Should Heavy Assault Drive? - Page 4 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: o_O
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Reply
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-07-10, 12:57 AM   [Ignore Me] #46
Electrofreak
Contributor
Major General
 
Electrofreak's Avatar
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


This thread has far too much constructive criticism and intelligent debate.
__________________

Support the use of a dynamic XP system in PlanetSide 2!
Electrofreak is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 12:58 AM   [Ignore Me] #47
Spiritbeast
Private
 
Spiritbeast's Avatar
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


i dont have a problem with any class driving/gunning vehicles, including maxes. As long as i have a few teammates with me i have a chance to live. In 1v1 it would be ahh crap, but that might help promote teamwork, and i might have an HA with me with a rocket launcher ; P doesnt sound so bad then
Spiritbeast is offline  
Reply With Quote
This is the last VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-07-10, 02:11 AM   [Ignore Me] #48
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


Nothing stopped drivers from carrying AV weaponry in PS1, or gunners from being HA. The exit animation caused a delay which often resulted in the tank blowing up in the time it took for the driver to exit, or the exploding tank would kill them immediately afterwards.

Seems to me the thing missing is an enter/exit delay which would make it a risk to leave the vehicle.
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 03:01 AM   [Ignore Me] #49
FuzzyandBlue
Corporal
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


I don't really see how a HA bailing, is any worse than an engy getting out and repping the tank mid fight. I would imagine he would be able to live if he was behind the tank rather than in front of it.

Personally I would much rather have someone repping my tank over a guy that can shoot on extra shot. So should we not let engys drive tanks or be the gunner in a tank because he can get out and repair the tank mid fight?

A exit/enter animation or delay could fix these particular gimmicks. But is an exit/enter animation or delay a fun mechanic? Do we do them for all vehicles? should it take 3-4 seconds to get in and out of a sunderer or a flash? What about gal drops?
FuzzyandBlue is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 03:37 AM   [Ignore Me] #50
Envenom
Sergeant Major
 
Envenom's Avatar
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


There's arguments for both sides. Pretty much it boils down to vehicle exit/enter animations make everyone happy. SOE, get on it.
Envenom is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 04:34 AM   [Ignore Me] #51
Littleman
First Lieutenant
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


Originally Posted by PhoenixDog View Post
Whether this issue has already been covered in the latest build or not...We don't know. And that's why we talk. Because we don't know. And whether SoE considers anything said here or not, we can still discuss potentials. That's part of the fun in it, no? Imagining the possibilities of such exploits and thus coming up with solutions to fix said exploits.

It's a forum discussion. Let's discuss.
Most of this thread during page 1 was simply "I don't like the idea of HA jumping out and killing me with a rocket! Say NO to HA drivers!" It wasn't a discussion of potential maneuvers and their counters ("exploits," please,) it was ill informed people stating fear/hate borne opinions that sounded eerily reminiscent of PS1 expectations.

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv View Post
The whole point of Beta, and observing the tests/gameplay is so we can state our opinions on this sort of thing.


Second, it's not over reacting to anything.

[FACT:]
At present a heavily armored soldier, able to carry a large AT launcher into any vehicle can instantly dismount, instantly pop a shield allowing him to survive any potential fire directed at him, and fire his weapon at the enemy, very possibly changing the outcome.
[/FACT]



Despite Higby personally being unable to kill the Mag, whether due to suckage or circumstances of the encounter, the PRINCIPLE DISPLAYED here is potentially a problem.

#1 It's more than a little silly to take a AT launcher into a cockpit with you. This is a video game, yes... But really?

#2 It promotes cheap gimmicky gameplay. And, as has already been mentioned by several people, there are clear and obvious ways to potentially abuse the mechanics at present (see guy saying "Fire gun, eject and fire missile, mount vehicle fire gun again")

It is not over reacting to state an opinion on something. Particularly when something is kind of stupid. Like this is.

Yes, this is a pre-release version of the game... However, if nobody says anything, they might not take it out, or worse, might think it's "good".


On the topic of whether HA should be able to drive most vehicles? No, not really. They're heavy infantry, with lots of guns that don't really jive well with a cramped cockpit. This is silly.

"HA would be bland and uninteresting if they can't drive all the vehicles like the other classes can"
Obviously, you lean towards being a vehicle user/tanker.

Playing as infantry will be bland if you don't like infantry, this is true. If you like infantry... Then you'll like being infantry...

Please note, I play exclusively as infantry. I do not use either planes or vehicles to any appreciable extent. I am "negatively affected" you might say, by my opinion, but I still hold it.
If the developers react to our opinions/beliefs or speculation based on what we see in a video and make changes based on that, this game is already long since ****ed. I trust in their first hand experience with PS2 more-so than a bunch of critics voicing personal beliefs while watching a choppy stream. Personal beliefs on what should be possible have no place in the balancing of a game.

Frankly, if HA can't drive vehicles, the only thing HA brings over a MAX is hacking capability. The shield is a temporary save, but it won't last forever, especially against the sheer firepower of a tank. They're both designed solely to shoot stuff, the latter is just better at it. How's that for an opinion formulated while observing tests/gameplay?
Littleman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 04:53 AM   [Ignore Me] #52
Otleaz
Second Lieutenant
 
Otleaz's Avatar
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


Originally Posted by Littleman View Post
Most of this thread during page 1 was simply "I don't like the idea of HA jumping out and killing me with a rocket! Say NO to HA drivers!" It wasn't a discussion of potential maneuvers and their counters ("exploits," please,) it was ill informed people stating fear/hate borne opinions that sounded eerily reminiscent of PS1 expectations.
Discussions have a tendency to move on. I suggest you take that into consideration next time you make a post berating people about irrelevant material after only reading part of the first page.

Last edited by Otleaz; 2012-07-10 at 04:55 AM.
Otleaz is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 04:53 AM   [Ignore Me] #53
Canaris
Contributor
General
 
Canaris's Avatar
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


if they have their liecence why not, let HA drive!
__________________

"Don't matter who did what to who at this point. Fact is, we went to war, and now there ain't no going back. I mean shit, it's what war is, you know? Once you in it, you in it! If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight. "
Slim Charles aka Tallman - The Wire
BRTD Mumble Server powered by Gamercomms
Canaris is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 07:28 AM   [Ignore Me] #54
Karrade
First Sergeant
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


I honestly can't call this, too many variables. Have to wait till beta to see the class balance.
Karrade is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 11:10 AM   [Ignore Me] #55
Flaropri
Sergeant Major
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


Originally Posted by Electrofreak View Post
They may not be able to heal themselves, but they have something better; they can bail in a fraction of a second and pop a shield which will allow them to survive a tank round. Combine this with the ability to fire AV and they just have too much of an advantage.
And LA can fly away to avoid getting hit entirely and then plant explosives on the enemy vehicle, Engies can pop out and put down an AV turret or similar small structure, etc.

As far as HA being able to supposedly hop in an out of a tank to fire off extra shots between cannon fire... just reset the timer on the cannon when someone enters that seat. So for example, you've got the timer after firing off multiple shots in a Lightning, if you hop out, have that timer start again from zero when you get back in, that removes the ability to take advantage of timing like that. It also keeps the Engi from being able to take advantage of such timing via repairs.

I don't think it's that strong of a tactic to begin with mind, since it means you and the vehicle are stationary, but if it is an issue that's a way to resolve it without removing the entire class from most vehicles.
Flaropri is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 11:23 AM   [Ignore Me] #56
sylphaen
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


FYI, I see more an issue with instant exits from heavy tanks than using HA after bailing.

PS1 had a nice balance between soldier/vehicle set-up.

MAX = No vehicles
REXO = No heavy vehicles/light vehicles allowed
EXO = All vehicles
Infil = All vehicles+stealth vehicles

Heavy vehicles = no bailing for drivers (i.e. no instant exit) but high armor
Light vehicles = bailing for drivers but fragile armor
(passengers always get bailing so they cannot be hijacked by the driver)


This system worked well, what are the reasons why it should be changed ? Wanna bail with AV --> use buggies !
(They said buggies are coming post release)

NOTE: the sunderer was an exception because it allowed the driver to be HA. It still did not allow bailing though.

Last edited by sylphaen; 2012-07-10 at 11:24 AM.
sylphaen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 12:02 PM   [Ignore Me] #57
Xyntech
Brigadier General
 
Xyntech's Avatar
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic View Post
For me, it's simply that of all the infantry classes HA has the distinct advantage in this situation (bailing from a vehicle only to further attack your aggressor). Specifically you have your heavy armor and shield (which is meant to protect you from vehicle attacks as has been said).

I agree that the classes overall should be balanced out against each other as you pointed out. But if you want to maximize your effectiveness in vehicles, I see no reason not to go as HA. As long as you have your vehicle's auto armor repair speed certed up, there's no reason to go as Engineer.

I suppose this is by design. And yes, we'll see how it pans out in beta. But I won't be surprised when I see everybody copying what Higby did in the stream today.
But what is a person giving up for having the auto repair module? It's all about tradeoffs. I'm going as LA as a Scythe pilot for multiple reasons, but one of them is because I want to be able to bail without installing a module for it.

I don't doubt that there will be people copying what Higby did, and maybe sometimes they'll be successful with it, but unless it is consistently used to win tank fights or dogfights, then who cares if it gets used a lot? We already know that we get rewarded for killing vehicles regardless of if the person bails or not.

I think that a good aircav pilot will tend to be LA, and a good tank or Liberator crew will tend to be a mix of engi's and HA. I definitely can't see medics and infiltrators being first choice options for your average vehicle crew, but as long as there are a variety of decent options for classes to pick when driving and flying, it seems balanced enough to me.

But yeah, if I ever see HA bailing tactics suddenly becoming the method of choice for winning a vehicle fight, I'll definitely be in support of it getting fixed. I just see zero evidence that it's a problem at the moment.

Now what could be interesting is if the tactic gets used in a Sunderer. Sunderer rolls up close to an enemy tank with it's enormous amounts of health, 8+ HA guys jump out with AV, unload into the tank and destroy it, then anyone who died gets revived by a medic who was sitting inside manning one of the Sunderers turrets.

But considering how that would be 10 people vs the 1 or 2 in the tank, that seems perfectly fair to me. Besides, that shit would be viable even if HA couldn't drive any vehicles at all.
Xyntech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 12:02 PM   [Ignore Me] #58
MrBloodworth
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


Only buggies. Period.
MrBloodworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 12:22 PM   [Ignore Me] #59
Xyntech
Brigadier General
 
Xyntech's Avatar
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


Originally Posted by MrBloodworth View Post
Only buggies. Period.
Christ you are a terrible person.

No love for ATV's?
Xyntech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-10, 12:24 PM   [Ignore Me] #60
MrBloodworth
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: Should Heavy Assault Drive?


Originally Posted by Xyntech View Post
Christ you are a terrible person.

No love for ATV's?
Always considered them buggies. Due to light armament.
MrBloodworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.