Planetside 2..Free to play..and looking awesome so far!

[NikolaeVarius]

Actually it's not. You need to look up the info about how damage direction is calculated - here's a hint: It's calculated from the position between the firer and the target IMMEDIATELY AT THE TIME WHEN THE SHOT IS FIRED, and never updated.

As an illustration of this, if you have a seeking rocket for example, if you lock on to a tank facing away from you (ie: its rear) and fire at it while on the same plane as the tank, and the tank manages to do a full 180 degree turn before the rocket hits (ie: now its front armor is facing you/the incoming rocket), the tank will still take damage as if it was struck in the REAR by the incoming rocket even though it visibly clearly was struck in the front.

Thats... kind of stupid.

 

[Genx87]

That is weird to have it decided at the time of shooting the weapon. It negates a tank turning its stronger armor towards the rocket for better defense.

 

[Markbnj]

Actually it's not. You need to look up the info about how damage direction is calculated - here's a hint: It's calculated from the position between the firer and the target IMMEDIATELY AT THE TIME WHEN THE SHOT IS FIRED, and never updated.

As an illustration of this, if you have a seeking rocket for example, if you lock on to a tank facing away from you (ie: its rear) and fire at it while on the same plane as the tank, and the tank manages to do a full 180 degree turn before the rocket hits (ie: now its front armor is facing you/the incoming rocket), the tank will still take damage as if it was struck in the REAR by the incoming rocket even though it visibly clearly was struck in the front.

Here's what I know: most of the time it takes a crapload of rockets to kill armored vehicles. Also, rockets travel at the speed of a seagull. And phalanx turrets can be killed by falling snow.

That is weird to have it decided at the time of shooting the weapon. It negates a tank turning its stronger armor towards the rocket for better defense.

Not half as weird as the idea that a tank can turn it's front toward a rocket. I don't understand the design philosophy behind making a weak, slow anti-tank rocket that you get five of per reload. How about a rocket that flies at, you know, rocket speed and is very effective, but you only get one or two?

 

[Genx87]

I agree on the slow rocket as well. Why? This is supposed to be set in a futuristic time right? Why are rockets slower in the future?

Also be nice if we could raze structures with a specific type of weapon class. Then have the base rebuild over time once captured.

 

[destrekor]

I agree on the slow rocket as well. Why? This is supposed to be set in a futuristic time right? Why are rockets slower in the future?

Also be nice if we could raze structures with a specific type of weapon class. Then have the base rebuild over time once captured.

We got armies like the VS with crazy technology, and vehicles still have engines equivalent to ones available in today's world.


Some things just come down to the balance they are trying to achieve. Which, when it comes to rocket speeds, I agree needs a boost, but it would probably be a bad idea for vehicles to be faster.
I'd LOVE for the Vanguard to have a futuristic engine capability, for instance... but if the tanks could scoot about all nimbly-like, and reach 100mph, which would be awesome in the real world, in the game it would make for a terrible balance against everything else.

 

[dighn]

I agree on the slow rocket as well. Why? This is supposed to be set in a futuristic time right? Why are rockets slower in the future?

Also be nice if we could raze structures with a specific type of weapon class. Then have the base rebuild over time once captured.

On the same note, why are tank shells so slow? It's all in the name of game play and balance.

Anyway I don't quite agree with making HA so strong that they can solo a tank and have a high chance of winning, because that makes tanks as a limited resource rather useless. You can just steamroll everything with fast respawning HAs and it becomes a infantry only game, of which there are plenty. They just need to create more scenarios in which vehicle cannot participate or are at a real disadvantage. Spawn camping with vehicles is a big no no.

 

[WiseUp216]

So, after a less-than-stellar first attempt a few months ago, I've put ~5 hours into PS2 this week. I gotta say, I like it a lot. Far from perfect but I've had a lot of fun.

My only outstanding problem is the cost of new items. I was going to drop $20 on some station cash but after looking at the store I realized it would get me diddly-squat. $5.00 per gun?? Craziness. I want to support the devs but that seems a bit steep to me.

So my question to any of you veterans: Is it worth buying SC and if so, what should I buy first?

 

[WelshBloke]

So, after a less-than-stellar first attempt a few months ago, I've put ~5 hours into PS2 this week. I gotta say, I like it a lot. Far from perfect but I've had a lot of fun.

My only outstanding problem is the cost of new items. I was going to drop $20 on some station cash but after looking at the store I realized it would get me diddly-squat. $5.00 per gun?? Craziness. I want to support the devs but that seems a bit steep to me.

So my question to any of you veterans: Is it worth buying SC and if so, what should I buy first?

Like you say the infantry stuff is different rather than better.

If you really want to buy something the xp boosters seem to be okay. They would translate into cert points which are useful.

If I were you though I'd just play a bit more first, then you will probably get a better idea of what you want to buy.

 

[AHamick]

So, after a less-than-stellar first attempt a few months ago, I've put ~5 hours into PS2 this week. I gotta say, I like it a lot. Far from perfect but I've had a lot of fun.

My only outstanding problem is the cost of new items. I was going to drop $20 on some station cash but after looking at the store I realized it would get me diddly-squat. $5.00 per gun?? Craziness. I want to support the devs but that seems a bit steep to me.

So my question to any of you veterans: Is it worth buying SC and if so, what should I buy first?

Infantry weapons are sidegrades to the originals you get at the start, they may be considered better depending on your favored playstyle.

Regardless, getting SC is worth it ONLY on a 2x or 3x SC day in my opinion. I purchased a Walmart SC card that gives a bonus 500 SC when cashed in. so my $15 card gave me 2000 SC which tripled when I turnd it in on a 3x day for a total of 6000 SC. Then you can trial and buy weapons for your favorite class that you like the best (remember, SMG's are coming Jan 30).

As for must haves, I guess I'd highly recommend the second burster arm for the MAX, and maybe either A2A missiles or A2G rockets for the ESF if you like flying them.

 

[SunnyD]

Thats... kind of stupid.

It's called "Client-side hit detection". It's the only way it can work efficiently really. For the sake of large firefights that is. Certain tradeoffs had to be made in order to be able to allow you to play multi-hundred vs. multi-hundred battles.

Unfortunately, it also opens up cheating.

Re: Balancing... if you want to be able to effectively solo tanks, buy the Decimator, and shoot the tank from the rear. 1 shot to kill lightnings, 2 shots to kill a heavy tank.

 

[Markbnj]

Re: Balancing... if you want to be able to effectively solo tanks, buy the Decimator, and shoot the tank from the rear. 1 shot to kill lightnings, 2 shots to kill a heavy tank.

Well, an anti-tank weapon should be able to effectively solo a tank, don't you think? If not, then it ain't much of an anti-tank weapon. As far as I can see all the anti-infantry weapons are able to effectively solo me. Why do FPS designs always assume vehicles should have this very high survivability? In practice they don't. When you make them able to survive a large amount of direct fire then they don't need to work in concert with infantry and air support. They can just zerg up and attack shit, which is exactly what you see in PS2.

If anti-tank rockets (and emplaced guns like turrets) were effective then tanks would not move forward without infantry and air support. I think you'd have more interesting battles. But you'd have to rebalance everything around it. For example, effective anti-armor shouldn't be in the hands of a heavy who is also lugging a light machine gun and a bunch of grenades. Maybe you can take out a tank effectively, but in return all you have is a light submachine gun (which would be realistic) and you don't suddenly convert back into rambo when your rockets are exhausted.

 

[SunnyD]

Well, an anti-tank weapon should be able to effectively solo a tank, don't you think? If not, then it ain't much of an anti-tank weapon. As far as I can see all the anti-infantry weapons are able to effectively solo me. Why do FPS designs always assume vehicles should have this very high survivability? In practice they don't. When you make them able to survive a large amount of direct fire then they don't need to work in concert with infantry and air support. They can just zerg up and attack shit, which is exactly what you see in PS2.

If anti-tank rockets (and emplaced guns like turrets) were effective then tanks would not move forward without infantry and air support. I think you'd have more interesting battles. But you'd have to rebalance everything around it. For example, effective anti-armor shouldn't be in the hands of a heavy who is also lugging a light machine gun and a bunch of grenades. Maybe you can take out a tank effectively, but in return all you have is a light submachine gun (which would be realistic) and you don't suddenly convert back into rambo when your rockets are exhausted.

In the fights I've been in, anti-tank weaponry works fine. Why? Because you usually have about 5 or 6 guys all firing rockets from multiple directions at the tank at the same time, and if half of them hit then that tank is dead anyway.

One on one, no, I don't believe anti-tank weaponry should be a viable "solo" act against a tank unless the tank isn't paying attention. Which, again, DOES happen. Which, again, DOES REWARD the infantry soldier that takes the time and effort to find the right position (behind) the tank without getting facerolled in the process. But should you be able to stand in the middle of an open field and play chicken with a tank from 75m away, your rockets against his front armor and expect to win? Hell no.

As far as Phalanx turrets go, I generally have no problems with them either. It takes a good bit to bring one of them down, let alone just lining up the shots. As a defender in a Phalanx, I'm usually shredding tanks apart quite readily until the enemy gets to critical mass in terms of incoming armor. And that's the game - it's all about numbers most of the time. Incoming attackers put up a huge amount of armor and start pounding you with 150mm rounds from all directions, bombs up top and rockets to boot, of course one little stationary turret is going to die.

I don't really want to come off sounding like "You're playing it wrong", but it really does sound like there is a perception issue. I've been on both side of the fence too and you just have to take the good moments with the bad ones. For example, I have a huge love-hate relationship with ESF's. I love flying my reaver. I'd like to think I'm a decent pilot. Being in a tank on the ground, I can see a scythe or mossie come by and hit me with what feels like 2 rockets and I blow up. I take my reaver out, pound that magrider in the ass with probably 20 rockets and it's STILL going. Other days I'll go out and get kill after kill putting 4 rockets here, strafing with my gun there, taking out enemy liberators from 150m out with guns only, divebombing enemy ESF's with rockets and feeling like a god. And then there's that one infantry that just took an entire 12 rocket salvo, and he's still walking away. Or the one mossie I just hit with my guns, who turns around and somehow took me from 100% to 0% health in about 2 hits.

The game does stupid things sometimes, just set em aside, and whatever you do absolutely do NOT thing 1-on-1 balance. Ever. Especially never, ever thing "this versus that" balance. It'll make your brain hurt. Just remember - it's a war. A big war. It's not supposed to make sense. Squad up, go find a big fight, and shoot at the red triangles. It works way better that way.

 

[A5]

Well, an anti-tank weapon should be able to effectively solo a tank, don't you think?

No? If one infantry unit can hard-counter a vehicle, vehicles would never get used. If they made a much stronger anti-vehicle weapon that consumes infantry resources (like mines, C4, and grenades) then we'd be on to something. But as-is today, letting the infinite spawn of HAs solo vehicles would be a Bad Idea.

 

[Markbnj]

In the fights I've been in, anti-tank weaponry works fine. Why? Because you usually have about 5 or 6 guys all firing rockets from multiple directions at the tank at the same time, and if half of them hit then that tank is dead anyway.

One on one, no, I don't believe anti-tank weaponry should be a viable "solo" act against a tank unless the tank isn't paying attention. Which, again, DOES happen. Which, again, DOES REWARD the infantry soldier that takes the time and effort to find the right position (behind) the tank without getting facerolled in the process. But should you be able to stand in the middle of an open field and play chicken with a tank from 75m away, your rockets against his front armor and expect to win? Hell no.

As far as Phalanx turrets go, I generally have no problems with them either. It takes a good bit to bring one of them down, let alone just lining up the shots. As a defender in a Phalanx, I'm usually shredding tanks apart quite readily until the enemy gets to critical mass in terms of incoming armor. And that's the game - it's all about numbers most of the time. Incoming attackers put up a huge amount of armor and start pounding you with 150mm rounds from all directions, bombs up top and rockets to boot, of course one little stationary turret is going to die.

I don't really want to come off sounding like "You're playing it wrong", but it really does sound like there is a perception issue. I've been on both side of the fence too and you just have to take the good moments with the bad ones. For example, I have a huge love-hate relationship with ESF's. I love flying my reaver. I'd like to think I'm a decent pilot. Being in a tank on the ground, I can see a scythe or mossie come by and hit me with what feels like 2 rockets and I blow up. I take my reaver out, pound that magrider in the ass with probably 20 rockets and it's STILL going. Other days I'll go out and get kill after kill putting 4 rockets here, strafing with my gun there, taking out enemy liberators from 150m out with guns only, divebombing enemy ESF's with rockets and feeling like a god. And then there's that one infantry that just took an entire 12 rocket salvo, and he's still walking away. Or the one mossie I just hit with my guns, who turns around and somehow took me from 100% to 0% health in about 2 hits.

The game does stupid things sometimes, just set em aside, and whatever you do absolutely do NOT thing 1-on-1 balance. Ever. Especially never, ever thing "this versus that" balance. It'll make your brain hurt. Just remember - it's a war. A big war. It's not supposed to make sense. Squad up, go find a big fight, and shoot at the red triangles. It works way better that way.

I don't disagree in general, especially with your ultimate conclusions, but at the same time the way a game is balanced has a huge impact on how it is played. because people naturally gravitate towards what achieves the best results. I think you can see some effects of poor balance in the way it is being played currently.

 

[Red Storm]

If vehicles could be easily solo'd by a single infantry then no one would use them. As Sunny said you can't do 1v1 balancing in this game, it's not a 16 player FPS.

 

[SunnyD]

I don't disagree in general, especially with your ultimate conclusions, but at the same time the way a game is balanced has a huge impact on how it is played. because people naturally gravitate towards what achieves the best results. I think you can see some effects of poor balance in the way it is being played currently.

Honestly, I don't really see a lot of balance issue outside of one: Liberators raining down hell on outpost spawn barracks. There should be some sort of canopy over the barracks that give infantry some sort of mobility/cover and a chance to escape in multiple directions.

Other than that, I really think balance is decent. I hear what you're saying, because it's echoed in game a lot. "The game is all about rock, paper, scissors... with infantry being at the bottom and aircraft being at the top." Problem is, it's not that simple. As I said, situational awareness is absolutely huge in the game. In the open field, armor is going to pretty much stomp infantry, and aircraft is going to flatten armor. In defense where there's actual fortifications that can be used, a decently coordinated infantry can hold off a coordinated armor division for hours on end. In both cases, it's air support that breaks the camel's back. And in both cases, I've seen (and been a part of) thoroughly staunch anti-air defense crews which kept that air support from allowing the impending infantry/armor assault from making any headway. And I've also been in fights where one of those pieces of the puzzle was missing, and the defense (or assault even) collapsed because of it.

I think the WEAPONS they give you for the most part are pretty well balanced. Each does their thing. Yes, I do think anti-tank rockets should do a bit more damage up front than they do currently - but not too much more. Yes, I think Liberators need to be nerfed in some way. Other than that, I've not been in many situations where I've felt the game was simply unbalanced because of unit type advantage. Maybe because of poor squad planning, but that's not the game's fault that people aren't spawning the right stuff now is it?

 

[darkewaffle]

Tried this game last night at the prodding of my friends; not really a fan. I don't understand the allure of the whole "large scale" pvp type thing, I can't think of the last time I had fun in any scenario like that (Ilum, WvW, Wintergrasp, 64p BF3). It's too messy for me; on one hand yeah I guess you can feel like a "real soldier" in the midst of a battle, on the other hand I don't see the fun in feeling inconsequential.

 

[JTsyo]

If vehicles could be easily solo'd by a single infantry then no one would use them. As Sunny said you can't do 1v1 balancing in this game, it's not a 16 player FPS.

Also the infantry can respawn and fight again, while the tank is gone for a bit. In one fight we had, we had our tanks going up against infantry at their base. They chipped away at the tanks and no matter how many we killed, they respawned and killed a few more tanks. Things finally turned around when we lost enough tanks that those guys went in on foot and killed the sundy and killboxed the spawn.

 

[Red Storm]

Also the infantry can respawn and fight again, while the tank is gone for a bit. In one fight we had, we had our tanks going up against infantry at their base. They chipped away at the tanks and no matter how many we killed, they respawned and killed a few more tanks. Things finally turned around when we lost enough tanks that those guys went in on foot and killed the sundy and killboxed the spawn.

Right. You could have all the vehicles and aircraft in the world, but the only way you will actually win is to bring in the infantry.

 

[SunnyD]

Also the infantry can respawn and fight again, while the tank is gone for a bit. In one fight we had, we had our tanks going up against infantry at their base. They chipped away at the tanks and no matter how many we killed, they respawned and killed a few more tanks. Things finally turned around when we lost enough tanks that those guys went in on foot and killed the sundy and killboxed the spawn.

And that's what sets Planetside 2 apart from Battlefield or Call of Doodoo: In a large scale assault, the team with the better strategic planning usually comes out on top. It's not always about numbers or resources. Sometimes all you need is one guy to take charge of the situation and come up with a good plan and it will turn the tide of the battle.

I've been a part of too many assaults where we were one or two nodes from capturing the continent, only to have the opposing faction all of a sudden mount a furious defense somewhere and occupy us with glorious fighting for the next hour. All of a sudden you look at the map and we lost 2/3 of it to the opposing factions because we were too tied up in a hopeless defensive battle, and our armor/air support got decimated in the process leaving us to regroup and start from scratch.

 

[Markbnj]

And that's what sets Planetside 2 apart from Battlefield or Call of Doodoo: In a large scale assault, the team with the better strategic planning usually comes out on top. It's not always about numbers or resources. Sometimes all you need is one guy to take charge of the situation and come up with a good plan and it will turn the tide of the battle.

I've been a part of too many assaults where we were one or two nodes from capturing the continent, only to have the opposing faction all of a sudden mount a furious defense somewhere and occupy us with glorious fighting for the next hour. All of a sudden you look at the map and we lost 2/3 of it to the opposing factions because we were too tied up in a hopeless defensive battle, and our armor/air support got decimated in the process leaving us to regroup and start from scratch.

That is absolutely what makes the game so fun. I don't have any issues with the overall design. However, I remain convinced that armor and air are overpowered with respect to infantry, and the imbalance between NC infantry weapons and the other factions has already been discussed. I think addressing these issues would make the game better.

 

[SunnyD]

That is absolutely what makes the game so fun. I don't have any issues with the overall design. However, I remain convinced that armor and air are overpowered with respect to infantry, and the imbalance between NC infantry weapons and the other factions has already been discussed. I think addressing these issues would make the game better.

Well I'll give you this: Any time you get something that can sit hundreds of meters away, (mostly) out of harm's way, fire a weapon that can easily 1-hit any infantry and absorb a lot of punishment or get the hell out of dodge if it gets found... yeah, it'll feel overpowered.

Then again, that's exactly how armor and aircraft work in the real world. I can't say PS2 is overall imbalanced. You want help against that tank platoon coming? Bring a bunch of friends in Liberators.

re: NC guns... yeah, right there with ya.

 

[Markbnj]

Well I'll give you this: Any time you get something that can sit hundreds of meters away, (mostly) out of harm's way, fire a weapon that can easily 1-hit any infantry and absorb a lot of punishment or get the hell out of dodge if it gets found... yeah, it'll feel overpowered.

Heh, yeah, it would feel overpowered to an infantry soldier standing in its field of fire holding a rifle... or an anti-tank weapon that needs to hit the tank five times to kill it. It might not feel overpowered to an 88mm anti-tank gun hidden in the woods that has a good chance of one-shotting it, or a soldier with an effective anti-tank weapon.

Balance is very delicate, and I agree there's probably a lot less wrong than I think there is when I'm running away from a magrider or cowering in a spawn closet with fifteen other guys while liberator rains doom down on us. I guess overall it's just a philosophy thing with me. Modern games tend toward spraying death and destruction all over and compensating with a fast respawn and return to battle. I'd prefer that it be harder to land hit with a weapon, but more devastating when you do. If tanks were more vulnerable they'd have to move forward with infantry support. If Liberators were more vulnerable they'd have to fly higher and linger less. If Sunderers were more vulnerable you'd have to leave infantry to protect them, and engineers to repair them. I think these would generally be good changes.

 

[Broheim]

is it just me or has bug-abusing and hacking increased as of late?

anyways, been spending a lot of time flying reavers and getting quite good at it, in a 1v1 dogfight I will come out on top 90% of the time, sadly with NC being so damned outnumbered on Ceres it's usually more like 1vbajillion.

 

[WelshBloke]

Heh, yeah, it would feel overpowered to an infantry soldier standing in its field of fire holding a rifle... or an anti-tank weapon that needs to hit the tank five times to kill it. It might not feel overpowered to an 88mm anti-tank gun hidden in the woods that has a good chance of one-shotting it, or a soldier with an effective anti-tank weapon.

Balance is very delicate, and I agree there's probably a lot less wrong than I think there is when I'm running away from a magrider or cowering in a spawn closet with fifteen other guys while liberator rains doom down on us. I guess overall it's just a philosophy thing with me. Modern games tend toward spraying death and destruction all over and compensating with a fast respawn and return to battle. I'd prefer that it be harder to land hit with a weapon, but more devastating when you do. If tanks were more vulnerable they'd have to move forward with infantry support. If Liberators were more vulnerable they'd have to fly higher and linger less. If Sunderers were more vulnerable you'd have to leave infantry to protect them, and engineers to repair them. I think these would generally be good changes.

I think 2 things would sort out the balance.

Make infantry fired missiles travel faster and the lock on ones more likely to hit.

And base design. I'm happy for vehicles to rule outside but bases should be about infantry battles.