Certain Vehicle Weapons Too Effective

[KodanBlack]

Forgot about the Tank Buster vs ESF issue. It's preposterous to think that a weapon designed to shred heavy tank armor should be effective against a light aircraft!

Edit: I hope that the majority of you could feel the sarcasm dripping from this. ^

[ThatGoatGuy]

Logic of Planetside: "Oh no I got killed by a weapon faster than I could kill him! OP! NERF!"

STFU and learn to play the game.

[Chaff]

..........
.....rage....rage.....rage....that Damn Tactical Nuke not only detroyed our entire City, but it killed my puppy. That's not fair.
.

[PoisonTaco]

I dunno I expect that a tank buster gun on a Liberator would annihilate an ESF if you hit it. I would be pissed if I nailed a direct hit on infantry with a MBT rocket and it didn't kill them. What makes it so different than the rocket launcher on the HA?

Just because a weapon is supposed to be effective against armor doesn't mean infantry should be able to shrug it off. No, if you hit people on the ground with an AP tank shell, rocket or Saron blast they should die. Are those weapons optimal for killing infantry? Hell no. Their drawbacks come from low rates of fire, small magazines, slower projectiles and little to no splash damage.

[Obstruction]

OP needs to cry more

[Rothnang]

In all fairness, in real life armor piercing ammunition is very ineffective against soft skinned vehicles, since it will just pass right through them unless it hits any vital components, which reduces the amount of area that constitutes a kill to a tiny fraction of the overall vehicle.
If an armored vehicle is hit on the other hand, armor piercing munitions should ideally penetrate the armor once, then bounce around inside the vehicle, expending all their kinetic energy fragmenting, exploding, and causing severe damage.

[maradine]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

In all fairness, in real life armor piercing ammunition is very ineffective against soft skinned vehicles, since it will just pass right through them unless it hits any vital components, which reduces the amount of area that constitutes a kill to a tiny fraction of the overall vehicle.

Unlike WWII bombers, modern "soft-skinned" vehicles don't have a much useless internal volume - even a straight AP round stands a good chance of finding something important. More to the point, however, modern autocannon magazines (the standard tankbusting mix on the GAU-8, for example) are all incendiary, and partially HEI to boot. Soft skinned vehicles don't get anything remotely resembling a pass.

[Neutral Calypso]

Originally Posted by Tom Peters

I've noticed there's a few vehicle weapons that are just too effective at killing things they aren't meant to be good against.

Specifically, the Flash Fury is supposed to be good versus armor, but in reality, it one-shots infantry and has 5 quick firing grenades with good splash. Infantry get destroyed by it.

The Liberator's main Tank Burster gun is another, and it decimates ESF's in a single clip. I was shocked the first time a liberator gunned me up with one of these, and to find out they only cost 100 certs...

Finally, the rocket launchers on the MBTs secondary seat. I'll admit, I'm not entirely familiar with them, but it says they are supposed to good versus armor, and they also one-shot infantry. It just seems too be too much.

Fury is intended to be anti-infantry. If you want to shoot armor on a flash, you buy a basilisk. Trust me.

Tank Buster vs. air targets is extremely short range. If you don't want to be busted, use your afterburners and don't attack a lib head on.

Finally...
A direct hit with ANY rocket launcher will one-shot infantry. At the same time, a direct hit with any AP round will one-shot infantry. I mean, come on, do you really think infantry should be able to take a rocket to the face? That being said, if you are complaining about explosion radius, I don't know what to tell you. I never noticed a halberd one-shotting infantry with the explosion, just the direct hit.

[Obstruction]

let's take a step back from this fascinating discussion for a minute.

now lets examine the two things going on here.

1. the people who write the flavor text obviously know very little about the statistics in the data files. they are probably writing it before the numbers are typed in, are probably paid by the art department, and possibly even work from home.

2. OP needs some analgesic ointment for that painful burning sensation in his anus.

now let's note, discussion of realism and mid 20th century warfare notwithstanding, that the two things are about as related to one another as this discussion is related to SPACE GUNS.

[maradine]

Casting off context makes a game about as believable as Hello Kitty: Island Adventures. Which was a documentary, by the way.

[Artimus]

If antivehical weapons were not 1 hitting infantry I would not play this game. You need at least some realism people. This is as funny as saying the shotguns are OP at close range.. Oh wait people are saying that.

[Rothnang]

Shotguns would be just fine if it wasn't for the fact that most fights in PS2 happen at short range and TTK at long range is craptastic for all weapons, even those supposedly suited for long range.

I mean, seriously, you'll have a really fucking hard time finding a single building in the game where it's easier to keep people from getting near the building with a long range weapon than it is to oneshot them with a shotgun after they've gone inside. That's why shotguns are OP in Planetside, the game just creates situation where they are the best weapon for the job WAY too often.

The level design in PS2 is so shit-your-pants scared of creating any feature where one person has an advantage over another (especially base defenders) that the entire game inadvertently has come to advantage the one weapon that's used when there is no more terrain between two people. The reality is, PS2s level design is so good at trying to make things fair that it has essentially made all weapons that purely exist to exploit the unbalanced and unfair terrain of real life pretty pointless. In a real war there is no lush forest with rolling hills and giant boulders between you and the enemy base, there are 600 meters of pounded dirt and razor wire and that's why you don't want to be armed with a shotgun when you go there.

[Mordelicius]

Flashes aren't that bad since they are very brittle. They go down with one AV direct hit. Although upgraded, I've seen one tank a launcher hit with almost half more xp.

I only thing I can see go out of hand is the cloaking part.

[Rothnang]

Funny thing... Flashes are the hardest ground vehicle to kill with a tankbuster.

[Obstruction]

uh, in a real war there's a lot of burned out cars and shitstains everywhere.

and mostly you sit in the base but then sometimes you go out and watch a load of bombs dropped in the middle of the night then in the morning shake down a bunch of people in their houses or kill some idiot 14 year old with his brothers AK and then remember that for the rest of your life when you wake up in the night.

so where's that game for the realists?