Long Range Combat Discussion

[HereticusXZ]

These are purely my opinions and experiences on the topic of Long Range Combat from a TR perspective, I'd highly appreciate a VS and NC perspective.

Planetside2 is a game where most of the long range combat is centered around more or less then 250-500m of fighting around a facility, Unique engagements may vary. Glorified in Bio-labs, Amp Stations, Towers, even more so if you bring into account the terrain' natural hills, rocks, and trees blocking the Line-of-Sight.
I'd like to start the ball rolling and get a discussion going on Long-Range Combat, 350m or greater.

I use personnel waypoints to gage the distance of my shot so I know which notch on the cross-hair to use. My best shots were with a Anchored-Mode AP prowler, was 800m out, Northern Indar territories, took out a lot of enemy armor at that range before the ESF' got me, very exciting.

In the Beta there was the option for a Range-Finder though I never figured out how to get it to work (I don't think it actually did work, it was just there as a possible option?). It would be nice if a legitimate Range-Finder was added into the game, either as a passive ability like holding your breath as a Sniper or as a Utility cert or weapon attachment.

Back when you could, High-Altitude Liberator could bomb pretty accurately enemy vehicles from the ceiling.

Anchored Mode AP Prowler, High Altitude Dalton, Bolt Action Sniper, In general Overwatch is my preferred role to play in PS2, Beyond Burster/Flak and Lock-On AA/AT Focus-Fire detail, there's not really much Long-Range stuff to do.

It feels like to me with every update Long-Range combat gets more and more reduced out from the fear of Indirect Fire drama, getting killed by something you can't even see that's all the way in the next zone.

It's pretty epic as a Sniper when you find that perfect Snipers-Nest, or if your in a vehicle working with forward-spotters to shoot beyond what your weapons range should be. It's also pretty thrilling to work with your squad or as a individual to counter these long-range combatants.

TL/DR: Long Range Combat, I love it, do you? Yay, nay, thoughts and opinions?

Thoughts? Discussion? These are a few of my pro's and cons on the topic of Long Range Combat, what's yours? Keep it constructive.

[AThreatToYou]

Seriously need range finder back.

It feels like to me with every update Long-Range combat gets more and more reduced out from the fear of Indirect Fire drama, getting killed by something you can't even see that's all the way in the next zone. The upcoming Infantry Only dome shields is a good example I think of taking away Long Range Combat.

That's pretty sad. It's basically the equivalent of a PS1 Orbital Strike, or an Apache copter in COD or silly stuff like that. Preventable, avoidable, but harder to warn against... until it starts happening.

At that rate, however, you are a sniper. You should go burn to death in the fiery pits of Mexico, all the while being deprived of oxygen and feeling most uncomfortably sweaty while the girl of your dreams turns you down repeatedly. And then, maybe, you can go to hell.

[HereticusXZ]

If by Hell you mean a Bolt Action Sniper in a Bio-lab then... FFFFFFFFF!!!

[HelpLuperza]

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

Seriously need range finder back.
That's pretty sad. It's basically the equivalent of a PS1 Orbital Strike, or an Apache copter in COD or silly stuff like that. Preventable, avoidable, but harder to warn against... until it starts happening.

At that rate, however, you are a sniper. You should go burn to death in the fiery pits of Mexico, all the while being deprived of oxygen and feeling most uncomfortably sweaty while the girl of your dreams turns you down repeatedly. And then, maybe, you can go to hell.

With all due respect, I don't find your comments to be constructive ... <_<: ... this is a very serious discussion...

Personally I think it was orginally supposed to go that VS (most long range options), TR (middle in number of long range options), NC (fewest long rang options)--base solely on bullet drop of each faction. However, the range of certain things doesn't make sense.

1. For example the phoenix's range does not match the information on the wiki (http://wiki.planetside-universe.com/ps/NC15_Phoenix). I believe that it get way longer than 295 meters and fire's farther than the phoenix.
   
2. Another example is the dalton and zepher's zoom. Why have a 1.5x scope if you going to add a "fog of war" or rendering changes that force you to fly between 350-400 on Esamir. I talk about that issue a little here.
   
3. Another example is the Vulcan, they increase the range but also the bloom. I feel like the bloom really didn't fix the weapons accuracy problem (accuracy compared to VS and NC equivalents). Look over the changes since the games inceptions, I am not sure if they intended the Marauder to be a long range or medium range weapon. I am curious to know what other people think of the vulcan.
   
4. Then their bursters. Bursters are no longer a long range weapon as their range is now between 350-500 if I remember correctly. Instead they have basically been replaced by the skyguard.
   
5. Another example, is the striker. The striker is kind of a long range weapon (its shorter than most of the anti-air rockets and ESRLs), however, it and all the other ESRL are probably going to get nerf in range due to missle life span and lock on changes. This ihttp://www.planetside-universe.com/f_images/ps/editor/separator.gifs kind of sad, because lock-ons are some of my favorite weapons in the game, and I feel like the developer do not fully appreciate them. Personally, though I would not be bother by the reduction if they actually fixed the problems with the other factions specific rockets, actually locked on in .1 deciseconds (.1s) when you were at least 100 m from an enemy air target.
   
6. Another example is the Saron and PPA, both the VS weapons are literally in the top 10 longest range weapons PS2 has. Personally, I feel like the PPA is more accurate than the Saron now when it comes to long range combat. (The sad part is it does little to no damage to tanks). It always struck me as odd that the particle accelerator has more accuracy than a laser...

[BlaxicanX]

He's right, though.

Snipers deserve to burn in hell, as well as people who use HEAT rounds on a tank and ESF pilots who rofl-pod lone infantrymen running across a field.

Long range combat in this game is pretty pointless for infantrymen, imo. As a tank, blowing up enemy armor from 800 meters away is worth however much time it takes to line up the sights, because a dead tank is expensive resources wasted. Long range combat between troops takes too much time and ammo for too little gain, though. With cover abound, ridiculous levels of damage drop-off, slow as fuck muzzle velocity, and death being completely meaningless, there's zero incentive to shoot someone down with your assault rifle from a distance, when it's easier to just get to short-mid range and blow them away.

[Timealude]

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

He's right, though.

Snipers deserve to burn in hell, as well as people who use HEAT rounds on a tank and ESF pilots who rofl-pod lone infantrymen running across a field.

Long range combat in this game is pretty pointless for infantrymen, imo. As a tank, blowing up enemy armor from 800 meters away is worth however much time it takes to line up the sights, because a dead tank is expensive resources wasted. Long range combat between troops takes too much time and ammo for too little gain, though. With cover abound, ridiculous levels of damage drop-off, slow as fuck muzzle velocity, and death being completely meaningless, there's zero incentive to shoot someone down with your assault rifle from a distance, when it's easier to just get to short-mid range and blow them away.

you may hate snipers but there is a point to them, they are suppose to take out high threat targets. Where or not they do that is not the design fault, its the players that use them as kill whores.

In fact a good effective sniper can take out a AA nest by just simply taking out the medics before they have a chance to revive. In fact when i snipe, I bait medics by killing a heavy or engy first that steps too far forward then shoot the medics when they are rezing. Long range combat does have a place in this game for infantry, whether or not its used effectively is a whole other issue.

[BlaxicanX]

Originally Posted by Timealude

you may hate snipers but there is a point to them, they are suppose to take out high threat targets. Where or not they do that is not the design fault, its the players that use them as kill whores.

In fact a good effective sniper can take out a AA nest by just simply taking out the medics before they have a chance to revive. In fact when i snipe, I bait medics by killing a heavy or engy first that steps too far forward then shoot the medics when they are rezing. Long range combat does have a place in this game for infantry, whether or not its used effectively is a whole other issue.

It is a design issue, because killing a single individual is pointless when there's a dozen other people of the same class around to take his place.

You killed a single medic? Cool. The zerg has 50 more to take his place. At best, you'll just farm some good exp.

"Sniping high value targets" is on the list with "supressive fire" as one of those things that sounds cool from a tacticool perspective but isn't very practical from the game's standpoint. The only targets in this game that are high value are things that cost resources.

[HereticusXZ]

Let me amend and clarify, When I say "most of the combat at 250-500m" I mean most of the long range combat happens around that area, In my opinion from my own experiences.

[Timealude]

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

It is a design issue, because killing a single individual is pointless when there's a dozen other people of the same class around to take his place.

You killed a single medic? Cool. The zerg has 50 more to take his place. At best, you'll just farm some good exp.

"Sniping high value targets" is on the list with "supressive fire" as one of those things that sounds cool from a tacticool perspective but isn't very practical from the game's standpoint. The only targets in this game that are high value are things that cost resources.

you mean like the tank drivers that get out of their tanks to repair?

[Stanis]

From an infantry perspective if you can't hit it reliably with a 2x scope don't bother.
You should spend the time and effort getting in a better position to flank / attack / assault the enemy rather than lay down suppressive fire that rechargeable shields make pretty much obsolete.

From a VS long range perspective - our best long range weapons don't have the scopes to use them.
I believe that on maximum charge, with a muzzle velocity of 800m/s and a lifespan of approx 1sec the lancer is effect at up to 800m range.
Good luck seeing the target at that range.

The saron is an interesting accurate snipe gun - that lacks any real damage output at that range but an effective mid-range anti-armour weapon with some impressive short range burst damage. The previous MK1 saron was a far more effective long range weapon I feel.

By the time you add the fog of war let alone other environmental effects (glare, weather, sunlight) making it impossible sometimes to see the hill in front of you let alone the valley yonder.

It really shows up the lack of range in the game.
If weapons had the 1.2 to 2km ranges they should maybe have with the projectile power and velocity that demands - we'd be playing a different game.

That said it's a more or less balanced everyone-is-equally-screwed method.
We'd need a lot more space for range to truly matter. It's sometimes quicker to run to the next base and hack out a new sundie than get in this one because someone put walls in the way ..

[PredatorFour]

Been driving a saron harrasser and that thing is the dogs for long range combat. Took on 2 prowlers which we chasing me tonight on esamir, was great fun. Felt great sniping from range behind hillcrests too so your hard to hit

[NewSith]

I'll keep it short:

I have mixed feelings about long-range combat. Long range combat between tanks is, well, hurting the game. Anyone who remembers the beta and early post-launch Crossroads vs Broken Arch can tell you that. As for infantry combat, I don't really think there is much CQB or even medium-range combat, simply because of the level design. That's based off, say even BF3, that has so much cover per square meter that you'll never find yourself in a situation where your only savior is your ADAD skills.

Finally, I think that long-range combat has one giant incovinience - the sights design. VS is the best example - that red dot on the VS RDS blocks the visibility if enemy is far ahead. Problem is - VS weaps don't have bulletdrop and you end up shooting in the general direction not really seeing where you hit, that's exactly what I mean by inconvinient.


P.S. Indirect fire is okay, that's my stance on it, as long as it is actually player-controlled and destructable.
P.S.2 My Sunderer dies to AV MANAs no less often than your vehicles in case you are wondering.

[Ghoest9]

Originally Posted by HereticusXZ

T

Planetside2 is a game where most of the combat is centered around more or less then 250-500m of fighting around a facility...

???????????????

Either you arent actually playing PS2 or you are really bad at it.

[BlaxicanX]

Absolutely.