Infantry activities severely limited in this game - Page 2

Beerbeer · 2012-12-18, 06:22 PM

I call it farming because it's so easy.

Easy because I can kill infantry with one shot while in a vehicle without restrictions.

boogy · 2012-12-18, 06:37 PM

Anyone who thinks infantry vs. vehicles in this game is balanced doesn't give a flying fuck about the future of this game.

Beerbeer · 2012-12-18, 06:55 PM

I know a lot of people won't agree with me simply because they also do it. But I think it's becoming detrimental to this game.

The core of any good "FPS" game has become something that I look to one shot. And more and more, the only people left to one-shot are newbies who don't know any better yet, or stubbornly naive people who either refuse to play vehicles or enjoy getting one-shot. Either way these folks are becoming rarer and rarer, we are a victim of our own success.

Suitepee · 2012-12-18, 06:58 PM

It seems most of the fights in PS2 are won with vehicle superiority, although infantry do have to capture the points at the end of the day so you still see infantry being useful, especially heavies vs ground vehicles.

Hopefully they'll make more bases that are infantry-only like the bio labs in the future.

maradine · 2012-12-18, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by boogy

Anyone who thinks infantry vs. vehicles in this game is balanced doesn't give a flying fuck about the future of this game.

False dichotomy; I don't feel that infantry and vehicles need to be balanced. They are not equals on the battlefield in any reasonable narrative, nor should they be treated as such. The perceived problem is that this imbalance is universal and applied everywhere. On this I agree - there should be areas where infantry's mobility and small size make it the optimal choice, or even the only choice.

Urban areas with many firing lines to the ground; underground bases; better spawn room locations; a 1km megatower at the base of a space elevator - take your pick. These are all ways to give more meaning to strapping on the armor and slinging a rifle. Curbing the power of vehicle-class weapons isn't the right approach. That road leads to homogeneity.

boogy · 2012-12-18, 07:01 PM

repeat post

boogy · 2012-12-18, 07:02 PM

It seems most of the fights in PS2 are won with vehicle superiority, although infantry do have to capture the points at the end of the day so you still see infantry being useful, especially heavies vs ground vehicles.

Hopefully they'll make more bases that are infantry-only like the bio labs in the future.
__________________

Hopefully they do make those bases. They keep advertising to COD, Battlefield, and FPS fans, and when they finally try the game they get farmed by vehicles and quit.

Beerbeer · 2012-12-18, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by boogy

Hopefully they do make those bases. They keep advertising to COD, Battlefield, and FPS fans, and when they finally try the game they get farmed by vehicles and quit.

I honestly feel the same way. I heard it from a few people expecting that type of "play" to quickly discover it isn't.

This is a vehicle game. If that's their intention, good luck attracting these types of players.

That's why (among other reasons) this game is so empty.

boogy · 2012-12-18, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

False dichotomy; I don't feel that infantry and vehicles need to be balanced. They are not equals on the battlefield in any reasonable narrative, nor should they be treated as such. The perceived problem is that this imbalance is universal and applied everywhere. On this I agree - there should be areas where infantry's mobility and small size make it the optimal choice, or even the only choice.

Urban areas with many firing lines to the ground; underground bases; better spawn room locations; a 1km megatower at the base of a space elevator - take your pick. These are all ways to give more meaning to strapping on the armor and slinging a rifle. Curbing the power of vehicle-class weapons isn't the right approach. That road leads to homogeneity.

Depends how you interpret what I wrote. Your solution just addressed the imbalance I was talking about. Infantry do not have a playing field that is free from tank or air spam. Vehicles have a huge playing field to tank and air spam. Infantry vs. Vehicle balance is fucked.

maradine · 2012-12-18, 07:20 PM

This is not what the term "balance" is generally interpreted to mean in the context of an FPS, but I get your point. Both styles of play should be enjoyable and have many opportunities to be expressed.

Beerbeer · 2012-12-18, 07:22 PM

Well it isn't.

I can one shot anyone pretty much anywhere. Why wouldn't I? It's boring as hell for me and not fun for that newbie expecting a "shooter" game, but eh I have no more pity one-shotting people under br5 (I use to).

Timealude · 2012-12-18, 07:23 PM

amerish to me makes good use in forcing ground vehicles to go through choke points which allows chances for ambushing, hell the other day hayabusa and a few other groups set up a choke point between quartz ridge and hvar and pretty much stopped a hole tank push simply with using mines old school PS1 style. Infantry has the tools to stop tanks and aircraft. We just need more choke points and ways to catch them off guard.

They did have talks about walking to do like old ruins of buildings and such. That to me would help out alot with this vehicle spam we are seeing. and would also set up alot of traps for the infantry to use.

We have the tools we just need to figure out the tactics to use them. Alot of the areas I have noticed the camping are wide open areas where outpost are that already give vehicles an advantage. When you go down into Seabed or into the Grasslands on Indar there are areas where you will not win unless you are running an armor column or an air squadron. Its all a matter of tactics guys, it will only be a matter of time before people start learning how to deal with a massive tank zerg.

boogy · 2012-12-18, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

This is not what the term "balance" is generally interpreted to mean in the context of an FPS, but I get your point. Both styles of play should be enjoyable and have many opportunities to be expressed.

Yeah, it isn't. I wrote a couple of huge paragraphs describing what I meant then the back key sent me to the previous page and I lost it all. So I just when with "balance is shit".

It's going to take a long time to see continents and areas that allow for both styles of play. The temporary solution would be to remove splash damage from vehicles weapons. It will allow infantry to survive vehicles better and at the same won't be an anti-vehicle buff.

Helwyr · 2012-12-18, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by maradine

[...]I don't feel that infantry and vehicles need to be balanced. They are not equals on the battlefield in any reasonable narrative, nor should they be treated as such. The perceived problem is that this imbalance is universal and applied everywhere. On this I agree - there should be areas where infantry's mobility and small size make it the optimal choice, or even the only choice.

Infantry don't need to balanced with vehicles in the sense that all other things being equal 1vs1 an Infantry guy has a 50% chance of beating a MBT/ESF in a head to head fight. However, they do need to be balanced in other ways, and current resource costs and timers are definitely inadequate.

I believe Infantry should benefit from a low battlefield profile, in that they're hard for vehicles to detect and target in the first place. This means way more cover on maps (especially overhead cover), enclosed buildings, removal of Infantry from Vehicle Radar and showing up via IR/thermal optics on vehicles.

Originally Posted by Timealude

amerish to me makes good use in forcing ground vehicles to go through choke points which allows chances for ambushing, hell the other day hayabusa and a few other groups set up a choke point between quartz ridge and hvar and pretty much stopped a hole tank push simply with using mines old school PS1 style. Infantry has the tools to stop tanks and aircraft. We just need more choke points and ways to catch them off guard. [...]

Infantry has the tools to stop tanks given appropriate terrain and cover, but not aircraft. It's Air which dominates Amerish precisely because ground vehicles are hindered by the terrain while Air Vehicles only benefit from it using mountains for cover and ambush. Like ground vehicles Infantry are hindered by the Amerish terrain and lack much in the way of overhead cover to protect them from aircraft, nevermind the weak state of AA.

Beerbeer · 2012-12-18, 07:54 PM

Vehicles that can one shot, without restrictions on how often you can obtain them is just ridiculous IMO. I tried to be nice about, but it's stupid. Tanks, esfs, one man vehicles that can lay waste to hordes of infantry is the reason you don't see many infantry surviving very long, anywhere outside of biolabs.

Nerf their damage or nerf the crap out of how often they are obtained.