The Great Blackout Debate - Vehicles, HUH, What are they good for?

Hello, I'm CMDRCyrious, thanks for stopping by soldier! Stay awhile, let's chat in the canteen, and find glorious battles Planetside!
►The How you can support the Channel Section◄
The absolute best way to support the channel is hit that "Join" button right next to subscribe. It has massive benefits for me, tons of perks for you, and you can get it for less than a buck!
/ cmdrcyrious
If you need Logo's or emotes, purchase on Fiverr through my link. My stuff was done by Kongvector: www.fiverr.com/s2/7e40f4c52f
Buy CMDRCyrious a Beer: www.buymeacoffee.com/CMDRCyrious
Buy Merch - teespring.com/stores/cmdrcyrious
Tip me direct with Paypal - www.paypal.com/paypalme/Allth...
Shop on Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/commander...
Buy on Humble Bundle: www.humblebundle.com/?partner...
Epic Games Store Creator Code: CMDRCyrious
Browse with Brave, your internet surfing activities generate currency that is passed through to me! - brave.com/com304
Shop TigerDirect from my link: www.tigerdirect.com/?&SRCCODE=...
-----------------------------------------
KZbin Membership - bit.ly/JointheCyriousArmy
Steam - steamcommunity.com/id/CMDRCyri...
Discord - / discord
Reddit - / cmdrcyrious
Twitter - / cmdrcyrious
Twitch - / cmdrcyrious
Instagram - / cmdr_cyrious
Merch - teespring.com/stores/cmdrcyrious
Amazon - www.amazon.com/shop/commander...
Streamlabs - streamlabs.com/cyriousgaming/tip
Mixer - mixer.com/CMDRCyrious
Facebook - / cmdr.cyrious
Dlive - dlive.tv/CMDRCyrious
Mobcrush - mobcrush.com/c/cmdrcyrious
trovo.live/CMDRCyrious
-----------------------------------------
Free Item Codes List: docs.google.com/document/d/1E...
Faction Equivalent Weapon list by Lyyti: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
-----------------------------------------
🔴 "If this is a Live Stream section" 🔴
Galactic Marine Raider Sub - We game in the Commander Helmet.
$10 or better dono - We game in the Commander Helmet.
Any sort of Sub - We game in the Viper Shades.
$5 or better dono - We game in the Viper Shades.
$3 should trigger Speech to Text if you add a message. Superchat or Through cmdrcyrious.tv.
-----------------------------------------
►I really like your video, and want to share it on social media, but I don't want to steal your likes or karma if you posted it.◄
No! Do not hesitate to share my content on any social media platform, from twitter to reddit. I appreciate any exposure you are willing to create for me. The internet points do not matter to me, I just appreciate the support in creating more traffic to my channel.
Thank you!
►Thanks for your support!◄
-----------------------------------------
►Cyrious Gaming's UserOptions.ini File.◄
drive.google.com/file/d/1mQ94...
This is not updated regularly, it may be an old version. I do not recommend using copy paste, as the file may change with patches and could cause crashes. Just change the values in your file.
-----------------------------------------
►How do you get the red dot on your screen, the kill popups, and the GLADOS Voice?◄
This video provides a tutorial on where to download the required components and how to set it up: WARNING! After DX11 patch you must enable BETA mode • How to setup Recursion...
-----------------------------------------
►CMDRCyrious' Outfit◄
www.mercgg.com. Put in an application there if you would like to join!
-----------------------------------------
►Most of the music I use is from EVE. You can find it on this website. Primary credit is to Jon Halur. www.modenstudios.com/EVE/music/
►The Intro Music is Extra #4 from the Planetside 2 soundtrack.
►Some music is from Kinesthetics - Sound of Motion - Planetside.
-----------------------------------------
#Tutorial #Planetside2 #Cyrious

[@KrimsonStorm]

Improving vehicles and CTF in one go: The more I think about it, the more I believe PlanetSide 1 had it came to base capture. From how I understood it, once the base timer ticked down, you had to return an item to a warpgate linked base in order to cap it. So imagine this: Once a timer on a base is complete, the inciming base can take the bases control module (will look EXACTLY like the CTF flag) that must be brought to a linked allied base. Once the control module is taken, the base is neutral. No spawns, doesnt count for either sides territory control. The control module holder can get in a vehicle but cannot drive one, and thus must be escorted. If the defenders get control of the flag, or the control module is missing for 10 min, the base is restored to the previous owner and they must retake the flag. This will give vehicles a use case other than sit and camp. Yes they will camp a spawn with overwelming force for a bit, but if they do that for too long they leave the ctf player exposed to a massive 80 player air raid, or lightning swarm, or massive gal drop, as they fight to get the flag back.

[@clownymcclownerton1653]

I've been talking about this for a few weeks now

[@thinkingthingsthrough3822]

It worked really well honestly, and when there was a high pop that football run was insanely fun. When it was a low pop or no one able to escort you and it was 2v4+ it was tedious at best. PS2 has many times more players active than the last 3-4 years of PS1 so honestly this shouldn't be a real issue. I'd like to see it and more capture points as mentioned in his previous video making for a more organic combat environment that rewards good strategy and combined arms.

[@KrimsonStorm]

@@thinkingthingsthrough3822 yeah, the idea of the mad dash to the base (goal) definitely sounds fun, beyond just peeling tanks off from heshing the spawn room. Is there any KZbin videos of people doing this on PS1? I tried to find videos of it but I can't seem to find any, but I was shown one long ago. And I agree, with unstable warpgates and continent limiting, it definitely will limit 2-4 player fights. Honestly this system might force players to stop zerging as there's a lot of other juicy targets.

[@alphamoonman]

I think it should need to be transported by sunderer so that it's not taken via air vehicle or MBT or turbo harasser. Also sunderer has 12 seats so plenty of teamplay there

[@Reddwar85]

I feel like so many problems in PS2 are caused or exacerbated by the spawn system. Vehicle fights don't happen much because players just teleport between bases. Construction bases haven't had a huge impact because it's quicker to drive a sunderer forward and clown car a platoon out of it. Day brake need to not let us teleport across the map, make ppl have to think about maneuvers and the logistics of getting people to the right bases, instead of zerging to each base in turn just before the capture timer ticks down.

[@zelascelarmusic6239]

This. I was in an outfit participating in alerts and even tournaments. All we did was redeploying as soon as population balance went below 50/50, because it was better to move on to easier captures than try to struggle with one. No frontlines, no epic fights, just throwing blobs of soldiers into the enemy and if we by chance lost it was instant redeploy. I felt more like cannon fodder and never got the chance to be tactical and strategical, to teamwork or use my combat skills. There was no planning, no cohesion other than "stay on the point, shoot them" and then the redeploy. Decided to retire from the game because of it. Redeployside.

[@adtrlthegamer7449]

​@@zelascelarmusic6239 I feel that. Been a few squads where it was like. "Good job everyone, redeploy and regroup here." Yet we all had Sunderer's/Buses and other vehicles but they took off without really making sure everyone was inside. Why give us the ability to seat in a transport's open seats for 12 people, if we can just off ourselves to redeploy where the Transports are just going to go. Sure it's faster into the action instead of being on a boring drive, but come on. Let us use transports, at least those of us who don't want to always redeploy, otherwise just give us a Spawn beacon Flash-aka a single person vehicle that allows us to spawn from it or around it. (In favor of the Sunderer.)

[@redtsun67]

The thing is, this slows down the game a ton. During alerts fights are much more dynamic as platoon leaders deploy galaxies and relocate their people around the map to start fight or defend bases under siege. Outside of alerts, people jump around a lot to find fights that are fun and engaging, especially if they've been locked in a stalemate at a biolab or tech plant or something for the last 30 minutes. Redeployside gets a lot of criticism because people want players to move around the game world and utilize transport vehicles to get from place to place, but the fact is that organized platoons already do that for the most part. It's the solo players, or the disorganized platoons, that suffer the most from the removal (or the limitation) of the redeploy (teleport) mechanic. No one wants to have to deploy an aircraft and fly across the map just to find a good fight, especially with tryhard skyknights flying around deep into enemy territory looking to pick off noob pilots and lone transports/gunships.

[@lanemccall6787]

@@redtsun67 This is true. I play solo because platoons and squads usually move far too slowly and I don't have any interest in sitting on a base with 90% friendly pop. Planteside's appeal for me isn't driving across the map - it's the ability to quickly get into a good fight and quickly moving to another one when that one dies.

[@nicktheprick666]

@@lanemccall6787 Looks like we might need a compromise between the two. I got some ideas. Lattice only controls spawns, but ppl can cap bases independant of it. Cutoff bases can't spawn defenders, but any base can be attacked. Sundies and Galaxies can be used to attack behind enemy lines and cut off bases, spreading out the fights. New events that involve spots between bases, no hard spawns nearby. Maybe temporary control terminals for a bonus or constructions being able to generate points, plus some other ideas. Sundies become vital to hold those spots, and constuction bases reinforce them. Esamir-exclusive events involving the shattered warpgate area. Add a few hardspawns on the edges so everyone has easy access to it, and have everything else be handled by sundies and construction. Some carrot war-style events or escorting a truck of samples/artifacts would probably be good. New alert, like sudden death, but all spawns are disabled. Basically turns the game into a battle royale where the circle shrinks faster than running speed, but slower than max sundy speed. Also maybe some other alert types to so we can shake it up. CTF is changed to focus more on the spots between bases. Sort of TF2-style, take a conduit from one base to the other, do it enough times to take control. Loading screen tip that tells new players to bring sundies from a previous base when they get spawncamped. What do yall think?

[@degenatron1604]

"What are [vehicles] supposed to do?" - They're supposed to battle for control of the area around the base. Unfortunately, since an assaulted base generally is surrounded only by attackers, the defenders can't get vehicles out fast enough to create a vehicle fight outside the base. Defenders spawn in at the hard spawn, and that very much dictates how bases are defended. "But is it enough? Has it been fostered...Has enough attention been given to it for it to be meaningful?" - In short, "No." The problem you describe with "abandon your tanks to be C4 fodder" is exactly right. There's no incentive to stay IN the tank if there's nothing to shoot. Generally, all we get is the occasional C4 bomber or harasser going after the AMS - it's not enough to keep players in their vehicles because guard duty is boring. "Nerfs and Balance" - While some nerfs were needed, I feel the devs missed the mark by not pushing specialization. Weapons like the Skyguard or the Kobalt show that there are ways to balance via asymmetric damage types. The kobalt does ZERO damage to heavy armor, and that's a good thing. It's supposed to be a light armor shredder and it should excel at that job - at the expense of versatility. You could do the same thing with HESH rounds - allow them to be big and devastating towards infantry, yet do ZERO damage to other tanks - ensuring that the driver who pulls it is choosing an asymmetrical trade-off. Once again, I come back to The Neutral Zone System. Making all sides bring their own mobile spawn points to a neutral base automatically makes armor an important part of attacking a base. You must both defend your AMS and attack the enemy AMS. You must also defend your logistics lines back to your owned base, and try to blockade the enemy's base to prevent their reinforcements. The NZS expands the area of fighting to encompass at least 3 bases, instead of just the area inside of one. On the flip-side, bases like Biolabs and [Freyr] Amp Stations provide for a change of pace and "internal infantry focused only" interludes. Air power becomes important as a means to leapfrog over armor blockades and drop infantry inside the base. Ferrying infantry to target bases should become a critical roll for Galaxys - as was intended from the beginning.

[@Timoruz]

“Yeah I like combined arms” -refuses to play infantry

[@josephburchanowski4636]

After there has been so much animosity produced between infantry players and vehicle players; produce in part by the years of the only end purpose being to farm infantry and destroy sunderers; I think we need some objective that has a chance of increasing comradery between vehicle and infantry players. I suggest an objective that only vehicles can capture. Its capture zone needs to be extremely large, such that there could actually be a vehicle fight within it. Flipping the objective, provides some advantage to allied infantry in the nearby territory. Example: On Oshur you could have a large capture zone that covers both the beach and extends a bit into the ocean, permitting Corsair and vehicle combat. Flipping the vehicle objective produces a spawn point for allied infantry to assault the facility. A lot of people want AMS on the Corsair; but vehicle objectives like this would allow Corsairs to provide spawnpoints without being immobile; and it gives them something to fight each other over. Example 2: Aircraft would need far larger capture zones (IMO even aerial anomalies were too small of capture objectives). When captured, the advantage they give infantry could be something as small as providing tiny amounts of healing or shield regen around capture points. Something to cause allied infantry to think about allied aircraft; and maybe even considering spawning as one to try flipping the objectives. The goal is to improve comradery while giving vehicles other purposes.

[@adtrlthegamer7449]

For example one, I was thinking maybe some points have a Buoy, floating pylon, that contains the capture point so only Boats or other floating/floatable vehicles could capture. (Maybe with underwater fights and also little bases with Anti-infantry/Vehicle turrets here and there for Infantry to use as they support their floating forces. (Maybe even include the use of Torpedo turrets and such from underwater to water-surface fights.) As for Example 2, I would add in maybe ammo restore for Light and Heavy Assaults and their anti-air weapons. So even if you aren't the best pilot, or unable to fly to save your life, you can still support your allied Air forces above. -(I'd also like to add in, there needs to be a tutorial on how to fly so those who haven't flown before, such as myself, have a way to learn without being a problem to allies or fodder for enemy Pilots.)

[@Djrealfake]

Mag3, 784, 1WSC, all armor fits that were massive and focused on tank v tank gameplay. Most members bought tons of camos. Now all those fits are basically dead because the only mass armor fights they could get were fights with each other.

[@Timoruz]

Air is very useful for breaking stalemates. Often I’ll see that our sunderer spawn is making no progress because defending infantry is camping a hill above it, so I’ll pull A2G to try and relieve the attackers a bit.

[@Jet991]

Make a system that applies to every base that vehicles can fight over that makes the base capable or not kind of like a logistics system imagine if you had big pipes transferring Syfy fuel to the base that it needs to operate and it spans across the whole map and kind of creates vehicle lanes

[@jakewebb7995]

Damn. Can be just like the real military and guard some pipelines 😂

[@derredfox1310]

I am a multiple thousand hours veteran, hardcore infantry main. How do we balance air and vehicles against Infantry? Simple: We don't. Before you look away please hear me out. This is why no one has found an answer to the balance question and also why nobody ever will. Air Superiority can not be balanced against infantry, except you make it possible for the infantry player to kill the Banshee without getting killed themselves, right where they stand. This is obviously impossible or a banshee would have to do almost no damage, so the Heavy can pull out an one-hit lock on launcher. In real life military the only reason that Infantry is not completely made useless cuz of aircraft is cuz there are sitting guards 24/7 at some big fat guns ready to instantly kill enemy aircraft. You would have to either make it almost impossible for aircraft to deal damage to infantry or somehow manage to make it interesting enough for somebody to sit in a skyguard 24/7 to theoretically kill aircraft. Or you just remove any Vehicle or Aircraft weapons designed to farm infantry. You can not put a gun in the game, designed for a fast aircraft like the Mosquito to FARM dozens of infantrymen, and then wonder when infantrymen get farmed dozens of times by a gun that is designed for a fast aircraft like the mosquito. It. Just. Doesn't. Work. Period. You know, why do you put a infantry farming gun in the game and then wonder when the infantry complains that they get farmed by that gun???????? Same with tanks. Make it impossible for them to brainlessly hesh into tight spots, without having to fear getting killed themselves. I know if we hear "Combined Arms" we have this moment in front of our eyes, two tank fronts face-to-face, aircraft flying over the skies and infantry between all that, underlaid with some holy chorus. But why would the tanks and pilots even bother to shoot each other if they would get much, much more joy from farming experience, infantry kills and "Ragequit" messages? This is no real, strategic reasonable war simulation, this is the Internet man. The internet with all those brainless trolls, hateful people and people who enjoy ruining other players fun. As long as people like this have the possibilities to do just that, they will continue doing that, and won't stop from some hate messages. Make it that tanks and aircarft can battle just fine but leave out the infantry from that. I am by no means demanding to equal Infantry and vehicles in face-to-face combat because that is completely unrealistic. If real life infantry sees enemy tank they run. There is no balancing possible. But in real life they also have usage for everything and they know where infantry can operate because there are no enemy tanks CUZ THEY CAN'T OPERATE IF THERE ARE ENEMY TANKS.

[@durakeno5575]

There was one time that I truly felt vehicles contributed heavily in my fight. During the final minutes of an alert we were defending one of those mining bases. The one with the capture point inside a platform inside a cave with multiple floors. Anyway, battle was fierce, If we lose the base, we lose the alert. So I just kept on fighting as infantry, gradually pushing them back outside. In the process, I felt the pressure easing off. I found out when the waves of enemies stopped completely. I was greeted by a big colony of allied tanks finishing off the last of the TR sundies. I freaking cheered. Felt like a cinematic cutscene with reinforcements coming in after grueling "Survive for N minutes" mission.

[@justinbp999]

Agree with your point on using vehicle bases to increase density instead of making entire stretches of the map ghost towns. A couple of capture points between the right bases could give defenders enough time to mobilize an armor column in response to the attackers.

[@youngarchivist]

Our arms are truly combined

[@TheBackyardChemist]

Vanu TEQ

[@ram42]

Uwu

[@NK-qn6pq]

One crucial role of tanks is to suppress enemy tanks. Infantry do not appreciate this enough. They only care about tank suppression when it is inadequate and their spawn dies.

[@ikillstupidcomments]

In terms of reducing redeploy spam and encouraging field battles, I'd agree that intermediary control points is pretty much the only way to go about it. Space open-field control points between each node base, require that each be capped to start capping the next (including the base at the far end), prevent them from being back-capped while the base/point they're connected to is being actively contested.

[@YargonK]

Vehicles and Air are too easily warded off or killed by Infantry, and yet, the infantry seems to constantly feel like they're being done dirty and don't have any options. Players call this a balance issue, but this feels like a serious Design issue to me, not a balance one. The truth is pretty simple. If infantry want to, they can very easily deal with tanks and air without consequences, but the tanks and air will always come back, because they've nothing better to do. The solution is a couple of things that really need to be all done at once. Remove A2G from ESF's All air superiority fighters should have ALL of their A2G capabilities removed. There are good A2G platforms in the game as it is, but they're just out-stripped by ESF's having the best tools for every situation. Bringing the ESF back into a fighter-interceptor role would be a significant improvement. Reduce G2A range and damage The recent Lockon buffs have put them in a silly place, frankly, and they've become a menace to higher-flying aircraft. AA flak guns also need their range reduced, and their damage should scale with distance. That makes A2G farming (with Libs and Valks which still exist) High risk - High reward, as opposed to the current Low Risk - High Reward of ESF A2G spamming. Make HESH great again HESH should be nearly useless against other vehicles, AP should remain mostly where it is, HEAT is mostly fine as it is really. HESH however, NEEDS it's 1HK radius back. It shouldn't be the most oppressive thing in the world, but give it a use. if HESH and AP both have to direct hit to kill an infantry man, then why would you bother with HESH? the answer is that people don't bother with it unless they're completely safe in an armour collumn, so make it a High Risk - High Reward item. All tank shells should 1HK infantry, flak and overshield or not I mean c'mon, it's a tank shell. And more importantly for game abstractions, the consistency on this one needs some looking at, especially with how dangerous infantry can be to vehicles. Remove C4 The ability for infantry to 1HK armour is a ridiculous mechanic. Infantry have no consequences for dying, and C4 is more spamable than tanks. This one just has to flat out go. The truth is, infantry is more damgerous to tanks than other tanks are, and there's a lot more infantry than there are tanks. Make tank explosions deal more damage Bail-and-trade meta, where you bail out of your tank just before you die and attempt to make it a trade with your opponent, who is now damaged, with anti-matieriel rifels, C4, Tank mines, or AV grenades, needs to go. To do this, make the tank exploding have a 1HK radius, which will make tanking much more fair Fix the harasser Either put the ruble seat repairs back in (they were never a problem anyway), or put it back to 150 nanites, 300 for it's nerfed state is ridiculous, and the vehicle has all but died out from the meta. Balance pass A general look at all of the AV weapons needs to be had to make everything more even, especially the newer guns. JGX is great, except when it isn't. Kingsnake is straight up busted, except when it's useless, and the Perihelion is... actually that's just dead now. Oh and the Larrion is a tad over tuned. The Valk's Pelters are also a bit over-tuned right now and have been for a while. New Objectives Currently, infantry play the game, Vehicles try and stop them playing the game, and air try and farm them. Both Air and Armour's role in this is based on denyal of gameplay (killing sundies and farming players), something that will only ever lead to animosity and unhappieness among players. While air and armour are designed to STOP the infantry fight, they won't be something the majority of infantry players enjoy at all. To fix this, we need to give them an additive objective. Something NEW that they can do to contribute to gameplay, as opposed to stoping it. For reference, this also CAN'T be something that prevents infantry fights in it's absence in this stage of the game's development, as players will see that as taking away from existing gameplay, and thus, still stopping gameplay. Here's my proposal for that: Air: Air needs an objective such as air-only floating capture points. These should have their own lattice, and count towards a continent's capture, and provide infantry hard spawns to any enemy front-line bases next to them, similar to the bio-lab hard spawns. The two lattices would have to be set up so that this works, but i don't think it should be too hard to do. There should be less of these than standard bases, but enough that there's motion in the lines over the course of an alert. I would suggest these bases have a 2 minute capture time. They should be a floating structure that infantry can't reasonably occupy, and should be out of the range of G2A. Vehicles: Similarly, Vehicles need an objective that players can't perform as infantry nearly as well. I think a "payload" style semi-hard spawn that can be moved between bases, may work for this. Perhaps a "super-sunderer" that can be pulled from special terminals, has no weapons, is slow as heck, and can only deploy in specific spots, may work well. This could even be invincible and have it's own captue point on it that allows the enemy to flip it to their side and take it back to the base it came from as a counter play if they got armour superiority. I would suggest it only counts vehicles with a specific module installed on them towards it's flipping. Perhaps a defensive or utility slot item. Something like the "Nanite Guidance Unit" which attempts to control nearby "super-sunderers". I would also suggest that it only allows spawns when there's friendly vehicles with NGU's next to it. The "super-sunderer" would be a drivable vehicle, of course, and would kick the driver out when it's flipped. It would be only able to deploy on the bases directly next to the base it came from and the base it came from, and would de-spawn if it was in a hex that flipped to friendly (probably at the end of a 30 second or 1min timer). The last "new objectives" point here is the one that takes the most work on the dev's part, but would also be the most impactful. I know hoping for this sort of change is a complete pipe dream, but it's also the sort of thing that we can only hope for. The vehicle and air meta in this game needs a serious looking at as it's currently full of problems that could be solved, but will require some base design changes. As i've learnt from personal experience with tabletop game design, there's a lot of things in game development that can't be fixed with nerfs or buffs, but can be fixed with core design changes. That's what we need here. For what it's worth, and because i know some players like these qualifiers, I'm saying all this as a player who's very evenly spread between armour and infantry, and one who knows their way around the air game, but i'm no skyknight. I've lead both an armour squad in the latest Outfit Wars and an infantry squad in Outfit Wars Alpha 3. I have run Armour and Infantry Ops for years as a VS main, and lead two platoons at times. My main toon is ItzlAtavuli, for those that want to see stats.

[@NK-qn6pq]

C4 should stay. It's always been there and it's mainly a problem if you're not paying attention. What needs to go is all the anti-tank cheese: AMRs, AV crossbow, AV knives, cloaking Flashes, and Javelins.

[@YargonK]

@@NK-qn6pq AMRs, AV knife and AV crossbows aren't an issue really. They're neiche weapons that sacrifice elsewhere and really don't cause many issues. C4 does gotta go though. It may have always been there but that doesn't mean it's not a horrible design decision. C4 is THE best counter to tanks, and basically always will be. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Also only a problem if you're not paying attention is a demonstrably false argument, i've C4'd plenty of tanks that were well aware and scrambling to kill me, but boosh assault + C4 is just too easy. C4 has been an issue for ages, being spammed against infantry, and vehicles. Killing fights because one LA made it to a sunderer in a 96+ fight, and just deleting tanks that have no counter-play or are busy trying to fight other vehicles. It has to go. I'll give you Cloaked vehicles in general though, outside of the sunderer's deployed cloak (and maybe a deploy cloak for ant?) vehicles shouldn't be invisible, especially if they're armed. Same issue as infils really, but even harder to see and dealing even more damage.

[@TooFewSecrets]

@@NK-qn6pq C4 should be Engineer equip only. Similar to being restricted to Support and Recon in Battlefield games. These are the classes meant to sit back at longer ranges so to get C4 value they need to make a specific play, as opposed to the Assault who is going to be close to vehicles all the time (and BF Engi who has the rocket launchers already). Engineer is the only PS2 class without a specific tool to help them get close, and they are the special explosives class anyway in terms of having AV mines and AP mines. Might still allow for some tank kill-trade meta, but the main culprits for that are UBGL and crossbow anyway. Would also serve as part of their area lockdown role by letting them easily kill MAXes compared to other classes. With this change I think C4 resistance could actually be removed from MAX ordnance armor entirely, leaving it as a fairly hard counter that is only usable by the rarest infantry class. A jetpacker being able to pull out two pocket nukes is nonsense game design, especially now with them having a dedicated rocket rifle. There's a reason Infiltrator never had C4. Heavy doesn't need C4 in the first place, and Medic is already stupid enough at infantry that it doesn't really deserve a specialized anti-vehicle tool. On Engineer, it just makes sense.

[@AstrusEminus]

I disagree with removing C4 but think it should be changed as it's way too universal. First split it into two types that being Anti-Infantry and Anti-Armor C4. For Anti-Infantry the C4 does little to no damage to vehicles. For Anti-Armor the damage is cut in half but you can carry 4 of them instead of 2. I think this would solve the C4 issue.

[@RumpleFoldSkin]

I just feel the sund,the max may need help. Sunderer all i ever wanted was to allow me to put turbo on it for just a small boost to maybe avoid c4 faireys.

[@planetwomanizzi]

Tanks were literally invented to tear down fortifications that were suicide for infantry to take head on: bunkers and trenches with machine guns. Then, it was discovered that once tanks break a hole in enemy lines, they can use their speed to flank those lines or rampage through the backline. Tanks have little purpose in Planetside because they can't do these things that tanks are used for. Planetside doesn't have infantry blenders for tanks to snipe. The contenders - heavies, MANA turrets, MAXes - are in buildings, out of reach, and anyway, they're easier to deal with using more infantry or the right infantry. Planetside hasn't really had fortifications. There are fragile sunderers and empty bases with weak turrets and invincible walls. Tanks pop all the sundies, roll to the next base, kill the turrets, and are stopped, not by anything interesting, but by walls and the lattice. Victory is boring: tanks end up with nothing to do. Planetside's logistics are shallow, so there's not much value in reaching the backline. There's the occasional ANT to bully or vehicle pad to mess with. Compare to the soft underbelly of Foxhole's war machines, where there are a ton of logistic buildings and vehicles for partisans to attack and an entire backline war of QRFs hunting them down and builders repairing the damage and sealing the holes they slipped through. I think construction could fix these issues, if the developers grew the balls to unleash it. I think they should greatly loosen the build restrictions. You can't ignore fortifications that prevent you from advancing down the lattice. Fortifications you can't ignore give attacking tanks a purpose: breaking them. And defending tanks a purpose: fighting those tanks.

[@Moximaxius]

The game squad balances vehicles VERY well. They have a 'tracking' capability where if the tracks of a tank are shot it becomes 'stuck' until repaired. I like this as it means that the person has to jump out to repair. Therefore they have to repair with / around friendlies and therefore makes Infantry and vehicle gameplay much better!

[@knossos574]

I would be in favor of a warthunder-like experience in planetside, however the way that vehicles are balanced now, it would just be a massive headache. A tank gets blown up in seconds while it's a sitting duck.

[@planetwomanizzi]

Foxhole has this, as well as a fuel leak and the turret getting stuck. It makes tank vs tank and infantry vs tank both a lot more interesting - each of these is a skill shot. Sometimes you even have "defend the tank" emergent gameplay while somebody frantically runs a fuel can over!

[@TooFewSecrets]

Yeah, but in Squad the LAV oneshots people in a radius with a high-capacity autocannon that has thermal sights. If you breathe one word of any of that to the average PS2 player their head will explode.

[@knossos574]

I think that you are correct, sir. I am imagining a vehicle game where there are mini hexes on the map between bases, mini control points that need to be held almost as if it were PS2 of an earlier time before lattices. Something to that effect.

[@anubisTC]

"Vehicles bad cause kill spawns" = I'm lazy and bad, and have no desire to get better. I understand the "killing fights" argument on low pop times only. Anything else is loser mindset verbiage.

[@Cameron167]

I think reevaluating the redeploy meta would be a good way to make vehicles relevant. In a game like Battlefield, I grab a vehicle to head to the next area. For PlanetSide 2 I typically press my U or J key.

[@marcopolo4319]

I completely disagree. Removing these features would make the game too dense. Not to mention that tactically it would be a nightmare because you would have to take into account travel time

[@Cameron167]

@@marcopolo4319 I'm not saying to remove it completely. I'm saying to reevaluate. Maybe part of the use of vehicles can be getting from place to place.

[@mattor300]

About the combined arms gameplay, I personally sometimes lead combined arms sqads thing is how they often look like is us doing a series of air precision strikes, stoping armor columns, doing c4 ambushes etc. Thing is often if you need to stop a push you need armor yourself, wich in term means you need enough people pulling their tanks. I often approach this problem in a specific way, essentially I know who can fly, then this person is our dedicated air player, he gives us intel, kills tanks that barely escaped our grasp, etc. He also gets two wingman in his fireteam, this way when the enemies set up a defensive position that is exposed to air I send 3 guys to get their ground farmers up and running, that way the infintry can push the point. Same thing applies to armor a dedicated prowler with two wingmans in lightings, if enemy pulls their armor those two lightings (that are always parked near the sundy) can support our prowler allowing our air guys to swoop in (best build is needler and hellfire pods so they can fight both air, armor and infintry) and support them giving us time to reinforce if needed, (the prowler myst have rampant shield as it gives just too much utility) This is how I approach the combined arms, armor is the support, same with air, having one prowler keeping the base secure from enemy armor, and an ESF supporting you and making it so the enemy can never group up outside is amazing, its also important to note that the prowler doesn't only secure our sunderer, but also is used in combination with our esf to snipe anny valk drops, and that's a bonus for having a pilot, you as a commander always know everything that is happening, a galaxy drop is always spoted a minute before it van get to you, valkeries are sometimes intercepted (especially if sone people gave strikers on them) That being said tho most sqads at the beginning are air strike teams, transforming into a drop sqad with constant aur support, it really depends on a continent as I can't manage to make armor work on Hossin or Amerrish, and I always get those two continents (I hate Hossin and I always get it when my sqads are scheduled)

[@i_the_predator6024]

8:56 so is this like an older clip? Because I haven’t seen Aerial Anomalies in so long and I miss them.

[@mikebond3210]

There could be a capture point in the air above huge central bases like the crown and that capture point would make epic airial fight with the 3 armies

[@dtploeg1000]

So an idea i had while watching this is to have a couple control points just out in the open between bases with a really fast capture timer. So that vehicles wont have to sit there for long but the defenders have time to mount a counterattack. Kinda the same idea as the hex lattice hybrid but i think much more achievable

[@aff66]

Aircraft synergy passive to ground vehicles too, greatly reduce the presence of c4 and/or switch it with tank mines. These 2 would reduce chip damage and allow vehicles to get closer to fights. Spread the bases and capture points throughout the hexes, remove hard spawns or make each capture point have its own. The automatic bastion is intriguing.

[@SN1PERx64]

PS2 has an odd community towards this combined arms game. So many times I have seen fights go far longer or end way too early because a lot of players either refuse to take a viper lightning to counter a assault or get out of their tank to cap a point. I understand some people main one or the other, but as said in the previous video on battleflow, this game has a sand box and if you do not defend the sundy, it will be destroyed by a rogue C4 LA. I understand this is more than the communities fault, but this is a hard question for any combined arm devs to tackle, and a major reasons some IP's dumb down the flow to vehicle/infantry lanes or you go full sim and force the player to combined arms by spending 10 minutes to get to each fight and not get dunked on. PS2 has always tried to sit in the middle of these 2 states, and unfortunately if the community doesn't comply we get these disjointed combat. Do not be confused, the devs can do better. I wish there was some way for infantry to be alongside vehicles without it being so easy to run them over. Overall vehicle pulls can feel very spammy and sudden. Vehicle mains need more to do than HESH farming or sitting on a open field control point. The only vehicle synergy in the game are repair sundies, and having to "decide" a vehicle's role from it's pull can hurt its ability to fit where it's needed(I wish there was a way to change a vehicle's loadout like you can at an infantry terminal).

[@Fantastic_Mr_Fox]

I'm sure this has been done before but I don't know about it, so I'm proposing a new game design principle. just like the MMO grid of "acting on/interacting with players/the world" I'm proposing a grid of "fun/unfun and rewarding/unrewarding" activities are either fun or not, and they are either rewarded by the game or not. Now of course this immediately spurs the discussion of "different peopke find different things fun and diffrrent things rewarding" but overall fun things are pretty unanimous, and rewarding things are things that contribute to victory or rhat give character progressions. regardless, the theorem is this: different players will have different priorities for what they like to do, some peioritize the fun whil others the reward, and most are in the middle. players who like neither... don't play videogames. Now activities can be both fun anf rewarding. the goal is for desired activities (setting up sunderers, logistics, teamwork, etc) to be both fun (at least to a certain number of people) and rewarding, and for undesired activities (spawn camping, farming, etc) to be neither. farming will always be rewarding, because you get xp for kills. spawn camping will always be rewarding, because it contributes to winning. But we can make farming less rewarding by implementing xp gain caps, for example, and we can make spawn camping less fun, by increasing the effort it takes. currently armour is not rewarding and it is rarely fun, so players only engage with the rewarding parts of it... spawn room heshing and aerial farming. armour and aviation need smth rewarding to do. Supply lines/logistics is an interesting concept. It allows armour to both participate in friendly logistics and disrupting enemy logistics. Same for air. That being said these systems are hard to balance: they can ruin the fun of infantry by making it much easier to just flank a base, and if too hard no one will engage with it. I think an important thing to do is to not make logistics necessady for success, but only a bonus. to counterbalance this you can make it give a lot of xp, but the you run the risk of making it too rewarding and not fun, causing reward seeking players to burn out from lack of fun. a fine line to balance, I tell you. I already left a huge comment under the previod video which talsk about bsttle flow and the wah logistics could play into that, so I'll just let you find it if yiu're interested. it's under one of the top comments, the one about the "neutral zone bases" concept. and remember, the goal is for fun seeking players to be rewarded still, and for reward seeking players to have fun still. Balanced players are usually not an issue.

[@planetoflies2868]

I like the control points inbetween the bases idea, but there must be ways to spawn in with a vehicle, somewhere near the front line, and you really don't want massive tank clashes in narrow chokepoints. I also would like a way to refund nanites for tanks, not in fights when you are getting hit, but just don't make me waste all my nanites on a useless piece of steel please

[@daawesome0148]

Vehicles being in the game isn't bad, but it just sorta feels like there's bad synergy between infantry, air and ground vehicle combat, making them feel a little out of place. Not everyone wants to switch playstyles for a single fight because you sometimes have to play into a sort of gimmick to even contend, and I don't think that the argument of "go play something else" is really a healthy way to look at it since it doesn't really solve any problems.

[@planetwomanizzi]

I think it's why we REALLY need a system to summon players who *do* want to play those things. They're around, somewhere, just not where you're at now. Foxhole lets you pin little discussion threads on the map - people use them to call for help - "2 tanks attacking". The replies help knit together the faction - "3 tanks now", "CAF on its way", and finally, "Enemy tanks dead".

[@daawesome0148]

I've found myself wanting more callouts and systems like that, for example with games like Team Fortress 2 I can make callouts like "Incoming" or "Spy" which in this case would be an infiltrator, but at least then I could warn my teammates that something's coming without me having to be able to spot it in time. Wouldn't need it if people still did open platoons as much as before, but since that's not as common as it used to be, there needs to be something implemented that can allow other players to coordinate better since almost nobody uses proximity chat, it's almost impossible to hear or it's god awful at higher volumes so the words are unintelligible. Same goes for the vehicle problem, back before all of the open platoons were gateways to have coordination on vehicle columns and you could have them removed fairly quickly given they're under the right leadership, but again they're more scarce now so we need something in place of it so that more rando's who aren't in giant platoons can coordinate with one another.

[@TheoHawk316]

One thing that could be fun: A new light tank that is air-deployable. I.E. it can drop from a galaxy and it would have decent anti-tank capabilities, but not a lot of anti-infantry capabilities (so basically it could only have an AP round with no explosive filler, and it would fire fast but not be able to one shot infantry) It would also have 3,000 (or 3,500) HP and it would be as fast as a lightning, and smaller. This light tank could also be amphibious (as in it can use its main gun under water). I'm new to this game, so I might be suggesting a bad idea.

[@planetwomanizzi]

I think this would have been cool several years ago - and let TR and NC challenge magriders. But we have ANVILs today, abundant in most outfits, so this is already in the game - drop a heavy anvil and pull your AP-halberd tank from it.

[@Arashmickey]

Map design, seeing how differently each continent/base limits or enables vehicles. I wonder what a continent made exclusively for vehicles would look like, just as an exercise to see what works and what can be adapted. I'm especially interested in what can be made intuitive - ie. "What to pull? How to spawn? Where to go? What does this thing do... omg I just got repaired/resupplied/launched/teleported. Also vehicles don't always feel like lethal or durable, but bumping those up risks ruining infantry and balance so it should come at the tail-end of development.

[@alexburke1720]

Keep em' coming! Vehicles feel good when their used as vehicle cover for infantry. It's very Situational base on typography and player willingness. Having construction zones like sundys right up on a dev base can stretch the fights into the new player bases and make vehicle pulls a way to seige the player base like they do already. The bases next to a dev base could be abused.... construction no deploy zones become bigger after 5~ minutes when taking a base. [Honestly it sounds like hell to defend but planetside is all about bigger pop and bigger fights.] Land Vehicle control points with big no deploy zones could inspire more roaming vehicle fights as the sides fights over the space... maybe. Maybe inspiring two player bases on either side of the no deploy zone to gain an edge over the other Factions pull rates. Player bases can become planetside version of destructible cover lol.

[@TheHuffur]

In order for this to not be a truly massive wall of text I will try to skim over a lot of things and just give the general idea of what I think would "fix" a lot with PS2. Logistics is the key to most or all of PS2s large scale issues, the lack of it is what is causing problems. Give every spawn a size and player limit. For example(numbers might need tweaking ofc): Beacon ~6-12 Sunderer ~12-16 people Small base spawn ~24-32 Medium base spawn ~32-48 Large base spawn ~56-72 Then we give players the option to set these as their spawn, similar to a construction spawn tube. Redeploying to these spawns automatically sets them as your spawn. The lower numbers are the maximum 'optimal' number of people the spawn can support and the maximum number is exactly that, a maximum number NO more people can spawn on these/redeploy to them and all between the optimal and max, the spawn timer increases as the spawn is working overtime. Further more medics reviving only works within the hex(or within set distance) if the player being revived has a valid set spawn there and revival times also depend on if their spawn is within its optimal player number or not. This would promote more spawns to be brought to a fight, potentially from BOTH sides since a medium base being hit by 4-5 Sunderers could quickly become overrun by enemies with decent spawn/revive timers compared to the limited defenders, to compete the defenders would want to add their own spawns to supplement the base spawn. Now both sides have high importance targets to attack and defend, having vehicle control of the base would almost ensure a clean base capture -> defenders want to contest the outside vehicle control. It would also 'solve' entire platoons appearing out of thin air from a single Sunderer, spawn pad, Galaxy etc. No more or at least massively reduced effect of RedeploySide. Maybe even better is that transporting people and doing drops would still have decent value, you might not be able to spawn there but dumping 2-3 Galaxies worth of people on a base would be an incredible power boost but not a impossible task to defend against as anyone killed that does not have a "set spawn" in the area is out and would have to go somewhere else to fight or travel back again. Yes, this is the simplified and short version. Edit: Oh kinda forgot but Sunderers would probably need to get something similar to a citadel shield so a single tank cant just dunk on it from range within seconds but just imagine there are a thousand and 1 things like this that would need tweaking being skimmed over here.

[@Jinisinsane]

imho all vehicles including air should have fuel bars that they need to refill at fuel stations so they cant just hit on a hill 24/7 shelling that one chokepoint.

[@admiralobvious]

This or maybe reducing the amount of ammo an aircraft can mount. It seems weird that you have guns that have over 2000 rounds of what are supposed to be 20mm. Aircraft should have impact, but they shouldn't be a permanent fixture of a fight imo.

[@zudukaiKilo44]

i think more distinct jobs and objectives for each of the roles should be expanded upon. there could be vehicle lanes that run inside the normal lattice for phases of capture that are required before a base can be won, maybe a flag from the last dev-built base or hard drive from the techplant as an example, allowing partial spawns inside/around bases during AND after base capture that can be more resistant to destruction/camping but easily capturable/contestable. allowing both counterplay as well as combined arms involvement when protected by other assets, like player forts. however special consideration would be required for player count and asset availability, low pop alerts might need to drop aspects entirely, this might allow for more control over how quickly a faction could steamroll with high population fighting a low population faction, allowing the low population faction to skip capture points or gain big chunks of time back from a capture. [amp station revamp?]

[@benanu]

as NSO i have no mainbattletank and no ESF, so i am out of touch with the combined arms game for, how many years now?

[@V43xV1CT15]

I enjoy flying the magerider

[@hybridgaming8341]

Vehicles farming infantry through doorways and windows is the number one symptom of a lack of vehicle meta. And, by RPG nerfing vehicle AI weapons, they are only addressing this symptom and not the actual problem. Also the Vehicle Capture Points and Construction Hexes are not a good solution either, for various reasons. The Construction Hexes having one-minute capture timers means that there is not enough time for a back-and-forth fight to happen. There was a massive missed opportunity to make the Fortification update include a real vehicle meta. The solution I proposed is this: Move the Colossus tank out of the Outfit Asset system and into the Construction System. They would only be available at the new Construction Hexes, by inserting a Colossus Module which would be pulled from a Secure Silo at a high cortium cost. This would give the Construction Hexes importance on the map, regardless of if your faction owned them or not. The idea behind the massive Cortium cost would be to organically create "supply lines" all over the map, and therefore a vehicle metagame involving protecting and attacking them.

[@Zipperbag]

How hard/feasible to implement a dynamic map ie. Chance the crown is at a warp gate Maybe one of the vehicle maps in the center (Might be too rough eh)

[@Igor369]

We also need the economy issue solved, right now the discounts are too big of an advantage for outfit + ASP players (reminder that it takes 2x c4 costing 150 nanites to kill a double discount 150 nanite lightning) and lightnings being pullable for cortium is a HUGE advantage for the team with a vehicle pad/CC in open field battles; seriously the lightning spam is never ending if the silo has plenty of cortium in it.

[@NK-qn6pq]

The main issue is nannite boosts and free vehicles from player bases.

[@alexlevesconte7216]

the tank play is fine you need them, if you attack a base and have none enemy armor will destroy your spawns , imo the role of armor is to defend/destroy spawns well the base fight happens. ill hang out in my prowler and defend spawns because theres always someone who is pulling something to try and get an easy kill on a sundy. and in bigger fights its even more important

[@NK-qn6pq]

Yeah, this is what infantry mains don't realize! Without tanks, it's a matter of time before your spawn bus gets neatly toasted.

[@greenwizard9878]

Infantry weapons not really effective against vehicles. They are frustrating to use (hello, 200 m/s launchers), deal abysmal damage and locked behind specific class. Anti air launchers very effective against A2A ESFs (flying high) and mostly useless against A2G ESFs(flying low). Being infantry against vehicles just frustrating and unfun.

[@efraim3364]

i was at that Esamir fight i think. Pretty sure we were taking a lot of team damage from it

[@jordansmith4040]

If you "fly" a magrider, you can participate in almost any base fight.

[@mr.pickle6487]

I wish that there was more anti vehicle counterplay for infantry. Like sure, if you have like 3 infantry with lock-on launchers, you can potentially kill a single person in an aircraft. Potentially. By the time you lock on, chances are theyve killed you, gone behind cover, or they have an ability which completely shuts down lock on attempts. Then you have the ones where they can just outrun the lock-on missiles. If you have are in an anti-aircraft or vehicle cannon in a base, then you typically die in a few shots from an enemy vehicle, while they can just retreat and heal in a place where they arent under constant fire. I never really see them being used or repaired because unless its a 1v1, its not worth it. I feel like those anti-tank launchers especially should be more tanky. Equally for the anti-air. You're not that tanky, and its really hard to hit an aircraft moving hundreds of meters away bombarding you since you are a stationary target. None of them feel like genuine counters or even something with any ability to counterplay, they're more like a wall on a road. Just takes a little time to shoot through, but no genuine danger unless you try and run straight into it.

[@mataznuiz]

players that never touch vehicles dont realise just how much the defender harasser circling around the base decides whether the fight is even going to happen. its similar to how non base builders dont know how much impact a well placed vehicle spawn base can prevent a fight at a centre base dying at low pop hours and everyone logging off. anyway, im biased and my opinions are just from the perspective of being a long time halberd harasser pilot. ive probably made tons of noobs quit from being roadkilled. i find that those hesh farmers sitting atop mount larp between the crown and crossroads watchtower dont actually get many kills. but they are frustrating. i dont care much for bases that are just a single open field point because it tries to separate vehicles from infantry too much.

[@KaiserMattTygore927]

Yeah, as a tanker, when I see there's like 3 harasser drivers, unless i'm in a massive tank column zerg, I go "Welp, we're fucked."

[@Nalothisal]

Rejigging the redeployside aspect of the game would help make the vehicle play more relevant, but the lack of logistics support vehicles would also make this frustrating. Personally, decreasing the TTK for vehicles vs vehicles, and infantry vs vehicles (Not that C4 garbage, that should honestly be booted), would help matters a bit. Making the launchers and other AT ranged weapons the infantry have, have a much better time tracking and better accuracy would help with this quite a bit. As mentioned before, the compromise is that C4 gets its power vs vehicles nerfed permanently, so it would spell the death of the C4 Fairy. Additionally, adding in a modular damage model for vehicles would also help with the TTK in the infantry vs vehicle battles and vehicle vs vehicle. Shooting out a tank's optics for instance would cause blindness in FPV. C4, (I know what I said), could be used to instead of destroying the tank, cause a mobility kill, ie blowing the engine of the tank, or blowing the track off. Now you could add a system where the part will get repaired automatically if it doesn't take any additional damage in that spot for roughly 15 to 20 seconds. Or, you could expedite this process by having an engineer come and repair it with their repair gun for less time. Ammoracking a tank could also lead to a mission kill, where you have to not only repair the damaged ammo storage compartment, (for tanks that have blow-out panels), but you also have to completely replenish your ammo either via a sunderer or ammo tower. Little tangibles like this would make vehicle battles more interesting, especially if you appropriately buff the launchers and AT turret.

[@Jormungrandrserpent]

Game is too infantry focused, the same reason Construction struggles is the same reason Vehicles struggle to have purpose. Planetside is not built for anything other than infantry. The terrain, the bases, the nodeploy zones, and fucking C4 Light Assaults.

[@newIrons]

I auraxed the butcher and played infantry almost exclusively for a long while, but I now find myself in a lib in every session and can't remember the last time I played dedicated infantry.

[@LettuceJuice]

0:04 you’re welcome 👍

[@dyoolyoos]

War is a battle of logistics. Vehicles are either 1) force multipliers or 2) for transport and supplies. I think #2 is overlooked coz of quick deploys and unli ammos. Maybe nerf the quick deploy system and ammo printer for vehicles, then only spawn infantry and vehicles from major bases?

[@abotaccount6094]

This isn't war. This is a game, we don't need logistics.

[@bigmango202]

I think the vehicles farming infantry could be countered if the people getting farmed just grabbed their own vehicles

[@JustaSpaceLizard]

Simple improvements to the readability to the objectives of the game flow. Long time ago, riot games took what players were doing and make it into the official game's strategy. Imagine if each base were designed, with the modern player's flow in mind. Even with ZERO alterations to bases. Simply adding to the UI, some sort of objective tracker for "securing the sunderer garage" or, on your way to A point, maybe there is an extra building, "Secure office". A bunch of small UI improvements to help players along the flow. I think this would go a long way. Also, no construction zones stop you from completely blocking the designed path of particular bases, I'd wager. But what if where were some construction pieces that had "sockets" in certain bases. Maybe one base can have upgraded walls. Or one base can build an extra spawn room if you secure a certain point. Old school LLU base capture. You have to hold the point when the running takes off to the adjacent base. Because the defending team could recycle the crypto for the link, making the current runner a dud. I dunno, just an old vet, a casual vet, not a salty one. I have a million more ideas on how to improve the game's flow. I wish I could spend all day just spewing it all out, but I picked a few of my top picks.

[@bonux0019]

I'm a PL and I abuse redeployement all the time because main outfits a deemed to answer almost every emergency, especially in the last 30min of an alert. It tends to feel more annoying than a "good" fast paced battle flow. I understand, it is easier for solo or new players to access fights (though not always with the latest limits in pop on a given hex). J key is often broken wanting to send people to an already 96+vs12- base, just as if the 96+ zerg needed any more gamers (50 gamers should actually be and are often needed elsewhere but...). I'd rather be forced to use steel rain than resing myself to tell the boys: press J... I would revert to a proper combined arms system that forces players to spawn vehicles and physically more to another base. I see too much lazy people out there that cry about "sundies being destroyed" but never repairing them, fighting for them or bringing more, often just relying on one... Right now, only the zerfits (like mine) and the backcappers actually care about logistics and starting fights. There will always be that central meatgrinder at some point. Fair enough. More vehicle objectives would be an improvement. Yes, there is the issue of the massive airball that destroys everything. It makes sense that it is powerfull. It actually trains people who wouldn't fly otherwise (like defending of attacking a Bastion). Speaking of airballs and Bastions. If we could customise the guns of a Bastion by switching the amount of AtG, AA or even those (vert slow) sniper turrets from the Flotillas (for shooting hardpoints in Bastion vs Bastion or Bastion vs Colosus fights), it would be moire interesting. For players in outfits that have no more certs to spend, it could be an ultimate thing to do at high price in certs and maybe merit currencies. When then removed the Mauler cannons (fair enough, debate is closed), I was hoping we could fit a full AA Bastion to protect ground troops, forcing the other factions to react. Bastion are more a gimmick that get outdone by a few cheese tricks to place very advantageous sundies and later destroyed by a smart lone colossus driver or the local 96+ airball. Making the Bastion just a glorified spawn point isn't enough even for the free ESFs (sometimes it is safer and to spawn a better equiped ESF at a nearby base than getting a free one, except for new players). Like everybody, I like to rest and play solo at times. But, on prime time, would it be better to encouurage players to use the full potential of the game. If you want to just to run around in a CQC fight killing people (for fun or ego tripping) fair enough. But, they are hundreds of FPS games that catter for that. When you want a big combined arms fight, it is the milsims (rarely), BattleBit, Heores and Generals (sort of) and a couple others maybe. But, Planetside 2 is unique and sadly so niche...

[@NoOne-ex4bz]

Vehicles simply need a purpose while at the same time not destroying other aspects of play. This is the issue really; if we make vehicles necessary to get people from place to place which adds a bit to one style of play it does hurt infantry fights. I fear the populations are not strong enough in this day for this to be viable overall where individuals simply "needing a ride" would find ample ability to find one either. Offering bonus for vehicle based objectives was tried with air alerts but was as mentioned just a matter of steam rolling. There are many ways one can go about things but at what detriment to other styles of play. For example we could add a construction system where production structures are needed to properly fuel a bases operations, giving more reason to engage with them. However if populations can't support it, or you don't have construction oriented players on your side you hurt the game by forceing people to engage in it rather then choosing too. I don much have a solution given most ways to ensure their place involves forceing a peg into place or going too light it will be ignored.

[@AdmiralxAvocado]

Nothing frustrates me more than putting 2-4 shells into a magrider only to have it turn and boost to cover. About 1/3 of the magrider drivers will have bounties on them as opposed to maybe 1/5 or 1/6 of vanguard/chimera/prowler drivers. I don't know if giving them more strafe weight/turn weight will help in a satisfying manner. To be honest I think taking the boost should be an option and taking it reduces the total health pool to balance out the manuverability, however this still does not feel like the right answer

[@AdmiralxAvocado]

It is a very powerful ability to be able to strafe and present your front armor to your target. I don't want it removed or so nerfed to kingdom come that it becomes worthless, but there needs to be some edge against it.

[@Laz1287]

See, this really wasn't an issue in PS1. The spawn rooms were deep inside bases, and vehicles couldn't farm spawn areas like they do in PS1. Maybe RPG should start redoing some base layouts in a similar fashion?

[@Slay0lot]

First of all, there are limited tools for infantry to deal with vehicles in mass. The concept of a combined infantry group to take down a vehicle does not work when one tank can camp a door where a full squad could not punch there way through with pathetically nerfed launchers. I am under the opinion if your a good pilot or tank driver or with any vehicle why do you have to be so close to do your damage and why do I as infantry can only sit there and get hammered on with no ability to counter or repel? There are many elements they can make adjustments on. How about emp grenade or mine that actually jams a vehicle, or as a engineer I can put more mines down than just 5 maxed out, how about better designed based turrets or launchers that actually did more damage if a person was dumb enough to park right outside my doorway, the closer you come, the more the damage should be. Hey, if you can manuever and fly and drive well, ok, but sitting out of a spawn room with the inability to nothing will frustrate anyone. Lastly, nothing worst than being a max suit with Anti Vehicle or Anti Air Weapons and you get run over by a flash. The suits should be like hitting a fire hydrant, you vehicle should not want to go after these things in close. Secondly, they have forgotten to make vehicles fun, the Sunderer for instance, it was never popular in the first Planetside. Still isn't but they force your hand by making it a Advanced Mobile Station. They could have brought back assault buggies from the original Planetside and people would have gone nuts. They could have retooled aircraft the way they should be and glide forward and have real dog figthing, not this VTOL mess, who really flies that way? They could have restricted ammo counts, where you had to physically drive back to bases and resupply with shells like PS1 and they could have even added a fuel system with cortium for vehicles with a fuel guage and the battles would have gotten even more interesting over resources.

[@patlecat]

Vehicle Points are more like a stepping stone than a useful point where fight would happen. I agree a lot of details need to be improved to make a true Combined Arms gameplay possible and meaningful and fun again.

[@kiro-fo9qg]

You should be allowed to pull MBT's from construction bases. And if bastions didnt exist, i would say to remove esf's.

[@slipspectrum9253]

I spent a lot of hours as a vehicle gunner across a lot of platforms and enjoyed it immensely. But I really only worked well with one driver, who quit the game years ago. This game tends to resort too much to nerfing to appease newbies and infantry only players. Perhaps if things were nerfed to start, like you said, it wouldn’t be so bad. I remember when leaving a building with a enemy lib hovering around was bad news… But it wasn’t so much that they were overly good.. I was just really bad! All I can say to those who gave up and quit, they missed out on a heck of a game. I think SOE, DBG, RPG, whomever just failed at recruiting and retention. I know far more people who loved the game and left over nerfing or drastic, stupid changes than anything else. I do feel balance was off from the start and the devs felt the need to rub it in rather than fix it, which caused some people I know to leave as well… Trolling your player base maybe isn’t the best to retain players, but dev houses aren’t much different from frat houses anyway, so…

[@nathanheadcrab2448]

Redeployside keeps vehicles from being anything more than a farmfest. They're a force multiplier with no force because HA's like me ain't got time for that. I skip. I continue my shooty-shoot. I pull only to dwindle hesh players when bored. Personally, a serious rework of redeploy would give those extra empty seats in the sundy a purpose. The galaxy could actually see some of its original purpose as a troop transport into play.

[@maze4184]

nerf AOE dmg of ALL vehicles, give tanks a coaxial MG to fight infantry with and make them more tanky (sunderer especially), maybe make them abit bigger and slower (especially MBTs) to make them into a sort of mobile cover for infantry. another thing i would like to see is weakpoints, to disrupt vehicles, make them more "skilldependent", like a cameraport on tanks to make their vision blurry, a way to pop a tire on a harasser to make it slow down, emp grenades to just stop them in their tracks for a few seconds

[@revan1202]

For quest they actually just gave up the escorting mission. I was looking forward to that mission, the Devs just easily give up on everything they had into this game halfway through. The combined arms could probably be better off if they removed all the hardpoints pawns in the game except the gates. Instead rely on construction and the sunders to push the forward spawns. I gave up playing vehicles because air craft are just too damn near impossible to fly, it should never have a skill ceiling that high to fly. Especially when it comes to ground gameplay it's just too many nerfs to really care anymore and there's no real objective for me to do without having to get out of vehicle later most of my personal objectives would fall under just guarding sunders or shooting air down.

[@happyfrags]

TL;DR : ask devs to steal some idea from Foxhole game. I think devs should abandon the idea of focusing 100% of the fight on a 10m² capture point room, and work a lot on backline logistics and construction system in order to spread the fight. I wish the back base and the road to the frontline was full of logistic player instead of a ghost town and empty road, to encourage ambush and delaying action, with actual consequences (read : attacking enemy logistic delay their advance or cost them ressource). For that, I think ressource and respawn systems should be completely reworked. Remove/rework the capture timer and replace it with a system that require either heavy firepower (vehicle) to destroy a base, with infantry being able to sabotage the enemy base for easier destruction, possibly without needing vehicle. Once a base is destroyed, the attacker have to rebuild it with construction system, to secure its logistic line, and defender have the option to drop-pod infantry to cause havoc for some time and sabotage enemy logistics. Vehicle conquer territory and do logistic, infantry occupy territory and ambush/delay logistics, air... I don't know. In regard to balance, I think all infantry class (debatable to infiltrator) should have access to anti-vehicle weapon able to slow vehicle, it could be a great way to rework the AT grenade and make it available to all classes.

[@Eddneton94]

hold up, Liberator pilots can shoot somewhere else then straight ahead?

[@47575344]

vehicals were always a great way to get out of the meat grinder of 60-40 pop ect, i always liked esfs for their skill rewards, but after they nerfed nose guns its pretty much you are air to air and thats it and it really ruined a big part of the fun of getting good at something to be more effective for your allies, i think vehicals are a major part of the game and they should be able to absolutly go wild with the right skill level, however i feel infantry should have a way to escape them if they have the right skills and map knowledge

[@dalentces2492]

Vehicle gameplay is still locked out to most people, and it's not even because of Cert cost. I'd say the 1. controls, 2. know-how and 3. clunky driving physics are a much, much bigger problem. Nobody communicates to players the importance of chassis. Nobody communicates to them that these not all equal either. There are obviously some better choices and some clearly worse ones. Each player also has to figure out by themselves the sensitivity settings for Air and tank cannons, the defaults are horrid. Vehicle-mounted turrets have no input delay yet the main weapons do, as do AV/AI/AA turrets on buildings. After hundreds of hours of playing PlanetSide I still haven't figured these out enough to compete with veterans.

[@lukazzade69469]

i use air to destroy tanks that spawn camp infantry, the food chain

[@MisterZimbabwe]

I just came.back to the game after taking a year long hiatus and one thing I've noticed that has been a huge disappointment is that not once in the two weeks I've been back has ANYONE on my server pulled a bastion, and I've only seen a mammoth pulled twice. Why is nobody using the bastions? Or the mammoths for that matter? Ones a big fuck off flying aircraft carrier and the other is the closest we have gotten to a pilotsble baneblade in a videogame. That's cool as heck! Is it just my server that is full of curmudgeons?

[@YargonK]

The answer is simple: They removed farming tools from the bastion and it's useage rates dropped off a cliff. The Colossus is expensive, costs outfit-resources to pull, and isn't very effective unless well supported, but the game design just doesn't reward that at the moment.

[@boxinthefield]

I see them every day on Cobalt, Colossii as well.

[@MrTwister22]

You asked if vehicles have a wide enough spectrum of gameplay and is supported enough and is well enough balanced. I have experienced more or less every gameplay style in the game enough to the point that I would be comfortable giving a new player some advice on where to start with those styles and what some of your goals should be. I think that the answer I’d give is yes to all of it. Air superiority is important, ground control is important, infantry control is important. Neither one completely invalidates the other and if they do, you have the capability to deal with the others. While some bases contribute better to one style of play more than others. I actually kind of think that ground vehicles should have better AI capabilities than they do right now. I think this is especially true for close range MBTs. It’s kind of a weird thing to focus on, but think about bases where it is physically impossible for an AI vehicle to do anything. If they try to do something like, hold an exterior wall doorway, they are extremely risking their vehicle against any infantry that may be near that door. I am not really sure what a fix for that could be. Obviously being HESH farmed at every base is unenjoyable, but being able to only influence a fight at 1 in 4 bases with an AI ground vehicle is also lame

[@ugg420able]

The mag rider is way OP. I've seen them climb straight up a mountain at 90 degrees. I've seen them ramp up on top of building. They never getting stuck. They run over player but land mine don't go off. Correct me if I'm wrong on the land mines. The are absolutely OP. Needs nerf bat lmao.

[@Jarred-J254]

I think vehicle gameplay is pretty poor right now with how easy it is for infantry such as light assaults to take down MBTs. Vehicles such as tanks should pose a legit threat to infantry and be tough for them to beat similar to real life. Right now vehicle gameplay is basically like playing another type of infantry, probably be good to bring back some of the old vehicle gameplay.

[@Highlyskeptical]

Make sunderers cheaper, harder to kill and invisible when deployed by default, more like PS1. Also get rid of spawn beacons, routers and rez grenades. Actually just change everything to be more like PS1.

[@georgepal9154]

Its not Planetside without combined arms. Theres much less of a spectacle, for one. Its less interesting. It less indistinguishable from other online fps. The sandbox idea becomes less meaningful, etc. So the vehicle gameplay should stay. If we think about vehicles in terms of having a purpose, we should start from a conceptual point of not having any vehicles: which ones do we add? Sunderers stay, they are the best way to set up offensive spawns. ANTs build bases. Necessary? Maybe. More necessary than the rest. They can stay. Lightnings are the primary one man offensive vehicle. They are pretty fast, do decent AI, AV and AA damage in different configurations. They have a fair cost and arent overpowered. None of their weapons are good at everything (except the TR faction gun). Lightnings can stay because they provide a rapid response to sunderers and they can be used offensively against static and constructed defenses. Flash? Cheap transport vehicle and annoyance device, plus it offers recon and healing utility. It can stay. Harasser? At this point a Harasser is unnecessary, especially because it is equivalent in price to a lightning but has less functionality. MBTs? Not strictly necessary. They create a vehicle gameplay imbalance if the other side doesnt have access to MBT's and they can be harder to counter as infantry. If they dont serve a more specific purpose other than "bigger tank", i think they actually hurt vehicle gameplay a bit. On to air. ESF? Not necessary... yet. Liberator? Good AV platform, can be used to counter vehicles where a ground counter doesnt work. Galaxy? Large scale air transport, spawns in hard to reach places, can be used tactically to quickly get bodies on point. Yes, its necessary. Now ESF are necessary as a counter to these air units. They arent needed to deal with infantry. Valkyrie as a light gunship can deal with infantry, but its not strictly needed. However, the valk/infantry engagement is healthier than the ESF/infantry emgagement. Bastions arent necessary, but in their current form, they dont hurt the game. Collosi were a bastion counter. They generally have the same effect as MBTs but worse for non bastion situations. I think the vehicles that are not strictly necessary, or they are tpo effective outside their range of necessity, need to be adjusted so they do better at filling a role without spilling into other roles. So the odd ones out here are Harassers, MBTs, ESF, and Colossi. Dont get me wrong: I love this game and the variety in said game. But from a purely conceptual standpoint or what role each vehicle should fill, some things fit or can be made to fit, and other things simply dont fit in their current form.

[@moonglide136]

Time to kill is too high for everything. Planetside 2 should take a hard look at battle bit and their success. Time to kill should be a lot shorter. Weapon system should defeat vehicles and infantry. Spawns could be easily fixed with construction along them to build near dev bases. Allow flail and glaive to target anywhere. Have dev bases have a shield that ants have to fill and attackers can attack. Reduce the size of spawn limitation from sundys. Its a combined arms game but there's way too many restrictions on planet side. ESF should be like deservish. Pilot should be air to air focused. Then maybe second seat could be a Gunner seat or hell I would love to see ESF remove 2nd weapon slot and give that to the Valkyrie but give the option to remove the spawn in order to have the second gunner slot as an option. The liberator should be nerfed and not be a flying tank. Ttk is way too high for this game.I would love to see more motor and artillery as well as AA and anti tank in this game. The way the game is now feels like everyone is shooting training rounds and not sabot or he rounds, Same for the infantry. I would also take away pocket orbitals. Allow all vehicles to be pulled by player bases.

[@Dx_Ach]

Vehicles are useless for the most part outside of the ANT. Fights are won by zergs on points. ESF are overly clunky for the sake of being 'unique' when they could easily just split the category into Fighters / Interceptors (more traditional jets) and ground support / Anti vehicle (more traditional helicopters) instead of making an all in one package. It would not even need a significant overhaul in the flight physics (flight mode vs hover mode) to accomplish this (aside from removing or increasing the yaw speed restriction)

[@WitchDoctor87]

Truely its not the vehicle game thats the problem. Its that to many buildings can be exploted using vehicles for simple infantry farming. Under ground bases and bio labs are good examples of balanced base design. We will forever have vehicles issues as long as the bases remains so easy to abuse. When I played this game (stopped playing around 6000hrs). I loved the game but for me I never cared about capturing a base or team effect. I cared about leaving my name as a remembrance I was atthe location. Also how i was atthe location and killed people. I never liked farming using vehicles. I played infantry exclusively.

[@kinnusai4432]

Algorithm comment o7 I don't do vehicles much

[@psychomidget1]

Make Sundys stronger again

[@blade913]

PS2 is an infantry game. Vehicles are squishy, and aren't scary to infantry. No more directional armor, no more hesh, C4 fairies. MAXes are nerfed cause people didn't like them in infantry. Not saying I agree with the changes, but that's what it has become.

[@mikezat6328]

The amount of chipping power infantry have gained makes vehicle play unrewarding. Infantry get shot at for basically existing. Unless you have high cohesion or numbers; vehicle gameplay is garbage right now. Infantry power creep is real and its here. Air game is suffering from the same thing; & has been longer. Overall, PS2 has an identity crisis imho.

[@nitokagaminen9660]

infantry AV weapon are so bad, the crossbow way more effective than them so dev have to nerf the crossbow but not touch any other AV weapon

[@ikariirgath2171]

In 80% there is only vehicle vs infantry (farming), not vehicle vs vehicle. And any anti-air warfare is a joke, errrm, unbalanced gamestyle. :/

[@EclipseRises]

tanks you can deal with as infantry, the amount of times I alone have been able to scare away MBTs as a lone heavy with a decimator is more time than I can count, But air vehicles? no they need to add so many better antiair options 3 seconds to lock onto a aircraft that cant be farther than 150m away when they kill you in 3 indirect aoe nukes is wild. not to mention they can just boost away from anti air rockets 99% of the time. I thought flying took skill all those years ago, so when I went and tried it out, and found out it is like spreading butter on bread I was immensely irritated. note im not saying nerf ESF honestly id be fine if they unnerfed ESF weapons but just made infantry manpads allowed to fight the stratosphere infantry farming dudes.

[@ugg420able]

Don't remove the tanks don't remove the vehicles don't remove air power don't remove anything to satisfy these Call of Duty battlefield turds of players. If anything add more stuff. I play this game because it's a planetary scale warfare. When I'm tired of running on the ground I get in the tank when I'm tired of driving in my tank I'm getting a mosquito.

[@aapocalypseArisen]

hard to swallow pill: neither the players who play the game or the designers and devs at daybreak know how to balance a MMOFPS

[@biggusdickus778]

What about harassers?

[@hurrdurr3615]

The issue is that vehicles are too powerful at murdering infantry, period. You try to integrate them into the game more? The result is Oshur which gets avoided like the plague. There are two options: 1) balance Vehicles to not be so much stronger than infantry 2) actually not have combined arms gameplay

[@TooFewSecrets]

Two-way very high lethality works. ARMA despite being a milsim is very balanced with vehicles because, even though an LAV with thermals can easily toast an entire squad, one guy with a recoilless rifle can oneshot him back. Of course that just is not how PS2 is designed.

[@kuronekogamer2065]

I really wish all vehicles with a manned turret could have an AI (less efficient, like 50% weaker or something). It's really frustrating to wait for someone.