms underground with several tunneled exits that lead into the main buildings of bases.

5. Fix or don't fix the Hex system (I prefer Lattice but not everyone does so meh)

6. Stop pandering to whichever crybabies are screaming the loudest on the forums, and think logically about any changes being done, especially when nerfing or buffing 2 separate things, do one at a time and observe results, dont do 2 changes at once that truly fucks up balance.

-----------

See what happens

[Fear The Amish]

Smaller groups should not go head-on in armor but play more tactical: capping smaller or secondary objectives devs said they will add to this game or defend bases that I expect will be more defensible against zergs in future updates.

Interpretation: My version right now is perfect for me so you small groups well just come back later....

Yeah they did, they all left for the most part. Why you have so many half empty servers.... and they probably wont be coming back.

[Sledgecrushr]

Even the largest armored columns get destroyed. To me this is an opportunity to try a fifferent vehicle or go infantry. Maybe its just me but I like using all the vehicles and all the classes.

[Sledgecrushr]

Smaller groups should not go head-on in armor but play more tactical: capping smaller or secondary objectives devs said they will add to this game or defend bases that I expect will be more defensible against zergs in future updates.

In a lot of situations, especially how this game flows a small group might be best served in flanking a larger group, fighting from high ground, ambushing larger groups in some of these naturally constricted areas. Small groups really have to play smart.

[NewSith]

Lately, I'm reading a lot of suggestions that want to limit my power and freedom or want to turn this game into a small scale tactical shooter. Screw that, it's not what I signed up for in this game.

These suggestions are mostly tied to the fact that vehicles do not allow to quit a spawnroom without dying. Better base/outpost designs plus:

You can still have a very strategic game without limiting peoples ability to do whatever they want. Limiting vehicle spam (increasing timers and costs, etc.) is a solution to the wrong problem. Instead, the game should focus on giving me more power to fight vehicle spam: better launchers, deployable AV and AA turrets, artillery call-ins, etc.

... and people will stop complaining rather quickly.


You have the correct idea, it's just that people offer timer/cost incrase only because most of them stick to only few gamestyles. Hence all the misconception.

[SpunkyKuma]

Base and outpost design is the problem.

[Aaron]

So long as infantry fights can be had at bases and outposts, I have no problem with high density vehicle spam.

[AThreatToYou]

I love to see swarms of vehicles too. It's really fun when you are in a vehicle to be a part of those things.

But it's no fun to be an infantry. That should be adjusted. Almost everyone else is seeing the right thing, and that is that base design and maybe map design in a few parts are flawed to favor vehicles in such a way that allow them to influence the battle all the way through.

[Rolfski]

Hey OP, I'm with you !!! (sort of).

Whenever we have a Prowler Zerg hitting us (and this happens often on Miller), we actually look forward to the ensuing Tank battle that starts up.

We - luckily - have been blessed with some good outfits on Miller regarding knowing how to play the game without resorting to just whining on the forums because a 5 man squad cant do anything anymore.

The TR and the VS seem to be the dominant factions on Miller, but slowly the NC are starting to get their act together and I've seen quite a few outfits spring up that cause us problems.

I play on Miller (most of my time) as well as Mattherson and Connery. Especially on Miller, I see vehicle spams not as an issue at all. That server has many well-organized smaller outfits that know how to make a difference and handle vehicle spam: Good coordination with other outfits and great execution of anti-zerg tactics as described in this topic (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=51604).

[Timealude]

I sort of agree with you OP about it not being the armor column's fault but it comes down to yes in a real life situation where you have 30 tanks vs 50 infantry the tanks are going to win...But just like real life duties in military they wouldnt be very fun in a game. You have the right idea about more anti vehicle things but others are right about the world design, it allows too much for tank and vehicles and not enough for infantry.

This is why people are asking for Urban continents with ruins and such so we can ambush a bit easier. People also seem to not understand that if they increase the cooldown or resource cost for vehicles that by common sense they would have to increase the power of those vehicles as well. So to those people, could you really imagine a tank taking like 5 rockets to the back or 10 to the front, Liberators having the same health as a galaxy?

[maradine]

In a lot of situations, especially how this game flows a small group might be best served in flanking a larger group, fighting from high ground, ambushing larger groups in some of these naturally constricted areas. Small groups really have to play smart.

This. Armored combat definitely isn't one of the multiple places where a small team has no role. Even a single python AP running around the backfield can shatter a column, force them out of otherwise excellent cover, and just be a dick in general. He may even live through it.

[Beerbeer]

I wouldn't be surprised if this dude rarely plays infantry, or ever tries to defend anything as infantry.

That's fine, spam vehicles all you want, but nerf the crap out of infantry damage, SMED Jr.

[Figment]

I want a game were I have a fighting chance against them.

Funny, that's exactly what you're denying yourself mathematically...



Because if you buff infantry weapons even further, that won't do anything but make multiple forms of combat aggravating.

Do note that the damage dealt by handheld infantry weapons (both short and long range) is SIGNIFICANTLY MORE than in PS1 for handheld weaponry and therefore the TTK on vehicles SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER.


Despite of that, the sheer mass of tanks turns out to far outweigh the effect of buffing infantry weapons. Remember that it took 18 shots for a Phoenix in PS1 to kill a Vanguard? Do you remember the TTK length of that feeling like an eon? From the right angle, it takes two AV shots in PS2 and even from the front only a few shots in comparison. Yet vehicles dominate beyond what PS1 ever had.

More forms of AV won't matter either, the basic AV necessities are there en mass. They don't help.


Do you want instakill infantry weapons against tanks? Will this help either form of combat to be more fun and fulfilling?

In the end, vehicles will still one shot you with dozens of guns trained in your direct at the same time. Like it or not, this situation is created by the sheer amount of guns pointed in your direction and the frequency of that occurance. Not by how fast you can remove them, because they can just pull something equally lethal even though you've become more than 5 to 9x as effective at killing MBTs since PS1 already and are twice as lethal against Lightnings.

Fact is, Lightnings have become 5x as effective as well, while MBTs have one or two guns of nigh instakill power and come in far greater numbers due to their manpower limitation removal. If for every infantry unit, you can have a tank unit in an engagement, then it doesn't matter if you can kill them a bit quicker, they will kill you even more quickly. And making them so vulnerable that they become token units and everything kills everything in one shot, just removes skill from the battlefield even more and turns it into a roll of the dice game. And nothing frustrates players in a competitive FPS more than random chance and lack of personal control, not to mention skill mattering less and less in engagements.


You called it freedom and power, I call it an addiction to a drug pretending to empower you, while it in reality enslaves you and burns you out quickly. The answer is not to fight fire with more fire, the answer is fire control.


EDIT: just for the record:

PS1 Decimator (max of 3 shots per Decimator carried) :
MAX 3 shots
Lightning 4 shots
Prowler 11 shots
Magrider 9 shots
Vanguard 12 shots

PS1 Phoenix (clip 1, 9 missiles per ammo box) :
MAX 3 shots
Lightning 6 shots
Prowler 18 shots
Magrider 14 shots
Vanguard 18 shots

PS1 Striker (Clip 5, 15 missiles per ammo box) :
MAX 6 shots
Lightning 12 shots
Prowler 36 shots
Magrider 28 shots
Vanguard 36 shots

PS1 Lancer (Clip 6, 18 energy cells per ammo box) :
MAX 6 shots
Lightning 9 shots
Prowler 22(?) shots
Magrider 17(?) shots
Vanguard 23(?) shots

Source: http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Anti-Vehicular (last updated: dec. 2006, which is I believe post-40% AV buff)

EDIT: indeed it was: http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=3.11.6 (April 2006)

[ShadetheDruid]

Mmm, it's not that I don't want to see more AV and AA stuff, since I love to see more variety of things getting added (and more ways for infantry to deal with things). It's not so much the "more" I have an issue with, it's the "powerful" that usually comes after it. I guess in that sense, i'm not really disagreeing with you as such.

It's just a little frustrating to be that person who does do the less head-on, more flanky/ambush stuff and inadvertantly be on the receiving end of a fix that involves helping infantry deal with vehicle zergs. Especially since my vehicle of choice is a HEAT Lightning, so I already have to fear infantry, and pick my vehicle targets really well.

I guess I side more with the concept of fixing bases and the resource system (and with a proper resource system, there wouldn't even need to be timers, really).

[Mox]

Vehicle spam isnt the main problem.
Thr problem is that there is no proper space for infantry combat. The bases are too open for vecs and no real defense is possible.

[sneeek]

I used to think that vehicle / air spam was a problem that needed to be addressed, but now it seems to me that when your spawn room is camped by half a dozen tanks, liberators and a bunch of infantry, it's time to spawn elsewhere. You've already been beaten. If the enemy takes out the SCU, they're actually doing you a favour.

Sometimes a quick vehicle counter-attack can recover the base. There isn't much high-level commanding going on right now, so this happens more by chance than by design.

Difficulty of base defence has already oscillated between extremes during PS2 beta, so it's clearly rather a difficult thing to balance.

[Thunderhawk]

Vehicle spam isnt the main problem.
Thr problem is that there is no proper space for infantry combat. The bases are too open for vecs and no real defense is possible.

That is basically it..... Have all bases surrounded by walls like AMP stations and build up the main structure to be as big as the current bases with the surrounding buildings within this structure.

You have a spawn room inside a base, you have tanks only able to get in from max 1-2 entrances (into the base courtyard) and have all infantry fighting inside the main structure (with multiple doors to get in.

Leave towers and the outside structures as is to add variety and you have the perfect setup.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Infernalis]

We need better base design AND more places focused on infantry (not just Biolabs).

People also seem to not understand that if they increase the cooldown or resource cost for vehicles that by common sense they would have to increase the power of those vehicles as well. So to those people, could you really imagine a tank taking like 5 rockets to the back or 10 to the front, Liberators having the same health as a galaxy?
No, increasing cooldown and/or ressources will just mean you will see less vehicles on the field (that's the point after all), not that you have to buff them.

[Figment]

I used to think that vehicle / air spam was a problem that needed to be addressed, but now it seems to me that when your spawn room is camped by half a dozen tanks, liberators and a bunch of infantry, it's time to spawn elsewhere. You've already been beaten. If the enemy takes out the SCU, they're actually doing you a favour.

Sometimes a quick vehicle counter-attack can recover the base. There isn't much high-level commanding going on right now, so this happens more by chance than by design.

However, it means there's only uni-directional flow. If that's the case, there's no point in even trying to defend, it's immediately better to let them sit in the base, grab your own vehicles and make them the sitting ducks (provided you bring enough people).

And sure, that happens in high pop situations, yes, I've organised a couple of those zergs after a tech plant lost their spawns and we still had an outpost and formed up before the enemy zerg reacted (in other cases, it just meant the NC got pulverised one by one because they ran off individually alerting their zerg that overwhelmed the few vehicles that could spawn at a time and all the infantry around it got farmed).


But that being the only realistic option renders it small teams useless for both defense and counter attacks. As long as it's pwn or be pwned, then there's no really enjoyable fight. :/

Dealing with it for a while is one thing, dealing with it for 10 years another, I'm personally bored with it after two weeks.

Difficulty of base defence has already oscillated between extremes during PS2 beta, so it's clearly rather a difficult thing to balance.

Not really what influenced ground vehicle viability...

Tanks were nearly nowhere to be seen until they removed the Galaxy-AMS. Why? Because tanks could not keep up with the speed of battle induced by the Galaxy and because it was much faster to speed cap the base cap points by air (there were no spawns at first at all outposts!).

Not because they were buffed in the same period, they were simply made useful. Didn't take long before people realised just how strong they were too.

Defensibility has only increased since beta, with more fortifications and infantry cover placed, but far too little and not effectively (there are other threads for that though).

[Figment]

People also seem to not understand that if they increase the cooldown or resource cost for vehicles that by common sense they would have to increase the power of those vehicles as well. So to those people, could you really imagine a tank taking like 5 rockets to the back or 10 to the front, Liberators having the same health as a galaxy?

People who say this shouldn't even bother trying to understand balancing mechanics. It's not for them.


Read my post TimeAlude: PS1 tanks took up to EIGHTEEN shots from ANY DIRECTION (no directional hitboxes).


They were not a problem. Before that AV buff, they took over 20, mind you. We simply had better structures with high ground, EMP grenades and there were less to concentrate fire on and less to spam us to death.

[Illtempered]

I think some better base design would solve a lot of the problems. Tech Plants were more fun to defend before they got nerfed, and they weren't too hard to take. It just took some coordination and shield diffusers. I still would love to see more infantry-only combat, like we have in Biolabs.

I don't see vehicles spam as that much of a problem. It just makes for more targets. If you're getting owned by vehicles out in the open field too much, then maybe it's time to rethink your tactics.

[Bags]

lots of tanks is cool not fun

[Figment]

Tech Plants were possible to defend (too possible with too little variation causing all the render issues due to too dense concentrations for the engine to handle), but were not designed to break out off: the shield acts as a plug that keeps enemies out (till Sundy/gen goes down... or some smart people with a Vanguard raise their barrels and let infantry walk in), but also keeps players trapped inside and camped with ease. They were broken designs either which way you look at it.

[duomaxwl]

*cough* Make bases less open *cough* Stop making spawns out in the open *cough*

[Rolfski]

I wouldn't be surprised if this dude rarely plays infantry, or ever tries to defend anything as infantry. Whether I'm lone wolving or play in my outfit, I play mostly infantry. And yes, I fight against vehicle spams a lot. Sometimes we can deal with them head-on, most of the time we have to use other tactics like the ones I described in my anti-zerg tactics thread.


Funny, that's exactly what you're denying yourself mathematically...

Because if you buff infantry weapons even further, that won't do anything but make multiple forms of combat aggravating.

I haven't really played PS1 but if you suggest that infantry won't stand a chance anyway against vehicle spam, no matter how you buff them, I disagree. This game can use improvements in base/terrain design and weapon design. More defensible bases/terrain with infantry that have better AV/AA capability should be enough to balance out vehicle spam. No need to limit the spam.

[PredatorFour]

Right now they are making more conts for the game. If these have the same base designs as we already have, i don`t think we are going to see any radical changes to base design. Which DOES make vehicle spam a problem. I agree that better base design would significantly aid defense and furthermore fun for infantry.

[Ghoest9]

it's NOT the problem of this game

wrong

It may be balanced. You may enjoy it.

Its a problem because most players dont enjoy it and many hate it.
And thats what matters. Because more players spend more money.

Most of us want primarily a gun fight not an attack helicopter fight.

[Sturmhardt]

As long as infantry does not have real place in the gameplay I will hate the vehiclespam.

If we get real defensible bases where you need to get out of your comfy tank to capture it, you can tank spam all you want.

[Figment]

I haven't really played PS1 but if you suggest that infantry won't stand a chance anyway against vehicle spam, no matter how you buff them, I disagree. This game can use improvements in base/terrain design and weapon design. More defensible bases/terrain with infantry that have better AV/AA capability should be enough to balance out vehicle spam. No need to limit the spam.

You haven't been keeping up to date on the PS2 Base Design thread by Wahooo haven't you? >.>
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=51193

^ Think you'll want to read that, fully.

Base design are the basics to work with as infantry, currently there is far too little favouring infantry (pretty much everything around a base should be biased to infantry for them to make a competitive chance). I fully agree with you there and aren't going to discuss that. But let's hypothesize that you have a functional base that isn't spawncamped by vehicles (come on SOE, make it happen...)




However, when it comes to balancing them out numerically, numbers become more important. There are simply too many tanks and Sunderers available to keep up as infantry units.

Keep in mind, they kill you in one shot.

You kill one in what, 2 from behind 5, 8 shots from front, assuming you don't miss too much, so on average... 5 shots? You carry 5 shots by default, so you can take out one before you need to resupply two if you're lucky and get at them from behind and lead well.

But you don't engage one in this game, you engage between 3 and 30 in regular fights (from all kinds of directions too, too many to keep them in front of you and ensure no angle from any of them on you). That's in between 3 and 30 guns of INSTAKILL aimed at you. Someone will hit, especially since they can take more time aiming than you and are not penalized with as much gravity as you. They will kill you and send you flying to the spawn point, which leaves your allies vulnerable since they can't fight back, nor flee because they're not fast enough.

To kill 3-30 tanks, you need to get between 6 (3 tanks hit from behind) and 180 shots on target. If you have 3-30 people as well, a good portion of those are dedicated to AI (including snipers), medic, engineer and AA. They can't disable vehicles with EMP, so they're completely reliant on the few AV units out there. Now in case of a small group of tanks, it's not too hard to handle even with a small group, but the more enemy tanks there are, the harder it becomes to take them out. Given the right situational circumstances (like extreme high ground and a canyon pass), it could be done, especially if they come from one direction through a choke point, panic and flee. But in normal circumstances, chances are they beat you to crap by simply spamming you all and cutting you off from reinforcements. Especially if you consider that each shot they fire is a potential kill and they carry up to 40 shots, before they need a refill and the more tanks there are, the bigger the volume of shots and thus the bigger the chance they hit something.



So okay, let's say you half that. 3 shots on average from the front. Still some power distance, but more managable. Still 6 to 90 shots needed and still most of you aren't HA, so it's going to be tricky given that you're still one shot kills and still die equally fast, though the amount of volleys should reduce faster as you kill or drive of more sooner.

So sure, it'd be a easier, no mistake about that. Would it be more fun though? For infantry maybe a little less frustrating, I still wouldn't quite call dieing all the time before you can apply much skill fun.


In the new situation though, tanks die even more quickly than they already do (and don't get me wrong, when engaged advantageously, you can kill a single tank really, really quick) and they start to get annoyed to the same degree infantry are that get one shot consistently... So now you have annoyed infantry and annoyed ground vehicle users. Don't forget, these people hauled that thing over from miles away, it's going to bother them that infantry is killing them with that much ease. Make no mistake about that!

Even more so if the render issues remain.

And yet, they would probably still steamroll the infantry due to their powerful group volleys that still kill 3 times as fast as a similar number of HA users, so you'd still need loads of HA users continuously.

>.>



Now, if you'd simply reduce vehicle numbers and keep their armour the same, you get a different effect.

What less numbers do, is keep vehicle users happy that they have survivability, but it cuts the pressure on infantry units (less guns aimed in their direction) and reduces the dependency on the individuals in the group who carry AV, allowing infantry players to their own prefered roles a bit more, like taking out other infantry.

The game becomes less forced, individual vehicle units survive for a longer period of time, but don't have as much impact, even if they still one hit kill. There's plenty of hectic stress and adrenaline flowing, but not as much frustration type stress.

In fact, it may become so leniant, that you can increase the armour level of tanks a bit again, making vehicle driving more fun.


(Of course, that is dependent too on how effective engineers are in repairs, currently it's already too fast on vehicles (IMO) at the slowest rate of repair: often outrepair enemy fire on my own, they will run out of missiles at some point...).

[Chaff]

.
I like how this thread was crafted - it really made me address and rethink my cynicism about gameplay.

Sometimes it's good to cool off and let all the different opinions and observations truly sink in. We are a tough community to please. Like it or not, the weapons are fairly well-balanced. I have to accept the fact that the Devs DID (and continue to) put a LOT of time & thought into this.
If they buff AV weapons for infantry so they can stop or slow a huge Zerg, then when it's a random squad or 2 vs a random squad or two ...... the side with the OP weapons has too much of an advantage. That's not good gameplay when the numbers get small(er). When you're at an outpost and it's a few dozen vs a few dozen .... one ESF
should be able to fly in and turn the tide. Not get insta-gibbed by Op AV or AA.

STEP-1 to gameplay improvement ?......address base (re)design. Give infantry more cover - where some HA with current AV or AA in the right bunker (w/an engie & med or two) can do a LOT more to hold the vehicle Zerg from overunning their side of a base/courtyard. Give Maxes some Max-specific cover at bases .... perhaps with some well-protected trenches where an Engie or two can help keep them alive & full of ammo. They can die, but give infantry a little better survivability within a fight. It should be HARD to fight back against a huge VEH & AIR Zerg, but defenders deserve a better hand than what's currently available to them. (IMHO)

Vehicles should have a tougher time getting mass quantities inside a base. Bases with no walls or outer defensible structure(s) are inherently flawed. Defense is TOO difficult. People won't make a stand if they feel there is NO HOPE. Significant numbers of MBT & LIBS can & should always be able to force opposing forces inside the base/perimeter. Actually breaching INTO a base (especially the Large ones) should require superior numbers or at least near-flawless tactics of seasoned fighters.

FIX THE BASES. Improve defensabilty. Lessen vehicle proximity to the big important bases. Create more openings to fire out of - and make them LESS PRONE to vehicle Spammage. A well dug-in force should be harder to dislodge. I found my most enjoyable fights where against overwhelming odds....that sometimes went on for HOURS.....now THAT is my version of FUN.

This game needs to create better opportunity for SATISFACTION within the gameplay.

[NewSith]

If they buff AV weapons for infantry so they can stop or slow a huge Zerg, then when it's a random squad or 2 vs a random squad or two ...... the side with the OP weapons has too much of an advantage. That's not good gameplay when the numbers get small(er). When you're at an outpost and it's a few dozen vs a few dozen .... one ESF should be able to fly in and turn the tide. Not get insta-gibbed by Op AV or AA.

Well, there are many ways one can buff a weapon, especially with all the rocket launcher aspects:

Damage
AoE Radius
Accuracy
Maximum Range
Reload Speed
Missile Speed
Missile Drop
Ammo Storage Capacity
Lockon Speed*
Turning Speed*
Path Prediction (On/Off)*
Flares/Smoke Response*

[Chaff]

....elaborate on "Path Prediction " please.

[Rolfski]

@Figment
I've seen many base improvement suggestions, including your studies. Or windows that work as spawn point doors for example. Infantry can shoot out the windows but tanks cannot shoot in. Suggestions like these only confirm my idea that you can do a lot by just base design to balance out vehicle spam.

And as much as there might be good arguments going for your more-power-by-smaller numbers vision, in the end it will reduce this game to a small scale tactical shooter.
And that is not the direction this game should be going.

[Figment]

And as much as there might be good arguments going for your more-power-by-smaller numbers vision, in the end it will reduce this game to a small scale tactical shooter.
And that is not the direction this game should be going.

The amount of players would be the exact same. It'd just ensure that groups are better matched against one another. Large tank groups are not balanced against equally large infantry groups, by sheer definition.

It's all about leverage.



Not sure if you played World of Tanks, but if you are down by two tanks, especially the top tier tanks, chances are the largest force will win (exceptional situations aside).

That has everything to do with damage output and damage absorption differences becoming increasingly large as one of either side is removed from the equation. As the bigger side has a higher damage output and can absorb more damage (in the case of infantry vs tanks, that's the tanks), then they can suffer some losses with more ease than a loss on the side of the weaker group.

That effect gets stronger the more get shot.

The more get shot, the more the remainder strong ones focus on less weak ones.

The more get shot, the lower the damage output of the weak ones becomes against the big ones.


To ensure weak vs strong is balanced, the weak need to have sufficient numerical superiority (and or other positive, mitigating modifiers).




Of course personal skill can matter and so can reinforcement rates (and yes, base design has a lot to do with that and damage absorbtion rate and therefore also with damage output over time). However, numbers need to be mitigated. You can't simply expect every numerical balance to just work where the maximum number of units of each balancable unit type is the same. :/

That's btw, also why it's so frustrating to see ESF demand solocrew power vs multicrew (APCs, tanks, groups of infantry, Libs, etc), but demand multicrew power (group of AA) vs solo crew (ESF). It's just infuriating how many balance issues they purposely create out of personal gain.

[Rolfski]

The amount of players would be the exact same. It'd just ensure that groups are better matched against one another. Large tank groups are not balanced against equally large infantry groups, by sheer definition.

It's all about leverage.

It's not only about amount of players. It's also about concentration of players and the feeling of being part of a massive war. Drastically reducing the number of vehicles would reduce that feeling.

[Figment]

It's not only about amount of players. It's also about concentration of players and the feeling of being part of a massive war. Drastically reducing the number of vehicles would reduce that feeling.

Not if the fights become more persistent (take longer, become more frantic and you feel like you can accomplish more because your survival time increases) and the amount of infantry and non-solo units in the field in their direct vicinity increases (or more varied solo and crew units surface). Crewed vehicles help the game more than solo units. Just numbers is just that: numbers. They might be visually more impressive, but that isn't the only way to impress.

The feeling of cooperative effort would increase drastically and it strengthens the social bond between crews dramatically.


Don't underestimate the brothers in arms bond between a driver and his gunners.

[Rolfski]

Crewed vehicles should always be optional, never mandatory. It's another example of a hardcore PS1 mechanic that would frustrate and limit the casual player if it was standard issue.

[NewSith]

....elaborate on "Path Prediction " please.

Basically an aimbot.

In PlanetSide 2 lockon missiles do not predict vehicle movement, to be precise they do not "lead" a vehicle, they are just going straight for it and that is why it is so easy to dodge missiles in PS2.

In Battlefield 3 for instance a missile aims for the space slightly INFRONT of an aircraft, and back in the day you could actually kill the pilot instead of the aircraft, because missiles exploded right at the cockpit. It got fixed later though.

[Beerbeer]

This thing is getting bent out of shape:

If vehicle access remains the same, one of two things should happen:

1. Vehicle damage against infantry needs a huge nerf, tanks, esfs and libs; HE guns removed completely, damage versus other vehicles unchanged OR

2. AV/AA weapons (infantry) needs to be buffed, two shot kills against tanks (front) for the weakest missile. 75% damage (front) for the strongest (e.g., decimator). This can be set for the prowler and ratiod up and down for the mag and van respectively. Single shot kill to the rear for all AV weapons against all tanks. Sunderer damage unchanged. Two shot kill against esfs, maybe four against libs, provided AA isn't nerfed by missile speed, range, etc, beyond what they currently are.

[LoliLoveFart]

Infantry gets beaten by armor, armor gets beaten by air. If a group of infantry run across an armor column that infantry should be decimated. Infantry farming is a problem i will admit, however the solution isn't to make tanks and air as scarce as a snowflake in the sahara, that will just make dedicated vehicle players bitch up a storm.

Give infantry a fighting chance against armor columns. More defensible bases. Better AA/AV options. A javelin style AV launcher would fix a lot of the AV launcher issues. That being said it could go too far in the other direction. One Infantry shouldn't be able to kill a tank head on. It is a strange issue. But it is one that needs to be addressed.

[OCNSethy]

I like to occasionally roll out my certed Prowler with a column for some tanker action. I tend not to be worried about other tanks or ESF but what I do get paraniod about is Heavy infantry.

Now, I know the main complaint is around armour is zerg spawn and spawn camping but there is another side to this obvious exploit.

We took a group of 6 prowlers and a couple of sundies with engineers and infantry in a flanking attack around Attatum last night. We came across a couple of mag riders and formed up for attack.

Then all hell broke loose. The plain was lit up with plasma trails. This was no zerg attack, these guys where a well oiled machine. They targeted the sundies in the opening salvo, taking out our engineers and infantry support and then they concentrated on our tanks.

We managed to take out the mags but it was to late. We had been routed essentially by a group of well coordinated Heavies and mixed infantry.

Even though we had our butts handed too us, I really enjoyed this battle. The chat was going crazy with calls, "Heavy 11 o'clock!" Heavy 3 o'clock! Damn, we're boxed!"

The thing that sticks with me about this is, we where not taken out by armour or air but by infantry.

I just wish there where more battles like this... one where I dont get my tank blown out underneath me would be preferred though :)

[LoliLoveFart]

Well co-ordinated HAs will tear tank zergs up. The issue is with the ability to pull armour from almost ANY base, zergs will reform 2 minutes down the road and in game 2 minutes with nothing to do usually means that co-ordinated group has moved on or broken apart.

[Sirisian]

Was going to try to say something unique, but everyone already covered it. This is mostly a base design issue. When I'm farming in a tank it's a flat base often with a lot of places to shoot into. There are no walls and it's impossible for anyone spawning to defend. There is also rarely a high ground.

Ideally a base that would make it hard for me to farm would have walls or terrain that is too steep to climb over. It would also have a top rail that players can crouch behind. The easiest kills I've seen are firing into small rooms and hitting the back wall and killing the enemy with the splash. Basically I shouldn't have an angle to fire into a door ever.

Lastly to block my Liberator farming it needs something along the lines of this (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/outpost-projectile-countermeasures-as-a-solution-for-ranged-vehicle-attacks.74068/) or go so far as to have a shield. The biolab is one of the few bases that has a shield to block outside air. Outposts on the other hand have no infantry combat areas which aren't also accessible to air. One reason which was brought up in other threads is because the bases are a bunch of small buildings and lack any connections to one another forcing players outdoors. (Right from the spawn this is the case. You don't have players spawning and going to large rooms protected from the outside like in PS1 leading to easy farming).

[RSphil]

i like the huge fights. all the tanks dont bother me. everything can be stopped. just takes team work and people to listen. if the base defenses where useful then it wouldn't be a huge problem, also if the spawn areas where protected from vehicle's it would make it a lot better.

just with they would fix /RE ffs. would make communicating a lot easier so we could actually sort out attacks and defense

[Beerbeer]

Then leave their power in but put in hard timers.

You want to wield that power, you better protect it with "teamwork" as some of you so eloquently put in from the infantry perspective.

Vehicles can run amok with little support.

You put in weapons that can more or less one shot infantry and be accessed pretty much at will and you expect people not to constantly use them? What are the consequences?

[Figment]

Infantry farming is a problem i will admit, however the solution isn't to make tanks and air as scarce as a snowflake in the sahara, that will just make dedicated vehicle players bitch up a storm.

You don't know what the word dedicated means. They're leisure machines right now and it doesn't take a single cert point into them to make them brilliant farming weapons. Putting a little bit into them does not make you dedicated, it just makes the farming easier. Putting a lot into them is absolutely a waste of certs.

Dedication is when you can't do other things. At all!




And you also underestimate the numbers you have with crewed vehicles and 2000 players on a map.

[Beerbeer]

This game should fix bases first. Hire figment, do whatever, I don't care, but it desperately needs to be done.

Then address the vehicle anomaly by either nerfing damage, or leaving vehicle damage as-is and either putting in hard timers or upping infantry AV.

I have little to no fear in vehicles. I can retreat and repair as quickly as i snuck in to lay waste to hordes of infantry. I'm afraid of everything on foot. This equation is off kilter and it can be fixed by nerfing, buffing or adding a time element. I really don't care which.

At least make it challenging for me for crying out loud. It's too damn easy for me, it's borderline boredom, while trying to play infantry outdoors is outright frustrating. Fix this.

[Thunderhawk]

I still stand by the notion that outdoors should be vehicle fights and infantry shouldnt be crying about being farmed. Vehicles should decimate infantry, plain and simple.

What you need to do is separate that form indoor fights, so that Infantry can have their playstyle too, so make better bases that are huge structures people have to fight inside of with walk ways and tunnels, not the way they are now with a Spawn point out in the open.

Do not do several things at once or we'll be here all year......

Do not buff AV and improve Bases/Outposts at the same time......

The tools we have in the game currently are enough to deal with vehicles. be it MBTs or ESFs if used by skilled players, after all, this game SHOULD require skill to play for crying out loud, you shouldn't expect 1 infantry to go 1on1 with a MBT, even if the MBT is single manned, it should still win.

Good players do take out MBTs one on one now !!! so nothign needs to change on that front....

TL;DR

1. Give infantry a place to do their thing and they'll be happy.
2. Outdoor should be for outdoor, and thats MBTs/ESFs/Lightnings/Liberators.

Don't balance them vs each other, that balance is currently fine. Balance them by giving them their own playgrounds.

[LoliLoveFart]

I still stand by the notion that outdoors should be vehicle fights and infantry shouldnt be crying about being farmed. Vehicles should decimate infantry, plain and simple.

What you need to do is separate that form indoor fights, so that Infantry can have their playstyle too, so make better bases that are huge structures people have to fight inside of with walk ways and tunnels, not the way they are now with a Spawn point out in the open.

Do not do several things at once or we'll be here all year......

Do not buff AV and improve Bases/Outposts at the same time......

The tools we have in the game currently are enough to deal with vehicles. be it MBTs or ESFs if used by skilled players, after all, this game SHOULD require skill to play for crying out loud, you shouldn't expect 1 infantry to go 1on1 with a MBT, even if the MBT is single manned, it should still win.

Good players do take out MBTs one on one now !!! so nothign needs to change on that front....

TL;DR

1. Give infantry a place to do their thing and they'll be happy.
2. Outdoor should be for outdoor, and thats MBTs/ESFs/Lightnings/Liberators.

Don't balance them vs each other, that balance is currently fine. Balance them by giving them their own playgrounds.

But if they do that and actually fix the balance. What will we have to bitch about when we get killed as infantry? Bitch about other factions? :lol:

[Thunderhawk]

But if they do that and actually fix the balance. What will we have to bitch about when we get killed as infantry? Bitch about other factions? :lol:

Thats what Planetside bitching should be eventually about.... :)

[Beerbeer]

I'm sorry, I'm not that good, but as an unskilled player, vehicles make me look damn good.

[yadda]

You don't know what the word dedicated means. They're leisure machines right now and it doesn't take a single cert point into them to make them brilliant farming weapons. Putting a little bit into them does not make you dedicated, it just makes the farming easier. Putting a lot into them is absolutely a waste of certs.

I disagree completely

[Figment]

I disagree completely

If you don't want a fight, why play this game?

Eh. Your call.

I still stand by the notion that outdoors should be vehicle fights and infantry shouldnt be crying about being farmed. Vehicles should decimate infantry, plain and simple.

That's all well and good, but if you think of other players as lower life forms and peons that should just roll over and die, then realise they won't sit and take it.

They'll simply leave the game.

FFS man. It's happened before with BFRs! It's almost happened before with Reaverspam in early PS1! BFR users proclaimed vehicles should just explode before their mobile suit power, "it was only natural!". What happened? Vehicle players left en mass!

What a horrible attitude to have. They can be stronger, but decimation is the wrong word, the wrong principle. You can't treat players as fodder and garbage, they will give you the same treatment!

What you need to do is separate that form indoor fights, so that Infantry can have their playstyle too, so make better bases that are huge structures people have to fight inside of with walk ways and tunnels, not the way they are now with a Spawn point out in the open.

As you well know, I agree that infantry only combat should take place indoors, however, that doesn't mean you should expect to just overrun them everywhere else by default.

That sort of entitlement attitude - from any side of any balancing argument - is always going to lead to massive frustration.

Do not do several things at once or we'll be here all year......

Do not buff AV and improve Bases/Outposts at the same time......

Agreed on that much, besides, AV doesn't need a buff, vehicles mostly need a manpower nerf and then a balance check.

The tools we have in the game currently are enough to deal with vehicles. be it MBTs or ESFs if used by skilled players, after all, this game SHOULD require skill to play for crying out loud, you shouldn't expect 1 infantry to go 1on1 with a MBT, even if the MBT is single manned, it should still win.

Good players do take out MBTs one on one now !!! so nothign needs to change on that front....

To some extend I agree, but to a different extend I disagree. MBTs are not lone wolf units. I also don't think it would hurt light armoured solo vehicles to be able to two, three or even four shot infantry: They would still have all sorts of advantages from mobility (speed/agility) to directional armour and endurance. One shotting should be reserved to multi-crew units IMO and even then not at a rof that's as ridiculous as the Zephyr.

TL;DR

1. Give infantry a place to do their thing and they'll be happy.
2. Outdoor should be for outdoor, and thats MBTs/ESFs/Lightnings/Liberators.

Don't balance them vs each other, that balance is currently fine. Balance them by giving them their own playgrounds.

You might recall it's a combined arms game. Infantry is supposed to be a bit weaker than vehicles, certainly. And it's fine that vehicles have an edge over infantry outdoors in direct combat, again, certainly.

However. Vehicles must also be balanced against one another. The current MBT and Lightning are not. They are both solo units and it doesn't really pay to fully crew it. I can two shot a single crew unit and I can two shot a duo crew unit. Both can one shot. That's not good manpower balance.

There's also no way to create a more powerful dedicated multicrew unit, unless it one shots from behind and has an even larger splash radius against infantry or higher rate of fire, because damage wise, there's no point in going even more powerful.

That's not good either.

Everything must in some way be balanced against one another, whether you like it or not. By that I don't mean balanced as in "it is balanced right now". I mean that when things fight each other, there's a balance and a tipping point.

That's fact.

In balancing, one tries to determine where the tipping point lies.


As Smedley said "every player will be able to play the game as they want to", I intend to keep him to his word: if players want to play AA, they should be able to play AA and get some kills and fulfill their role of protecting non-AA units from air units and be rewarded for that.

If they want to play infantry, they should be able to play infantry in any circumstance.

If they want to play tanks, they should be able to play tanks in any outdoor environment. Whether solo or as dedicated driver. It doesn't however, mean that every tank should be solo. Because that would also mean that every tank would have to be multi-crew. Logic dictates that simply isn't possible. Thus they must separate. Logic dictates the stronger unit is the multi-crew unit and logic dictates you can't simply give one person pretty much the same power as several others within the same unit class. Two vs two in the same class should be fair after all. In a direct fight with a Lightning, the MBT is stronger for exactly that reason. However, it is used alone. That is not fair to the Lightning user.


But playing as one wishes doesn't however, mean people have to be able to have access to everything at the same time, have access to every variant of a archetype, have access to ultimate power. It must always remain a challenge and players should always have handicaps of their own choosing. That's what makes it interesting, overcoming your weaknesses and being creative with what you DO have and make it your own!

Besides, that encourages fastly more teamwork. And no, I don't like it that only one infantry class can use AV. It's fine that you'd only be able to carry one weapon, but why would a medic not carry just an AV launcher and a pistol? What's unbalanced about that? It's a trade-off too: AV power in exchange for AI power.


If infantry must make trade-offs and work together, then other units must do so as well. Multi-crew vehicles are the natural way to do that without upsetting anyone but the selfish, and the selfish have little place in a MMO.



It's not rocket science...

[Seafort]

I've been playing PS2 since middle of beta and there were hardly any aircraft or tanks around then as the Galaxy had an ASM so infantry were the main fighting force.

After the G-AMS was removed tanks and some aircraft started to become more numerous. Aircraft were still quite rare as they got shot down instantly by AA.

Now it is the opposite as aircraft got ridiculously buffed and haven't been rebalanced since beta so they rule the skies and the ground.

Tanks are very numerous as well but seem less of a threat than Liberators and ESFs but the problem is that alot of primarily infantry players feel very vunerable now so they've also grabbed a tank as well. It's easy transport and throw away vehicle (due to the crappy resource system) with some protection and fire power behind to get where you want to go in safety.

For me bases need a major overhaul. The static base turrets need a massive buff to durability and damage. They shouldn't be 2 shotted by tanks. It just makes them pointless.

The AoE blast radius needs to be reduced. When I'm crouched behind a base wall or any significant cover I shouldn't be getting damaged by the HE blast radius or you might as well remove the wall. In some towers the HE shells of tanks or aircraft can penetrate into the middle of the room and kill you. That should not happen.

Acquisition timers on all vehicles should start timing down when the vehicles has been destroyed not when you spawn the vehicle. The system now just results in alot more vehicle spam as the timer is almost always up when you've been out in the vehicle as they are quite survivable so you just get a new vehicle out straight away.

IMO I don't think vehicles should be allowed in bases at all. Put their garages outside the base walls and swap them with the spawn rooms behind shields.

You could put vehicle garages in the satellites surrounding the bases. This would reduce the TK when vehicles are spawned in the middle of a base on the vehicle pads.

Put doors and windows in building FFS. I feel like I'm living in stone age when I enter a building in PS2 and see there is no doors or windows to be found anywhere. Put hacking back in for Infils like in PS1 so they have to hack/pick lock to open them.

As for Liberators and ESFs. They need a serious looking at and rebalancing. I counted 5+ Libs last night over an Amp station just bombing the shit out of everything that moved. I got an AA Max out and tried to fend them off with one or two other Maxes but i died to their destructive powers shortly after I had "deterred" them. They just repaired, rearmed and killed me on the next pass.

In short infantry atm are just an xp/cert farm for vehicles. This is NOT a combined arms MMOFPS. I just hope SOE get their asses into gear after their poorly planned holidays and turn this game around or it's gonna go the way of PS1 just in a lot shorter time span.

[TehCandyMan]

There, I said it. I know I will get fried for it in this forum, that recently seems to be "hijacked by drama queens" that only see doom for this game, so let the flaming begin.

The promise of this game is that size matters. It's the sheer scale that makes me having a blast every day I play it. Seeing my screen filled up with endless armor columns and huge swarms of air puts a big smile on my face every time. It makes me feel being part of a big war.
I also love the power this game is giving me. I can be anything at any time with almost no restriction. If a situation demands for it, I can instantly switch to the appropriate class or vehicle to handle the situation. It's this freedom that gives me a lot of joy in this game.

Lately, I'm reading a lot of suggestions that want to limit my power and freedom or want to turn this game into a small scale tactical shooter. Screw that, it's not what I signed up for in this game.

You can still have a very strategic game without limiting peoples ability to do whatever they want. Limiting vehicle spam (increasing timers and costs, etc.) is a solution to the wrong problem. Instead, the game should focus on giving me more power to fight vehicle spam: better launchers, deployable AV and AA turrets, artillery call-ins, etc.

I will probably not make myself popular by promoting vehicle spam but I truly see it as the essence of this game, so it's time to stand up and voice a different opinion.


They need to do soemthing about balancing Vehicles weather it be by doing something with the Vehicle Timer or as you said giving us beter AA and AV.

Truth be told as I said over on the forums I rather go for the Buffing of AA and AV. Let them spam their Vehicles, with effective AA and AV that would just be more of an oppurtunity for us grunts with good AA and AV.

I think they should give maxes the lockdown ability (as in PS1) as a cert (but first nerf NC max instagib)... And bring back Strikers, Lancers, and the Pheonix but make sure they are not Empire specific.

These AA and AV weapons they have now are pretty much useless. With the freaking 20 second lockon targeting and the fact that SOE allows Vehicles to scope their weapons. By the time you finally lock in on a target, 20 tanks and planes have already fired at you...

[Suitepee]

In short infantry atm are just an xp/cert farm for vehicles. This is NOT a combined arms MMOFPS. I just hope SOE get their asses into gear after their poorly planned holidays and turn this game around.

Pretty much this. Granted I think HA's can be effective against tanks to some degree, but when I see every single tank use HE shells thus far and where the mentality of "air is the only counter to air" remains, things need to change somewhat.

[Assist]

Pretty much this. Granted I think HA's can be effective against tanks to some degree, but when I see every single tank use HE shells thus far and where the mentality of "air is the only counter to air" remains, things need to change somewhat.

I personally think that ground vehicles are easily countered, the problem is how easy it is to get them. They need to have increased costs, there needs to be a real penalty to losing one. I can spawn a Magrider every 5 minutes or whatever and that's just ridiculous.

I hardly ever roll my FPC/Saron Magrider out because it's completely useless against Infantry, therefore I get destroyed very quickly. But I also don't need to use it because the HE/Saron setup does more than enough damage to vehicles. I think that is just a balance issue though, which always take time to work out.

The vehicle spam at the moment just needs adjusted IMO, specifically how easy it is to acquire them. I should not be able to spawn vehicles all day if I lose one every 5 minutes. I can jump from ESF -> Lib -> Mag all day long because of the cost limitations.

So, IMO, best way to get more infantry on the ground, and vehicles to be more of an obstacle and less of a zerg, is to dramatically increase the costs to summon vehicles.

[Sledgecrushr]

I personally think that ground vehicles are easily countered, the problem is how easy it is to get them. They need to have increased costs, there needs to be a real penalty to losing one. I can spawn a Magrider every 5 minutes or whatever and that's just ridiculous.

I hardly ever roll my FPC/Saron Magrider out because it's completely useless against Infantry, therefore I get destroyed very quickly. But I also don't need to use it because the HE/Saron setup does more than enough damage to vehicles. I think that is just a balance issue though, which always take time to work out.

The vehicle spam at the moment just needs adjusted IMO, specifically how easy it is to acquire them. I should not be able to spawn vehicles all day if I lose one every 5 minutes. I can jump from ESF -> Lib -> Mag all day long because of the cost limitations.

So, IMO, best way to get more infantry on the ground, and vehicles to be more of an obstacle and less of a zerg, is to dramatically increase the costs to summon vehicles.

I think that without a cert investment you are allowed to pull a tank once every fifteen minutes. I think the scale of the game is still causing people to freak out. Imagine a tank column with thirty tanks coming at you. Seems impressive? Thats probably just thirty guys. You can potentially have thousands of guys playing on the same map at the same time. What we need are just stronger redoubts to defend against the vehicle zergs.

[Figment]

What we need are just stronger redoubts to defend against the vehicle zergs.

Please don't remind us of Cave AT Redoubts.


PS2 modeled all their basic outpost spawns after them already and somehow found a way to make them worse! >_____<

[Seafort]

The 10 kdr disagrees. I wonder why. :rofl:

Liberator gunner! Get him! :P

[Figment]

Liberator gunner! Get him! :P

*points at Magriders in Yadda signature*

[Thunderhawk]

That's all well and good, but if you think of other players as lower life forms and peons that should just roll over and die, then realise they won't sit and take it.

They'll simply leave the game.

I never said infantry were lower lifeforms, hell, I enjoy the whole fighting on foot process, as my K/D shows in my signature I'm hardly sitting in a Lib or tank all day long, but I really don't see why infantry should run across open expanses of land with their rocket launchers and then expect to have an equal chance vs a MBT. It's just not right to even begin to balance that anymore than what it already is, which imho is done right currently.

If every outpost was enclosed infantry fighting and every base was enclosed also, then we wouldn't have people complaining. As for using the word "decimate", ok granted, maybe I should have used "destroy".

FFS man. It's happened before with BFRs! It's almost happened before with Reaverspam in early PS1! BFR users proclaimed vehicles should just explode before their mobile suit power, "it was only natural!". What happened? Vehicle players left en mass!

What a horrible attitude to have. They can be stronger, but decimation is the wrong word, the wrong principle. You can't treat players as fodder and garbage, they will give you the same treatment!

Again, never mentioned infantry as garbage, and i spend a lot of time as a grunt, but lets carry on with the actual debate on improving the game rather then semantics.



As you well know, I agree that infantry only combat should take place indoors, however, that doesn't mean you should expect to just overrun them everywhere else by default.

That sort of entitlement attitude - from any side of any balancing argument - is always going to lead to massive frustration.

I wouldn't say it's entitlement but more logistics from a troop movement standpoint. Outdoors should be areas where people are getting places, moving from point X to point Y, they move in Sundys, MBTs, Lightnings, Galaxies (for some outfits), so if an infantryman is caught out in the open, he will be encountering all sorts of hardware, and this is where I think that these infantry, running along, complaining about being killed by MBTs are just playing the game wrong.



Agreed on that much, besides, AV doesn't need a buff, vehicles mostly need a manpower nerf and then a balance check.

Agree regarding AV not needing a buff but I don't think SOE will change the Driver=Gunner of MBTs if that's what you're hinting at.

However. Vehicles must also be balanced against one another. The current MBT and Lightning are not. They are both solo units and it doesn't really pay to fully crew it. I can two shot a single crew unit and I can two shot a duo crew unit. Both can one shot. That's not good manpower balance.

Yes sure, but I am indifferent and have no strong feelings one way or the other when it comes to Tank vs Light Tank or Tank vs Tank etc... It's all fun and games, and lets face it, most of the times vehicles are not running at 100% HP the whole time and tend to get destroyed by pesky Light Assaults and their C4s.....or engineers suicide running the gauntlet through an enemy tank Colin just to drop anti tank mines.

Also don't get me started on Engineers and Anti tank mines vs Sunderers.

Everything must in some way be balanced against one another, whether you like it or not. By that I don't mean balanced as in "it is balanced right now". I mean that when things fight each other, there's a balance and a tipping point.

Who doesn't like balance? But I thought we were discussing Vehicles vs Infantry and it seems we're talking about balance in general, and this train journey is not long enough for me to continue talking about that, suffice to say again, I'm indifferent and just get on with things.


If they want to play infantry, they should be able to play infantry in any circumstance.

Common sense needs to be used here when considering "any" circumstance.

Anyway, need to change trains so will continue later......






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ShadetheDruid]

..through an enemy tank Colin just to drop anti tank mines.

:D

That is all.

[Thunderhawk]

:D

That is all.

Rofl frickin autocorrect.......

[Canaris]

Rofl frickin autocorrect.......

just wait till I tell Colin you called him a tanker :lol:

[Germanius]

There, I said it. I know I will get fried for it in this forum, that recently seems to be "hijacked by drama queens" that only see doom for this game, so let the flaming begin.

The promise of this game is that size matters. It's the sheer scale that makes me having a blast every day I play it. Seeing my screen filled up with endless armor columns and huge swarms of air puts a big smile on my face every time. It makes me feel being part of a big war.
I also love the power this game is giving me. I can be anything at any time with almost no restriction. If a situation demands for it, I can instantly switch to the appropriate class or vehicle to handle the situation. It's this freedom that gives me a lot of joy in this game.

Lately, I'm reading a lot of suggestions that want to limit my power and freedom or want to turn this game into a small scale tactical shooter. Screw that, it's not what I signed up for in this game.

You can still have a very strategic game without limiting peoples ability to do whatever they want. Limiting vehicle spam (increasing timers and costs, etc.) is a solution to the wrong problem. Instead, the game should focus on giving me more power to fight vehicle spam: better launchers, deployable AV and AA turrets, artillery call-ins, etc.

I will probably not make myself popular by promoting vehicle spam but I truly see it as the essence of this game, so it's time to stand up and voice a different opinion.

..... Making Anti-Vehicle stronger could solve the problem, without limiting them. Yes, i think that could work.
But, i don't see the devs doing that.

[Figment]

I never said infantry were lower lifeforms, hell, I enjoy the whole fighting on foot process, as my K/D shows in my signature I'm hardly sitting in a Lib or tank all day long, but I really don't see why infantry should run across open expanses of land with their rocket launchers and then expect to have an equal chance vs a MBT. It's just not right to even begin to balance that anymore than what it already is, which imho is done right currently.

If every outpost was enclosed infantry fighting and every base was enclosed also, then we wouldn't have people complaining.

As for using the word "decimate", ok granted, maybe I should have used "destroy".

Oh of course not, they should cling to hills and terrain features, it's just that decimate gives the impression of let's say a 10:1 K/D per definition and provides the mental image of next to no infantry outdoors.

The main thing one complains about, whether one is infantry or otherwise, is that one always wants to feel they have at least (had) a chance to react and respond. Either to get to safety or to return fire.

I would say EMP grenades (and finalized, proper AA - aircav - lib balance) would be required on top of base improvements. That would probably also satisfy ground vehicle users who currently do feel a bit whored as well by air. Obviously to a lesser extend than infantry, but still.

I wouldn't say it's entitlement but more logistics from a troop movement standpoint. Outdoors should be areas where people are getting places, moving from point X to point Y, they move in Sundys, MBTs, Lightnings, Galaxies (for some outfits), so if an infantryman is caught out in the open, he will be encountering all sorts of hardware, and this is where I think that these infantry, running along, complaining about being killed by MBTs are just playing the game wrong.

I think you're focusing a bit too much on the "randoms running along". A lot of infantry is required in the field. But for instance, infantry spawning at an AMS and getting spawncamped (especially without cloak field) will feel more abused than those who run in the open hills and die. Most infantry won't be happy dieing to the extend they feel they never got to do anything in the process. That to me is a bit of a TTK issue as well, because pretty much everything comes from all sides and without even a little bit of endurance, you're just going to feel ganked from all directions all the time.

Agree regarding AV not needing a buff but I don't think SOE will change the Driver=Gunner of MBTs if that's what you're hinting at.

Still keeping my fingers crossed. It's the simplest, most effective and despite the selfish killwhores with 80/1 K/Ds whining (and defending those as "perfectly fair balanced"). It's the most acceptable solution even if you don't limit vehicles any further in terms of certs and accessibility. When I surveyed people on it, the BF3 players went even further in demanding split controls than PS1 players (!), so that's simply not a matter of contention for new players. Of course there's now a larger, status quo group because people hate change, but honestly that's the fault of launch.


Common sense needs to be used here when considering "any" circumstance.

Always.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rofl frickin autocorrect.......

Some of those massive posts I write are written on iPhone with DUTCH auto-correct on...

You have no idea. Even more annoying is when the blasted thing remembers capital letters for frequently used words like "For" and "As" due to having started a sentence with it once.

[Kirotan]

Put me down into the "things would be more balanced for infantry if the terrain and bases were built better" camp.

1. Bases need more raised walkways and gaps to shoot out of. The walkways would also be mostly covered to protect from air; there would be periodic gaps to allow HA and Maxes to look up and shoot at air, with cover just a few steps away. Throw in some bunkers and tunnels too, why not.

2. More infantry only accessible areas. Instead of making a bunch of impassable hills, they should have made a bunch of small foot trails(like the north face of the Crown, only narrower). Vehicles may have to drive around the long way, but infantry can run up the trails and cross over on foot. Make small cave networks throughout the land. Suddenly, vehicles don't travel lightly through Amerish because a bunch of infantry could be waiting just behind the hills. A liberator might not bomb the Stronghold on Indar anymore because the caves all around it are crawling with HA and AA maxes in hiding.

3. More infantry only fights. Orbital Platforms, floating Titan like ships from BF2142, an evil genius volcano base built into the side of Mt. Searhus, or a largely vertical base built inside a massive tree on Forseral. Whatever.

[Ralek]

A lot of people here are saying infantry should be decimated in the open against tanks, and I do agree. The problem with the game now is that is exactly the opposite of what is happening.
Infantry get decimated by tanks in bases and fare fairly well in the "open". I spend a lot of my ingame time leading small organized infantry squads. The first thing we do when we spot an approaching armor column with any sort of advance notice is move AWAY from the base and grab the nearest hill crest. Anything wrong with this picture?

[RykerStruvian]

I think it would make more sense to have capture points, except for towers, below ground. Infantry combat in Planetside 1, for instance, came to life inside the bases...fighting in the basements, tunnels, etc. This type of gameplay needs to encouraged...For instance, infantry could have a vantage point which would leave armor exposed and vulnerable, but infantry could move in and secure the location and leave the vehicles unharnessed.

And example would be the pillboxes which were connected together underground in PS1. And although I am only talking with infantry in mind, this would also affect tank zergs because the infantry on the ground would be able to repel them, or hold them long enough for a friendly zerg to intercept. But at the same time it wouldn't be a nerf to prevent tank zergs.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

If the red triangles vanished and camo had decent upgrades (ghillie suits etc) then there would be no imbalance between vehicles and infantry.

As it is, when I'm not libwhoring, I'm parking a sunderer in a secret location (under a rock, behind a building, near a warpgate) and dropping AT mines on a highway.

If they can't see me, it's free kills. If they see a neat little "Here's the bad guy" marker, then it's rubbish. It wouldn't take much organisation to get 3 heavies and an engineer (4 man squad! Just like the SAS!) to park in enemy territory (like the SAS!) and really disrupt things.

I think the problem with vehicle spam is that certain game elements make it very easy for vehicles. Their damage output is fine, their armour levels are fine, their speed is fine but their ability to spot and know in advance where the enemies are is not fine.

Infantry has nowhere to hide.

[Thunderhawk]

At the risk of just going over old ground again, it seems most people are in agreement that things are not "that" bad, but elements of the game need fine tuning, and there have been a whole lot of posts on the subject of how to make this happen, I just hope the Devs see the woods from the trees, and pick out the good ideas from the not so effective ones.

I will list some below (there are probably many others) but these are my main issues and suggested changes:-

1. Allow EMP grenades (as Figment mentioned) to be available to all classes like fragmentation grenades are. This would give infantry a whole lot of options when it comes to being camped at spawn points, maybe a rest bite to leave that spawn point by EMP’ing the camping Vehicles and then blowing them up with rockets.
(I think Infiltrators have them currently, so am not sure why they aren't used more often)

2. Base designs need an overhaul with regards to the building layouts. Taking a base should be an infantry affair, backed up by vehicles to an extent, but having the masses fighting inside a structure that doesn’t allow vehicle shelling of the control point, or the base owner spawn point.
There are many ways round this, one of them making Spawn points underground leading into the main structure with many underground rooms linking them. (Anyone who played PS1 will know what I mean)

3. Render (draw) distance needs a fix as point 2 will result in a lot of indoor fighting, and repeating the render (draw) issues of what Techplants used to be (prior to the nerf) would mean a fix for this would need to come at the same time as any base redesign if it were to happen.

4. Lattice (Large Hex) changes to make fighting more focused. Towers and outposts can remain as they are currently as places for smaller squads to fight over and take or defend, but shouldn’t be a stepping stone for the Zerg to go through. There have been many other posts discussing the pros and cons of this so I won’t reiterate that here, search for posts by myself and you’ll find discussions on the subject.

I’m sure there are probably more points to raise but that’s what you folks are for ;)

[Figment]

(I think Infiltrators have them currently, so am not sure why they aren't used more often)

There are infiltrators in this game?


I knew of snipefils. But I never see infiltrators around a tank. I mean. They're visible, don't have explosives, can't jack them, would have one grenade or more for a worse suit while being the lightest of suits already, EMP grenades cost resources are very cert expensive, it is not explained what they even do and you could have a different grenade instead that actually kills the type of enemies he hunts...


What possible reason would a cloaker have to try EMPing a tank at huge risk to himself while he could be on a ridge well behind his own front lines sniping and relocating and sniping and throwing a grenade at times to kill tons of people for quick experience points?

Gee. I wonder why.



(sorry, get very snippy when infiltrators are mentioned... being a PS1 carreer base infiltrator in PS2 does that to you).

[StumpyTheOzzie]

There are infiltrators in this game?


I knew of snipefils. But I never see infiltrators around a tank. I mean. They're visible, don't have explosives, can't jack them, would have one grenade or more for a worse suit while being the lightest of suits already, EMP grenades cost resources are very cert expensive, it is not explained what they even do and you could have a different grenade instead that actually kills the type of enemies he hunts...


What possible reason would a cloaker have to try EMPing a tank at huge risk to himself while he could be on a ridge well behind his own front lines sniping and relocating and sniping and throwing a grenade at times to kill tons of people for quick experience points?

Gee. I wonder why.



(sorry, get very snippy when infiltrators are mentioned... being a PS1 carreer base infiltrator in PS2 does that to you).


I can understand the rage. I was confused about why there were no emp grenades in this game too till someone pointed out what amounts to your post.

Technically there are emp grenades, but there really is no point.

[Thunderhawk]

There are infiltrators in this game?

I knew of snipefils. But I never see infiltrators around a tank. I mean. They're visible, don't have explosives, can't jack them, would have one grenade or more for a worse suit while being the lightest of suits already, EMP grenades cost resources are very cert expensive, it is not explained what they even do and you could have a different grenade instead that actually kills the type of enemies he hunts...


My infiltrator "loadout" uses the rifle (Artemis) for machine gunning with Laser sight for hipfire. I carry 2X Proximity mines for "explosiveness" and EMP my way out of trouble when it comes to vehicles camping a spawn in an outpost (when they're close enough to be EMP'd that is)

My "I think infiltrators have EMP grenades" was me being sarcastic ;)

Admittedly, more classes with access to EMP grenades would be ideal, but spawn points have loadout terminals, and switching loadouts isn't too taxing for someone to see that they're camped, switch to infil, EMP.... the HAs in his team take out the vehicles whilst whoever EMP'd them switches back to whatever they wanted to be and carry on.

This brings me back to people having the tools (when they have enough certs to splash about) and just opting for the easy option which is complain about the game.

Now I am not trying to argue that the situation is ideal, but people really do need to play the game more and discover solutions to problems (not always existing but at least try) in order to get along with what the game is throwing at them.

Claiming Infiltrators can't infiltrate to me is just saying you aren't trying hard enough to change form what PS1 infiltration was to what PS2 is, which is slightly different.

And infils just sniping and not using the other tools they have is just the community again going for the easy option.

You can't force people to change the way they play, i know, but in the same breath you can't say counters already don't exist, players just choose not to use them.

[Figment]

Players aren't aware of it and aren't incentized to even get in the range: it's simply much more lucrative to sit back and snipe.

Yes I'm aware an infil could just be an infil to throw an EMP for some other HAs. I did that all the time in PS1. But with one grenade, who is going to bother giving up their lives for that? Besides, they're usualy out of range when camping. If it were a default available tool and you'd have a few standard. (I asked for this since early beta, but players had more important topics, of course, and horns are often considered more important than basic issues too, don't think the majority of new people even notice or comprehend basic issues right now, even when they don't like it...).


I can "infil" with a snipefil in PS2, but there's no point beyond turning some terminals. One can do much more and much more effective in terms of infiltration and sabotage with a Light Assault (especially if you have two C4 and a shotgun).

[ShadetheDruid]

You know what's more annoying than not having your pet playstyle supported in game? Having your playstyle supported in game and having the other players assume you're just sitting on a hill being selfish for the XP.

[Thunderhawk]

You know what's more annoying than not having your pet playstyle supported in game? Having your playstyle supported in game and having the other players assume you're just sitting on a hill being selfish for the XP.

I dont think Figment was talking about everyone, but the majority. Think you'll agree by looking at the game itself and being online that the case in reality is how he described.

Although talking about spending time in game...... I really need to start doing something else after work, as I just looked at my playtime and cried :(

(Yes, I am a PS1 vet, no, I am not bored of PS2, yes, I still love it even with all the faults, and no, I won't be quitting for a long while)

[ShadetheDruid]

Oh I know he probably doesn't mean everyone, though my point is you can't really make assumptions about someone's motives just because they're playing a similar class/role to someone who is just farming XP. It's the same with spawn camping vehicles.

Yes, they're both issues, but for those of us who don't do that stuff, it's frustating to constantly be lumped in with them for convenience. Especially when any fixes people suggest are usually made with that generalisation in mind..

In the end I think this is sort of off topic, but I do agree that at the minute LAs have more tools/abilities tailored to sabotage than Infils do, which is weird. I would hope in the future, all classes are going to be getting more stuff in general and so Infils will get a bunch of new nifty things to play with. Like, i'm hoping we're going to see that stalker suit (the one where you sacrifice a primary for a super cloak) at some point soon, that would definitely help the infiltration-focused peoples.

[Thunderhawk]

I'm hoping we're going to see that stalker suit (the one where you sacrifice a primary for a super cloak) at some point soon, that would definitely help the infiltration-focused peoples.

I'd play Infil almost exclusively if that was the case :)

And would love the new SMG Higby is talking about coming to the Infil class if at all possible, I miss my shotgun :evil:

[TheRageTrain]

If they increase the cooldowns, Its up to the player to keep he\s tank etc alive.. if he looses it.. he has to change to something less HE spamming one..

I don\t think increasing resource cost is that effective.. would prefer 15min cooldowns on fully certed tanks or libs. 15mins is really short time still in my opinion as theres so many vehicles to pull anyways.. Personall I would say 30mins but no1 would agree with that

[Figment]

I dont think Figment was talking about everyone, but the majority. Think you'll agree by looking at the game itself and being online that the case in reality is how he described.

Pretty much: I look at what players are encouraged to do, want to do, what their expectations are and how they behave and how the game fits that. Not per definition at all with how I personally behave in game, though obviously that does influence my opinion a lot.

To me, keeping things fair for all sides is a primary concern. Most players only look after #1. So if I say something in favour of AA or talking about , I'm not trying to remove air from the game or make it utterly impossible to use, at all. I may have a different vision on how units interact though as rather than saying "air is air thus must dominate (like in RL)", I argue from a vision where every style is fair opposed to other styles through trade-offs and it is possible to play in entirely different ways and be effective, since it's a game.

Shade, my suggested changes would not hurt non-camper game play, though they might tone down solo players in vehicles and make crewed units more effective opposed to groups of solo players (who are currently extremely more efficient and that's a real problem for player choice). All in all, they'd improve non camping gameplay.


Just an example:

How many people in PS1 complained about the Phoenix dealing more damage to armour than infantry? Next to none, in fact, people gloated about Phoenixes not being more than a tickle post-patch as they could now use cover from NC infantry as intended. Why? Because it encouraged using the appropriate weapons for the intended targets and provided viability to other play styles.

[Figment]

If they increase the cooldowns, Its up to the player to keep he\s tank etc alive.. if he looses it.. he has to change to something less HE spamming one..

I don\t think increasing resource cost is that effective.. would prefer 15min cooldowns on fully certed tanks or libs. 15mins is really short time still in my opinion as theres so many vehicles to pull anyways.. Personall I would say 30mins but no1 would agree with that

I'd simply suggest it'd be fairer that if you specialise in one thing and can use that more often, you get less access to another thing.

Current certification boils down to getting better at everything over time.

[Figment]

This would be an example of actually making a trade-off and dedicating one self to a unit type or going jack of all trades, without completely limiting which unit type can be acquired:

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/5674/unittimertradeoff.jpg (http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/5674/unittimertradeoff.jpg)

Would still prefer simply disabling vehicles altogether if you already got access to something. That could actually also done by the above, by requiring a minimal input of the maximum amount of points, to even be able to use them.

For instance, imagine the remaining 20 points had been spent on unlocking vehicles in the first place (adding them to the axes). Say units would cost 5-20 points depending on how many you want around and how easy to access (say, ATV 0 (could even have some points invested by default), Buggies 5, Lightning, APC 10, ESF 15, and Lib, MBT and Gal 20 points) and then you'd have a maximum of 80 points, then you'd have to invest more heavily into certain units to be able to pull them often, at the expense of not pulling others as often.

[Thunderhawk]

I actually think that a form of specialisation is a great idea, it would mean dedicated players taking on roles and not just circling around the 3/4 main farm vehicles available. (Lib-> MBT-> ESF -> Lightning-> Lib again -> ....)

But take with that the increased dedication to forum posts absolutely focused on making sure they're "favourite" niche is not nerf'ed when the other camp cries for it....

Imagine people invested heavily into MBT specialization, at the expense of not flying for example. Their forum posts would fill these forums and the official ones regarding OP'd-ness of ESFs.....

ESF investors will see their heavily invested project under attack with the potential to being nerfed and start returning the favour with more posts about MBT OP'd-ness.

At least at the moment, it seems - even though we do have whine and nerf posts - there are still many players that just change from one to other and thus tend to not join in the whine, and just watch the rest slug it out.

I would like a cert tree as such, where a Character would specialise and cert himself out into a specific role, be it LA/Infil / MEdic / Eng / HA etc... and would come with a reset certification option at the expense of 50 certs, or 100 certs.

That way people dont flip at terminals every opportunity and play their class to its full potential.

Although I am 99% sure this will never see the light of day or even be considered as the demographic doesn't want this.

[Figment]

I would say if you allow these points to be redistributed once every while it wouldn't be too much of an issue.

[ShadetheDruid]

The trick there would be being balancing it for people who just want to play what they feel like playing vs people who switch between everything in a rotation (or whenever they like with no specialisation in anything in particular).

I personally generally stick to only a few classes/vehicles, in which I specialise in specific roles, but I wouldn't want the system to stop me from, say, switching class or vehicle when I want because I feel like doing something else instead.

I mean, something like making vehicles require a base cert unlock to use would be fine (they could even do that at this stage by giving the unlock free to people who've got 1000-2000+ certs, or spent SC, on a vehicle). It would allow people to focus on more than one thing for variety's sake, but cut out people just switching between vehicles they haven't invested in.

What I wouldn't want them to do is to force me into specialising in, say, LA at the cost of everything, because i'd be rather boned if I didn't feel like playing LA today. I mean, most MMOs get around that by having people make more than one character, but the current system (while perhaps not perfect) cuts out the middle man.

[Figment]

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/vehicle-specialization-trade-off.77415/

Made this thread, let's see what Zhem Zhere Forumpeonz zink of ze planz.

[Sledgecrushr]

I would rather not limit vehicles anymore than what we have already.

[Figment]

I would rather not limit vehicles anymore than what we have already.

I didn't know there were restraints? >___>

[Sledgecrushr]

I mean, something like making vehicles require a base cert unlock to use would be fine (they could even do that at this stage by giving the unlock free to people who've got 1000-2000+ certs, or spent SC, on a vehicle). It would allow people to focus on more than one thing for variety's sake, but cut out people just switching between vehicles they haven't invested in.

I wouldnt want to limit vehicles more than what we have now.

[ShadetheDruid]

I would only see that as a last resort, really. I think the best option is to go with the small changes approach.

I mean, if they fixed bases to be more infantry-based (with less campable spawns as well, etc), it might turn out that unlimited (within reason) access to vehicles becomes no longer so much of an issue and therefore doesn't require anything else changed.

[Rolfski]

The whole idea of this topic is that there is no need to limit vehicle spam as there are other ways to balance it out.

As expected of course, this topic derails into a brainstorm on exactly just that: How to limit vehicle spam :doh:

[Figment]

The whole idea of this topic is that there is no need to limit vehicle spam as there are other ways to balance it out.

As expected of course, this topic derails into a brainstorm on exactly just that: How to limit vehicle spam :doh:

A forum is a place to debate pros and cons.

One expects multiple sides of a story.


A forum is a great way to place statements, but one should expect critique and to defend one self, as well as look at the alternatives and weigh the pro and cons of that.

Clearly Rolfski, you've not convinced the opposition with argumentation yet. :p

[Sledgecrushr]

All argumentation aside, changes to base layout with a mind to increased defensability would surely kill several birds with just one stone.

[Figment]

Oh yes, that's definitely the top priority. Think everyone can agree to that.

[ShadetheDruid]

The whole idea of this topic is that there is no need to limit vehicle spam as there are other ways to balance it out.

As expected of course, this topic derails into a brainstorm on exactly just that: How to limit vehicle spam :doh:

Mmm, I was mostly just thinking on things that would work as a good "middle ground" between people who want stricter limitations on vehicles and those who are ok with the current availability.

I definitely agree with the premise of the topic though. I don't have a problem with the number of vehicles (aside from some of the more.. powerful/questionable weapons, which to me is more a matter of their generalist usage rather than the actual power of them), it makes for an interesting game for vehicles to have a big part.

[Thunderhawk]

The topic of discussion has just evolved into all things PS2 and this and that.

We all agree that small steps are the way forward, and let's change the Base situation and defence, making them infantry areas first and see where we are with that.

No one wants whole sale changes, and I for one agree with most people here that Vehicle spam is not so much a problem as it is highlighting a problem with something else (namely infantry not having much room to do infantry only things without fearing a tank shell up the rear end due to all the camping)

[Rolfski]

All argumentation aside, changes to base layout with a mind to increased defensability would surely kill several birds with just one stone.
I wouldn't count on it too much as THE uber solution to fix the problems though. There's a reason why these bases where designed so open. It needs to be carefully balanced or we go back to Tech plant back door stalemates again.

[Figment]

@TH: think a lot of people don't realise that vehicles are this weak (endurance wise, not firepower wise) because they are spammed that much?

I'd rather have quite a few less, slightly stronger high firepower units to fight with and against, than zergs of semi-strong high firepower units.

EDIT: @Rolfski: Tech Plants are an extreme: just two open entrances. I mean, come on.

[Chaff]

I'm sure it must be true with any game, but PS players seem highly inclined to not only find weaknesses in game design/mechanics.....they almost Force them on the Devs. After going round-and-round in my own head, and then reading all the different points-of-view here, I am of the opinion that change is required, but needs to be introduced slowly.
Zerg mentality naturaly arose in PS1. Zerg Mentality in PS2 often is too damn disheartening. People can't help themselves.

Devs are in a Catch-22. Things have to change. Too many changes at once make it impossible (near) to ascertain cause & effect of newly implemented changes. Not enough change, and player bitching & quitting gets worse.

Weapons are fairly well balanced. Basic Base design must be altered. Vehicles (Air or Ground) should be able to force Infantry indoors or behind cover. duh. For this game to be funner, we need bases that are more DEFENSE-Friendly. It's all been covered. There is an overwhelming concensus to tweak base design. Start with a few of the major bases. Try something. In three weeks you should know if you need to tweak it a tad more, or a tad less. It will never be an exact science. It just needs to be close. PS2 players are going where the easy kills are. It seems like changes need to be made that ultimately serve to allow infantry to keep Air & Ground vehicles further away from base doors, windows, and also better defend the perimeter of bases.

I hope the new changes start there. With a little luck they'll hit a decent balance. A little bit of positive gameplay improvement will create a Lot of goodwill. Positive well-thought-out changes need to continually come on-line. There's a lot of ground to cover in the next couple months.

[RoninOni]

How many tank haters in here use MBT's?

You know they've extended the CD on them right?

Destroy a tank and it ain't comin back for several minutes at the earliest.

I've seen huge waves of tanks smash against rocket spam, or collide with each other...

The tanks don't keep coming indefinitely...

[NewSith]

How many tank haters in here use MBT's?

You know they've extended the CD on them right?

Destroy a tank and it ain't comin back for several minutes at the earliest.

I've seen huge waves of tanks smash against rocket spam, or collide with each other...

The tanks don't keep coming indefinitely...

Lovely necro...


...and, I do drive an MBT sometimes and I still think this:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20130219_5123c77216297.png


is utter bullshit. A president earns 1 gazillion dollars. Billy Bob earns 1 dollar. Their average income is 0.5 gazillion dollars and 50 cents. Seems legit.


Tanks smashing against rocketspam is the only true thing that happens that I would accept as a valid point. And that is only true until the vehicular whiners get their long-desired Annihilator nerf. Then it's going to be tanks tanks rocketpods and tanks all over again.

Tanks smashing against tanks is as same as saying that Tank Buster Liberators kill Liberators, so Liberators anti-infantry capabilities are balanced.

[Badjuju]

There, I said it. I know I will get fried for it in this forum, that recently seems to be "hijacked by drama queens" that only see doom for this game, so let the flaming begin.

The promise of this game is that size matters. It's the sheer scale that makes me having a blast every day I play it. Seeing my screen filled up with endless armor columns and huge swarms of air puts a big smile on my face every time. It makes me feel being part of a big war.
I also love the power this game is giving me. I can be anything at any time with almost no restriction. If a situation demands for it, I can instantly switch to the appropriate class or vehicle to handle the situation. It's this freedom that gives me a lot of joy in this game.

Lately, I'm reading a lot of suggestions that want to limit my power and freedom or want to turn this game into a small scale tactical shooter. Screw that, it's not what I signed up for in this game.

You can still have a very strategic game without limiting peoples ability to do whatever they want. Limiting vehicle spam (increasing timers and costs, etc.) is a solution to the wrong problem. Instead, the game should focus on giving me more power to fight vehicle spam: better launchers, deployable AV and AA turrets, artillery call-ins, etc.

I will probably not make myself popular by promoting vehicle spam but I truly see it as the essence of this game, so it's time to stand up and voice a different opinion.

Most people who complain about vehicle spam don't want the game to be a small scale shooter. You are miss understanding. They want the game to be more like PS1, where vehicles play a strong support role and are not the primary force.

Currently you'll see 50+ tanks roll up to a point and almost no infantry. A few people exit vehicles to cap and that is it. With how powerful tanks are you may as well just remove the infantry class completely in these situations.

In PS1 you would see well over 100 infantry pressing and maybe 20 tanks. Tanks were also much more resilient and faster then. They could be more powerful because there were not as many on the battle field. It provided a much more balanced battle field and immensely better fights.

Right now the game is nothing but vehicle zergs. Vehicle zergs are only fun for some dedicated tank drivers. Many dedicated drivers I know don't even enjoy the zergs because they find it boring. It is misserable for infantry. I have seen countless people quit because of this. Many battles simply don't feel like battles at all. The larger force rolls in and instantly wipes out the smaller force with little to no fight, just spawn camping.

Another sour aspect of this is that vehicles just don't matter. They die instantly and then you typically go right back to a terminal and pop out another. In PS1, restrictions made you protect your vehicle. However they were much more beastly between the armor, speed, and more open continents. This allowed you to keep your vehicle up for much longer.

The fact is that PS1 had immensely better battles than PS2 has had yet. There are a multitude of factors for this. Map design (funneling players and lack of infantry cover), difference in cert system + lack of dedicated drivers = vehicle spam, base design, and non-dynamic capture system are some of the primary culprits. I'll admit i was down with the 1 man MBTs initially, but with what it has done to the meta game + how effective lightnings are this time around they should have required dedicated tank drivers, gave them more armor, and given drivers more xp per kill(driver assist) than the gunners. Both solo drivers and people who want to work as a team could have been happy. (you would increase lighting armor to most likely).

BTW I often find myself in a tank despite preferring to be a dedicated infantry member because there is just nothing for me to do as infantry aside from dodging tank rounds.

So yea, I would prefer 200 infantry and 50 strong tanks as apposed to 100 weak tanks and 20 infantry in any battle any day. Or at least make an environment where infantry can excel instead of being farmed all day. More open maps with increased cover (where the hell are all the trees?), defensible bases, actual interiors to bases with objects within them. Huts in a court yard is just lame.

[Rolfski]

Most people who complain about vehicle spam don't want the game to be a small scale shooter. You are miss understanding. They want the game to be more like PS1, where vehicles play a strong support role and are not the primary force.


Not sure why this 1,5 month old topic got digged up again (infantry play has in the meanwhile changed for the better) but I kinda lost interest in your argument right after "They want the game to be more like PS1".

As is said a trillion times, this is a different Planetside: different times, different market, different audience, different business model, different development process, different mechanics, different engine, different dev team, different everything.

If you do not want to deal with this reality and keep asking for a PS 1.5 than I suggest you uninstall this game and check back in maybe a year or so. Although chances are you will never like this game so maybe don't bother installing it ever again.

[Babyfark McGeez]

...
As is said a trillion times, this is a different Planetside: different times, different market, different audience, different business model, different development process, different mechanics, different engine, different dev team, different everything.
...

Unfortunately different in this case also means setting us back several years in terms of FPS innovation. And ignoring all the potential PS2 has in order to make it not-so-different from any other popular shooter/MMO (not to mention ignoring all the stuff from PS1 that would improve this game).

You know, i'm at a point where i think they might aswell slap a different name on this game to avoid confusion and let someone else bring the genre forward.

"Michael Bay Simulator" maybe. Or "The Crown Online". "Grindside" would work too.

/rant

[SturmovikDrakon]

I'll tell you how to balance it out

Multi-crew MBTs

More personnel required, less but more durable tanks

/thread

:D

[Rolfski]

Unfortunately different in this case also means setting us back several years in terms of FPS innovation. And ignoring all the potential PS2 has in order to make it not-so-different from any other popular shooter/MMO (not to mention ignoring all the stuff from PS1 that would improve this game).

You know, i'm at a point where i think they might aswell slap a different name on this game to avoid confusion and let someone else bring the genre forward.

"Michael Bay Simulator" maybe. Or "The Crown Online". "Grindside" would work too.

/rant Yeah, yeah, we get it, PS2 is all dumbed down and a missed opportunity. So really, which part of PS2 is a different game did you not understand? The business strategy? What if it is SUPPOSED to be a dumped down game? A bare bone BF3 on crack to be developed over time, targeted initially at a more casual audience?
An audience that doesn't necessarily want to be bothered with uber complex game mechanics and is used to switch classes/pull vehicles whenever they want that they can drive and shoot themselves?

It's time for your wake-up call buddy because although SOE will never admit it, you are NOT the primary target audience for this game at launch. The BF3 crowd is. Deal with the reality.

Having said this, I can't blame you and some of the other PS1 vets for the distorted reality you seemed to be stuck in about this game. SOE has never done a proper job of explaining their business strategy to you which is a shame, really. PS1 vets are the most loyal fans, they deserve to be told the truth and I personally blame John Smedley for not doing a better job at this. It also would have saved a shitload of endless discussions like this one.

[Baneblade]

HEAT and HE Weapons and ESF Rockets are the problem infantry have.

Enemy infantry that engage my tank actually have a fairly good chance of killing it, simply because I don't use anything other than AP (which imo should be what every tank uses).

Tanks should be using machine guns to engage infantry, not the main cannon.

[Sturmhardt]

Agreed. I still think HE ammo for tanks was one of the worst moves they made. It's just frustrating for infantry.

.sent via phone.

[Ironside]

Agreed. I still think HE ammo for tanks was one of the worst moves they made. It's just frustrating for infantry.

.sent via phone.

Agreed

[Figment]

Rolfski, the BF3 crowd doesn't want solo-mbts spammed en mass. If anything, they want more infantry.

When I did a survey (203 respondents, 73 from PS1, 41 from BF3) on tank gunners and asked people what game they came from and analysed by game of origin, only A THIRD of both the PS1 and BF3 crowd wanted soloable MBTs.

2/3s wanted crewed tanks with dedicated drivers. Of that two thirds for PS1, 60% wanted two crew tanks and 40% wanted three crew tanks. Of that two thirds for BF3, 60% wanted three crew tanks and 40% two crew tanks. In fact, of the people that wanted four crew tanks, not one came from PS1, all came from BF3. For players from all games combined, the same distinction in results emerged: 67% wanted dedicated drivers.


Sorry Rolfski, but you're making up assumptions about what the "BF3 audience" wants and then connect this to current design.

Yet you should admit right here and now that you have no way to support those assumptions. You never asked any of them, you just parrot the devs' assumption.



Hell, you don't even know if BF3 players like the way tanks are done in BF3. Because you never asked. In fact, the reason you say BF3 players want this, is because BF3 devs did that. But do you know if that was an extremely informed decision?

And do you realise that there's a slight amount difference between the amount of tanks in BF3 and PS2? Have you ever considered the context difference?


From the sounds of it, you haven't. You base everything on conjecture that's entirely based on assumptions. :/ Sorry if that will never win you an argument.

[Badjuju]

Not sure why this 1,5 month old topic got digged up again (infantry play has in the meanwhile changed for the better) but I kinda lost interest in your argument right after "They want the game to be more like PS1".

As is said a trillion times, this is a different Planetside: different times, different market, different audience, different business model, different development process, different mechanics, different engine, different dev team, different everything.

If you do not want to deal with this reality and keep asking for a PS 1.5 than I suggest you uninstall this game and check back in maybe a year or so. Although chances are you will never like this game so maybe don't bother installing it ever again.

The point was not to state the that I wanted a carbon copy of PS1. It was to point out differences in vehicle balance using PS1 as an example because it is the only game that we can hold in comparison.

Some one had stated that people complaining about vehicle spam wanted a small scale shooter. I was simply making the point that that was not the case, and that they simply wanted a battle field that consisted of more than vehicle zergs 90% of the time.

So because I felt PS1 did a good job with creating a balanced battle field which made sense, I surely must hate PS2 and want it changed to "PS1.5." I guess it is wrong of me to use any examples from PS1, a game similar in principal and goals, to discuss anything that I may think is not working or needs adjustments in PS2.

I am happy with allot of what they have done with PS2. I simply think balance of the battlefield is off. You may have gotten that if you actually took the time to read and comprehend my post instead of acting like a douche bag while completely missing my point all together.

[Rolfski]

Sorry Rolfski, but you're making up assumptions about what the "BF3 audience" wants and then connect this to current design.

Yet you should admit right here and now that you have no way to support those assumptions. You never asked any of them, you just parrot the devs' assumption.
Your survey is not that representative either but maybe I should have changed BF3 audience with more casual gamer to get my point across.

Btw I personally come from BF3 and I would hate being limited to either driving or gunning which was the point of this topic in the first place. All these solutions I'm reading (many of them from PS1) are all about limiting players vs empowering them, which I think is totally the wrong direction of this game.

You may have gotten that if you actually took the time to read and comprehend my post instead of acting like a douche bag while completely missing my point all together. Fair enough, I might have missed your point. I didn't say I didn't read your post though (I did), so no need to call people douche bags.

It's just that too often, I see people blindly throwing in "magical" PS1 solutions while completely forgetting to judge this game on it's own merits.

[Figment]

It may not be as representative as I would like it. But at least I don't make things up and base my argument on a single even unproven assumption. You have no such sources for casual gamers either. You assume. Why havn't they tried both in beta and asked?

So far, I don't think there is any better source than my survey. Unfortunately. Perhaps we should setup a large community effort on developing a large survey? Perhaps set some up for multitudes of issues and ask for dev endorsement in promoting it? Of course, if they can't do something, that is different.


Limiting the players brings out the best of them and makes them specialists that can make a name for themselves. We know the gameplay under restrictions and we know the gameplay without (in PS1), PS2 is closer to the latter.

PS1 turned into spam of heaviest of heaviest weapons after BR40. PS2 sees the same trend where players always use the heaviest tools first and foremost. And in such quantities that pop imbalances are felt much worse, since heavy weapons are force multipliers.

[Badjuju]

Fair enough, I might have missed your point. I didn't say I didn't read your post though (I did), so no need to call people douche bags.

It's just that too often, I see people blindly throwing in "magical" PS1 solutions while completely forgetting to judge this game on it's own merits.

My apologies as well. I just thought your response came off a little dickish. In response to that and aided by my lovely hang over I ended up giving a dickish response in return.

I think we can both agree at this point that it is quite easy to jump to conclusions or on to other people's cases after all the nonsense that crops up on the forums these days. Anyways back to more constructive arguments.

Btw I still disagree with you ;)

[Figment]

It's just that too often, I see people blindly throwing in "magical" PS1 solutions while completely forgetting to judge this game on it's own merits.

And it happens even more that we see people who did not play this particular game (PlanetSide) come in and make ignorant dismissals on such PS1 solutions immediately and irrationally just because PS1 never recovered from the introduction of a short period of time (timespan of half a year) of Core Combat, Bending, OP BFRs, bad management, Everquest II launch and marketing and WoW launch all happening at almost the exact same time. Yet survived despite all of that for a decade.

And it seems this is usualy just out of annoyance with the frequency of referencing a game they did not play rather than the arguments used. Perhaps it is frustration you can't really join in the discussion of its merits and therefore cling to irrational prejudices like "obsoletion in all its facets because it's older". You simply don't know if it's actually "magical" or actually simply a good, effective idea.

Both games are in fact judged on their own merits and shortcomings by the PS1 crowd because they can compare, whereas the people who did not play PS1 often don't dare judge PS2 on its shortcomings (if they even see them as they can't and thus don't compare). And since they can't judge PS1 on its merits, they will pretend it only had shortcomings...


I'm sorry, but I at least am really fed up with that attitude, because those people tend to read very selectively, don't understand the opposition, while they are in tunnelvision of status quo design. Meanwhile usualy insulting the opposition with strawmen and using over-generalising, denigrating remarks like "you just want PS1 / PS1.5" and making it sound as if they're eating barf. Not to mention the rose teinted goggles of "this is a new game, thus it's different and therefore better" and "there's a new audience that's completely different". That's completely irrational, unproven conjecture. The only truth in it is that it's new and different.

[Rolfski]

Both games are in fact judged on their own merits and shortcomings by the PS1 crowd because they can compare, whereas the people who did not play PS1 often don't dare judge PS2 on its shortcomings (if they even see them as they can't and thus don't compare). And since they can't judge PS1 on its merits, they will pretend it only had shortcomings...


This is nonsense and you know it. There are PS1 vets that give constructive criticism (you are one of them btw) and there are PS1 vets that are just frustrated and rant all the time (some got even banned for it). And guess what: The same goes for new players as well. There's really no difference here besides that this forum has relatively a lot of PS1 players, therefore many of these ranters have a PS1 back ground.

A lot of people see PS1 as the only viable comparison for PS2 because there is no other reference for them. I just strongly disagree with that because the devs clearly said from the beginning that this was going to be a whole different game. You can compare this game as much with any shooter as you can compare it with PS1.

So back on topic: Solutions on the perceived "vehicle spam" could/should come from any game. And if that vehicle solution works in the other game, it doesn't necessarily means it will work in this game, being it PS1 or not.

[Crator]

A lot of people see PS1 as the only viable comparison for PS2 because there is no other reference for them. I just strongly disagree with that because the devs clearly said from the beginning that this was going to be a whole different game. You can compare this game as much with any shooter as you can compare it with PS1..

Just curious, what other FPS game allows the amount of people to be on the same map and in the same area of the map, with all of them having the potential to have vehicles? Only other one besides PS1 that I can think of was America's Army. And I don't know much about that one and the mechanics used to restrict/control the issue (didn't really play it).

How does the statement "the devs clearly said from the beginning that this was going to be a whole different game" relate to underlying issues that both PS1 and PS2 clearly have. Since both have high amounts of players on the same map/same area of the map...

[Figment]

Crator, he simply doesn't realise that is propaganda for cutting some slack with a grumpy, neglected playerbase to create room for creative freedom and on the other hand, the reality that both games face the exact same design challenges. :/


Design challenges that all the other games Rolfski played never faced. Siege warfare in BF3? Free, unlimited vehicle choice? Constant combined arms? Hundreds of players having to defend and attack? Yes, let's see what valuable lessons we can learn from the entire line of Call of Duty games. What did they do last time they faced that design challenge again, Rolfski? :p

[Rolfski]

Nobody knows exactly what SOE was thinking when they announced this game. I haven't seen the business case for it. Also what they exactly had in mind with this game being completely different from PS1 is also still not 100% clear.

I have an educated guess though, you can read it in my signature.

[Figment]

That is all great Rolfski, but you should expect and accept constant comparisons. And a lot of people are using the new game argument to simply defend a status quo.


Whichever status quo is the current is "defended" with that.

[Crator]

Nobody knows exactly what SOE was thinking when they announced this game.

A lot of PS1 vets think SOE wiped the slate clean. Didn't take too many design decision from PS1 that could've helped a lot of these issues. They were too fast in developing to concern themselves with that sort of stuff. Hence PS1 vet frustrations and suggestions that come right out of the PS1 playbook.

[Baneblade]

Nobody knows exactly what SOE was thinking when they announced this game.

When they announced this game it was merely going to be the f2p overhaul of PlanetSide, not a reinvention of the wheel.

[Rolfski]

When they announced this game it was merely going to be the f2p overhaul of PlanetSide, not a reinvention of the wheel.Define "f2p overhaul of PlanetSide" please. What exactly was the overhaul they had in mind? Do you know? Is it somewhere documented? Do we have a detailed idea of how they think this game should be different from PS1? Does some one actually got a sight on the original design document?

So far, I have only heard the devs saying it's going to be different from PS1 but how? I don't know. Guess what? They don't know either because that's exactly the plan. Their only idea was to design a basic solid shooter on a mass scale and go from there. There is no further plan because we are the plan.

I saw the Azure Twilight dev session about meta game and the way these guys were still struggling about how to implement a basic meta game months after launch can only lead me to the conclusion that reinventing the wheel is part of the design philosophy of this game.

[Figment]

Define "f2p overhaul of PlanetSide" please. What exactly was the overhaul they had in mind? Do you know?

You wern't there at the time, but initially, "PlanetSide next" (a tweet sentence meaning PlanetSide was next in line, that became a working title for the project) was to be primarily a graphical update of PS1 that would go f2p, like EverQuest II. New textures and some new tools and a new sales model to bring PS1 into the next decade. They at first explicitly didn't even want to go with the name PS2.

All that is by word of Smedley tweets.

While they were working on it, they decided to create an entirely new game based on the new engine that became available: forgelight.

[Redshift]

Figment is correct btw rolfski, originally this was just a graphical update of ps1, that then changed into a new game,

[Baneblade]

Define "f2p overhaul of PlanetSide" please. What exactly was the overhaul they had in mind? Do you know? Is it somewhere documented? Do we have a detailed idea of how they think this game should be different from PS1? Does some one actually got a sight on the original design document?

They didn't get far with it before they decided a whole new game would be easier.

Yes, I said easier.

[Seafort]

They didn't get far with it before they decided a whole new game would be easier.

Yes, I said easier.

Do you mean easier or dumbed down? As that's what we have now, a dumbed down game that fits the console ethos of streamlined but not the pc ethos of deep and tactical gameplay.

I hate the massive vehicle spam we have now but I'm not against vehicles per se. I just think the whole vehicle spawning should have limits like in a real war where resources matter and if you run out of resources when you lose territory you're on foot until you regain that territory.

So many people want an easy time in PS2 that they aren't willing to work for the territory control. The vehicle zergs should never be allowed in any bases. Infantry should be the meat of the battlefield with vehicle support from tanks and aircraft not the other way around like it is currently.

The whole slogan for PS2 is "Bigger is better" and that means small squads and outfits are getting pushed more and more to the side till they leave the game. I'm on the cusp of leaving PS2 as Brutal Deluxe is a small outfit and we really don't fit into the PS2 gameplay as there is no back hacking or spec ops or anything we can do to make a difference for small groups.

It's all about the zerg and I'm sick of it. I hope SOE realise they are losing alot more small outfits that once were dedicated to PS2 and will be left with zerg outfits that will most likely move onto the next big MMO/FPS once they are bored with PS2.

[Baneblade]

What I was talking about has fuck all to do with what you are talking about.

[Seafort]

Well the OP title was "I LOVE vehicle spam, it's NOT the problem of this game" and I was talking about vehicle spam and other offshoots from that.

Making an entirely different game from what PS1 was I guess is easier from a financial standpoint (easier to milk money from ) but it certainly isn't easier going forwards as their players want a lot more depth to the game as it is now so they are having to change a lot more things in PS2 from what they would have done if they had stuck with the PS1 design.

But, hey, lets change the topic and talk about how easy it is to make an entirely new game to what the OP topic actually was and use swearing to emphasise your point :)

[Figment]

What I was talking about has fuck all to do with what you are talking about.

Yeah he misinterpreted you.

But it wasn't "easier", they said they simply got exited about the potential of the game and wanted to make a new game that took full advantage of it.

But Seafort is also right in that they wanted to "streamline it", unfortunately, they didn't really have a good understanding of what had to be streamlined and how. :/ See Galaxy AMS.

[JeffBeefjaw]

I have always enjoyed vehicles in planetside, the mass fights and sheer spectacle of what's possible in the right situation. I would like to see less minor nothingy territory basses and some more open uninterrupted landscape to allow for some open field fights though.