Game balance: new jammer

[Traak]

To reduce the amount of reward for cowardice in PS2 compared to PS1, I suggest changes to make the vehicles that are more heavily armed actually fight each other.

As it is, as I observe battles from the front lines, usually cloaked, I see the same pattern, over and over:
BFR's seek out weak, undefended, or unarmed targets to destroy before running away shrieking in cowardly terror.
Planes seek out weak, undefended, or unarmed targets to destroy before running away shrieking in cowardly terror.
Tanks seek out weak, undefended, or unarmed targets to destroy before running away shrieking in cowardly terror.
Any armed vehicles at all seek out weak, undefended, or unarmed targets to destroy before running away shrieking in cowardly terror.

All while studiously avoiding, by an evidently unspoken agreement, any vehicles that might be able to shoot back, especially vehicles of the same class.

I propose a new game mechanic to limit tanks running from each other and only seeking easy infantry kills: jammers that immobilize and disarm. Why? This will make tanks AVOID infantry and focus on vehicles, air, and other things that can shoot back, and focus less on mowing infantry.

This new jammer technology can be grenade-based, or whatever delivery system is appropriate. Suddenly, instead of tanks or whatever seeking out only the weak and the unarmed to attack with sadistic glee, while running from any real fights, like true cowards, they would actually be better served to avoid picking on the weak, and ACTUALLY ATTACK OTHER TANKS, or other vehicles of their same class.

I know this would probably be a game-wrecker for the cowards and such, but it might actually improve the game overall, to actively encourage tank-to-tank battles, and since the tanks will have AA options, tank-plane battles.

Imagine, infantry shooting infantry, tanks fighting tanks, and planes fighting planes, and the ARMED targets they are supposed to be attacking.

If the tank driver felt it was a bad place to be in, stopped and no weapons, he could climb out and engage the infantry as an infantryman.

Similar technology could be applied to planes by infantry, so planes will be actively encouraged to fight something that has a far better chance of fighting back, instead of hoverspamming infantry as they do now, and, since they have hover in PS2, may do again. An AA jammer gun/rocket/beam that locks the weapons of a plane and makes it EXTREMELY hard to control, unlike the function of the T-REK in PS1, which never, in the times I used it, prevented me from getting plane-farmed anyway, would be in order.

The net desired effect I am looking at is heavily armed vehicles attacking heavily armed vehicles, all of whom can shoot back with effectiveness.

As it stands now, PS1 is just a coward splatterfest where the only reason to cert any vehicle is to more effectively pick on infantry, AMS's, ANT's or anything else that is as weak and unarmed as possible.

It is very rare to have "epic tank battles" or "epic air wars" as the armed vehicles are used primarily for picking on the weak.

Instead of the standard response of "if you don't like it, cert a tank", I think it would be better to arm those who are usually farmed by the cowards in the tech vehicles who run from a fair fight with the means to make it far more beneficial to go pick on someone in your own class.

Then we, the infantry can say "If you don't like it, go find a vehicle, plane, or installation to attack, and quit trying to rape easy kills with a vehicle."

Infantry is not supposed to be something that exists for the sadistic enjoyment of people in vehicles to farm. "Combined arms" should mean just that, not just "If you are infantry, then I will swiftly hop in my flying/driving/whatever cowardmobile to farm you, all while shrieking in fear and running away if anyone with any AV/AA capability gets within five miles.

I don't think the intent of vehicles is to run away from any armed and armored opposition and focus solely on farming soldiers. By having jamming be far more effective, this can be mitigated.

[Coreldan]

I already said this elsewhere, but I would feel tanks and aircrafts being a bit pointless after this.

Rock wasnt made to go against rock, but against scissors. Scissors werent made to fight against other scissors but to obliterate paper, etc. Yeah, realism/history is pointless when it comes to gameplay balance, but I would rather not see the kind of system where you are supposed to fight only your own class, I think it should be based on rock, paper and scissors, which your system is not.

And this comes from primarly a grunt, in a way lowest in the food chain.

[SuperMorto]

Originally Posted by Coreldan

I already said this elsewhere, but I would feel tanks and aircrafts being a bit pointless after this.

Rock wasnt made to go against rock, but against scissors. Scissors werent made to fight against other scissors but to obliterate paper, etc. Yeah, realism/history is pointless when it comes to gameplay balance, but I would rather not see the kind of system where you are supposed to fight only your own class, I think it should be based on rock, paper and scissors, which your system is not.

And this comes from primarly a grunt, in a way lowest in the food chain.

Well said, what is the point in heavy armour, if you cant kill anything with it. troops are always what folks will look for, regardless of the situation. And yes i do agree you will always look for the weaker, but that is a tactic, and give all the foot soldiers the means to disable vehicles, well, nobody will ever be in a vehicle. You will just have a load of troops with jammers. As you do now making the big stuff not big any more.

Take jammers away altogether and make people move as a team. 1 tank cant outdo 10 men/women.

Also notice* this is coming from a cloaker

[SuperMorto]

Originally Posted by Traak

As it stands now, PS1 is just a coward splatterfest where the only reason to cert any vehicle is to more effectively pick on infantry, AMS's, ANT's or anything else that is as weak and unarmed as possible.

You said it yourself, unmanned, unarmed. If you go it alone unarmed or with no support at all, then you are taking a risk. Team work is what is essential here. 1 ant alone rushing for a 5% base with no support is a bad idea and is a risk. If a rather large tank finds you, well........... thats bad luck.

Edit* support an Ant, with 2 reavers, 3 troops, 4 mags and your set. You try find any tank that will fight that?....... Team work, its all about team work......

Edit 2* Tank vs Tank is a "who got the first shot in scenario" as it is in real life. You get the first shot/the good angle/supprise/skill... you win. but you find a lone sniper on a hill. Your in a big FUCKING TANK!!! and he just jamms you to shit........ that is one of the bad points about PS1.

[Traak]

Excellent points, gentlemen.

What can be done to encourage the Epic Tank Battles and Epic Air Wars that we would all love to see.

That is really what I am looking for.

[RedKnights]

Immobilizing would just be silly, and make vehicles rather pointless.

I think BF3 took a good approach in having vehicles, tanks specifically, be just not that overwhelmingly effective against Infantry, and Infantry not that effective against tanks, making each other the biggest threat to the other's existence is a good way to encourage the use of vehicles fighting vehicles.

[Talek Krell]

The continuing existence of the jammer, the directional vulnerability of vehicles, and the mere existence of infantry AA weapons should be enough to make competent infantry perfectly viable in the field.

[CutterJohn]

Don't take squishy stuff into the field where it can be shot by tanks. Utilize cover.

As for cowardly play, it will only get worse now that there is money invested for upgrades. People did it because a dead tank is less use than a live one, and it took a bit to get back to the front(or to go back a ways for repairs). With resources tied into the things they will be even more hesitant to risk them.

Oh, and PS1s winner take all experience system didn't help much to encourage people to shoot at the harder targets.

[Traak]

Yeah, that's a good point. The PS1 system of rewarding the selfish killwhores who were even MORE selfish and conniving than the average killwhore, and would leap in front of the less-conniving killwhores to steal their kills was BROKEN.

PS1 may have claimed to reward teamwork, but in the end it rewarded pathologically selfish solipsism.

[Atuday]

I never saw the kill horring you guys talk about but I have seen several tanks run away from me in a battle because my gunner and I charged in firing. My only problem during those moments was that the tanks would run and hide and then infantry would blast the crap out of me. I was in VS mag so infantry was our weakness it seems. Adding more powerful jammers might be good or it might not. This is a balance issue that will have to wait until Beta comes around.

[Forsaken One]

I think this would be a improvement. It would be like battlefield 2142s EMP. battlefield 2142 even gave the ability to EMP air targets.

[acosmo]

read the first paragraph of the original suggestion before raising my eyebrows in "wtf"

if i was going to try and beat up an animal i'd much rather try to beat up a sheep than a bear. what's wrong with picking weak isolated targets?

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by acosmo

read the first paragraph of the original suggestion before raising my eyebrows in "wtf"

if i was going to try and beat up an animal i'd much rather try to beat up a sheep than a bear. what's wrong with picking weak isolated targets?

i read who posted the first paragraph, enough said.

[Trolltaxi]

Simply hide K/D and reward killing armoured targets with XP or resource or whatever that motivates players.

Keep the EMP ability, so grunts with cover could easily ambush armoured targets at spots where armour deserves to be killed (like canyons, urban areas etc).

Tanks and aircrafts must overcome squishees in most situations. Tank battles didn't occur just for the fun factor in real wars. They tried to kill the enemy armour to be able to attack key points, break through the fronts, etc. So tanks first, everything else later.

It is hard to grab this with gameplay mechanics.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Trolltaxi

Simply hide K/D and reward killing armoured targets with XP or resource or whatever that motivates players.

Probably not a bad idea, then people might be able to get over the meaningless stat....but probably not.