i dont really care if air is somehow balanced by dual bursts - its not fun.

Ghoest9 · 2012-12-29, 05:35 PM

This game is about having fun.

When I want to play infantry being forced into a max suit that is only good at anti-air (and even then not getting actual kills) - just isnt fun.

If this was something occasionally required it would be fine but over 3/4s of the time on the battlefield air is the dominate issue.
I dont enjoy having the majority of my game play experience dictated by a relative few pilots.

Yes I find ways to avoid them that leads to the second problem in the game - there rather few ground based battles over half the players are ghosr caping , ninjaing and fighting in bio domes.

I think air is over powered - but its kind of beside the point - if air is ruining the fun for most of the players(and its definitely what my friends who mostly stopped playing complained about) then air is ruining the game.

MgFalcon · 2012-12-29, 05:41 PM

Air is OP, and a good amount of this is due to the tree population (AKA: concealable cover). We need a Ceryschen-like Continent with big wooden/swampy areas where infantry is the key player. One there is cover rocket pods will be as useful as shooting rubber bullets.

We need more trees!

RobUK · 2012-12-29, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by MgFalcon

Air is OP, and a good amount of this is due to the tree population (AKA: concealable cover). We need a Ceryschen-like Continent with big wooden/swampy areas where infantry is the key player. One there is cover rocket pods will be as useful as shooting rubber bullets.

We need more trees!

Not many trees on Ceryshen

Lots on Hossin though. Forseral has a few too but the swampy forests of Hossin would indeed be welcome in Planetside 2.

robocpf1 · 2012-12-29, 06:09 PM

Lately my outfit's been dedicating about 5 people to air denial. The exp is great, I generally head up that squad myself. 3-5 bursters and an engineer to drive the bus and repair, no aircraft is safe.

I definitely see your point though - if we DON'T have that squad up, air pelts us with so many rockets it's impossible to move forward.

maradine · 2012-12-29, 06:15 PM

I consider it a mandatory part of any force package. I can see how a pile of solos would be caught pants-down, though.

gunshooter · 2012-12-29, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by robocpf1

Lately my outfit's been dedicating about 5 people to air denial. The exp is great, I generally head up that squad myself. 3-5 bursters and an engineer to drive the bus and repair, no aircraft is safe.

I definitely see your point though - if we DON'T have that squad up, air pelts us with so many rockets it's impossible to move forward.

Exp is great for the engineer, not so much the bursters. If you think it's good exp then you probably haven't ever seen what good exp is.

WarbirdTD · 2012-12-29, 06:42 PM

This game is about teamwork. If you do not have a defense against a large aspect of the game, you're going to die, and that's exactly the way it should be. During tech test, AA was waaaaay overpowered, and it seems like people want a return to no aircraft in this game. That means more tanks, and a vicious cycle of "ermagerd, we're being farmed by a billion tanks and we can't do anything about it" begins. Air superiority in ANY combat theater wins. If you don't have it because you "don't want to play that way," well... sorry, but if you don't even want to save yourself from dying 5 times, that's your problem, not the game's.

Anti-air is currently balanced perfectly (AA shoulder-mounted rocket launchers might be a bit busted by reports) because when used in a team, AA is terrifying. You cannot buff AA maxes now, or you seriously risk destroying G2A balance, because people will still use them in teams after a big buff, thereby taking away an entire aspect of a combat simulation game (air vehicles).

It seems more and more that there are people that just are not cut out for this game, and that's ok. The point of the game is to have a huge array of different tactics available to destroy a large opposing force, AND to be able to out-think your enemy's force. Now, I can understand wanting different base design to accommodate infantry fighting, and I agree completely. I hate being farmed between spawn and control point at tech plants (now) and amp stations. What I don't understand is this demand for nerfing this or that without any regard as to what it would do to balance nor what it would do the longevity of the game.

Beerbeer · 2012-12-29, 06:50 PM

Or more antennas, all over the place, and barrage balloons. Forget the trees.

gunshooter · 2012-12-29, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by WarbirdTD

This game is about teamwork. If you do not have a defense against a large aspect of the game, you're going to die, and that's exactly the way it should be. During tech test, AA was waaaaay overpowered, and it seems like people want a return to no aircraft in this game. That means more tanks, and a vicious cycle of "ermagerd, we're being farmed by a billion tanks and we can't do anything about it" begins. Air superiority in ANY combat theater wins. If you don't have it because you "don't want to play that way," well... sorry, but if you don't even want to save yourself from dying 5 times, that's your problem, not the game's.

Anti-air is currently balanced perfectly (AA shoulder-mounted rocket launchers might be a bit busted by reports) because when used in a team, AA is terrifying. You cannot buff AA maxes now, or you seriously risk destroying G2A balance, because people will still use them in teams after a big buff, thereby taking away an entire aspect of a combat simulation game (air vehicles).

It seems more and more that there are people that just are not cut out for this game, and that's ok. The point of the game is to have a huge array of different tactics available to destroy a large opposing force, AND to be able to out-think your enemy's force. Now, I can understand wanting different base design to accommodate infantry fighting, and I agree completely. I hate being farmed between spawn and control point at tech plants (now) and amp stations. What I don't understand is this demand for nerfing this or that without any regard as to what it would do to balance nor what it would do the longevity of the game.

The *ONLY* reason that Bursters MAXes are good is the infantry render radius. If it ever gets fixed (i'd be surprised if such an awful, arbitrary mechanic is not eventually changed) air will be entirely uncounterable from the ground. The only thing that makes a group of bursters so effective is the fact that Libs have to play risky in order to bomb them.

TehCandyMan · 2012-12-29, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

This game is about having fun.

When I want to play infantry being forced into a max suit that is only good at anti-air (and even then not getting actual kills) - just isnt fun.

If this was something occasionally required it would be fine but over 3/4s of the time on the battlefield air is the dominate issue.
I dont enjoy having the majority of my game play experience dictated by a relative few pilots.

Yes I find ways to avoid them that leads to the second problem in the game - there rather few ground based battles over half the players are ghosr caping , ninjaing and fighting in bio domes.

I think air is over powered - but its kind of beside the point - if air is ruining the fun for most of the players(and its definitely what my friends who mostly stopped playing complained about) then air is ruining the game.

Man I feel you this version of Planetside is nowhere near as fun as the first and that has alot to do with Vehicle Domination.

The first Planetside had me for alteast a year and a half before I felt burnt out, this one im burnt out after the first month...

I have dropped about 90 dollars on this game so far and starting to regreat all of it. SOE needs to address this issue in a major way quickly before alot of people that feel the same way we do, LEAVE.

Vashyo · 2012-12-29, 07:42 PM

I think air vs AA is fine atm, problem is the easy accessibility to vehicles. The penalty of losing an ESF isn't very steep. You're back in air in no time, and you can even decrease the acquisition times so you can roll a new ESF over and over.

Also its not very rewarding to do AA, it's pretty much charity work for no purpose whatsoever because of the accessibility. You're not going to effect the battle much by destroying one plane when that same guy is back inside a new plane in a minute.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-12-29, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

This game is about having fun.

When I want to play infantry being forced into a max suit that is only good at anti-air (and even then not getting actual kills) - just isnt fun.

If this was something occasionally required it would be fine but over 3/4s of the time on the battlefield air is the dominate issue.
I dont enjoy having the majority of my game play experience dictated by a relative few pilots.

Yes I find ways to avoid them that leads to the second problem in the game - there rather few ground based battles over half the players are ghosr caping , ninjaing and fighting in bio domes.

I think air is over powered - but its kind of beside the point - if air is ruining the fun for most of the players(and its definitely what my friends who mostly stopped playing complained about) then air is ruining the game.

Air is just rediculous right now. Its a manpower resource hog to keep air from dominating your squad. The devs need to tone down airside 2.

Chewy · 2012-12-29, 09:02 PM

I main a support player. That means I ONLY play medic, engie, or AA MAX with some vehicle play as sundy, skyguard, or transport gal. My goal of support is to make others better at what they do. Heals, ammo, transport, anything that gives my guys a better chance at winning. That equals to me not being able to go for kills and often sitting back doing "bitch work". Medic, engie, and sundy work can pay great in XP if you find a place it's needed. Transport and AA on the other pay next to nothing no matter where it is.

There's a reason I call support "bitch work". It's the most thankless job one can do and no game ever pays well while doing it, but at the same time it's a VITAL part to winning. Why is that? Support players have to risk their asses time after time to do what can be the most dangerous jobs on the field, but don't get payed near as much as the ones doing the killing.

Beerbeer · 2012-12-29, 09:15 PM

I bet if Sony just got rid of infantry, this game would be better.

Turn this game into a world of tanks with airplanes. Tanks capture, airplanes destroy.

This would fix the balance equation that Sony has no idea how to fix, let alone if they want to fix it. Chop off the cancer and move forward.

Drastic? Yes. But necessary because the typical, mass FPS player is not coming back, and if you try to entice them at this point, you're going to piss off the only people left playing this game.

Whiteagle · 2012-12-29, 09:32 PM

I think the best idea I've heard so far is to reduce the Experiance given by Vehicle weapon Infantry kills, and possibly give experience based on DOING damage to Vehicles instead of just assist and kills.

After all, if a Tank or Plane give experience for being repaired, shouldn't the guy who damaged it get a cut as well?