Anti-X being used against Y

[Kriegson]

For instance: the NC MAX today who ran around using flak on infantry as much as he did actual aircraft.
It didn't seem too effective (As the flak didn't explode on target) but later I saw another MAX using an AV rocket launcher quite well enough to annihilate someone with a direct hit.

What are your thoughts on how effective anti _____ weapons should be against other targets? How their effectiveness could be reduced through organic methods (like a small AoE on AV rounds, or AA rounds not exploding) or through more direct means (a coded in damage reduction).

[bpostal]

I do believe there was one instance of a guy getting shot in the face by a pounder, yeah that should hurt.
I could see maybe 2/3 the damage? Turn off any flak etc, IMHO it shouldn't be as effective (obviously) but it shouldn't be exactly worthless.

EDIT: Flamethrower > All

[raidyr]

Considering the flak rounds are probably anywhere from 20mm up to 40mm it's a little ridiculous to assume an unexploded shell is just going to hit you and do that little damage.

At the same time though I don't want MAX suits set up to take down aircraft then just mow down infantry almost as well as dedicated any infantry suits.

[Kriegson]

Originally Posted by raidyr

Considering the flak rounds are probably anywhere from 20mm up to 40mm it's a little ridiculous to assume an unexploded shell is just going to hit you and do that little damage.

At the same time though I don't want MAX suits set up to take down aircraft then just mow down infantry almost as well as dedicated any infantry suits.

Well, this being SPAACCEEEE and all, we could presume that most anti-personnel rounds are designed to penetrate the armor that the factions wear. Flak rounds are designed to explode, in order to pepper targets with shrapnel.

By not exploding, and without the necessary designs to effective penetrate armor, it's basically just pounding them with sheer brute force, which is significantly reduced by their armor.

That I could understand. But if someone survives a direct hit with an anti-tank shell...I'm going to be skeptical.

[Haro]

Pretty sure this is what happened with flak guns in the original too: decent damage, but no proximity detection or good accuracy. Honestly, I'm alright with it. While that one guy went on a killing spree with them (though his opponents were pretty bad) I saw plenty of other maxes try to use them and fail. It overall feels pretty balanced. I think AV weapons have the highest potential for abuse, but they seem like they aren't very accurate and have fairly short range for direct fire.

[Zekeen]

To me, I think anti air should be a slower heavy shell that does good AI damage. Slower, so it's worse against infantry than AI, but per damage is the way to do it.

Typically in a FPS game, Anti Air is amazing against infantry. I think they need to rework the flak guns to do less against armored infantry, like HA and MAX, but more against light infantry and infiltrators, and a nice middle for medium guys like engineers and medics.

[raidyr]

Originally Posted by Kriegson

Well, this being SPAACCEEEE and all, we could presume that most anti-personnel rounds are designed to penetrate the armor that the factions wear. Flak rounds are designed to explode, in order to pepper targets with shrapnel.

By not exploding, and without the necessary designs to effective penetrate armor, it's basically just pounding them with sheer brute force, which is significantly reduced by their armor.

That I could understand. But if someone survives a direct hit with an anti-tank shell...I'm going to be skeptical.

While I'm all for wacky sci-fi space shenanigans, because it gives this game flavor and makes it more appealing over the endless brown sea of modern warfare games, there comes a point where suspension of disbelief is compromised and it just feels ridiculous.

Watching a MAX tear apart a lumbering gunship in a few salvos then turn these fairly massive cannons on an infantry player and just watching him land successive shots for several seconds does that.

[Verruna]

Obviously from a gaming standpoint you want the specialized weapons to be the primary choice for those targets in all cases. Largely in PS1 this was pretty balanced imo, i think they'll get the weapon balance right - all the devs being previous PS1 players We gotta give good feedback when beta hits!

Perfect balance imo, would be (as a example) a AA or AV max shouldn't be a free kill to a infantry, but should definitely have a tougher time than if he had AI weapons.

[Shotokanguy]

Coming up with an explanation that makes sense in the PS universe is the best way to go, IMO.

Say something like...

Vanu weapons use different kinds of energy against different targets, so an AV weapon doesn't do as much damage against infantry.

The TR flak could hit with plenty of force, but just say that the shields the soldiers in PS2 are using are highly resistant to kinetic energy.

And if the Gauss rifle is based around kinetic energy, say the magnetic systems for the bullet cause interference with shielding and allow more penetration.

Just silly stuff I made up off the top of my head, but the point is I do want each type to be less effective against the other two. The best way to do it is to think of some reason why it shouldn't do it, and have that take effect in gameplay. So maybe the flak from the Burster won't get through shields for a while, but if you do, you can take down infantry quickly because health has no natural damage resistance.

[JesNC]

The AA MAXes used to be ok-ish effective against lone infantrymen in PS1, if you had an AV weapon equipped you usually came out on top.

The pounder AV on the other hand only managed to kill infantry by volume of fire

I can't remember this being imbalanced back then, so I doubt they'll change much about it. Also, I don't think it's fun to run around in an expensive/timer-locked MAX suit with zero efficiency against the most common opponent. AV/AA should at least hurt enough to discourage infantry from engaging head-on IMO.


edit: typo fixed

[Gandhi]

I think it's a bit ridiculous that you can get headshots with an AA MAX.

[Satexios]

Originally Posted by Gandhi

I think it's a bit ridiculous that you can get headshots with an AA MAX.

Here is an idea.. don't get in front of an AA max :P

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by JesNC

The AA MAXes used to be ok-ish effective against lone infantrymen in PS1, if you had an AV weapon equipped you usually came out on top.

The pounder AV on the other hand only managed to kill infantry by volume of fire

I can't remember this being imbalanced back then, so I doubt they'll change much about it. Also, I don't think it's fun to run around in an expensive/timer-locked MAX suit with zero efficiency against the most common opponent. AV/AA should at least hurt enough to discourage infantry from engaging head-on IMO.


edit: typo fixed

maxes in PS1 had vehcile armour though, so they came out ontop against infantry with no av or armour piercing, now anybody can kill them.

[Cosmical]

Anti vehicle weaponry seems far tyoo powerful against infantry. Why take a chain gun that does alot of damage that you have to aim to get a direct hit. When you can take an AV gun and spam the ground around 4 enemies doing enough damage to severly hurt or kill them all?

This is something that will change in Beta tho, i really want them to be pretty much worthless except against their desired target. Ideal scenario is to see a MAX as an infantry, notice their loadout, and decide you can probably take them out. Not run scared from every MAX you see.