not to say the game isn't fun...

[Zetre]

but how many people are kinda dissapointed.
I still like the general idea behind the game, and the action is pretty fun, but sheesh, some of it can be so lame
yesterday, i shot a guy straight in the head with 4 sparrow rockets, and he survived. It gets really irritating after the first or second occurence.
Here is my idea of how they shoulda done things, (not that any of you care, but yeh)
The maxes should have been configured more to have weaknesses against their non targets, but shouldn't be like they are.
I think for instance, that the sparrow should fire out 5 or 6 burst mini-armor peircing rockets. So when the go out, they can swarm a vehicle like they do now. However, unless they get a lock, they should act crazy and not fly straight. But if they do hit someone (pretty much anyone but a max) it should kill them. Then the anti vehicle should have to wait a while for a lock, and then wait a second to charge the gun to fire, and only have one huge rocket at a time. This would balance the things out more, and make it more realistic. Sorry for the ramble, but right now, i think it's kinda lame how someone can get hit with 4 rockets and live to tell about it. But i don't think that i should easily be able to kill him with an AA gun either. hmmmmm, the game is sorta dissapointing me right now. The people need to come up with more original ideas.

oh yeh, one more thing, i also hate how the decimator is now 3 shots, WHEN THE HECK DID THAT HAPPEN????
I really liked the idea of a beast that's hard to aim and you only get one shot. Hmmmmmm

[Airlift]

hitting him 4 times isn't easy?

[Frozen-Monkey]

the whole point to beta testing is the "testing" part, their gonna fix this ya know.besides if people died to easily, the game wouldnt be fun

[sandmtrailboss]

Well bud , did you know there arent any hit boxes on the bodys? Hitting a dude in the foot does the same damage as hitting him in the head. It reduces lag and I like the idea of it.

[Mazuli]

Now that I've played beta, I wouldn't want hit boxes even if they could be coded in lag free. This game isn't counter-strike, it's more action packed than camping. The only people who would really get the advantage to this are infiltrators and snipers, and both really are balanced enough as it is. Plus you get the whole terran spray and pray thing getting tons of headshots. :\

[Warborn]

Wait, wait... are you trying to tell me that you're mad that your AV MAX wasn't able to kill an infantry guy easily?

Sorry for the ramble, but right now, i think it's kinda lame how someone can get hit with 4 rockets and live to tell about it.

Next time, use an AI MAX to fight infantry. This is a game, and it's meant to be fun. Who cares if a guy can survive several hits with a missile when the alternative is to make everything as ultra-realistic as possible, and end up with one weapon/vehicle that is by far head and shoulders above everything else in the game so that everyone uses that one thing and nothing else. AV MAXs have a hard time against infantry because they're good against vehicles. AI MAXs have a hard time against vehicles because they're good against infantry. Everything has a weakness. Learn to get into a squad so that your weaknesses are lessened.

[Warborn]

Originally posted by Mazuli
Now that I've played beta, I wouldn't want hit boxes even if they could be coded in lag free. This game isn't counter-strike, it's more action packed than camping. The only people who would really get the advantage to this are infiltrators and snipers, and both really are balanced enough as it is. Plus you get the whole terran spray and pray thing getting tons of headshots. :\

/agree

It players better without hit boxes. And best of all, people aren't afraid to use cover and fortifications in the game. In CS, if you stand behind a box so that only your head is poking out, you're going to get shot in the head shortly after. You force people to aim for the most vulnerable part of your body when you use cover in a hot box game.

[Zetre]

interesting point dude
But here's my rebutle to your bashing of my comments :)
i know what you're saying, but i dissagree severly. Here is my question, Have you played BF1942. If you have you would know exactly what i'm talking about. The zooka is great for vehicles, but not really anything else (only the elite, like me :), will get tons of infantry zooka kills) the artillery is great for ground, but isn't that great for air(becuase of the arc, and shell speed, not becuase of the power vs. planes. I'm saying that PS should be like that. I think that it should be hard to kill an infantry man with a rocket launcher designed for planes, but it shouldn't be easy to hit him, but take like 20 shots. See what i mean now. I'm sorry dude, but i just played a couple of hours ago for the first time, and seeing people take 20 rockets was kinda lame. They need more inteligent weapon balance in this game. It's balanced, just not really in an intelligent manner

[Warborn]

I'm sorry dude, but i just played a couple of hours ago for the first time, and seeing people take 20 rockets was kinda lame.

They don't take 20 rockets. You're exaggerating like hell. The NC AV MAX does damage to body armor before it damages health, so with infantry, you need to waste their armor and then their health. Based on experience, this does not take more than 10 direct hits against even Reinforced, and probably even takes significantly less (7 or so).

[Destroyeron]

:eek:


Just shoot until their dead, problem solved.

[Zetre]

of course i'm exadurating, i wont deny that. They don't take 20, they take like 5 or 6, and that's still lame. It just doesn't look cool dude. It's like in final fantasy when you slice through them 20 times, and it does 7 damage, and then they hit you with a club, and it does 10 damage. once again, i'm not saying that this isn't fun, i'm just pointing out a minor flaw.

[Rickenbacker]

Originally posted by Warborn
Wait, wait... are you trying to tell me that you're mad that your AV MAX wasn't able to kill an infantry guy easily?

I think he's saying he's mad his AA MAX couldn't kill infantry easily, he said he used Sparrow rockets.

There's a reason gunners didn't fire flak guns at soldiers in WW2...

[LesserShade]

I think the weapons are pretty much dead on with their damage models, save some tweaking of course.

If bazookas were the best weapons to kill infantry with, the world's armies would be equiping all their grunts with them. Ok, maybe not. Seriously though, quake, while a fun frag game is a ridiculous rocket fest because it is the best weapon so rarely does anybody use any other weapon (save railgun) when they get a rocket launcher. I personally am glad that the fine developers at sony decided that kind of faggotry is ultimately boring, repetative and generally lame and that it does not have a place in PS.

[quiet]

I have to admit I like how BF1942's AV weapon was balanced. The bazooka is more deadly to infantry than a tank but it's slow flight time, inaccuracy and reload time make it a poor anti-infanrty weapon. :thumbsup:

Having to give AV and AA weapons radically lower damages against infantry in order to make play balance seems neccesary at this point but it wasn't the best way to do things IMO.

[Russkie]

This game has a lot of potential, but from playing Asheron's Call, Everquest, Anarchy Online, Earth and Beyond, Runescape, Shadowbane, etc this game will end up in the same fashion.

Everyone will be tired of doing the same thing over and over and many will start to wonder what is the point of it. In Asheron's Call, Everquest, and Anarchy Online, I felt that there was no point really. In all of these games I've mentioned all you do after awhile is just go out and kill stuff, do missions/quests, and get
|>h@+ l00+!

I believe this game needs some sort of ending, or some sort of system where there is stability. Quite frankly from playing from a day, I have no idea who has what and what is going on. One minute one side has one base and then the other side has it the next. Part of this problem comes from people not wanting to defend or actually do something that will help empire expansion, but to rather go out get to highest level.

Some suggestions I have for SOE is that they divide this game into two different things:

One versions is where you can go out and do what you want with others you find on the server.

The other version would be to have a server(s) where it is cordinated atttacks and outfits and squads for battle are really needed.

I do believe SOE needs to really encourage group play and planning attacks on sites like this. Mabye give bonues or awards or something for planning group attacks and such.

I also like the idea people mentioned too where sants. would be taken out. I feel that empire could have a safe point, but having this mega base, which cannot be taken is insane.

[Russkie]

I also believe that the reason why a lot of the people are reacting to this game in this fashion is due to the fact that this MMOG's owners so far are mostly CS, Trives, Q3 people, rather than EQ, AC, AO people.

So people are looking for some sort of ending or conclusion like these shooters do (Deathmatch, CTF, Assault, etc).

Let me just say this to the FPS people. These type of games aren't meant to have an ending. Even though it might make more sense in reality or to FPS people, all preceeding MMOG's have been this way.

[Homicide]

Well this is not your average MMOG..... its a MMOG/FPS hybrid.

I have played EQ and DAoC and would have liked them both better if they did have some form of ending. :D

[Chanfan]

Actually, I'll have to kind of agree with him here.

I perfectly understand the play balancing aspects, and the need to make things set up so folks must work as a team. Different weapons should have their advantages and disadvantages.

Still� it is a hard pill to swallow that an infantry takes more than a few hits to wack with a fargin' anti-aircraft missile.

Now, I don't want �ber-realism. I'm fine with putting play balance first. But, it is very, very jarring to see a infantry take several of those missiles - so much so that it knocked me out of my immersion when I ran into it in VR training.

I'd prefer it if it followed a more realistic feeling approach, with the same results. Perhaps only allowing the missiles to be fired at targets they can lock on to - air targets - and having a anti-infantry secondary weapon. Perhaps having the missiles be more effective - say only 2 hits to wack a full up infantry - but having them be very wildly inaccurate unless locked on to air targets.

Same thing with the anti-armor stuff - it's just hard to swallow that something that can punch through a tank won't do the same to an infantry guy.

It is just a game, I know - but I'd rather it play more like a sci-fi movie than a cartoon.

[Chanfan]

There's a reason gunners didn't fire flak guns at soldiers in WW2...

Well, they did often enough, actually.

The 88mm gun started out as a FLAK gun, but it was discovered that it made a great anti-armor gun as well. It was also used on soft targets when needed.

The bit in Saving Private Ryan where the Germans are using a quad AA gun on the infantry happened with some frequency.

.50 Caliber MGs aren't supposed to be used on troops - but are so often that the common excuse arose that one was "shooting at his equipment".

The real reason you don't employ anti-air or anti-armor weapons against infantry is generally twofold.

Firstly, they tend to be expensive and in limited supply. Not really the case in PS, alas.

Secondly, normally you have access to other weapons designed for that role that are generally more effective at it. It's much easier to move around a machine gun than it is to move a flak gun.

I do think BF1942 has got a good feel for anti-tank vs. anti-air vs. anti-infantry, so it can be done, without having an overpowering single weapon.

[Jakal]

Yeah chanfan i have to agree on both points. In 42 the flak gun is actually pretty good at killing inaftry. 1 or 2 shots they die. Also i dont really see why the game cant end in like 6 months. That's still more persistant than most fps's. Also i think the matrix idea (or network idea) thats been thrown around here is pretty good. Basically all bases are connected by a network (it wouldn't be a real network just a system)u can only take a base if u have a base that is connected to it on the network. This promotes a constantly moving front line and then people wont be as likely to ignore attacking if they are more likely to see a fight on defense. Also this helps in terms of persistancy because locking a continent will have meant that you fought real hard for every base. And that means something. Theres more detail on this somewhere on psu but i cant remember the thread.

[joshts0]

I agree that MMOG's aren't supposed to end.. but they would make more sense if the did.

This, in its current form, isn't ideal.. but something like..
If one empire takes over every continent... world domination.

So you would win... and thats almost an impossible thing to do..

So, award anybody that was a part of it something.. of some
fashion.. I don't know what...