Tunnels wont really fix anything

[krnasaur]

SO, you have this new tunnel system that makes spawn camping difficult. Bases fixed? No.


Now defenders have a safer passage to the main part of the lobby to get farmed by vehicles and still cant defend the base

[ShadetheDruid]

Bases fixed? No.

Has anyone ever claimed that it would? Small steps. That's how you tell if a change works well or not.

[KaskaMatej]

Do you know where will tunnels lead? Because, like me, I don't think you actually know where will the exit of the tunnels actually go.

[Natir]

Baby steps and band-aids won't fix this game.

[Rockit]

First thing that comes to mind when I hear tunnels is grenade spam. Have to see how it works out and exactly what SOE has in mind I guess. Might need to tone down grenade range or power. Time will tell.

[Cyridius]

We haven't seen or experienced the tunnels yet. We don't know what they're like.

Baby steps and band-aids won't fix this game.
Wide sweeping changes could easily fuck things up more than they are already.

[Rockit]

Baby steps and band-aids won't fix this game.

Yeah they need touchdowns, not field goals.

[Redshift]

The game engine can't do underground.... so fuck knows what the tunnels will be like.... i imagine they'll just bodge some bloody great above-ground "thing " accross the CY.

It's not going to cut it.

[Rago]

I like the tunnels.

[KaskaMatej]

The game engine can't do underground...

You're wrong.

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/288881512303169536

[ringring]

SO, you have this new tunnel system that makes spawn camping difficult. Bases fixed? No.


Now defenders have a safer passage to the main part of the lobby to get farmed by vehicles and still cant defend the base
If that's all they are then no..... that does not constitute a change.

[Natir]

You're wrong.

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/288881512303169536

Did you read the part where Higby said they were waiting on that for a while? Meaning, it couldn't be done before but now it can. What else can their magical engine not do?

[Rockit]

Kinda off topic but it looks base related. What the heck is this? Putting giant squid in those new tunnels?

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2262

Higby give any details?

[bpostal]

It will, of course, depend on where these tunnels end up at. If they're on the second level of a three story building, with no windows then good.
If it opens to a small shack, with two exits (both of which are easily campable by vehicles) then it'll be almost as bad as what we've got now.

[AThreatToYou]

SO, you have this new tunnel system that makes spawn camping difficult. Bases fixed? No.


Now defenders have a safer passage to the main part of the lobby to get farmed by vehicles and still cant defend the base

I don't care what they will or won't fix. I still want them and still think the game should have them.

It also depends on the size of tunnels; eventually I'm hoping for some pretty large complexes underground. Tunnels with a small entrance, but wide enough for about 5 guys to stand shoulder to shoulder.

[GTGD]

You know these tunnels are just going to be extra choke points for the defenders to get farmed at, except it will be by attacking infantry instead of vehicles. A couple weeks after they realize it has done nothing but help the attackers more they'll throw in some boxes and cover, then pretend everything is fixed.

[KaskaMatej]

Did you read the part where Higby said they were waiting on that for a while? Meaning, it couldn't be done before but now it can. What else can their magical engine not do?

I proved you wrong, I couldn't know what else Forgelight is able or unable to do, nor do I really care.

They weren't able to make tunnels before, now they can. Period.

[Ghoest9]

I think the OP is mostly right.

They might slightly help those situations where 1 or 2 libs manage to lock down a small base but other wise they wont matter much.

[Beerbeer]

If anything prolongs base fights, no matter what it is, it's a good thing.

Now, people just desert bases under heavy attack. At least this may keep more people around for longer to at least make it interesting for both sides. I think MORE is needed.

[Rockit]

I wonder if it would be possible to get a brief sneak peek at them. Where is Hamma? Use your influence and at least get us a pic (vid better of course).

[ringring]

You know these tunnels are just going to be extra choke points for the defenders to get farmed at, except it will be by attacking infantry instead of vehicles. A couple weeks after they realize it has done nothing but help the attackers more they'll throw in some boxes and cover, then pretend everything is fixed.

That's right but what's the problem.

Spawn camping cannot be prevented, however the issue is that spawn camping is too easy and too final because it is tanks and liberators that do it.

It happens too quickly and there is no way to fight back.

Whereas, if the attackers have to fight hard to gain sufficient advantage to lock down the spawns it means that we have had a fight, and that's the aim here.

Currently spawn camping by vehicles is too easy and fights are too easyily killed and bases too easily taken. Done right, this should extend the infantry fights and hopefully reward infantry tactical play too.

[Rivenshield]

I just hope they don't lead outside the bloody walls.

I'd also like to see some old-fashioned walkways from the central building *to* the walls.

[Illtempered]

Um, since we know nothing about them, except that they are an idea that hasn't even been implemented yet, I don't think we have enough information to make a judgement as to whether they will be useful or not.

Depending on how they are designed, they may be useful, or they may even make it worse for base-defense. I don't understand why they won't just revert the design of tech-plants. We all used to have some epic and long-lasting fights there. I certed gate-shield diffuser on my Sundy just for that reason, to crack the nut of the Tech-Plant farm. Lo and behold it worked! Now I have no reason to use it because nobody ever defends Tech-Plants anymore.

[Methonius]

If they are smart and do what they said they were going to do then they will lead into the walls around the base and that is the easiest place for them to defend from and the hardest for the defenders to tank spam shells into. Also if they are smart they will make a tunnel from their spawn going to the SCU chambers of the maps and one into the courtyard. The courtyard exit will prob be the only one easily camped but if they put shielded openings around it like in the form of a pillbox then if your a tank standing around it you are dumb.

[Beerbeer]

I want bases that can be contested to the very end.

I want to feel that adrenaline rush of saving a base in the very last minute. I want to feel that urgency to protect the cap point to the bitter, bitter end. To me, that is fun.

This game lacks this completely. Fix the bases. All of them and no half-measures.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Easy solution to spawn camping...

Destroy the spawn tubes!

[AThreatToYou]

Easy solution to spawn camping...

Destroy the spawn tubes!

this and nothing else
make the spawns themselves contestable. right now, without spawns being underground, that just wouldn't work.
with tunnels, it could be possible to make access to spawn tubes only available to the enemy from the tunnels.

[Beerbeer]

Nothing wrong with killing a spawn point, provided the defenders have equal "footing" as the attackers, as in, infantry VS infantry. Destroying spawn tubes should be relatively difficult, as it was in ps1.

Park a lib and a few tanks nearby and the fight is more or less over. I'm sorry, but that's just so stupid.

Vehicles have their purpose. They allow for mobility and the capability to clear out the outer defenses, control the surrounding area, prevent and/or impede reinforcements and destroy other vehicles should they be there, but you want to take over a base, do it the hard way, as it should be.

You can't attack a base unless you can get to the base and control the area around it. Vehicles do this. Vehicles can also prevent this. Now, it's just all vehicles, everywhere. Dumb.

[SixShooter]

Um, since we know nothing about them, except that they are an idea that hasn't even been implemented yet, I don't think we have enough information to make a judgement as to whether they will be useful or not.

We must denounce every idea and every change from the devs as being a complete failure without having seen said ideas and changes put into place while at the same time we must scream for more changes :eek:

That being said, I love the tunnel thing and can't wait to see how it works
:).
:cheers:

[StumpyTheOzzie]

We must denounce every idea and every change from the devs as being a complete failure without having seen said ideas and changes put into place while at the same time we must scream for more changes :eek:

That being said, I love the tunnel thing and can't wait to see how it works
:).
:cheers:

I don't LOL very often. You've brightened up my day :)

Has it ever been explained WHY the devs don't want to introduce PS1 elements? I heard some rubbish remark about this being a new game but not a remake (or words to that effect) but that doesn't actually qualify as a reasonable explanation.

If something worked in PS1, WHY are they not re-introducing it for PS2?

[Eliphas]

If something worked in PS1, WHY are they not re-introducing it for PS2?

^
This

[GTGD]

I don't LOL very often. You've brightened up my day :)

Has it ever been explained WHY the devs don't want to introduce PS1 elements? I heard some rubbish remark about this being a new game but not a remake (or words to that effect) but that doesn't actually qualify as a reasonable explanation.

If something worked in PS1, WHY are they not re-introducing it for PS2?

Most of the devs never played PS1, and many of them have been up front about saying how they like new FPS and wanted to make PS2 feel more like them.

There was also a post a year or two ago explaining that they didn't want to just remake Planetside, they wanted to "make the game their own".

[Beerbeer]

Wasn't ps1 actually built and developed by Verant Interactive, sort of a wholly owned/absorbed subsidiary?

Yeah, I doubt those guys are still around. However, I think they did a much better job balancing (at least initially) the holy trinity of infantry, ground and air.

[Rockit]

Wasn't ps1 actually built and developed by Verant Interactive, sort of a wholly owned/absorbed subsidiary?

Yeah, I doubt those guys are still around. However, I think they did a much better job balancing (at least initially) the holy trinity of infantry, ground and air.

Sony spun off their PC games division and it went through several names I think, something like RedEye, 989 and then Verant. Then they brought them back in under the Sony Motion Pictures group but SOE is still a wholly owned subsidiary LLC of Sony. SOE reports to the SCE division now (Sony Computer Entertainment now so Smed's boss is the head of SCE). Not sure how many are still around from those days though.

Oh and about balancing... it had to be much easier with only 3 empire specific MBT's. Much more common pool vehicles in PS1.

EDIT: Shoot, I forgot about the ES buggies. Wish we had buggies back. They could fill a void and cut down on some of the heavy hitting vehicles. Bang bus were different too but not that much. Thinking about this. Buggies might be the needed missing link. Jack up the cost and timers on the tanks so if you needed a ride better than an ATV it might do the trick. Hmmmm...

[Brusi]

You're wrong.

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/288881512303169536

I dunno... i seem to find a hole in the terrain at least every couple of play sessions...

[Brusi]

Most of the devs never played PS1, and many of them have been up front about saying how they like new FPS and wanted to make PS2 feel more like them.

There was also a post a year or two ago explaining that they didn't want to just remake Planetside, they wanted to "make the game their own".

Any of the dev's that have any sway on the direction that development is going used to play the original Planetside.

My take on it is that they feel that Planetside wasn't as successful as it could have been due to it being too slow/involved/complicated. They did their market research for PS2, both in what was popular (Battlefield), and the elements that made people love Planetside so much (most common result being "massive battles").

Unfortunately the reductionist results of their market research left out all the little things that made people love Planetside so much. Hopefully we will see the lions share of these little things return in some form or another over the course of their 5 year plan ;p

[Furber]

You're right about it not fixing the whole base, but tunnels are definitely a step in the right direction (assuming they don't fuck it up terribly).

I know this is too hopefully, but what I'd love to see come out of adding tunnels is a larger embrace of indoor combat. I'd have to see what they have in mind first, but if they had a more expansive underground indoor area that would be pretty sweet. If even just for one facility type.

[maradine]

I dunno... i seem to find a hole in the terrain at least every couple of play sessions...

I call it a Hawking Hole.

[Baneblade]

Tunnels will improve the situation. So long as the attacking force actually has to use them to actually control the base.

It will not, however, solve the other core issues.

[Sunrock]

God not one more of those "Help some one kill me nerf every thing now threads..."

[EVILoHOMER]

They need to just put a roof over the courtyard and make it so it's a big infantry battle inside like the Bio-dome.

Sorted.

[Subedai]

Kinda off topic but it looks base related. What the heck is this? Putting giant squid in those new tunnels?

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2262

Higby give any details?

Hossin?

[ringring]

More than just the tunnels they probably need to move the SCU (Amp stations and Tech Plant).

~Imaging an assault is going well and the attackers force the defenders out of the main building.

In the Amp Station, tunnels or not that is game over sonce the attackers have easy access to the SCU and even if they don't immediately blow the SCU they can move a AMS into the main building and therefore be able to reinforce more quickly from the AMS than the defenders from the spawn room. Defenders can do little.

SCU should be moved nearer to the spawn rooms (or spawns themselves are made destructable).

[ringring]

God not one more of those "Help some one kill me nerf every thing now threads..."

I didn't follow that tbh.

[Figment]

Asked Higby by tweet if we could see the new spawnbuildings ahead of time, if the CC would move into the same building (really hope they also make the buildings centralised to outposts) and with regards to tunnels if the CC would move underground as well and what the logistical distance to travel would be from the nearest enemy Sunderer option and spawns.

No response as of yet.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Holes in the terrain! YAY! Now this engine only needs to be able to handle liquids and it's on par with the quake 3 engine.

Biting sarcasm aside, that's really a good thing. It's just that with the level of competence shown with the whole "release" thing, i can't help it but to point out that all the flak they got (and will get) when it comes to the engine feels deserved when you go live on a better tech demo. :p


Edit: Still, credit where credit is due. Tunnels are definetely a step into the right direction.

[Archonzero]

Tunnels are just a bandaid (as welcome a change as it is) hopefully a temporary bandaid until they do a proper redesign.

They need to just put a roof over the courtyard and make it so it's a big infantry battle inside like the Bio-dome.

Sorted.

Yup been calling for this one for a while. Even if they didn't include the underground portion an moved everything into another relevant location, it would be a vast improvement to the capture base mechanic.

Infantry vs infantry, with just enough room for vehicles to drive into the courtyard, an the layout should really hamstring vehicular maneuvering since it should have an urban combat close knit layout. Mainspawn should be attached to the main building, with entry points into it.. as well exits into a series of attached courtyard buildings.

The exact thoughts on why, you've managed to push the defenders into a spawn infantry only scenario.. therefore if you want to lockdown the spawn, it should only be camp able by infantry. This way it's still a fair fight (even though the attackers have the upper hand).

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=874914&postcount=22

[Canaris]

Wasn't ps1 actually built and developed by Verant Interactive, sort of a wholly owned/absorbed subsidiary?

Verant Interactive was spun off from 989 studios (both of which were wholey owned by SOE) When 989 was moved to focus on Playstation games and Verant was to focus on PC titles.

They've always been SOE companies, just same horse different colour is all.

[Valkar]

I want bases that can be contested to the very end.

I want to feel that adrenaline rush of saving a base in the very last minute. I want to feel that urgency to protect the cap point to the bitter, bitter end. To me, that is fun.

This game lacks this completely. Fix the bases. All of them and no half-measures.

I feel exactly the same. I dont understand why they didnt keep the same method of base design as PS1 with out walls and defenses which when breached would become the attackrs and the defenders would be backed into the base itself with only Max Units and Infantry to hold out.

In these situations the defenders would hold on in hopes of a relief force of friendlies turning up and breaking the siege (you know like in real warfare).

Where right now a base is about to be attacked by a zerg so the defenders redeploy to Warpgate and go and attack somewhere else.

We need Alpha base designs with some PS1 flare, we need a lattice system so we can't just go around the enemy and we need all this pretty soon!

[Strategy]

They need to just put a roof over the courtyard and make it so it's a big infantry battle inside like the Bio-dome.

Sorted.

Pretty much this. If, at certain bases, there were shields (maybe similar to the look of the warp gate shields) that could be enabled and disabled inside the base there would be much more variety in gameplay.

[Dkamanus]

Be happy they are now able to do tunnels effectively.

We might see different base layouts thanks to those tunnels, places more infantry based and friendly.

[EVILoHOMER]

You cannot do anything more than put a roof on the bases unless you want to redesign the whole thing. The problem with them is, there are no indoor areas shielded from vehicles like what Planetside had. At best in these bases you'll have like one room, however thing apart from Bio-domes are exposed and even then the Bio-Domes barely have indoor space themselves.

[Hamma]

I'm excited they can actually go underground now in the engine. I don't think anyone expects this to be any sort of end all fix though.

[Rothnang]

The problem with bases in this game is that its way too easy to get in, and once you're inside any notion of defending the perimeter just goes out the window.

Take the towers for example. Their design is just awful, because defending them by shooting down from the various battlements is completely impossible. The only way to actually defend them is to hold the stairs, and you can't shoot any enemies that have rushed into your hangar from the defensive positions or turrets of the tower.

Basically it rewards people for just making a mad dash into the hangar, with a Sunderer if they have one, and once they are in there the defender has no advantage anymore, it's just a fight in a building, who owns the building is irrelevant.

[Dkamanus]

I'm excited they can actually go underground now in the engine. I don't think anyone expects this to be any sort of end all fix though.

I think the real question should: Why now? Couldn't it before? Why not? If it could, why not implement such designs in the first place?

It's just too strange to see them say tunnels werent support, but you saw Pieces of tunnel in places like Nott Amp Station. This sounded more like a total unwillingness to make places more infantry focused, most probably because defending the places would be far more easy then attacking.

[Beerbeer]

I think the real question should: Why now? Couldn't it before? Why not? If it could, why not implement such designs in the first place?

It's just too strange to see them say tunnels werent support, but you saw Pieces of tunnel in places like Nott Amp Station. This sounded more like a total unwillingness to make places more infantry focused, most probably because defending the places would be far more easy then attacking.

I hope people understand my outright contempt and level of cynicism when we see changes (that are absolutely necessary IMO) implemented now when they should have been added from the very beginning, with many people crying and moaning back in beta to change this.

They need to fix towers and buff outposts as well, now, immediately. Put walls up in towers so tanks cannot shoot in on the capping level.

[ShadetheDruid]

It's just too strange to see them say tunnels werent support, but you saw Pieces of tunnel in places like Nott Amp Station.

Any tunnels in the game at the minute are just U shaped dips in the terrain with objects placed over the top.

Edit: Anyway, i'm hopeful about this too. This means underground facilities are a possibility, we'll just have to see what they come up with.

[p0intman]

if the tunnels work this specific problem out (spawns being farmed by tanks at amp stations and tech plants) they should then put the generators down underground and force infantry to fight over them old school style. keep some control points above ground, but not have it be end all be all of base capping.

[Sledgecrushr]

if the tunnels work this specific problem out (spawns being farmed by tanks at amp stations and tech plants) they should then put the generators down underground and force infantry to fight over them old school style. keep some control points above ground, but not have it be end all be all of base capping.

Yes definitely some of this^
What I want to see is variety between the bases. They can leave some open and then the rest in various defensive situations. Variety is the spice of life.

[Rothnang]

Locking vehicles out of the fight shouldn't be the goal, since that doesn't in any way increase how easy it is to defend something, it's just a cheap way around actually balancing combined arms warfare.

[Sledgecrushr]

Locking vehicles out of the fight shouldn't be the goal, since that doesn't in any way increase how easy it is to defend something, it's just a cheap way around actually balancing combined arms warfare.

None of us dont want to lock vehicles out of the fight. I think we have a consensus here that vehicle spam in a predominantly infantry situation was killing the game. Tank and air was farming infantry because of the openness of the base design, thats not fun for a lot of folks. We just want some better delineated areas that make infantry more relevant.

[Rockit]

I'm excited they can actually go underground now in the engine. I don't think anyone expects this to be any sort of end all fix though.

Can you imagine Everquest Next without dungeons? wink wink And no it won't be the fix all here but it will open up opportunity for extensive future base basements and such. Think of this as version 00.00.01. Will be nice to get to 01.00.00.

[ringring]

Asked Higby by tweet if we could see the new spawnbuildings ahead of time, if the CC would move into the same building (really hope they also make the buildings centralised to outposts) and with regards to tunnels if the CC would move underground as well and what the logistical distance to travel would be from the nearest enemy Sunderer option and spawns.

No response as of yet.

Do my ears decieve me?

I turned on FNO ops on youtube and JimmyWhis said that in the next show they would be showcasing tunnels..... I expect this won't be the final iteration but would be a work in progress...... so that 4 days folks.

[ShadetheDruid]

Do my ears decieve me?

I turned on FNO ops on youtube and JimmyWhis said that in the next show they would be showcasing tunnels..... I expect this won't be the final iteration but would be a work in progress...... so that 4 days folks.

Yeah, they said they'd be doing little showcases of upcoming stuff in future shows (well, they would've started in the last episode, but I think they had technical issues). Well worth tuning in just to see some sneak peeks, and hopefully that means more than just of tunnels.

[RykerStruvian]

Kinda off topic but it looks base related. What the heck is this? Putting giant squid in those new tunnels?

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2262

Higby give any details?
That is Hossin...the new continent they are working on. It is a jungle/swampy marsh continent. Looking forward to it actually...really excited.

[EVILoHOMER]

I'm excited they can actually go underground now in the engine. I don't think anyone expects this to be any sort of end all fix though.

Hopefully Caverns aren't coming.

[Wahooo]

Tunnels are a step. Hopefully it is as much a test for them in implementing underground levels to bases.
YES this does not fix anything.
YES it is going to take more.

The defensability of bases is simply going to take a LOT more. I don't think we can reasonably think it will be done in one patch... maybe several even.

[Redshift]

You're wrong.

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/288881512303169536

Well that's good news :), it's new though

[SixShooter]

Saying that tunnels wont fix anything is wrong. Adding tunnels fixes the fact that there are currently no tunnels in the game :p.
:cheers:

[ShadetheDruid]

Let's not forget that tunnels aren't the only physical spawn-related change coming in the patch as well, so it's not like they're making a singular change to spawns all on its own.

[Hamma]

I think the real question should: Why now? Couldn't it before? Why not? If it could, why not implement such designs in the first place?


Beats me, all I know is they couldn't before.

[Rockit]

But never fear, I am sure they will give Libs bunker busters shortly after the patch :lol:

[Dkamanus]

What I want to see is a multi-layered multi-floored base inside a mountain that has objectives in a lot of places, which make sense and make the infantry combat interesting. Although not JUST hallways (bigger rooms in betwen), I think people want some bases as well.

[Archonzero]

Locking vehicles out of the fight shouldn't be the goal, since that doesn't in any way increase how easy it is to defend something, it's just a cheap way around actually balancing combined arms warfare.
None of us dont want to lock vehicles out of the fight. I think we have a consensus here that vehicle spam in a predominantly infantry situation was killing the game. Tank and air was farming infantry because of the openness of the base design, thats not fun for a lot of folks. We just want some better delineated areas that make infantry more relevant.

Exactly Sledge. I've no intention of wanting them to lock vehicles out of the fight, neither do my ideas for base redesigns. Basically there are 3 combined arms elements, air, ground, infantry. What I've suggested in my base redesign elements is this.

Attacker makes a push to a base, it should require (not always) a combined arms approach to overwhelm the outer defensive lines (outer camps + outer wall defenses).

Following this, further assaults should require a combined arms, infantry + ground to get footholds into the inner yard of the base itself. Infantry should play the key role here, an the inner yard layout should be an urban close quarter style setup. As anyone knows urban combat is not a place where ground vehicles should dominate, they simply have no room to maneuver an are very vulnerable if not supported by a strong infantry presence.

The final push into the base should be purely infantry! As well the respawn point for the defenders should only allow infantry to lock it down. This gives the defense a completely level field in terms of odds to break the lock down an attempts to resecure the base.

In it's current form, there's really little to no chance of such options.

[BlaxicanX]

The three arms of a fight should counter each other in a rock-paper-scissors manner.

Air units counter ground vehicles, being used primarily to harass tank convoys and destroy sunderers that are either en route to a base or camping out around the edges. In turn, air units get countered by infantry, who can blow them out of the sky with either AA turrets (which should destroy ships fairly easily) or mass AA missile launcher fire (which individually should not pose a threat for aircraft, but when combined in mass volleys should be enough to be lethal). In turn, infantry get murdered by tanks, which are used to bombard buildings, fight other tanks or suppress infantry mobs. Tanks get countered by aircraft, and the cycle continues.

In this manner, you force each facet of the game to have a specific role. Aircraft are king on the open road, in-between bases, but can't mercilessly farm bases by hovering around them due to how easily a base's anti-air can trash them. So in order to bring aircraft near a base, you need masses of infantry to storm the base first, and "silence the guns", so to speak. The infantry make it to the base alive by virtue of having tanks that transport and cover them via bombarding a base and dueling any tanks that are defending it. Once infantry reach the base, they can engage the infantry inside of it, shut down the various important systems within it, including the AA turrets, which allow aircraft to bombard the base and galaxies to perform airdrops.

How to make this scenario a reality? Make AA turrets vastly stronger, enough to kill aircraft in just a few seconds of sustained fire, and make aa missile launchers do more damage (but not enough to one-shot a plane). AA turrets should be either extremely resilient to all forms of enemy fire, or completely invulnerable, with the only way to destroy them being either hacking, C4 or disabling an important system like gens.

Give the Lightning's gun an extremely weak, near non-existent splash radius, but compensate by making the blast do more damage. Also, give the turret a low vertical-arc, so it's harder to aim up into buildings. This gives it a dedicated anti-armor role, with it being less effective versus infantry.

Give the two-man tank a larger splash damage radius, enough to kill two or three people in one blast, but give it a slow rate of fire, and have it shoot in an arc instead of straight- this gives it a dedicated artillery role, good against infantry and against buildings, but less effective versus enemy tanks.

[PredatorFour]

Maybe tunnels wont fix problems in the short term but i am hopeful that in the long term things like spawns will be UNDERGROUND too. I hope they take this direction now they can do it !

[Baneblade]

Locking vehicles out of the fight shouldn't be the goal, since that doesn't in any way increase how easy it is to defend something, it's just a cheap way around actually balancing combined arms warfare.

It worked fine in PS1. Vehicles have their role. Infantry need to have theirs. It's all part of combined arms. Being able to sit in your tank and farm a base cap in progress is not combined arms warfare.

[Figment]

Combined arms camping is not combined arms. It's just OP camping.


The role of vehicles is to push and gain ground. The role of infantry is to consolidate that. If you let vehicles consolidate terrain through camping, then infantry have no clear role beyond repairing the vehicles they hop back into.

[Beerbeer]

Combined arms camping is not combined arms. It's just OP camping.


The role of vehicles is to push and gain ground. The role of infantry is to consolidate that. If you let vehicles consolidate terrain through camping, then infantry have no clear role beyond repairing the vehicles they hop back into.

Exactly. This is a vehicle game; infantry is just pure fodder.

[Rothnang]

It worked fine in PS1. Vehicles have their role. Infantry need to have theirs. It's all part of combined arms. Being able to sit in your tank and farm a base cap in progress is not combined arms warfare.

Forcing everyone out of their vehicles if they want to participate in a base cap isn't either though.

[Rockit]

Forcing everyone out of their vehicles if they want to participate in a base cap isn't either though.

But you don't have to and still participate. Had a good fight at Peris one time where the infantry fight dragged on and several of us in armor patrolled around outside base and sure enough NC sent armor in from the East. We had a good fight with them to keep them out of the infoor fight and had air above doing the same thing. Eventually we (VS) took the base back from NC. It was picturebook of how fights should progress in this game. Funny how I still recall it to this day from early beta.

[Figment]

Forcing everyone out of their vehicles if they want to participate in a base cap isn't either though.

Actually it is and you're wrongfully applying combined arms by making the rather ludicrous assumption it's not a combined arms GAME if you don't directly engage in every fight with EVERY type of unit.


A game is combined arms when all types of units are present in the game and have their purpose in this game regarding roles. That doesn't mean that every single combat engagement has to have every type of unit, or every stage of combat sees the same units in action. One does not continue shelling or worse, firing artillery into the thick of a hand to hand battle either. That doesn't mean that by the times the artillery grows silent, it had not taken part in the battle!

One does not fly a bomber inside a bunker. One does not drive artillery on the front line. That doesn't mean they don't have their own roles within the entire combined arms game.

You should frame combined arms within the context of the entire game, rather than look at every single engagement independently from the rest. Those stages in engagement are not possible without the creation of that situation by other unit types.

The entire engagement with all the stages of combat together is where combined arms has a persistent presence, but not every particular role is continuous.


That's not that hard to understand, is it?


Vehicles can still be used as a tool of suppression and courtyard control and defense against external threats and frustrate enemy logistics and reinforcements, while the local friendly infantry take on the local enemy infantry.

[MrBloodworth]

Forcing everyone out of their vehicles if they want to participate in a base cap isn't either though.

The HORROR!

You may have to get out of your tank, IF you want to directly participate in the next stage of a base capture. OH NOZ!

Or, you can stay in your tank. No one is forcing anything. Whoever told you that you alone would be able to participate in every action, at any time and at every stage, with any equipment, lied to you. Its just not how it works.

This is not COD. COD seems to be where this mentality comes from. The idea that no mater what you do or what choice you make, you will never be wrong or ill equipped.

[Figment]

Just a small illustration, Rothang:

You say "but vehicles aren't fighting infantry indoors, so it's not combined arms!".


I submit to you that shotgun wielding medics are not taking down aircraft at flight ceiling as infantry. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee you ATVs and Sunderers aren't doing that either.

[Baneblade]

Forcing everyone out of their vehicles if they want to participate in a base cap isn't either though.

Even though everyone else managed to get this particular grenade down your throat, I still want to say that you have no idea what combined arms means.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

wow. He got Told.

Once again though, a teaser from the devs has been over-analysed and theorycrafted into oblivion without anyone being able to see what the actual tunnel looks like and therefore what effects it will have.

Patience. Wait and see is the order of the day.

I wonder if they are going to be dark?

[OCNSethy]

wow. He got Told.

Once again though, a teaser from the devs has been over-analysed and theorycrafted into oblivion without anyone being able to see what the actual tunnel looks like and therefore what effects it will have.

Patience. Wait and see is the order of the day.

I wonder if they are going to be dark?

I hope not... the dark scares me :eek:

But you are correct, lets see what it looks like before we pull it apart.

[Cyridius]

Guys the sooner we all accept that PS2 is the testing ground for Forgelight, the less pissed you'll probably end up being when you realise the Engine's limitations and that it'll be improved over time.

[Wahooo]

Guys the sooner we all accept that PS2 is the testing ground for Forgelight, the less pissed you'll probably end up being when you realise the Engine's limitations and that it'll be improved over time.

Why would this make us LESS pissed? I would be fine if the Beta lasted over a year with them saying "This is a testing ground for pushing the limits and finding out what Forgelight can and cannot do".

Instead they released a game prematurely and are still experimenting and testing things the ENGINE can do which means real fixes to design issues are HOW FAR AWAY?

Accepting this makes me MORE pissed to be honest.

[Climhazzard]

What else can their magical engine not do?

Cure cancer.

[FreeSpeech]

Least in a tunnel you can't be killed by other non-NC guns or a Scythe!

[Baneblade]

Cure cancer.

Actually, it does. However it still chokes on cooking fried chicken.