NewSith
2013-02-09, 04:30 PM
AA:
(Just) Flak concept is OP
A direct fire Anti-Air measure is OP in its concept, because the only real counter to it is running away. If you make it so Air can attack flak head on, than the thing will be UP in 1v1 situations, because of flak bearer's limited movement. If you make flak too strong, numbers will make the weapon dominant over any sky. In other words - the devs created a problem for themselves, making flak weaponry the primary Anti-Air measure.
(Unjust) Lock-on Weaponry allows firing and forgetting.
While it is obviously understandable that nobody likes dying to such kind of weaponry, claiming it to be OP is a mistake. Due to the nature of the lock-on missiles, they are "stacking" on your tail. This means that even 100000000 missiles fired at you simultaneously will not hit you if you just pop your flares. Balancing lock-on timer vs flare timer is way easier, than balancing Flak vs Air.
(Unjust) AA is overabundant
The people (*cough*), claim that AA became OP, because of the choices the game offers. But the only truth is - with new tower and outpost spawnroom designs, camping these is no longer an option. This makes it so there's a potential "area denial range" near every outpost and tower.
Air:
(Just) Air-to-Ground Weaponry works too well against everything.
The reason for that is the game's leaning towards realism. And I concur with that approach, since later PS1 Reavers' inability to kill infantry felt rather unnatural, even for a guy that never played ANY aircraft in that game. So there should be other solutions implemented, but they MUST be implemented.
(Just) Aircraft can be pulled from nearly anywhere, at any time.
Battlefield has the limit on the amount of vehicles per map. PlanetSide cannot afford it obviously, but there should be at least some way to increase the skill ceiling, by awarding being a survivor.
(Just) Aircraft has no areas it cannot reach.
Biolab by far is the only place where aircraft cannot affect the flow completely. Yet again satellite outposts are easily camped by Air, so there's no way you can call Biolabs aircraft-free.
(Unjust) Aircraft travel on XYZ axis, and thus it's easy for them to run away.
In short: "Afterburfning away" is just as valid as finding cover from tanks as infantry.
Tanks:
(Just) Amounts of tanks
This pretty much goes into the same shelf as Air spam. There is no real award for survivng, or to be prescise there is no real punishment for dying often.
(Just) No hard counters for tanks, except equals/dominants
This is really an issue I had a very long and unproductive argument about once, but in short - there is no "brainless" tactic against tanks. The issue would've been redundant if tanks were limited, but since the game allows for 666 Troopers vs 666 Tanks situations, the "brainless" solution should exist. Current levels of Anti-tank weaponry are too weak to be that solution. Besides, buffing missile launchers will only result in tanks being redundant. Another reason, to raise the skill bar for tanks.
(Just) Only few big scale "tankless" areas.
Well, unlike with Aircraft, we have The Crown and Ti Alloys, that are designed to be areas with high ground vehicle denial potential. But in my opinion, there should be an entire continent dedicated to tankless combat. Like an Oshur Battle-island consisting entirely of one humongous city, a-la BF2142's Fall of Berlin.
(Unjust) Tanks are very powerful
I'll repeat myself, Tank power is absolutely balanced. But since it's the ease of access that doesn't go well with it, some way to balance that shoud be invented. It also requires mentioning, that tanks were just as strong in PlanetSide 1. Except they had an unarmed driver. What a ridiculous concept, isn't it?
Liberators:
(Just) Libs are both Tanks and Aircraft
Take everything said about Air and Tanks and there you have the most justified claim.
(Just) Dalton and Zephyr are OP because...
With Liberator being able to fly, making it a flying tank instead of a bomber is a bad idea. Even despite its using the driver+gunner scheme. Liberator has no counters to it from the ground, but the only reason for that is it can pretty much shoot stuff from afar, by just putting its nose up and letting your gunner act like a tank turret gunner shooting forward instead of down.
(Unjust) Average Liberator lifespan is huge
This whole belief is caused by the above two points altogether.
(Just) Flak concept is OP
A direct fire Anti-Air measure is OP in its concept, because the only real counter to it is running away. If you make it so Air can attack flak head on, than the thing will be UP in 1v1 situations, because of flak bearer's limited movement. If you make flak too strong, numbers will make the weapon dominant over any sky. In other words - the devs created a problem for themselves, making flak weaponry the primary Anti-Air measure.
(Unjust) Lock-on Weaponry allows firing and forgetting.
While it is obviously understandable that nobody likes dying to such kind of weaponry, claiming it to be OP is a mistake. Due to the nature of the lock-on missiles, they are "stacking" on your tail. This means that even 100000000 missiles fired at you simultaneously will not hit you if you just pop your flares. Balancing lock-on timer vs flare timer is way easier, than balancing Flak vs Air.
(Unjust) AA is overabundant
The people (*cough*), claim that AA became OP, because of the choices the game offers. But the only truth is - with new tower and outpost spawnroom designs, camping these is no longer an option. This makes it so there's a potential "area denial range" near every outpost and tower.
Air:
(Just) Air-to-Ground Weaponry works too well against everything.
The reason for that is the game's leaning towards realism. And I concur with that approach, since later PS1 Reavers' inability to kill infantry felt rather unnatural, even for a guy that never played ANY aircraft in that game. So there should be other solutions implemented, but they MUST be implemented.
(Just) Aircraft can be pulled from nearly anywhere, at any time.
Battlefield has the limit on the amount of vehicles per map. PlanetSide cannot afford it obviously, but there should be at least some way to increase the skill ceiling, by awarding being a survivor.
(Just) Aircraft has no areas it cannot reach.
Biolab by far is the only place where aircraft cannot affect the flow completely. Yet again satellite outposts are easily camped by Air, so there's no way you can call Biolabs aircraft-free.
(Unjust) Aircraft travel on XYZ axis, and thus it's easy for them to run away.
In short: "Afterburfning away" is just as valid as finding cover from tanks as infantry.
Tanks:
(Just) Amounts of tanks
This pretty much goes into the same shelf as Air spam. There is no real award for survivng, or to be prescise there is no real punishment for dying often.
(Just) No hard counters for tanks, except equals/dominants
This is really an issue I had a very long and unproductive argument about once, but in short - there is no "brainless" tactic against tanks. The issue would've been redundant if tanks were limited, but since the game allows for 666 Troopers vs 666 Tanks situations, the "brainless" solution should exist. Current levels of Anti-tank weaponry are too weak to be that solution. Besides, buffing missile launchers will only result in tanks being redundant. Another reason, to raise the skill bar for tanks.
(Just) Only few big scale "tankless" areas.
Well, unlike with Aircraft, we have The Crown and Ti Alloys, that are designed to be areas with high ground vehicle denial potential. But in my opinion, there should be an entire continent dedicated to tankless combat. Like an Oshur Battle-island consisting entirely of one humongous city, a-la BF2142's Fall of Berlin.
(Unjust) Tanks are very powerful
I'll repeat myself, Tank power is absolutely balanced. But since it's the ease of access that doesn't go well with it, some way to balance that shoud be invented. It also requires mentioning, that tanks were just as strong in PlanetSide 1. Except they had an unarmed driver. What a ridiculous concept, isn't it?
Liberators:
(Just) Libs are both Tanks and Aircraft
Take everything said about Air and Tanks and there you have the most justified claim.
(Just) Dalton and Zephyr are OP because...
With Liberator being able to fly, making it a flying tank instead of a bomber is a bad idea. Even despite its using the driver+gunner scheme. Liberator has no counters to it from the ground, but the only reason for that is it can pretty much shoot stuff from afar, by just putting its nose up and letting your gunner act like a tank turret gunner shooting forward instead of down.
(Unjust) Average Liberator lifespan is huge
This whole belief is caused by the above two points altogether.