Some thoughts on Vehicle/Infantry interactions and rebalance ideas

Roy Awesome · 2013-07-11, 03:29 AM

So, I went through a phase where I was dreaming up a good rebalance to combat the issues with Vehicle/Infantry interaction. I strongly feel that Infantry v Infantry combat is incredibly fun and Vehicle v Vehicle gameplay is incredibly fun, but Vehicle vs Infantry combat simply turns into a farm (in both directions, Infantry farm vehicles and sometimes the other way around).

I spent some time thinking about how to rebalance the interactions between Infantry and Vehicles, and this is what I came up with. I wrote this before GU11 when Flak got hellnerfed, so keep that in mind with the Flak changes I mention.

#Roy'sRebalance version 2
Work In Progress
By RoyAwesome

The interaction between Air, Ground, and Infantry is broken

SOE is trying to fix what is fundamentally a Weapons Design issue with Level Design by adding Dome Shields and Walls.

I tried to fix the Weapon Design issue.

Please keep in mind that this entire redesign should be taken in whole, not in pieces. This is very important

Fundamental Idea: Explosions kill tanks, bullets kill infantry. Explosions do not kill infantry, bullets do not kill tanks.
(Say that explosions are EMP that disrupt nanites, bullets kill infantry)
Secondly, Interactions are more streamlined, and clear roles and battle plans are laid out. Significant effort went into creating a system where farming did not happen and every Unit that threatened another Unit could be dealt with.

Infantry:

Theory:

Infantry is a free unit. It costs very little time to spawn a new infantry unit (10s) and costs 0 resources to use.
Infantry are for fighting infantry. They all have bullet guns that do damage to Infantry.

In general, Infantry should have to get close to a tank to do serious damage to it. Infantry at range should pose very little threat to an armored unit).

Specific interactions:

C4: The primary way of killing a tank.
Does significant (almost 1-shot) damage to Tanks
Does not do much damage to Sunderers.
Reasoning: C4 costs resources, requires you to break cover and place the C4 on a target. C4 causes an explosion. Explosion kills the tank.
Most classes have access to C4, which gives most classes actual capabilities of dealing with armor. HAs do still do their job against infantry (Resist shield for that).

Rockets: The last way to kill a tank
Should require around 15-20 rockets to kill a tank.
This damage nerf applies to all rockets, from the default dumb-fires, ESLs, and the Engineer AV turret. All ranged Anti-Tank guns.
Reasoning: Rockets are free, tanks are not. The cost to to kill a tank should be damage priority (focus fire) or time. The real threat to Tanks should come from Infantry breaking cover and planting C4 on the tank.

Striker: Remove Lock-On, add a new mechanic
The Striker should fire a single wire-guided and visually distinctive rocket. If that rocket hits a target, the Striker immediatly fires off a salvo of 6 rockets into the air that arc to hit their target.
These rockets have a minimum arm distance, preventing the Striker from being used at close range.
Damage nerfs as above with rockets
Reasoning: Lock-on rockets are boring. This mechanic adds a very skill based mechanic and nearly gauranteed damage. Due to the extreme ease of hitting a close target with a wire-guided shot, the minimum arming distance is required.
The Striker should be effective at the same ranges the Lancer and Phoenix are effective. Between 100-400 meters.

Tank Mines: These should be about area denial.
Engineers can carry 3x the number of tank mines.
Tank mines do 1/4th the damage they currently do
Tank mines should do increasing damage if multiple mines go of within some time of eachother
Reasoning: Tank Mines should be used as Area Denial and the close range explosive charge mechanic is given firmly to C4.

Burster Max: Flak Mechanic change making the weapon Area Denial
Flak shells travel 250-350 meters until which they explode (if they come near a closer target, they will explode there).
Flak gains a 25-50meter AOE damage and a large black smoke cloud particle effect.
Aircraft speed and Size are modifiers on the amount of damage that the air vehicle takes. Faster flight and smaller size decreases the damage by 50%. Slower speeds or larger craft increase the damage.
Slow moving ESFs should take significant damage from Flak. Fast moving ESFs should be able to shrug it off.
Reasoning: Bursters are capable of fitting places that would otherwise be inaccessable, making a Killing weapon incredibly powerful.
Instead, Bursters are put into an Area Denial role. Area Denial is only good if that weapon can be deadly, so the speed/size mechanic is required. If a slow moving ESF gets caught in a flak field, it will die. A fast moving ESF is ineffective at interacting with the ground, so it will be fine.
Ideally, Liberators should stay out of Burster range, but if they stray into, they should take a very significant amount of damage due to the size multiplier.

Engineer Repair Tool: Rescale the repair rate
Repair tool heals at 20% of the current rate on units that have very recently taken damage within 2 seconds
Repair Tool scales up to 300% of current rate over 2 minutes since last damage, logarithmically.
For Example, after 25 seconds since last damage, the Repair tool repairs at 100%, but scales slower after that until it is repairing very quickly

Armored Units:

Theory:

Tanks should not fear Infantry at range, and Infantry should not fear Tanks at range. Instead, Tanks should be primarly used to fight other tanks.

The goal of a Tank is to establish Armor Superiority. That is: You have more Tanks than the other team, allowing your team to prevent AMSes and other armored units from entering the battle, giving your team momentum to push out.

The Harraser requires teamwork to be effective, allowing it to survive without many changes in this rebalance. It may need some values tweaked to be in line with any changes made below.

MBT Main gun: Little damage to infantry, but roughly the same to tanks.
Default gun should do something like 1/2 damage to Infantry on a direct hit, and 10% damage with minimal splash. These are NOT infantry fighting weapons.
MBT Side-grades should reflect this.
Reasoning: Because Infantry does little range damage to tanks, this lets tanks move around and provide cover for Infantry pushes without making tanks farming machines.

MBT Secondary Gun: Options include bullet based weapons that do damage to Infantry and Explosive based weapons that do damage to tanks.
The Basilisk should do no damage to Armor, and options should be given based on bullet damage, ROF, and bullet travel speed.
Reasoning: The primary job of a MBT is to duel other tanks. When you add the teamwork component of the Secondary gun, you invest more people into a single unit, allowing that unit to break it's role, but only for that secondary spot.

Sunderer: Increase survivalbility 300%-500%
Sunderer should take very little damage from C4 and Tank Mines.
Sunderer should take very little damage from Rockets
Sunderer should take a significant ammount of damage from MBT Primary Cannons.
Sunderer should take a significant ammount of damage from a Dalton or Zephyr Liberator
Sunderer should take about 1/2 damage of a MBT cannon from a salvo of ESF rockets

Reasoning: Sunderers are your forward base. Sunderers are the attacker's spawn point. The death of the final S-AMS is the end of a fight.
They should not be easy to kill for Infantry. The goal of a MBT in a fight should be to kill a S-AMS, and Infantry should support tanks getting into position.

Lighting: Utility Roles
To fight Infantry, Lightings should have bullet based weapons.
To fight Tanks, Lightnings should have cannons that do little damage to Infantry.
Reasoning: Bullets kill Infantry, Explosions kill tanks. See a pattern?
To fight Air, the Skyguard Flak mechanic gets changed similar to the Burster
Skyguard gets explosive shells that explode 750meters out. The size of the explosion is ~50+m wide and creates black smoke particles.
Reasoning: the Skyguard flak turret becomes an area denial gun that is focused primarily on high flying liberators.
Where the burster is for lower flying things like ESFs or low flying Libs, the Skyguard is to kill high flying objects.
Same as bursters, Size and Speed are multipliers for flak damage. smaller, faster craft take less damage; slower, larger craft take more.
New gun: Skyguard Rocket Turret.
Salvo rocket laucher with a guided component. You fire a 'Tag' rocket that is bright and visually distinctive. You wire-guide this rocket into an air vehicle.
Once the tag rocket hits, the turret immediatly fires a salvo of 6 rockets that seek out the tag and deal significant damage.
Reasoning: Flak was relegated to an Area Denial role, leaving the role of Killing Weapon open. This weapon fills that role. It is a skill based shot that once the guided tag rocket hits, damage is nearly garuanteed.

Air Units:
Significant redesign of many roles in the Air. Again, focusing on reducing the farming potential of many weapons and bringing creating a diverse combat situation between Air vehicles.

ESFs: Primary Goal is to fight other ESFs and gain air superiority.
Rocket Pods do very little damage with very little splash to Infantry (Salvo does 1/2 of Infantry's life as damage or so (before Flak reductions))
Rocket Pod Salvos do about 1/3rd of the Tanks Life as damage on top armor.
Should do about 60% of a tank's life as damage from the rear armor.
A2A Rockets: Mechanics changed
Dumb-fire, speedy rockets. Do significant damage to Liberators and Galaxies. ESFs should be able to dodge these.
Nose gun Damage to Liberators and Galaxies significantly reduced.
Reasoning: ESFs should be used to fight other ESFs and shoot down Liberators and sometimes Galaxies.

Liberator: Move the 2nd gun position to the nose of the Liberator. Keep the primary gun for the Liberator, however.
When traveling down and fast, the Liberator should make a loud, distinctive noise to people on the ground.
Dalton: The Anti-Tank gun
Splash does next to no damage to Infantry
Splash does a decent amount of damage to Tanks
Direct Hit does a significant amount of damage to Tanks.
Shell has a strong influence by gravity.
Shell makes a loud, disinctive sound when traveling with a large, distinctive explosion sound.
Reasoning: This should be the High-Altitude Anti-Tank role of the Liberator. It should function as a bomber with this weapon.
The sound for the Dalton is critical for players being hit by the Dalton. They should not have to see the liberator to know they are being fired on by it.
Zephyr: The Dive-Bomb gun
Splash does little damage to Infantry
Shell travel time significantly reduced
Shell speed inheritance significantly increased
Full salvo damage should do siginficant damage to all Armor, including Sunderers.
Reasoning: Fly in high, nose down, unload all rounds into a Sunderer. 1 and 1/2 runs like this should kill a Sunderer.
Shredder: The Gunship Gun
Bullet based weapon that does significant damage to infantry.
Perhaps a small explosion radius (explosive rounds?)
Decent amount of damage to tanks
Slow bullet travel time.
Reasoning: This is the low flying, anti infantry gun. The role of a liberator with a Shredder should be to peak in and around cover and pick off targets with bullets.
The devil is in the details on this one. It could be an infantry farming machine (bad). Slow bullet travel time encourages infantry to keep moving when a shreder lib is attacking them.
Reasoning: The Liberator role is defined by it's Secondary gun. Because it requires teamwork, it should have a high damage potential.

Galaxy: Significantly increased survivability against ground damage
Reduced survivalbility from ESFs.
Bulldogs:
Damage to Infantry significantly reduced
Damage to Tanks significantly increased.
Reasoning: Due to flak changes, High survivable bulldog galaxies would farm Infantry. Instead, it is used to kill tanks where the Skyguard-Rockets could kill Galaxies without much skill.
Reasoning: Galaxies are the transport craft and Air-Battle platforms. They should be difficult to take down, but the coordination of 5 people in a Galaxy should be rewarded with a high damage potential.
Galaxies should be vulnerable to ESFs, however, and should likely have an ESF escort.

So, thoughts?

I know that the liberator stuff gets pretty wild, but I really don't like liberators in their current form. Liberators are this weird hybrid between gunship and bomber, and don't actually fill either of those roles.

Rothnang · 2013-07-11, 04:31 AM

Any unit that needs an escort to not instantly die is pretty much going to be complete garbage. There is no way to pack such insane killing potential into a unit that it's worth fielding when it needs constant babysitting and not have it be a complete cheesy bullshit factory.

Roy Awesome · 2013-07-11, 05:01 AM

Originally Posted by Rothnang

Any unit that needs an escort to not instantly die is pretty much going to be complete garbage. There is no way to pack such insane killing potential into a unit that it's worth fielding when it needs constant babysitting and not have it be a complete cheesy bullshit factory.

Which vehicle are you talking about? Most of the escort situations I provide are 'If you get caught out doing something fucking retarded like leeeroying into the buildings around a tech plant by yourself you deserve to die' kind of situations

Timealude · 2013-07-11, 01:10 PM

my only thing is the tank mine change really, i know people hate running over them but if i remember in beta they were like your idea and hardly anyone used them because tanks would just roll over them and keep going.

Shogun · 2013-07-11, 01:14 PM

oh another balance thread...

increase the ttk! otherwise there will never be any balance.
100-200% hitpoints for everything, and then try another balance pass.

Sledgecrushr · 2013-07-11, 01:27 PM

Great ideas there roy. I am a big fan of weapon systems designed for situational use. By making tank rounds almost ineffective against infantry you are raising the ttk. And you wont effect the fun fast infantry vs infantry ttk we have now.

bpostal · 2013-07-11, 01:37 PM

The Striker should fire a single wire-guided and visually distinctive rocket. If that rocket hits a target, the Striker immediatly fires off a salvo of 6 rockets into the air that arc to hit their target.

Stopped reading here. Started masturbating. (sorry for the mental image) I'm not sure 100m would be where I would set the arming distance though. Something like 50-75m would be more along the 'sweet spot'. An added zoom or some other type of optics would be nice as well for a wire-guided TOW style missile.

The overall premise is sound

Explosions kill tanks, bullets kill infantry. Explosions do not kill infantry, bullets do not kill tanks.

but I can only imagine the rage if this were to become true.

I'm also not sure about the engy tool revamp you propose. Wouldn't that make vehicles more disposable? To clarify: If I'm repping my Prowler just behind the front lines and it's taking forever...then why even bother? The chances of getting sniped rise exponentially and frustration builds as the tool would keep overheating. What about a mechanic that tones down the repair tool by itself but increases efficiency with more engy's on the tank? This would encourage more team play and the hoped for end state would be more 2/2 MBTs (for their repair tool if not for their gunning skillz).

Also, would it be possible to get the same effect as you propose for MBT main cannons if the default rounds were AP? Or are you talking across the board, no matter the type of cannon?

I agree that killing the AMS should end the fight, that's why there should always be a minimum of three set up around any hot areas (with at least one more on its' way as soon as the first AMS goes down). Personally though I view the purpose of AMS hunting as secondary to removing enemy armor. In my mind Infantry should be used to contain any infestation of enemy foot while the MBTs move into superior shelling positions.
If there is no enemy armor though, then of course I'm going to have to agree that removing (not farming) the enemy spawn points should be the first order of business.

Your proposed lighting rocket turret is similar to your proposed Striker revamp. While this sounds awesome I'm of the mind that if the 'defending' driver can effectively use terrain and movement to his advantage then damage should be on a shot to shot basis. The reason I differentiate between the Striker and the Lightning turret would be that, correct me if I'm wrong, the Lighting's turret would do a fuckton more damage.
Suggestion on this front: Switch the turret to the MBT and have the 'gunner' work a laser target designator that the main cannon's shots follow. Encourages teamwork and sounds more reasonable for the amount of hate and discontent that is getting put out.

I think we're going to see your A2A missile proposal soon. Correct me if I'm wrong (always a possibility) but didn't SOE announce some kind of Mass Driver style weapon similar to what you're proposing?

Your Lib design changes sound interesting. The shredder sounds more like an attack helicopter which makes my dick wiggle! I would love to see the Planetside style bomber make a comeback over (or in addition to) revamping the current weapons.

Don't have any real thoughts for your changes to the Gal with the exception of possibly making the distinction between a Gal and a GG more prominent. I suppose the obvious difference would be it's lack of troop transport capabilities. IMO libs should be used for close air support, not their air taxi.

Overall you've got some good ideas here. I'm sure some of the devs will take a look at them when they next come trolling.

Ironfather · 2013-07-11, 03:09 PM

I like the ideas roy Imho quick and simple way to do this would be to nullify all Tank main guns and only have AP or Heat left and give All tanks coaxial guns.
I don't think its fair if all infantry can carry AI and AV weapons at the same time while Armor is only allowed to carry AV if they can carry both AI coaxial gun and AV main gun everything would be right as rain , hate to say it bf3 did tanks right with coaxial guns and main guns.

Btw coaxial guns are in the game files

Iron

Roy Awesome · 2013-07-11, 05:36 PM

I don't like coax guns for the primary gun. If you invest one player into a tank, you get Tank v Tank role. If you invest two players, you are either stronger at Tank v Tank (with the Saron, enforcer, or Vulcan), or can influence the Infantry game (with the PPA and those guns).

Ironfather · 2013-07-11, 06:54 PM

not for a primary gun for a secondary gun . but if that's the case then infantry should have to pull AV with resources and timers ,they should take up any primary slots so they cant have a AI weapons . you cant just shaft tanks in to playing tank v tank game when infantry has AV. That's the biggest flaw of your idea and that's why it will never fly.

OctavianAXFive · 2013-07-11, 08:32 PM

I think I disagree with your main principal in regards to tank combat.

I do not believe that the MBT should be relegated solely to tank vs tank combat (or what essentially amounts to armor vs armor).

It would suck a lot of the fun out of it for me, personally, if my only job was to hunt down a Sunderer and shoot at other tanks. It would be a dull affair if I could shrug off rocket attacks with ease and continue on my merry way. I’d be wasting ammo shooting at infantry, which make up over 90% of the targets I will come across.

In a giant fight it makes sense that you want your armor hunting other armor. I can totally understand why you don’t want infantry annihilating tanks the way they do and on the flip side I can understand why it sucks to be farmed by a tank (we’ve all been there).

But I cannot accept the model you’ve proposed partly because I think it’s slightly flawed. In a small conflict, a tank that shows up to destroy a harassing squad’s Sunderer will seem immune. Yes, you could try to C4 it. But the tank doesn’t have to get close. On Esamir, for instance, a small squad taking an outpost would be almost powerless to stop a MBT that drives around and pops their Sunderer from the relative safety of open plains.

Rockets must remain, on an individual basis, a relatively grave threat.

Though it’s hardly true to life, I think PS2 is actually a pretty good simulation of the relationship between modern infantry and heavy armor. Like the battleship before it, the main battle tank is becoming obsolete because of cheaper more effective methods of destroying it.

In this sense, you are right to try and force a new relationship between tanks and infantry. But I think you’ve gone about it in the wrong way. I think that the combat would grow stale for tankers and it would be very frustrating to shoot an infantryman with a shell the size of his skull and yet only do half damage to him.

I think the “fix” for MBTs is quite simple to put into words but a lengthy process.

First, we need a new resource system.

Second, crank up the armor on all of the MBTs to the point that it takes a great deal of firepower to bring one down. Don’t even touch the damage on the main guns.

Third, make MBTs the single most expensive thing in terms of resources.

Four, add an IFV (ES would be nice but I’ll settle for NS) that is similar in armor value to the MBTs as they are now. 12 player capacity, main gun is similar to the viper on the lightning. Basically just make it like the IFV in BF3 in terms of its weapons and damage model. This would be a pure fighting vehicle and offer little in support other than to get squads from A to B in style. It would keep with the driver also being the main gunner of the IFV (please don't shoot me). Just remember that ideally the main gun on the IFV is much smaller and weaker.

From there tweak stuff until its right.

This way tanks can be powerful but crazy expensive and the loss of one should be felt. Ideally it would encourage people to pull IFVs instead of MBTs. This indirectly scales back the absurd firepower of the tank while providing a fun mechanize vehicle.

When you absolutely positively must pull something to break a line, the MBT is an armored monster with no equal, though you’d better be careful because if you lose it, don’t expect to be buying anything else anytime soon.

So yea, new resource system definitely needs to happen.

bpostal · 2013-07-11, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by OctavianAXFive

...
Four, add an IFV (ES would be nice but I’ll settle for NS) that is similar in armor value to the MBTs as they are now. 12 player capacity, main gun is similar to the viper on the lightning. Basically just make it like the IFV in BF3 in terms of its weapons and damage model. This would be a pure fighting vehicle and offer little in support other than to get squads from A to B in style. It would keep with the driver also being the main gunner of the IFV (please don't shoot me). Just remember that ideally the main gun on the IFV is much smaller and weaker.

From there tweak stuff until its right. ...

So yea, new resource system definitely needs to happen.

We have an IFV. That is (was) the primary role of the bang bus, unfortunately it doesn't have the firepower that one would expect. Boosting the weaponry on it and turning the role of the Sunderer into the primary infantry support vehicle would be better than forcing that onto MBTs in my eyes.

These changes would turn MBTs into a support style vehicle, used to push points of contention instead of farm them. A positive change I think. I do want to shoot you over the driver/gunner situation (Come on man! The driver should drive and the gunner should gun!) but I suppose I can't fault people for being used to the current setup, even if I personally oppose it.

Have you looked at Siri's resource revamp thread? The premise is that there is one resource pool (and he's got a whole bunch more but that's the crux of his suggestion) and I think it could work well with this.

OctavianAXFive · 2013-07-12, 12:22 AM

Actually, Siri's suggestion is what I had in mind when I thought of my post here.

He's got some great ideas and some not so great ideas but for one thing I like where his head's at in terms of a single resource.

But I'm either misunderstanding your interpretation of my post or you misunderstood me.

I want the MBT to be a dedicated killer. It's an objective pusher, an all around badass vehicle that costs an arm and a leg to build. Since you brought it up, in Siri's system it would pretty much deplete your entire resource pool, meaning that pulling a MBT would be a very big deal. I want it to be a true tank, able to withstand punishment from all sources, not just infantry based rockets. The damage model for its weapons is fine as it is.

As for the IFV, the Sunderer is boring and I want something a little more interesting and more niche.

I view the Sunderer as a support vehicle first and IFV second. I could see the Sunderer gaining special siege modifications as has been discussed in another post that's around here somewhere. For the most part the Sunderer is the thing you protect. It's a logistics vehicle that has guns for self defense but is otherwise a poor performer in the lethality department.

I'm talking about adding in a vehicle that has about the same durability as the current MBTs (but would be much weaker than a revamped MBT) but with less front loaded damage.

Its main gun would be like a viper, though maybe not so crappy. It could also have gun ports out the side. If people who play armor want to pull a vehicle that can help in more ways than just "kill the enemy armor," a specialized IFV could do that. They can move troops and provide heavy fire support and armored cover.

The IFV wouldn't have the support utilities of a Sunderer and would instead be a primarily combat vehicle in support of Sunderers. When I originally wrote my post I actually had the new IFV as a vehicle with a dedicated driver and gunner each. But I changed my mind because I think it would heinously unfair if this cheaper armored vehicle required a 2 man crew to be fully operational while the MBT would no doubt remain a single person vehicle.

Now I'm from Battlefield (that's a weird thing to say but I'm saying it) and I am indeed used to being in charge of my tank/LAV from a driving and gunning perspective. When I came to this game I was not exactly a fan of "dedicated" positions that were advocated during beta (and even now). BUT I must admit that over time the idea has grown on me, probably as a side effect of hanging out around here far too long :P.

I believe the IFV I'm proposing ought to be a single pilot/gunner vehicle because I do believe in lone wolfing in a vehicle. If the IFV has a single pilot/gunner, then I would actually be alright with MBTs switching to require dedicated gunners.

As for the Lightning, it's just not useful. It's too lightly armored to get into the thick of things and it doesn't pack a significant enough punch to be a fun solo vehicle. If you force lone wolf armor players into lightnings you're going to have a whole bunch of useless little tanks driving around. Making the lightning just stronger would be a possibility but...

Why not give those players a vehicle they can use to give allies a lift and actually be useful instead of just sitting back and lobbing shells because their thin armor makes them easy targets.

I think Roy's idea is sound from a purely mechanical standpoint but I think it's a little too harsh on lone armor players as it really reduces their role. It also means that major MBT revamps would have to happen. The Vanguard is the tank killer while the Prowler is scary against infantry (which would go away with Roy's proposal) and the Magrider is not the best designed tank for going toe-to-toe with other tanks. It can't pillar very well because of its lack of a turret. It survives in current form as an infantry killer and a kind of "artillery" tank that uses its strafing power to shell enemy tanks and avoid incoming fire in open terrain as opposed to pushing up on them and engaging them directly.

bpostal · 2013-07-12, 12:58 AM

Ah, okay. We're coming from opposite ends of the spectrum and I think that's what caused the disconnect. Whereas you view lone wolfing in vehicles (if I'm understanding you correctly) as an acceptable (for lack of a better term) option, I view them as a last resort (viable but inherently weaker to promote and encourage team play).

Mentioning that you come from a Battlefield background makes me think that you don't have as much (if any) experience with Planetside 1. If I'm incorrect feel free to let me know, I don't say that to be haughty but as an acknowledgement that not many of the current players have extensive experience with Planetside.
The original Sunderer was not a support vehicle. It carried 12 people (two of which could be MAXes), had four guns and two gun ports. Here's a link with more information if clarification is needed: http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/...title=Sunderer
Would the original Sunderer meet your idea of an IFV?

I could be wrong but I think the issue with viewing the Lightning as weak stems from the issue that players are able to lone wolf in both Lightnings and MBTs. For a solo vehicle the Lightning is rather strong (although I would personally like to see a bit more survivability for it) and overall is quite far from useless.

The MBT in Roy's proposal would still be a dedicated killer, just in a different class than infantry. If one were to impose these changes and remove the majority of the current ways for infantry to destroy tanks then, from a game play standpoint, you can't have those same neigh invincible tanks free to roam unopposed whilst slaughtering infantry with impunity.
This disparity is already evident with the use of MBTs to spawn camp at outposts (although I view that as a base design issue moreso than a balance problem).

OctavianAXFive · 2013-07-12, 02:54 AM

You are correct; I am not a PS1 veteran. Hell, most Battlefielders wouldn’t call me a Battlefield veteran either; Bad Company 2 was my first title in that series. I jumped on board with that game because unlike the rest of my friends I thought Modern Warfare 2 was the biggest piece of shit since the crap that came out of dinosaurs.

That and I found I really love Battlefield and by extension I do enjoy Planetside 2 immensely. It’s a better game than BF3 hands down.
Sadly I’m showing my hand here, but I think my…colorful background in shooters gives me a slightly different perspective on the matter.

By no means do I want the lone wolf to have an all-powerful means with which to wreak havoc. But I do believe that lone wolves, in order to be useful, need to have something with which to contribute.

I’m a good shot and PTFO like a champ but I know I’m nothing compared to three dudes on mics, even if I’m a better shot and a smarter player.

In a vehicle, I don’t have a repair man or a secondary gunner to watch out for C4 or rocketeers sneaking up behind me. But at least now, with the MBT, I can meaningfully contribute to an attack or defense.

In my experience, it’s a royal pain in the ass to find a decent pub gunner. And since I only get to play for very limited amounts of time (at least for now), I can’t really hop into an outfit. As for Pub platoons, I’ve had my fill on Mattherson. Not necessarily bad people but it’s hard to respect the chain of command when the chain of command is indecisive.

So the tank fills a role for me. I can provide meaningful support to a random group of people attacking a base that essentially doesn’t require that I work directly with teammates.

In Roy’s proposal, I would be limited to hunting down enemy armor and Sunderers, a job that does require teamwork, but alas that is what I cannot do (for now.) Also, I think there would be a shit storm if tankers found out that direct hits no longer kill infantry. It works on paper but that just seems ridiculous.

I don’t think I’m alone in this by any means.

That’s why I want a MBT that is incredibly hard to kill but also extremely costly. I wouldn’t mind at that point for a MBT to have a dedicated gunner.
In that scenario, I would want an IFV that’s something between a lightning and my new vision for a MBT. I could cart around infantry, provide close fire support, and generally contribute still, though my vehicle would not be quite as potent from a damage stand point.

I think it would be best to differentiate this new IFV from the Sunderer because the Sunderer is already so multi-capable and should remain one of the more expensive vehicles to pull. My IFV would be pricey but not quite a Sunderer and would perform better. Ideally it would handle much better and move faster. It would resemble a Bradley Fighting Vehicle more than a truck.
So to some degree yes, I’d say it would be a bit more like the PS1 Sunderer but why use an old bus when you can make something new and unique to this game.

As endearing as the Sunderer is, it’s…well it’s homely. It looks more like a logistics vehicle and for the most part that’s what it does in this game. It provides ammo and spawning and occasionally a shield diffuser.

My big beef with PS2 right now is base design. It’s awful, I mean really awful. I like Siri’s idea of expanding the map to make vehicle transport more of a thing and if the number of bases decreases/distance between bases increases to where troop transportation becomes a thing again, having your solo tankers in glorified APCs will come in handy. Also if bases weren’t designed so just -ugh- then tank farming shouldn’t even be an issue.

Better bases will alleviate the tank farm in most cases.

Better resource systems can alleviate the spam.

I don’t think Roy’s proposal scores high on the “fun” factor though I could be wrong. Technically his plan works. But I’m not convinced it will make the game better.

Isn’t this the beauty of game design though? In order to fix vehicle and infantry balance, you have to redesign the bases and resources before moving forward with tweaks.

Complex systems are fun!