Vehicle/Air balance - a different approach.

[EVILPIG]

We should be seeing a change to the experience system soon that will make kills not the greatest source of XP.

One of the greatest complaints about the game right now is the Air and Vehicle zergs. Simply nerfing these is not a good answer and a game starts to become lame when you've got something like rocket pods from Planetside 1. Reaver "whores" would use the air-to-ground rocket spam to farm infantry, so they nerfed the rockets. This certainly lowered the rocket's effectiveness vs. infantry, but it doesn't feel right when you unload 16 rockets into a foot soldier and they laugh about it. I believe a better approach is to change how infantry and vehicles interact with each other.

Why do so many players farm infantry with vehicles/air? 1. Is the desire to get XP as fast as you can and using vehicles can certainly produce. 2. It's so easy. Why is it so easy? It's so easy because the game mechanics serve up infantry on a silver platter due to how easy it is for vehicles/air to find them. The maps certainly need more terrain features, mostly just foliage and tree cover. However, even with these additions, every kill is simply a "Dorito" away.

Perhaps we just need some simple changes to the mechanics? When you are in a Liberator, you have all these beautiful indicators screaming out "Hey, free XP here!!". If you removed the "Doritos" on enemies when viewing from a vehicle (all types) then infantry could actually go unnoticed by vehicles. We have the ability to buy camo patterns, yet don't really get to utilize them because the indicators tell the enemy that you are there any way. If you had no indicator above your head, you could literally squat in a bush and an enemy tank will likely roll right by you. In real life, when you are looking at your surroundings, the first thing you will notice is movement. If infantry hunker down, or get under a tree and freeze, it is likely that vehicles will not notice them. Especially aircraft.

Now, there would need to be some additional tweaking to weapons, but overall such a change to the spotting system would allow infantry to go more unnoticed by vehicles and harder to spot. Now, if vehicles are seeing infantry less, they will see enemy vehicles more and those should become their primary targets. Additionally, I would remove AA specific weaponry from infantry and MAXes and add more AA options to the existing vehicles. Give vehicles (still including air here) weaponry that can be specifically geared towards each other and they are now each others' greatest threat.

Would infantry be worthless against armor and air? No. Definitely keep the decimator. If a tank stops and infantry is close, they should be able to inflict a good amount of harm on the tank, just as the tank could return fire with it's cannon. Rocket Pods could be more of a tank-buster, no splash type of rocket. The debate on HE ammo continues and could be taken away. We would not need to make these units futile against each other, just not equipped to specifically kill each other. Small arms fire could damage all aircraft, to a degree. If a Lib wanted to bomb from safety, they would have to bomb from high up where it would be difficult to distinguish infantry. The Libs could bomb smoke markers provided by their command.

Again, there is a lot more that needs to be done for Planetside 2. The base layouts need work and having some partial or full enclosures on some would be great. This could be anything from shield domes to large hanger-like structures that wrap over 1/2 of a base.

The primary purpose of this change would be to get aircraft and vehicles mostly focused on fighting each other, so that infantry can mostly focus on other infantry. Raise the interaction between all vehicle types and lower infantry interaction with vehicles, but by all means, not eliminate such interaction.

Also, obviously the resource limitation doesn't have much impact on vehicles, especially when they survive a long time. Another possibility, and just a simple suggestion, would be to charge resources not for the vehicle, but for the ammo. The resource limitation is to limit the vehicle's effect on a battle. If a vehicle costs 200 resources and I can keep it alive for an hour and reload it's ammo several times, that 200 resources is having a much greater impact. If it was 200 resources to rearm, then the resources would basically tax the vehicle resource more based on how much it is being used. This may not be popular change, but it is an example of how you can change up the limitations to greater represent the purpose of the limitation. In this case, it's the usage of said vehicle.


To summarize:

1. Remove icons/names from enemy infantry when viewing from inside a vehicle.
2. Provide more anti-air and anti-armor options to all vehicles.
3. Remove Lock-on hand held weaponry and Burster arms.
4. Tweak base layouts and provide walls/shielding to some.
5. Charge vehicles for their ammo, not to spawn them.

These are just ideas for changing the way the game is played right now. These changes would also allow infantry to be more tactical when vehicles are around and they wish to bypass or hide from them. Not your typical "just nerf em" thread and please, add to any idea here or present a better one.

[RykerStruvian]

I can agree on some points but I don't really agree with nerfs (as you said) or removal of weapons. The first thing I would like to point out is motivation. As you said the primary motivator in the game is to get XP, XP is a means to get more certifications, allowing more access to different pieces of equipment.

I think before any sort of balancing is made, the primary thing needs to change which is the motivation. There needs to be more than just killing for XP because the act is very meaningless, or rather it is very shallow. It purely lacks content and there should be more to PS2 than just killing for XP, such as killing as a means to achieve a greater goal ie: continental lock.

The other thing is, you really can't remove items which have already been added to the game. People already spent money on these things and to remove it would hurt Sony even if they do not 'lose' the money, for instance refunding it as smedbucks. If it affects SOE's income negatively I really doubt it will ever happen or work.

[EVILPIG]

I can agree on some points but I don't really agree with nerfs (as you said) or removal of weapons. The first thing I would like to point out is motivation. As you said the primary motivator in the game is to get XP, XP is a means to get more certifications, allowing more access to different pieces of equipment.

I think before any sort of balancing is made, the primary thing needs to change which is the motivation. There needs to be more than just killing for XP because the act is very meaningless, or rather it is very shallow. It purely lacks content and there should be more to PS2 than just killing for XP, such as killing as a means to achieve a greater goal ie: continental lock.

The other thing is, you really can't remove items which have already been added to the game. People already spent money on these things and to remove it would hurt Sony even if they do not 'lose' the money, for instance refunding it as smedbucks. If it affects SOE's income negatively I really doubt it will ever happen or work.

You can expect changes to the XP system to being less kill-centric to be coming soon. The next big motivator for farming is K/D and anyone can go back 9 years reading about my objection to tracking deaths and it's effect on farming.

It is possible that Station Cash could be refunded for any weapons dropped from the build, or, they could be replaced with new ones. The possibilities are pretty wide open, but I would be most interested in hearing what anyone thinks of changing vehicles' ability to see infantry markers.

[maradine]

To summarize:

1. Remove icons/names from enemy infantry when viewing from inside a vehicle.
2. Provide more anti-air and anti-armor options to all vehicles.
3. Remove Lock-on hand held weaponry and Burster arms.
4. Tweak base layouts and provide walls/shielding to some.
5. Charge vehicles for their ammo, not to spawn them.


1. Do not like. IFF is a big part of the game. Removing it from a certain class of play feels hacky and non-elegant, especially in light of the fact you'd expect a vehicle to have better IFF capability than a bodysuit.

2. Like. I think this could be as simple as the Walker being as viable a weapon choice as a Saron rail or a missile. Supplemental, maybe bolt a 5 round magazine worth of SAM to the side of the Skyguard. Why it's less useful than, say, a Tunguska, is a mystery to me.

3. Do not like. Infantry squads should be able to do something about aircraft if they choose. That they're also currently the best anti-aircraft solution is a separate problem with separate, individually addressable causes.

4. Like. Debated to death, and a good idea in my opinion. At least one major base type of the three should be moved mostly underground, frankly.

5. Do not like, but worth a longer discussion. Resources should be charged against the force multiple they provide. Charging vehicles for ammunition only makes sense if we're also charging HAs for their rockets.

So, mixed bag in my book, but worth kicking back and forth.

[RykerStruvian]

As for the removal of IFF abilities for vehicles/infantry, I do think you are on to something but I think a little too extreme. While I don't think it should remove markers on infantry for vehicles, I think a certain prerequisite should be met to enable this function. For instance, give a tech plant (or any kind of facility really, maybe interlink 2.0) the ability to grant the faction's owner the ability to mark enemy targets using the spotting key. This would give some more incentive to fight/defend certain bases, I'd say.

[maradine]

That, I think, is a nice compromise.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Changing the XP motivation is a very very easy thing to change and calculate the butterzone. They must have enough data by now to figure this out.

I think IFF is a tricky one. Personally, I think camo and hiding is very important because I used to be a rifeman IRL. I'd hate it if the enemy could see a little red triangle after I spent hours getting camo'd up. The Q mechanic should stay though because any decent, well trained group of soldiers will be able to communicate enemy positions after they've been spotted. I say remove triangles.

The n00bish playerbase that has all the money expects little red and blue triangles though and you can't piss off your target market. Certing into IFF is a good compromise. It'd be handy to have a cheap cert for IR strobes too. That way I can shoot willy nilly at the green dots that aren't blinking at me.

Perhaps something along the lines of:
0 cert points - you can 'Q' red triangles up to 50m
10 cert points - IR strobe to stop friendly liberator gunners shooting at you
50 cert points - you can 'Q' red triangles show up at 75m
100 cert points - you can 'Q' red triangles show up at 100m
150 cert points - you can 'Q' red triangles show up at 150m
200 cert points - you can 'Q' red triangles show up at 250m
500 cert points - red triangles show up at 500m

[PredatorFour]

I would be in favour of getting rid of the markers above enemy heads whether your in a tank/air or on foot. Why are they in it ? Oh yeh, battlefield field has them so they must be good ;)

And you cant call someones idea as bad because its not realistic (tanks having better target recognition) in a game like this!

If it was realistic my Light Assault jets should be able to burn-off higby's beard ingame if i got to close to him!

[james]

Removing the red triangle wouldn't change much, as the gunner could just have thermal or IR. Plus inf is so easy to see as is.

On the removal weapons point i think that a horrible idea. Removing the two major ways to take out of air could cause even more problems.

[NewSith]

@OP, can I ask you to do a little formatting, this is actually quite hard for my eyes to read.


Use colors, font sizes, and headers (Like: General Problem, General Idea, Theoretical Result, Conclusion)...


Thanks in advance.

[Helwyr]

IR/Thermal optics and radar capable of detecting Infantry needs to be removed from vehicles. (change to Q spotting would also greatly benefit the game as suggested in the OP)

Access to vehicles needs to be tied more to meta game objectives, like MBTs are to Tech Plants

Base layout and general terrain needs to be adjusted offering more cover for Infantry especially from the air.

[maradine]

And you cant call someones idea as bad because its not realistic (tanks having better target recognition) in a game like this!


I didn't say it was a bad idea, I said I didn't like it. Vanishingly few people around here understand the difference, it seems.

[Thunderhawk]

In an ideal world, you could debate all this with triangles, etc.. but sadly Render distance of infantry vs vehicles dumbs this into an irrelevance.

1. Infantry can see Vehicles (as in they render) even in a Zerg at up to 600-800 Meters.
2. Vehicles cannot see infantry (due to them not rendering) until they're within 100-150 meters (and this depends on the zerg, the more players the lower the render distance)

This makes balancing terrible and makes changes to balance irrelevant.

AA MAXs can begin shooting at an ESF without the ESF even knowing where it is, seeing the flack, or even being able to shoot back. Same with Liberators, they cannot "bomb from a distance" if they cant see what they're bombing. Also, You can mark where to bomb all you want, if the infantry don't render, the bombs don't inflict any damage, so High level bombing is also out of the equation.

To cut this short as I have work tomorrow and need to go to bed, You need to make Vehicle and Infantry render to each other at the same distance before starting to discuss buffing AV or making changes to the UI.

[Helwyr]

You need to make Vehicle and Infantry render to each other at the same distance before starting to discuss buffing AV or making changes to the UI.

Equalizing Render distance between Vehicles and Infantry would be the straw that breaks the camels back. The current rendering difference is the only thing keeping the game remotely playable as Infantry atm.

[NewSith]

1. Infantry can see Vehicles (as in they render) even in a Zerg at up to 600-800 Meters.
2. Vehicles cannot see infantry (due to them not rendering) until they're within 100-150 meters (and this depends on the zerg, the more players the lower the render distance)


They could at least make it so projectiles have their own draw distance. Like, say, mines that explode regardless. However, say, AA missiles stop tracking targets when the latter stop drawing.


PS YOu should call it Draw Distance peeps, because Render Distance is a slightly different thing.

[Thunderhawk]

OK draw distance then ;)

But you see my point ? Saying that draw distance is a balance thing is ridiculous, not when you have 5-6 HA's with lock on missiles (for MBTs), or 5-6 AA MAXs (for ESFs) all firing at you and you can't actually see them.

How is this balance ?

There have been times vehicles just explode from full HP to 0, and then afterwards you look at who killed you and there were AT LEAST 3 people all firing at you but you would never know because you can't see them.

This is not the way game balance should be approached either.

[NewSith]

OK draw distance then ;)

But you see my point ? Saying that draw distance is a balance thing is ridiculous, not when you have 5-6 HA's with lock on missiles (for MBTs), or 5-6 AA MAXs (for ESFs) all firing at you and you can't actually see them.

How is this balance ?

There have been times vehicles just explode from full HP to 0, and then afterwards you look at who killed you and there were AT LEAST 3 people all firing at you but you would never know because you can't see them.

This is not the way game balance should be approached either.

I agree (and below I do not really argue)...

..but for the sake of argument I'd like to add that there isn't really much vehicular things affected by draw distance:

Flak(+) vs Air(-)
RocketPods(-) vs Infantry(+)
Liberator(-) vs Infantry(+)

There may be a few other things (Sniping, for instance), but they bear no relation to vehicular combat.


EDIT: Come to think of it, these three were rather core complains back in the Beta days.

[maradine]

OK draw distance then ;)

But you see my point ? Saying that draw distance is a balance thing is ridiculous, not when you have 5-6 HA's with lock on missiles (for MBTs), or 5-6 AA MAXs (for ESFs) all firing at you and you can't actually see them.

How is this balance ?

There have been times vehicles just explode from full HP to 0, and then afterwards you look at who killed you and there were AT LEAST 3 people all firing at you but you would never know because you can't see them.

This is not the way game balance should be approached either.

It's not a balance thing on purpose. It's a technical limitation. Walk out onto the nearest street corner. Start a stopwatch, and describe all the houses you can see. Stop the watch.

Now, go to the same location, climb a 100' ladder, and start the stopwatch. Describe all the houses you can see. Stop the watch.

As Helwyr speculates, the shitty vehicular draw distance may be something that holds this engine together from a truth maintenance or bandwidth control standpoint. That it's also a balance factor is secondary and possibly unavoidable.

[NewSith]

As Helwyr speculates, the shitty vehicular draw distance may be something that holds this engine together from a truth maintenance or bandwidth control standpoint. That it's also a balance factor is secondary and possibly unavoidable.

Then why mines see people independently of the draw distance?

[Soulsera]

Some great ideas here, im particularly a fan of loosing the enemy infantry indicators and the addition of additional foliage and cover within bases, making NV and thermo optics more important.

However, i think something important was missed. In large skirmishes air and tanks never really dominate, there is a constant stream coming from both opposing factions, and they are always priority targets. Groups of AA max's and skyguards make essentially a no-fly zone to cover infantry and tank advances. Where bombers must patrol friendly skies or get shot down. Tanks must prioritize other armor or risk being torn up. The flak armor cert for infantry is really effective when your trying to skirt around and rocket or c4 tanks.

The power and air and ground vehicles is really felt when one side is lacking in their numbers, which is when alot of the "op" crying happens. However, that is the advantage of having air or tank control in an area. Spawn a heavy, AA max, or lay some mines, and do your best. [orders] call for air support or tank support, it often comes.

But i I dont think hurting vehicles is the answer. some minor changes are definitively in order, but i think the weapon changes proposed here are too drastic. AA mAxs are fun as hell, and a pain when flying. Lock on weaps do less dmg and denied with ir smoke, resources for ammo would just a pain in the ass. I like sundies not having aa weapons, but i would suggest a flak weapon on the main tank instead of a machinegun.

I think the real challenge is encouraging large scales battles over zerging places with few enemies. The only thing i can think of to do that is something like hot zones, where those zones get double xp or something, because when zerg meets zerg, its always a good time.

+bugfixes!!!!!!!

[maradine]

Then why mines see people independently of the draw distance?

Short answer is because mine effect resolution is its own execution path decoupled from player location. Mines have their own "draw distance" effectively equivalent to their detection radius.

Even if it was executed in the player state context, it would be reasonable to ask the master state for all entities within a meter of the mine coordinate every X ticks, once per mine.

[NewSith]

Short answer is because mine effect resolution is its own execution path decoupled from player location. Mines have their own "draw distance" effectively equivalent to their detection radius.

Even if it was executed in the player state context, it would be reasonable to ask the master state for all entities within a meter of the mine coordinate every X ticks, once per mine.

Not the point, I mean - why do mines have their own draw distance and bullets/shells don't?

A projectile is an entity, just like a mine. Devs could actually put HP bars on Missiles and bullets if they wanted to.

[maradine]

Order of magnitude problem, I'm guessing - the number of round in the air at once is massive, and they're all updating state every physics tick. Mines are relatively few and don't fly around much.

I'm just speculating an architecture onto the facts as we know them - I could be way off.

[Rothnang]

Any idea that tries to balance vehicles on resources will just make the problem of single-faction zergs even worse.

We already have a game where people constantly whine about vehicles being not restricted enough, but the reality is, the become scarce pretty quickly if you're taking a beating on a continent against a vastly larger force.

The whole resource system is IMO bad because it's one of those slippery slope kind of systems that work well in match based games where once one side has clearly come out as stronger the game shouldn't drag on for too long, but in a game that never ends it's not a good thing at all if the faction that's winning gets stronger and stronger as they go along.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Why oh why did they ignore PS1?

[Sledgecrushr]

.
1. Remove icons/names from enemy infantry when viewing from inside a vehicle.
2. Provide more anti-air and anti-armor options to all vehicles.
3. Remove Lock-on hand held weaponry and Burster arms.
4. Tweak base layouts and provide walls/shielding to some.
5. Charge vehicles for their ammo, not to spawn them.


Hey Ep, Ive never gone through a forum post like this so here we go.

1-I see where you are coming from and I think this is certainly an issue. What I would suggest doing is nerf the various nightvision options so that it works at a shorter range and blurs when you are moving too fast. This would effectively make vehicles using this get lower and slow down. This would help add some variety into the game because these nightvision optics are the goto option for seeing the enemy clearly.

2-Definitely yes, the aa weapons on all ground vehicles including the skyguard are pretty underwhelming. On the other side air can deal with any ground target with efficient killing power.

3-I would still like to effectively deal with air/ground threats with the tools already provided to us in game.

4-Bases have to be fixed so that infantry can be effective and meaningful. Protection from vehicle spam and a defensability upgrade are necessary if this game is going to become great.

5-Charging vehicles for ammo is a pretty novel idea. If we had equippable melee I would say charge every weapon for its ammo. (Fix bayonets and prepare to charge!) As it is if you can manage a couple of reloads then you are quite the pilot. Most vehicles are already destroyed with almost full ammo.

A lot of very fine ideas and this is the kind of lateral thinking that makes me proud to be a devil dog.

[Ghoest9]

I have a simpler solution.

1 Turn ESF pods into an A2A weapon for shooting Libs.

2 Cut Zephyr damage and radius in half.

2 Raise the resource cost for Libs to 750.

Air problem solved.

[Ohaunlaim]

Lets...
1. Halve the number of rockets/missiles HA begin with.
2. Double the amount of damage HA rockets/missiles do.
3. Increase rocket/missile flight speeds by 30-60kph.
4. Charge 50-75 resources per HA rocket/missile.
5. Remove ability to re-arm rockets/missiles from engineer drops.

So that Grunts...
1. Spam less often and pick targets more carefully.
2. Feel their weapons are powerful and useful.
3. Feel their weapons have a chance to hit instead of being wasted.
4. Spam less often and pick targets more carefully.
5. Infantry facility/S-AMS defenders gain a slight advantage.

And also so Ground/Air Jockeys...
1. Experience less missile spam and feel that missile attrition is possible.
2. Can no longer ignore targeting-warnings till last second.
3. Can no longer ignore targeting-warnings till last second.
4. Feel slightly less cheated if killed by HA that had to pay to do it.
5. Feel that missile attrition is possible and that S-AMS killing is a priority.


On a side note...
1. Make each grunt kill grant infantry resources. Say 5-10, or 20 for a MAX.
2. Make each air kill grant air resources. Say 1/10th of the target's cost.
3. Make each vehicle kill grant vehicle resources. Say 1/10th of the target's cost.
4. Lower the current resource gain rate to balance gains-by-kills by assuming the average kills per hour is, uh, average.

Whatcha get?
Aircraft that need to kill aircraft if they hope to stay in the air doing air things.
Vehicles that need to kill vehicles if they hope to stay on the ground doing vehicle things.
Grunts that need to kill infantry if they hope to be able to buy all the sweet 'splody things.

[ShadetheDruid]

Whatcha get?
Aircraft that need to kill aircraft if they hope to stay in the air doing air things.
Vehicles that need to kill vehicles if they hope to stay on the ground doing vehicle things.
Grunts that need to kill infantry if they hope to be able to buy all the sweet 'splody things.

Well, that would massively screw anyone using a vehicle that specialises outside of its own type. Skyguard Lightning and Liberator for a start, but any vehicle (or infantry unit for that matter) that doesn't specialise in countering things of its own kind.

[ringring]

No, I do not like.

Infantry should be vunerable in open areas that should be the natural state of armour/air versus infantry the problem is that there are no vehicle-free sanctuaries for infantry to allow theor role to develop properly and this is due to base and outpost design.

Rather than twisting the fundamental roloes of air/armour why not just fix the underlying problem and give infantry their vehicle free areas where to achieve the goal an infantry fight has to be won and lost. ie your point 4.

[gunshooter]

If your solution isn't "actually fix the gameplay balance" but instead "try to get people to not do the grossly imbalanced thing" then it's probably not a good solution.

Your proposals wouldn't do anything to fix the actual core of the problem, this suggestion is effectively just a low-effort bandaid fix.

[Kerrec]

A lot of good ideas. Triangles seen from aircraft would be OK to me IF and only if, the aircraft itself can't do the spotting. If a ground troop spots something, then the aircraft should be able to see that triangle.

However, unless NV/Thermal gets ajusted as well, there's no point. IMO, in conjunction with the above adjustment, have NV/Thermal NOT show friendly or enemy identifiers. That way, the air vehicle will at the very least have to flick NV/Thermal on and off to verify friend/foe before lobbing rockets. At least it's a little bit more time consumption and complexity...but seems more like a bandaid fix than a true fix.

What I would suggest is:

Go back to true Rock-Paper-Scissors design. And I don't mean Aircraft>Vehicles>Infantry>Aircraft. What I would like to see is every asset be able to choose what to specialize against. The more you specialize, the weaker you become vs. something else.

The Lightning is a good (and bad) example. When a Lightning goes Skyguard, it effectively becomes useless versus Vehicles and Infantry. That's the "good" part of the example. The bad part is the Skyguard is not effective versus Aircraft either. This whole mentality of Aircraft kill everything, but everything "deter" aircraft needs to die. It all has to be equal.

If a MAX/HA decide to go focus on Aircraft, they should expect to KILL them, but be vulnerable to Vehicles. If vehicles focus on Infantry, then they should not be able to affect Aircraft, or other vehicles to any effective degree.

And of course, there should always be the option to be viable against everything, but much weaker in offensive power.

[Dodgy Commando]

I agree that tweaking IFF might at least give air/armour a harder time against infantry requiring them to get closer, thus giving infantry more of a chance to take them out.

But how do you implement/balance such a change?


A few ideas:

1. Simply removing it on the grounds that vehicle sensors are designed to detect bigger target signatures than infantry; requiring them to purchase Infrared or a new cert tree that allows them to detect infantry easily, but at the cost of a different utility cert tree.

2. Give infantry a new cert tree based on stealth, evading different forms of detection (e.g NV, IR, Q spotting). Again, at the cost of foregoing the choice of a different cert tree. You could maintain a hard-lock default distance where you can reliably Q spot any target, regardless of whether it is certed into stealth (e.g actually spotting within visual range).

3. I quite like the idea of a new facility type that provides friendly territory-wide detection benefits.
Or maybe two types of small outposts that only amplify/dampen the territory immediately around them in terms of detection capabilities. These could counter-act each other during the fight for the local major facility, providing new objectives. Having both is great, but if the enemy has one, you can try and counter them by controlling the other type.

___


I also believe base layouts need to be reviewed. Why not add an entirely new layer to bases (e.g inside or underground), completely innaccessible to vehicles. The final capture of a base would have to take place inside this layer, providing intense infantry fighting. It would not have to be a feature of every base. I do foresee one issue with this idea: increased load to system resources, etc... due to the addition of complex and more detailed shapes.

I don't believe nerfing/cutting out certain weapon types altogether to be a good idea, however.

[FreeSpeech]

There is only one approach - NERF VS ships!!

[maradine]

There is only one approach - NERF VS ships!!

Very helpful - thank you for that.

[FreeSpeech]

You're welcome! :D - Let's face it though, everyone who has played the game knows the sheer power of the Scythe and Magrider vs all other comparable vehicles, it barely requires any explanation!

[maradine]

No true Scotsman, eh?

[Rothnang]

Scythes have by far the worst rocket pods in the game because of the double fire thing they do.

People who still think Magriders are overpowered just haven't wrapped their head around the advantages of a turret yet. I would love if I could spawn Vanguards on my Vanu character.

[FreeSpeech]

Turrets? Oh you mean those things that can be shot to pieces from 100 miles across the map by a strafling Magrider on a hilltop that takes over 6 accurate shots to kill? Yes turrets are well useful! The ability to strafe in a tank is something people seem to take so lightly!

Vanguards are ok, but extremely slow and cumbersome, meaning they can get shot to pieces by most aircraft relatively easily. I at least don't mind the VG, but would much rather have a Magrider.

The double fire thing isn't a big deal. If anything it helps them to aim and you only have to land 1-2 shots on infantry to wipe them out.

[Baneblade]

The only time air seems to even give a fuck Im around is when Im in a vehicle or when Im shooting missiles at them on foot. Any other time they just ignore me.

So maybe I don't see the problem with how it is.

[typhaon]

Let's stop pretending this is such a difficult problem.

Make air units - specifically the Liberator - more killable from the ground and the problem becomes much less of an issue, immediately.

Let's not kid ourselves... the Lib is a 2-man, death dealing, over-armored, AOE platform - that with upgrades just about flies like an ESF. There were phases of beta where this was not an issue.

PS2 works fine with "UP" air units... it's not fun for many with "OP" air units.

[DaPope]

I like the idea of vehicles can only spot other vehicles, however they should still be able to see infantry if infantry spots them. It only makes sense, if your team is coordinating there is no reason that a ground troop can not "call in an air strike" and provide solid data.

It's stated before, but right now unless the draw distance is changed there is still a huge advantage to infantry. ESFs can get locked on and shot from the ground without ever being able to shoot back. Although personally I think this mechanic isn't all bad. If air wants to focus on infantry they have to get down very close which makes them vulnerable to all kinds of enemy weapons, mountains, and obstacles that can quickly end your flight.

Something that I think people forget is that when an infantry unit dies they come back in a few seconds. When air goes down it is several minutes before they can return to the fight. So while the air can make a big impact in a few seconds once it is down the infantry can quickly and easily have an even bigger impact on the fight.

I'd also like to point out the resource argument. If you look at Esamir for VS and TR we only have 10 resources initially (Warp Gate). Realistically even with aggressive capturing the most VS or TR can expect to have is about 35 per 5 minutes. If a Scythe costs 200 to pull and is show down in seconds here is what it would cost (in time) to replace it:

200 / 35 = 5.7 (round up to 6), resources reset every 5 minutes, so 6x5 = 30. So it would take the average player 30 minutes to be able to recover the resources that Scythe cost. Liberators are even worse at closer to 45 minutes.

Just something to think about.

[Thunderhawk]

I like the idea of vehicles can only spot other vehicles, however they should still be able to see infantry if infantry spots them. It only makes sense, if your team is coordinating there is no reason that a ground troop can not "call in an air strike" and provide solid data.

It's stated before, but right now unless the draw distance is changed there is still a huge advantage to infantry. ESFs can get locked on and shot from the ground without ever being able to shoot back. Although personally I think this mechanic isn't all bad. If air wants to focus on infantry they have to get down very close which makes them vulnerable to all kinds of enemy weapons, mountains, and obstacles that can quickly end your flight.

Something that I think people forget is that when an infantry unit dies they come back in a few seconds. When air goes down it is several minutes before they can return to the fight. So while the air can make a big impact in a few seconds once it is down the infantry can quickly and easily have an even bigger impact on the fight.

I'd also like to point out the resource argument. If you look at Esamir for VS and TR we only have 10 resources initially (Warp Gate). Realistically even with aggressive capturing the most VS or TR can expect to have is about 35 per 5 minutes. If a Scythe costs 200 to pull and is show down in seconds here is what it would cost (in time) to replace it:

200 / 35 = 5.7 (round up to 6), resources reset every 5 minutes, so 6x5 = 30. So it would take the average player 30 minutes to be able to recover the resources that Scythe cost. Liberators are even worse at closer to 45 minutes.

Just something to think about.

Sorry, you are using sound logic to disprove the majority asking for an air Nerf, this cannot be allowed to continue !!!

:)


(I agree with everything you said btw)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baneblade]

The only time air seems to even give a fuck Im around is when Im in a vehicle or when Im shooting missiles at them on foot. Any other time they just ignore me.

So maybe I don't see the problem with how it is.