I stand corrected by the Harasser - Page 5

Shogun · 2013-06-17, 04:54 AM

i don´t use any vehicles but the sunderer and sometimes the harasser.

because all the other vehicles are no fun to play at all. the sunderer also is no fun, but i need the ams function.

we all know why the harasser is the only vehicle that is fun to play. the good handling and the driver gunner aspect.
but instead of nerfing the fun out of the harasser, buff the fun in the other vehicles!

rolfsky, you act like casuals would be unable to use tanks if they would be changed to d/g. that´s simply not the case. they can drive a tank, gun for a tank or even do both in the lightning. how is that "locking them out" of anything?

nerfing the harasser would be locking out every teamplayer of their playstyle. and planetside is all about teamplay, deal with it! casuals who leave the game because they refuse to play in a team are better off in other games anyway. and casuals who try this teamwork thing might get hooked up to the game faster, because it can be incredible fun! the devs say in every interview, that the special thing about planetside 2 is the persistent world where you will encounter the same players again and again. and that you will learn who are the good players and enjoy fighting with/against those guys. is there a better way to find good players than crewing a dangerous warmachine together? it doesn´t matter if you are hardcore or casual at that point!

also figment´s numbers are right. we have far too many tanks right now. that was the reason for increasing the ressource costs, to decrease tankspam. but making tanks d/g would have the same effect without that much annoyance. i think a casual soloplayer would prefer gunning for someone else or take the smaller 1 man tank over being stuck with no tank at all most of the time.

Figment · 2013-06-17, 05:40 AM

Mind, the entire "decrease spam" bit, is only true for units that have to be manned by at most three players. Anything more can be manned equally well with three people if others support them in other units.

The main reason we have this design is that the devs thought it would be good fun if 600 people would get into a tank at the same time without considering what kind of consequences that would have on the actual gameplay of the opposition.

Baneblade · 2013-06-17, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

Admin, please close this threat. It was hijacked 3 pages ago by bitter PS1 fanboys, who refuse to take a fresh look on this game.

I'm pretty sure you derailed it when you didn't want to admit the Harasser is fun because it has a dedicated driver.

Rolfski · 2013-06-17, 07:01 AM

The entire "decrease vehicle spam" argument is utterly bullshit, always has been. This game, if anything, is about scale and empowering casual solo players and hardcore team players alike. If you turn this into a small scale tactical shooter completely dominated by BR100 players in maxed out dedicated driver vehicles, I might as well go play Battlefield. At least that game looks better.

I for once, DON'T like to drive team vehicles like Liberators, Galaxies, Harassers, etc. and I'm certainly not the only one. I don't mind others piloting them but I prefer putting my certs into vehicles that allow ME to take full control. People have different play styles and this game should cater them both to the fullest. I like the power of driving a kick-ass MBT and shooting stuff up ON MY OWN, Battlefield style. You can get your more powerful driver seat version of the MBT but don't force me into a Lightning if I want to play this game my way. That's just un-empowering players.

Last night I got owned in my pretty maxed out heat canon Prowler by a composite armour Harraser. Although I didn't play particularly well in that case, I didn't stand a chance to begin with. Then I changed to Harasser and went on a 20+ kill streak tank hunting with a team mate.
That's just not right. If you're in a Harrasser, you should shit in your pants when facing a MBT, not going head-to-head with it. The Harrasser should do what it is supposed to do, harass. Not become an invincible, quick repair-on-the-go, infantry and vehicle farming machine. This whole composite armour has got to go, it's way too powerful.

Figment · 2013-06-17, 07:36 AM

Me me me.

That is all I got out of that. You don't care about balance and upset it deliberately. Put your certs into the Lightning if crewed vehicles aren't for you.

Don't demand power extremities for yourself exactly BECAUSE this is NOT a small scale tactical shooter, LIKE BATTLEFIELD WHERE TANK NUMBERS ARE COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY THE GAME INSTEAD OF THE PLAYERS. You deliberately ignore that a lot of power in the hands of one player multiplied by hundreds of players at the same time is much much much more firepower and endurance for a select group of players than in Battlefield games would be the case, simply because you like personal pwnage. You don't at all consider the effect of your 'needs and wants' on the gameplay of others, who are forced en mass to use AV capable infantry. You reduce variety in gameplay, you obstruct other gameplay and you negatively impact quality of life of other gameplay by continuously one hit killing them with all your peers in other tanks.

This is NOT Battlefield, so don't expect to port directly concepts from Battlefield because those are not designed for large scale sandbox usage by 2000 players in a single map!

This is not about what you personally want. Sometimes in life you can't get what you want and stop acting like a spoiled brat that always gets their way. This is for the good of the game and harassers show pretty well why. They are a three men unit, you are a solo unit. They should completely trash you because otherwise there is no reason to use crewed vehicles opposed to solo vehicles. But because the mbt is soloable, it has to be made to be shit.

Sorry Rolfski, but you don't understand MMO fps design. You are the one thinking small scale. You are completely incapable, or rather, unwilling to see - because you don't want to out of personal interest - that having players with Supreme power (what you ask for) on their own, squashing entire groups of players, would never be good balance. And you do this because you balance based on unit appearance, rather than unit player occupation. Balance in manpower is the ultimate balancing requirement in a sandbox MMO FPS, because you are not alone and everyone can theoretically get access to it at the same time. So equality to alternatives in numbers is key for the selection process: whatever they pick, it should be fair in competition with other options.

Just because you want to play something solo, doesn't mean you should and it also doesn't mean you shouldn't compensate by giving up something when doing so. This is a game and therefore we need trade-offs between units, especially to off-set firepower and endurance on a per capita basis.

Groups of players must be balanced against one another. And you do tht by determining how much power a group of people should have on average. Which means that solists get a fraction of the power of the group. So yes, get the Lightning. Tht isn't unempowering, that is empowering. Just because you alone aren't the toughest on the battlefield doesn't mean you should be. As a group (of lightnings or other combinations of players) your fractions will add up to the same or more of that one unit.

No way you should alone be equal or better than a group.

But you are right in one thing: harassers should fear MBTs. Thus MBTs should not be soloable.

Rolfski · 2013-06-17, 08:15 AM

If there's any one acting a like a spoiled brat it's certainly not me mate. I'm not the one who has been complaining and zealotting on this forum from day one with the "this game needs to be PS 1.5" message, not understanding the completely different business model that lies behind PS 2, that has a profound impact on the game mechanics.
I'm certainly not hoping SOE will ever hire you because you just want to turn this game into ghost town for hardcore players.

In case you didn't know, this game IS about Me, Me, Me. It's a game, it's about personal entertainment. Whether that is from playing solo or as a team, I as a player should be having equal fun. Without solo players, this game probably would seize to exist. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of this player base doesn't operate in an outfit.

So no, solo players in a MBT getting owned by the Harasser is not a good idea. They should be getting owned by other MBT's that has a multiple crew in it.

Gatekeeper · 2013-06-17, 08:48 AM

Rolfski has a good point about solo players - the game does need them, and it is dangerous to make the game so team-focussed that it excludes them.

That said, I think Figment is also right - the best way to balance the Harasser against the MBT is to make them work in a broadly similar way - and that means giving the MBT a dedicated driver.

Balancing in any other way just becomes a nightmare - yes it makes sense for a MBT to be stronger than a buggy, but how can you make that fair if the tank is a 1-man vehicle and the buggy is 2-man?

If that makes lone-wolf players feel left out (and for the record, I normally play solo) then give the Lightning some love and give it its own unique role - so it's not just seen as a poor man's MBT any more.

Baneblade · 2013-06-17, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

I for once, DON'T like to drive team vehicles like Liberators, Galaxies, Harassers, etc. and I'm certainly not the only one. I don't mind others piloting them but I prefer putting my certs into vehicles that allow ME to take full control. People have different play styles and this game should cater them both to the fullest. I like the power of driving a kick-ass MBT and shooting stuff up ON MY OWN, Battlefield style. You can get your more powerful driver seat version of the MBT but don't force me into a Lightning if I want to play this game my way. That's just un-empowering players.

PS2 completely eliminated my playstyle from existance. What do you say to that?

Last night I got owned in my pretty maxed out heat canon Prowler by a composite armour Harraser. Although I didn't play particularly well in that case, I didn't stand a chance to begin with. Then I changed to Harasser and went on a 20+ kill streak tank hunting with a team mate.
That's just not right. If you're in a Harrasser, you should shit in your pants when facing a MBT, not going head-to-head with it. The Harrasser should do what it is supposed to do, harass. Not become an invincible, quick repair-on-the-go, infantry and vehicle farming machine. This whole composite armour has got to go, it's way too powerful.

So you agree that MBTs need to be the Liberators of the ground game. Not just bigger Lightning.

Figment · 2013-06-17, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfski

If there's any one acting a like a spoiled brat it's certainly not me mate. I'm not the one who has been complaining and zealotting on this forum from day one with the "this game needs to be PS 1.5" message, not understanding the completely different business model that lies behind PS 2, that has a profound impact on the game mechanics.

Oi!

1. Yes, you are acting as a spoiled brat. But since you actually got exactly what you want you aren't whining to get it, you are whining to keep it. You don't want to share or balance your power to that of others.

2. I've been campaigning because I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE DIFFERENT MECHANICS.

3. The mechanics have absolutely nothing to do with the different business model. Proof? All the multi-crew units in game that also are subject to micro-transactions and are selling like hot pastries. Stop ignoring the obvious.

4. I have never used the terms "PS 1.5", that's something people like you have invented as a derogatory term to denounce any reference to PS1 and to refute any influence and retention from PS1 systems when you don't actually have an argument to back up why it shouldn't be used. When something from PS1 would work in PS2, you can't simply refuse looking at it because it's from a previous game. The refusal is even worse narrowminded tunnelvision because it excludes options in advance. The "PS 1.5" crowd as you call it have weighed the alternatives and say "this new system isn't an improvement, quite the opposite, so use the old one instead because it has been proven to work well in the MMO FPS context".

5. Disagreeing does not mean not understanding. I heard the arguments in favour and pretty much trashed most of them with extremely extensive gameplay focused argumentation. What is good for good gameplay is good for any business model.

I'm certainly not hoping SOE will ever hire you because you just want to turn this game into ghost town for hardcore players.

I don't think they will hire me since I have an extremely strong opinion I'm not afraid to put out there and have a quite different vision from the devs.

The second part of your sentence is an uncalled for insult that is unargumented and plainly wrong, because what I have in mind would always benefit every class and every group of players, but UNLIKE YOU, I would NEVER let any group or class of players get the upper hand over others BY DEFAULT or worse, INTENTIONAL DESIGN.

And if you didn't notice, this is the player retention rate of PS2:

The numbers halfed in the first month.

This is the player retention rate for PS1 (page 11):

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/52076451...ription-Growth

Which shows that PS1 grew in numbers for the first half year and only started to drop significantly after 2 years due to a very specific patch. DESPITE not having anything near the marketing campaign PS2 had.

Since you want exactly something that's akin to what that patch that ruined the PS1 population brought, I'm not sure what you base this opinion on.

PS1 was NOT filled with hardcore gamers. It was filled with casuals, only abouy 15-20% could be considered hardcore who took winning the combat over the span of several hours serious. The remainder was casual zerg.

In case you didn't know, this game IS about Me, Me, Me.

Last I checked it's not a single player game, so no, it's not.

This is a multiplayer game, so balancing everyone's interests against one another is more important than singling out the interests of a single player and catering entirely to that single player.

It's a game, it's about personal entertainment. Whether that is from playing solo or as a team, I as a player should be having equal fun. Without solo players, this game probably would seize to exist. I actually wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of this player base doesn't operate in an outfit.

That I agree with. But you don't seem to understand that that doesn't mean that every unit, every role AND CERTAINLY NOT EVERY TANK should be played solo. Nor does it mean that solo players should have equal power to groups of players. Your deduction and and analysis falls apart completely beyond this point.

Certain playstyles, heavy playstyles, like heavy tanks, are best assigned to crews to warrant their greater individual endurance firepower as a unit: it's off-set by a reduction in the amount of units with lighter endurance and lighter firepower by combining those things into a single unit of equal weight.

If you replace light firepower and light endurance in equal numbers with heavy firepower and heavy endurance, then you're creating an imbalance.

So no, solo players in a MBT getting owned by the Harasser is not a good idea. They should be getting owned by other MBT's that has a multiple crew in it.

No, because if the solo-MBT is overpowered with respect to light vehicles, then that multi-crew MBT would be even more overpowered in comparison to other players and that would not be healthy for the game as you would chase away everyone not playing in either MBT or crew MBT.

Sorry, but you're being very shortsighted here.

Nobody who wants heavy team vehicles EXCLUDES solo players NOR do they exclude casual players: these people also point out there are (and should be while expecting to have equal weight) lighter units specifically designed for playing individually. But the emphasis should lie on these units being lighter than the crew units. That is not excluding them, that's balancing playstyles and numbers in one go. That the solo player is at a disadvantage when he is indeed completely alone (which he shouldn't be) or faces a greater challenge by taking on multiple players at once, is no more than natural.

Nobody says that this challenge should be a "never win" situation, but that is exactly what happens if you hand solo players greate firepower and endurance, because groups can also be groups of solo players and they would completely trash solo players with their own medicine. Which is what happens now.

If we are talking about infantry playing solo (which is more logical and more prominent) and being able to deal with larger numbers, then yes. By all means, but that is largely base defense (smaller numbers can't ever effectively go on the offensive beyond quick and precision strikes), class flexibility and logistics design.

Figment · 2013-06-17, 10:15 AM

Also, Gatekeeper has a very good point about Lightning and MBT role overlaps.

Dodgy Commando · 2013-06-17, 11:07 AM

I won't go over what's already been covered very well.

But I do want to give you an example, Rolfski, from BF3, which you cite, to better illustrate what you are asking for.

What happens when the enemy manage to capture your tanks/heloes? Things get pretty shit for your team (especially worse on consoles where there are fewer players to counter the threat). It is game breaking most of the time.

Don't get me wrong, I have a blast in tanks in BF3 (its pretty awesome).

But you can't port that aspect straight over.

On one side (BF3) you have a completely controlled environment which can therefore be balanced accordingly without things getting out of hand (except when enemies get especially cheeky as mentioned/you have a lot of bad players on your team that allow such a thing to happen). You have a set, equal number of 'power' units on each side.

On the other hand in PS2, anyone can pull a MBT. There is no control, hence the situation we have now which is proving tough to balance. Tanks shit on infantry, so they are made paper thin and roles are reversed. All these problems are exacerbated by pop numbers (if you have a lower pop and everyone on the opposing side can pull a tank, cue the situation mentioned in BF3, multiplied).

So yes, perhaps the current solo playstyle with MBT's appears to be threatened by what a lot of people are gunning for (including myself), but that doesn't make us anti-lonewolves by any means (I really don't like the term casual: I am casual by my limited playtime, but I consider myself hardcore).

The solo playstyle should be catered for, but just like you call us out in attempting to preserve it, I'm calling you out for doing so at the detriment of everyone else. There exists a better way to have the two co-exist. Crewed MBT's doesn't mean the Lightning can't get some love for example (it is potentially viable).

At the end of the day, if I still had to chose, PS2 is a team game and I would pay the price gladly (despite being 'casual'). Now I don't wish for things to go so far, and truly believe we can find the right balance, but the current situation is far from ideal.

mrmrmrj · 2013-06-17, 02:25 PM

I love Harrassers. I will echo others in the opinion that a 2 man Harasser will crush a solo Lightning. A 3 man Harrasser even more so if the bucket seat guy is an engy who can repair on the fly and drop mines out the back.

The issue with Harassers from a game standpoint is that they are not readily countered by infantry. They are too fast to hit with dumbfire rockets and too fast get a lock on unless the HA has good elevation. When I am successful in taking them out, it is usually from creative (and/or lucky) mine placement when I see it coming.

As to making MBT 2-man, I don;t think that would solve anything. Harassers have to be 2-man because they are fast and fragile. You could not solo drive one and reliably hit anything at the same time. That is hard enough to do in a Lightning. Driving an MBT is not fun by itself. Driving a Harasser is. I often use them without a gunner to scout the battlefield.

Harassers can be "adjusted" without ruining their fun in two ways:

1) remove on the fly repairing
2) make them a lot more mine fragile

They also should never have been launched with the Halberd and Enforcer guns. Those are too accurate and powerful, combining the power of an MBT with incredible mobility. Harasser guns should be more like a fast firing Bulldog or a new large caliber machine gun. Too late to change this, though.

Figment · 2013-06-17, 02:36 PM

Infantry can also use light arms on them mrmrmrj.

mrmrmrj · 2013-06-17, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Infantry can also use light arms on them mrmrmrj.

Of course, but I have never considered that a real danger in combat while driving one. I have killed a low flying Scythe with a Jackhammer, but that doesn't mean it is a reliable counter.

I want to emphasize that I think the Harasser is an awesome addition to PS2. The increased resource cost is a decent step. The fact that I do not see more than a few Harassers at a time continues to surprise me since I find them so fun, driving or gunning.

Rolfski · 2013-06-17, 06:33 PM

Small arms fire is a joke atm against Harassers so no argument here.

Then I hear the argument that Harassers need to be a strong as a tank against MBT's because of being 2+ seeded. That's the wrong argumentation imo. In the first place it's a specialized light vehicle so it should behave like a specialized light vehicle, not like a tank with a mobilty and repair bonus. It should be strong against MBT's only because it relies on mobility and speed, while mounting fairly decent guns. Right now that's not the case, the Harasser has uber composite armor and extremely quick repairs on the move as well and that's where the imbalances start to come in.

What the Harasser should be is a specialized glass canon: A high skill vehicle that becomes very effective with a good dedicated driver but can only survive fights on speed and manoeuvrability, not on invincible armour/quick repair combo's.

Then I hear all sorts of arguments about the current single crew mbt not working or the whole vehicle system not working for that matter. I guess it comes all to personal preference then, because some balancing and resourcing issues aside, I actually like the current system. It doesn't feel "broken" to me at all. And I don't hear too many people complaining about crewed mbt's tbh, aside from a few PS1 vets in this forum. Turning it into a PS1 system would probably result in a lot more complaints.