[random thought]maybe SOE should stop this buff/nerf cycle and go an alternative way

[stargazer093]

just a random thought came up while reading patchlog..yeah
not sure if this kind of topic has been posted before, anyway I couldn`t find it :/
and...no offence, but P.S.: I AM NOT BEING NOSTALGIA BY MENTION PS1 IN THE TEXT BELOW, NOR DO I WANT A PERFECT COPY OF PS1, thanks for the understanding...

So once again, tanks and ESFs have been nerfed. Can`t say I m surprised though, it is what they`ve been doing ever since day one, try to balance tanks and ESFs by tweaking the datasheets, and to be honest..it doesn`t seem to be very effective. Tank zerg rush is still one of the most effective and most frequently used tactics in the game, when 30+ tanks simply rolled toward you, without an organized anti-tank squad or something, you are pretty much screwed, because you know what`s gonna happen next is dozen of tanks blocked the doors and so the farming begin.

If my guess is right, I believe what SOE is trying to do is to tweak the tanks and the esfs so they wouldn`t be as much effective when farming the spawn room and own infantries in the open fields, thus achieve the balance of "tanks not own infantries when spawn camp" and "tank not own infantries in open fields", so the game will be balanced

However, late night I was thinking about PS1`s vehicle vs infantries. Then, I noticed that, in PS1 there wasn`t any significant nerf/buff cycle between vehicles and infantries. Well at least not in the level of PS2...and the fact that, in PS1, vehicles totally own infantries in almost any situations except for complicate terrain such as cave, base or hills.

During the actual battle, Vanguard`s 150mm can one shot any infantry unit except max within the blast radius; Prowler`s 100mm can`t one shot infantries, but the firing rate is extremely fast so if the first round didn`t get you the second or the third will; Magrider isn`t as good when come against infantries but it has a dedicated anti-infantries gun in the front and the projectile of the main gun is straight; no need to mention reaver and musquito, right? So why is that, they didn`t nerf them in the way such as "reduce 150mm`s blast redius by 1m" or "make 100m`s third round required to kill an infantry", yet the game is still fairly fun and balanced?

IMHO, the reason is that, PS1`s balance is walking a completely different path than that of PS2. PS1 is balanced through limiting the role of each unit type in the battlefield. Yes, PS1 tank and flyers completely own the infantries in open fields, and when attacking a base, a well organized tank platoon can crush its defense within a minute so the rest of the troops can set up a perimeter around the main base. BUT, tanks and flyers cannot do anything for the next stage of the attack, which features in intense close quarter combats within rooms and tunnels. Tanks and flyers have no role here, it is the infantries that win the day, and if the infantries inside the base are losing, tanks and flyers outside can`t do anything. So the balance has been achieved, by giving every unit types a way to fulfill its own role.

In PS2 however, 50 tanks can pretty much do anything: Dozen block the spawn room, dozen others prevent the enemies from getting out of the shields, the rest wander around the base and ready to throw HE shells on any infantries that are encountered. All that`s left is some infantries overload the gens then the SCU then cap, the end, because any resistances can be pretty much destroyed by vehicles camped around.

Why is this happening in PS2 but not in PS1? One of the reason is vehicles are too easy to gain and form a horde, another reason is that, there are too many situations where they can be useful, unlike infantries in the other hand, have little use apart from overload gen, scu and cap control console, which is safe most of the time because tanks have already cleaned up the mess. I believe this is happening because PS2`s open, messy base layout is a total failure. This sort of base layout may work in 32vs32 TDM or 64vs64 BF-style, but for planetside, which features in large scale WARFARE instead of small firefight, an open base without internal structure, plus with entrances all around and orderless, messyly-placed building and structures that allows for infantries to running around to play hide&seek simply does not work.

Why? Have to go back to PS1 again. In order to attack a base in PS1, ground forces capture the watchtower of the base to create a foothold and a supply station, then vehicles clean and secure the area outside the base wall to make sure the majority of the defenders are pushed inside the base wall, after this infantries and vehicles fight through the base wall via the main gate, secure the courtyade to allow the infantries to attack the inner base with full capacity, last, infantries secure the control room, blow up the tubes, or gen if needed, base captured. The whole process is structured, so that each unit type have its own role to fulfill in order to achieve victory, which is sweet.

Now look at PS2. In PS2, to attack a base, all that`s need is couple of infantries overload the gen, then 50 tanks roll in and block all the buildings, so the defenders can`t really do anything because for most of the time, they can`t even get out of the spawn room. Then, base captured. During the process, tank fulfill most of the role. Doesn`t mean infantries are not needed, though, it is just tanks, they are way too effective.

Assuming the content above is correct...I know SOE is trying to solve this whole tank-roll-n`-farm problem. However, instead or resign the base layout or doing something else to increase the division of labour aka make each unit type`s role more defined, what they are doing is to nerf the tank to the point that they are as strong as the infantries are.. ex: can be destroy easily by a single infantryman, either with an RPG or worse...a single anti-tank mine, which cost far less than a tank and require less skill to use. Yes, this can make infantries more useful in the battlefield, but simply because there are no other options left...which I will not consider it as the best solution no matter what.

tl:dr: instead of nerf tank to the level of infantry, why don`t just change the base layout so tank and infantry can both be useful?

so that`s it...hope you guys don`t mind a wall of text, it`s late and time to go for sleep

[ChipMHazard]

I agree that the vehicles in PS2 are too versatile. I would really like to have seen more defined roles. ESF's being air superiority fighters with no rocket pods. Liberators being bombers instead of gunships with artillery pieces under their bellies (at the very least have the guns be side mounted). Have MBTs be made for anti-armor. Have the Sunderer be more limited in the weaponry that it can carry. Have the Skygard be the only ground vehicle with AA capability. Personally I do think that every vehicle in PS2 is capable of fulfilling too many roles. More defined roles would also make it easier to add in new vehicles that focus on other aspects than those already covered.

I've also come to agree that there are too many vehicles being spawned. It help to have the MBTs require a gunner to use the main gun while allowing the driver to use the secondary. Except if a third person enters the tank.
Make it so that Sundies can't be spawned from every terminal.

I would also like to see base changes made so that vehicles no longer have any direct say in capturing an objective, or at least not as much as they have now. I do think that requiring infantry to actually take [most?] capture points would be a good thing, and I don't mean that in the sense of infantry being the only ones who can actually capture something. Have the capture point/SCU etc. reside inside areas that no aircraft or tank can shell... Unless someone get's realllly creative and sneaks one in somehow
Have the ground vehicles and aircraft be what makes the infantry capable of actually assaulting a base/facility, basicly have them clear the way for the infantry to do its job.
This could certainly be done my making changes like those that Figment has suggested in the past.

I also still believe that vehicles being able to farm infantry stems more so from the base design than the vehicles themselves.

I don't agree that they are making tanks as weak as infantry nor do I agree that nerfing/buffing is nessecarily a thing that needs to be avoided.
I agree with a lot of the buffs and nerfs that they've made. Increasing the velocity of AP rounds, cutting the Prowler's splash damage, making the Magrider less like a mountain goat etc.
Like I wrote above I do agree that at some point it might just be better to give up on trying to balance something that may never become balanced (ESFs' with rocketpods, Scattermaxes, MBTs' with HE rounds etc.) and try something else.

This of course is just theorising and doesn't take into account the difficulties tied to making any such change now. Players have invested heavily into the vehicles currently in the game. There would be engine problems to overcome with some of the changes etc. So while I would love to see some drastic changes, perhaps just on the test server, I don't see it as being all that realistic atm. One day, I hope.

[HiroshiChugi]

Originally Posted by stargazer093

tl:dr: instead of nerf tank to the level of infantry, why don`t just change the base layout so tank and infantry can both be useful?

You could have just started with this and elaborated on it and this thread would be just that much more attractive... :T