I LOVE vehicle spam, it's NOT the problem of this game - Page 6

Thunderhawk · 2013-01-08, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

That is all.

Rofl frickin autocorrect.......

Canaris · 2013-01-08, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

Rofl frickin autocorrect.......

just wait till I tell Colin you called him a tanker

Germanius · 2013-01-08, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

There, I said it. I know I will get fried for it in this forum, that recently seems to be "hijacked by drama queens" that only see doom for this game, so let the flaming begin.

The promise of this game is that size matters. It's the sheer scale that makes me having a blast every day I play it. Seeing my screen filled up with endless armor columns and huge swarms of air puts a big smile on my face every time. It makes me feel being part of a big war.
I also love the power this game is giving me. I can be anything at any time with almost no restriction. If a situation demands for it, I can instantly switch to the appropriate class or vehicle to handle the situation. It's this freedom that gives me a lot of joy in this game.

Lately, I'm reading a lot of suggestions that want to limit my power and freedom or want to turn this game into a small scale tactical shooter. Screw that, it's not what I signed up for in this game.

You can still have a very strategic game without limiting peoples ability to do whatever they want. Limiting vehicle spam (increasing timers and costs, etc.) is a solution to the wrong problem. Instead, the game should focus on giving me more power to fight vehicle spam: better launchers, deployable AV and AA turrets, artillery call-ins, etc.

I will probably not make myself popular by promoting vehicle spam but I truly see it as the essence of this game, so it's time to stand up and voice a different opinion.

..... Making Anti-Vehicle stronger could solve the problem, without limiting them. Yes, i think that could work.
But, i don't see the devs doing that.

Figment · 2013-01-08, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

I never said infantry were lower lifeforms, hell, I enjoy the whole fighting on foot process, as my K/D shows in my signature I'm hardly sitting in a Lib or tank all day long, but I really don't see why infantry should run across open expanses of land with their rocket launchers and then expect to have an equal chance vs a MBT. It's just not right to even begin to balance that anymore than what it already is, which imho is done right currently.

If every outpost was enclosed infantry fighting and every base was enclosed also, then we wouldn't have people complaining.

As for using the word "decimate", ok granted, maybe I should have used "destroy".

Oh of course not, they should cling to hills and terrain features, it's just that decimate gives the impression of let's say a 10:1 K/D per definition and provides the mental image of next to no infantry outdoors.

The main thing one complains about, whether one is infantry or otherwise, is that one always wants to feel they have at least (had) a chance to react and respond. Either to get to safety or to return fire.

I would say EMP grenades (and finalized, proper AA - aircav - lib balance) would be required on top of base improvements. That would probably also satisfy ground vehicle users who currently do feel a bit whored as well by air. Obviously to a lesser extend than infantry, but still.

I wouldn't say it's entitlement but more logistics from a troop movement standpoint. Outdoors should be areas where people are getting places, moving from point X to point Y, they move in Sundys, MBTs, Lightnings, Galaxies (for some outfits), so if an infantryman is caught out in the open, he will be encountering all sorts of hardware, and this is where I think that these infantry, running along, complaining about being killed by MBTs are just playing the game wrong.

I think you're focusing a bit too much on the "randoms running along". A lot of infantry is required in the field. But for instance, infantry spawning at an AMS and getting spawncamped (especially without cloak field) will feel more abused than those who run in the open hills and die. Most infantry won't be happy dieing to the extend they feel they never got to do anything in the process. That to me is a bit of a TTK issue as well, because pretty much everything comes from all sides and without even a little bit of endurance, you're just going to feel ganked from all directions all the time.

Agree regarding AV not needing a buff but I don't think SOE will change the Driver=Gunner of MBTs if that's what you're hinting at.

Still keeping my fingers crossed. It's the simplest, most effective and despite the selfish killwhores with 80/1 K/Ds whining (and defending those as "perfectly fair balanced"). It's the most acceptable solution even if you don't limit vehicles any further in terms of certs and accessibility. When I surveyed people on it, the BF3 players went even further in demanding split controls than PS1 players (!), so that's simply not a matter of contention for new players. Of course there's now a larger, status quo group because people hate change, but honestly that's the fault of launch.

Common sense needs to be used here when considering "any" circumstance.

Always.

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rofl frickin autocorrect.......

Some of those massive posts I write are written on iPhone with DUTCH auto-correct on...

You have no idea. Even more annoying is when the blasted thing remembers capital letters for frequently used words like "For" and "As" due to having started a sentence with it once.

Kirotan · 2013-01-08, 02:37 PM

Put me down into the "things would be more balanced for infantry if the terrain and bases were built better" camp.

1. Bases need more raised walkways and gaps to shoot out of. The walkways would also be mostly covered to protect from air; there would be periodic gaps to allow HA and Maxes to look up and shoot at air, with cover just a few steps away. Throw in some bunkers and tunnels too, why not.

2. More infantry only accessible areas. Instead of making a bunch of impassable hills, they should have made a bunch of small foot trails(like the north face of the Crown, only narrower). Vehicles may have to drive around the long way, but infantry can run up the trails and cross over on foot. Make small cave networks throughout the land. Suddenly, vehicles don't travel lightly through Amerish because a bunch of infantry could be waiting just behind the hills. A liberator might not bomb the Stronghold on Indar anymore because the caves all around it are crawling with HA and AA maxes in hiding.

3. More infantry only fights. Orbital Platforms, floating Titan like ships from BF2142, an evil genius volcano base built into the side of Mt. Searhus, or a largely vertical base built inside a massive tree on Forseral. Whatever.

Ralek · 2013-01-08, 02:42 PM

A lot of people here are saying infantry should be decimated in the open against tanks, and I do agree. The problem with the game now is that is exactly the opposite of what is happening.
Infantry get decimated by tanks in bases and fare fairly well in the "open". I spend a lot of my ingame time leading small organized infantry squads. The first thing we do when we spot an approaching armor column with any sort of advance notice is move AWAY from the base and grab the nearest hill crest. Anything wrong with this picture?

RykerStruvian · 2013-01-08, 02:49 PM

I think it would make more sense to have capture points, except for towers, below ground. Infantry combat in Planetside 1, for instance, came to life inside the bases...fighting in the basements, tunnels, etc. This type of gameplay needs to encouraged...For instance, infantry could have a vantage point which would leave armor exposed and vulnerable, but infantry could move in and secure the location and leave the vehicles unharnessed.

And example would be the pillboxes which were connected together underground in PS1. And although I am only talking with infantry in mind, this would also affect tank zergs because the infantry on the ground would be able to repel them, or hold them long enough for a friendly zerg to intercept. But at the same time it wouldn't be a nerf to prevent tank zergs.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2013-01-08, 04:45 PM

If the red triangles vanished and camo had decent upgrades (ghillie suits etc) then there would be no imbalance between vehicles and infantry.

As it is, when I'm not libwhoring, I'm parking a sunderer in a secret location (under a rock, behind a building, near a warpgate) and dropping AT mines on a highway.

If they can't see me, it's free kills. If they see a neat little "Here's the bad guy" marker, then it's rubbish. It wouldn't take much organisation to get 3 heavies and an engineer (4 man squad! Just like the SAS!) to park in enemy territory (like the SAS!) and really disrupt things.

I think the problem with vehicle spam is that certain game elements make it very easy for vehicles. Their damage output is fine, their armour levels are fine, their speed is fine but their ability to spot and know in advance where the enemies are is not fine.

Infantry has nowhere to hide.

Thunderhawk · 2013-01-08, 05:59 PM

At the risk of just going over old ground again, it seems most people are in agreement that things are not "that" bad, but elements of the game need fine tuning, and there have been a whole lot of posts on the subject of how to make this happen, I just hope the Devs see the woods from the trees, and pick out the good ideas from the not so effective ones.

I will list some below (there are probably many others) but these are my main issues and suggested changes:-

1. Allow EMP grenades (as Figment mentioned) to be available to all classes like fragmentation grenades are. This would give infantry a whole lot of options when it comes to being camped at spawn points, maybe a rest bite to leave that spawn point by EMP’ing the camping Vehicles and then blowing them up with rockets.
(I think Infiltrators have them currently, so am not sure why they aren't used more often)

2. Base designs need an overhaul with regards to the building layouts. Taking a base should be an infantry affair, backed up by vehicles to an extent, but having the masses fighting inside a structure that doesn’t allow vehicle shelling of the control point, or the base owner spawn point.
There are many ways round this, one of them making Spawn points underground leading into the main structure with many underground rooms linking them. (Anyone who played PS1 will know what I mean)

3. Render (draw) distance needs a fix as point 2 will result in a lot of indoor fighting, and repeating the render (draw) issues of what Techplants used to be (prior to the nerf) would mean a fix for this would need to come at the same time as any base redesign if it were to happen.

4. Lattice (Large Hex) changes to make fighting more focused. Towers and outposts can remain as they are currently as places for smaller squads to fight over and take or defend, but shouldn’t be a stepping stone for the Zerg to go through. There have been many other posts discussing the pros and cons of this so I won’t reiterate that here, search for posts by myself and you’ll find discussions on the subject.

I’m sure there are probably more points to raise but that’s what you folks are for

Figment · 2013-01-08, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

(I think Infiltrators have them currently, so am not sure why they aren't used more often)

There are infiltrators in this game?

I knew of snipefils. But I never see infiltrators around a tank. I mean. They're visible, don't have explosives, can't jack them, would have one grenade or more for a worse suit while being the lightest of suits already, EMP grenades cost resources are very cert expensive, it is not explained what they even do and you could have a different grenade instead that actually kills the type of enemies he hunts...

What possible reason would a cloaker have to try EMPing a tank at huge risk to himself while he could be on a ridge well behind his own front lines sniping and relocating and sniping and throwing a grenade at times to kill tons of people for quick experience points?

Gee. I wonder why.

(sorry, get very snippy when infiltrators are mentioned... being a PS1 carreer base infiltrator in PS2 does that to you).

StumpyTheOzzie · 2013-01-08, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

There are infiltrators in this game?

I knew of snipefils. But I never see infiltrators around a tank. I mean. They're visible, don't have explosives, can't jack them, would have one grenade or more for a worse suit while being the lightest of suits already, EMP grenades cost resources are very cert expensive, it is not explained what they even do and you could have a different grenade instead that actually kills the type of enemies he hunts...

What possible reason would a cloaker have to try EMPing a tank at huge risk to himself while he could be on a ridge well behind his own front lines sniping and relocating and sniping and throwing a grenade at times to kill tons of people for quick experience points?

Gee. I wonder why.

(sorry, get very snippy when infiltrators are mentioned... being a PS1 carreer base infiltrator in PS2 does that to you).

I can understand the rage. I was confused about why there were no emp grenades in this game too till someone pointed out what amounts to your post.

Technically there are emp grenades, but there really is no point.

Thunderhawk · 2013-01-08, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

There are infiltrators in this game?

I knew of snipefils. But I never see infiltrators around a tank. I mean. They're visible, don't have explosives, can't jack them, would have one grenade or more for a worse suit while being the lightest of suits already, EMP grenades cost resources are very cert expensive, it is not explained what they even do and you could have a different grenade instead that actually kills the type of enemies he hunts...

My infiltrator "loadout" uses the rifle (Artemis) for machine gunning with Laser sight for hipfire. I carry 2X Proximity mines for "explosiveness" and EMP my way out of trouble when it comes to vehicles camping a spawn in an outpost (when they're close enough to be EMP'd that is)

My "I think infiltrators have EMP grenades" was me being sarcastic

Admittedly, more classes with access to EMP grenades would be ideal, but spawn points have loadout terminals, and switching loadouts isn't too taxing for someone to see that they're camped, switch to infil, EMP.... the HAs in his team take out the vehicles whilst whoever EMP'd them switches back to whatever they wanted to be and carry on.

This brings me back to people having the tools (when they have enough certs to splash about) and just opting for the easy option which is complain about the game.

Now I am not trying to argue that the situation is ideal, but people really do need to play the game more and discover solutions to problems (not always existing but at least try) in order to get along with what the game is throwing at them.

Claiming Infiltrators can't infiltrate to me is just saying you aren't trying hard enough to change form what PS1 infiltration was to what PS2 is, which is slightly different.

And infils just sniping and not using the other tools they have is just the community again going for the easy option.

You can't force people to change the way they play, i know, but in the same breath you can't say counters already don't exist, players just choose not to use them.

Figment · 2013-01-08, 08:55 PM

Players aren't aware of it and aren't incentized to even get in the range: it's simply much more lucrative to sit back and snipe.

Yes I'm aware an infil could just be an infil to throw an EMP for some other HAs. I did that all the time in PS1. But with one grenade, who is going to bother giving up their lives for that? Besides, they're usualy out of range when camping. If it were a default available tool and you'd have a few standard. (I asked for this since early beta, but players had more important topics, of course, and horns are often considered more important than basic issues too, don't think the majority of new people even notice or comprehend basic issues right now, even when they don't like it...).

I can "infil" with a snipefil in PS2, but there's no point beyond turning some terminals. One can do much more and much more effective in terms of infiltration and sabotage with a Light Assault (especially if you have two C4 and a shotgun).

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-09, 04:15 AM

You know what's more annoying than not having your pet playstyle supported in game? Having your playstyle supported in game and having the other players assume you're just sitting on a hill being selfish for the XP.

Thunderhawk · 2013-01-09, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

You know what's more annoying than not having your pet playstyle supported in game? Having your playstyle supported in game and having the other players assume you're just sitting on a hill being selfish for the XP.

I dont think Figment was talking about everyone, but the majority. Think you'll agree by looking at the game itself and being online that the case in reality is how he described.

Although talking about spending time in game...... I really need to start doing something else after work, as I just looked at my playtime and cried

(Yes, I am a PS1 vet, no, I am not bored of PS2, yes, I still love it even with all the faults, and no, I won't be quitting for a long while)