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

[ShadetheDruid]

Oh I know he probably doesn't mean everyone, though my point is you can't really make assumptions about someone's motives just because they're playing a similar class/role to someone who is just farming XP. It's the same with spawn camping vehicles.

Yes, they're both issues, but for those of us who don't do that stuff, it's frustating to constantly be lumped in with them for convenience. Especially when any fixes people suggest are usually made with that generalisation in mind..

In the end I think this is sort of off topic, but I do agree that at the minute LAs have more tools/abilities tailored to sabotage than Infils do, which is weird. I would hope in the future, all classes are going to be getting more stuff in general and so Infils will get a bunch of new nifty things to play with. Like, i'm hoping we're going to see that stalker suit (the one where you sacrifice a primary for a super cloak) at some point soon, that would definitely help the infiltration-focused peoples.

[Thunderhawk]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

I'm hoping we're going to see that stalker suit (the one where you sacrifice a primary for a super cloak) at some point soon, that would definitely help the infiltration-focused peoples.

I'd play Infil almost exclusively if that was the case

And would love the new SMG Higby is talking about coming to the Infil class if at all possible, I miss my shotgun

[TheRageTrain]

If they increase the cooldowns, Its up to the player to keep he\s tank etc alive.. if he looses it.. he has to change to something less HE spamming one..

I don\t think increasing resource cost is that effective.. would prefer 15min cooldowns on fully certed tanks or libs. 15mins is really short time still in my opinion as theres so many vehicles to pull anyways.. Personall I would say 30mins but no1 would agree with that

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

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.

Pretty much: I look at what players are encouraged to do, want to do, what their expectations are and how they behave and how the game fits that. Not per definition at all with how I personally behave in game, though obviously that does influence my opinion a lot.

To me, keeping things fair for all sides is a primary concern. Most players only look after #1. So if I say something in favour of AA or talking about , I'm not trying to remove air from the game or make it utterly impossible to use, at all. I may have a different vision on how units interact though as rather than saying "air is air thus must dominate (like in RL)", I argue from a vision where every style is fair opposed to other styles through trade-offs and it is possible to play in entirely different ways and be effective, since it's a game.

Shade, my suggested changes would not hurt non-camper game play, though they might tone down solo players in vehicles and make crewed units more effective opposed to groups of solo players (who are currently extremely more efficient and that's a real problem for player choice). All in all, they'd improve non camping gameplay.


Just an example:

How many people in PS1 complained about the Phoenix dealing more damage to armour than infantry? Next to none, in fact, people gloated about Phoenixes not being more than a tickle post-patch as they could now use cover from NC infantry as intended. Why? Because it encouraged using the appropriate weapons for the intended targets and provided viability to other play styles.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by TheRageTrain

If they increase the cooldowns, Its up to the player to keep he\s tank etc alive.. if he looses it.. he has to change to something less HE spamming one..

I don\t think increasing resource cost is that effective.. would prefer 15min cooldowns on fully certed tanks or libs. 15mins is really short time still in my opinion as theres so many vehicles to pull anyways.. Personall I would say 30mins but no1 would agree with that

I'd simply suggest it'd be fairer that if you specialise in one thing and can use that more often, you get less access to another thing.

Current certification boils down to getting better at everything over time.

[Figment]

This would be an example of actually making a trade-off and dedicating one self to a unit type or going jack of all trades, without completely limiting which unit type can be acquired:



Would still prefer simply disabling vehicles altogether if you already got access to something. That could actually also done by the above, by requiring a minimal input of the maximum amount of points, to even be able to use them.

For instance, imagine the remaining 20 points had been spent on unlocking vehicles in the first place (adding them to the axes). Say units would cost 5-20 points depending on how many you want around and how easy to access (say, ATV 0 (could even have some points invested by default), Buggies 5, Lightning, APC 10, ESF 15, and Lib, MBT and Gal 20 points) and then you'd have a maximum of 80 points, then you'd have to invest more heavily into certain units to be able to pull them often, at the expense of not pulling others as often.

[Thunderhawk]

I actually think that a form of specialisation is a great idea, it would mean dedicated players taking on roles and not just circling around the 3/4 main farm vehicles available. (Lib-> MBT-> ESF -> Lightning-> Lib again -> ....)

But take with that the increased dedication to forum posts absolutely focused on making sure they're "favourite" niche is not nerf'ed when the other camp cries for it....

Imagine people invested heavily into MBT specialization, at the expense of not flying for example. Their forum posts would fill these forums and the official ones regarding OP'd-ness of ESFs.....

ESF investors will see their heavily invested project under attack with the potential to being nerfed and start returning the favour with more posts about MBT OP'd-ness.

At least at the moment, it seems - even though we do have whine and nerf posts - there are still many players that just change from one to other and thus tend to not join in the whine, and just watch the rest slug it out.

I would like a cert tree as such, where a Character would specialise and cert himself out into a specific role, be it LA/Infil / MEdic / Eng / HA etc... and would come with a reset certification option at the expense of 50 certs, or 100 certs.

That way people dont flip at terminals every opportunity and play their class to its full potential.

Although I am 99% sure this will never see the light of day or even be considered as the demographic doesn't want this.

[Figment]

I would say if you allow these points to be redistributed once every while it wouldn't be too much of an issue.

[ShadetheDruid]

The trick there would be being balancing it for people who just want to play what they feel like playing vs people who switch between everything in a rotation (or whenever they like with no specialisation in anything in particular).

I personally generally stick to only a few classes/vehicles, in which I specialise in specific roles, but I wouldn't want the system to stop me from, say, switching class or vehicle when I want because I feel like doing something else instead.

I mean, something like making vehicles require a base cert unlock to use would be fine (they could even do that at this stage by giving the unlock free to people who've got 1000-2000+ certs, or spent SC, on a vehicle). It would allow people to focus on more than one thing for variety's sake, but cut out people just switching between vehicles they haven't invested in.

What I wouldn't want them to do is to force me into specialising in, say, LA at the cost of everything, because i'd be rather boned if I didn't feel like playing LA today. I mean, most MMOs get around that by having people make more than one character, but the current system (while perhaps not perfect) cuts out the middle man.

[Figment]

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...ade-off.77415/

Made this thread, let's see what Zhem Zhere Forumpeonz zink of ze planz.

[Sledgecrushr]

I would rather not limit vehicles anymore than what we have already.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I would rather not limit vehicles anymore than what we have already.

I didn't know there were restraints? >___>

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

I mean, something like making vehicles require a base cert unlock to use would be fine (they could even do that at this stage by giving the unlock free to people who've got 1000-2000+ certs, or spent SC, on a vehicle). It would allow people to focus on more than one thing for variety's sake, but cut out people just switching between vehicles they haven't invested in.

I wouldnt want to limit vehicles more than what we have now.

[ShadetheDruid]

I would only see that as a last resort, really. I think the best option is to go with the small changes approach.

I mean, if they fixed bases to be more infantry-based (with less campable spawns as well, etc), it might turn out that unlimited (within reason) access to vehicles becomes no longer so much of an issue and therefore doesn't require anything else changed.

[Rolfski]

The whole idea of this topic is that there is no need to limit vehicle spam as there are other ways to balance it out.

As expected of course, this topic derails into a brainstorm on exactly just that: How to limit vehicle spam