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

[SunnyD]

would be nice if the galaxies were faster or more armored so they get used more

also would like the ability of sunderers to deploy anywhere back

It was removed for a reason. It was far too much of a tactical advantage. Though with cap locking, I don't even see how it would be useful.

I think the current big balance issue in this game is the Liberator. I don't think they should be able to take on the Scythe/Mosquito/Reaver so well. I always thought of them as bombers that needed an air escort, but currently a Lib pilot sees an air fighter and he goes after them. They're too nimble and quick IMHO.

I think a simple fix to the liberator would simply be to make it so that it can't be stationary or as mobile. I agree, it's too maneuverable. But also it's capability to just "park" and squash anything in a general area is ridiculous. It's a "bomber", make it behave as one. Make it so that it always has to be moving forward while it's in the air and not landing. Anything that makes it so that it goes in straight lines or long arcs preferably.

 

[Revolution 11]

what about this idea

we have a hive map. there can be tunnel like highways for vehicles. much of the map would work with only infantry although. not sure what we could do for air if we need it at all. maybe something like a biodome over the whole map. you can have landing platforms like cloud city. this could even be a stronghold area for the faction start maps when continent locking is enabled

You will love Hossin then, the new forest continent coming out in May/June. It is infantry and small-vehicle focused, tanks are funneled into twisted cover-heavy tunnels which are a godsend for AV troops. And the massive trees and leaf cover make it really hard for liberators to attack most of the map.

Many bases themselves have mini-biodomes preventing direct air attack on the bases. There are also more vehicle shields, increasing the importance of crack infantry squads.

Definitely more compelling than Space Canada Esamir (what a horrible continent, walled off unrealistically, weird lighting that hurts the eyes, no plant cover or trees, no one lives in Canada anyway).

 

[Revolution 11]

I think a simple fix to the liberator would simply be to make it so that it can't be stationary or as mobile. I agree, it's too maneuverable. But also it's capability to just "park" and squash anything in a general area is ridiculous. It's a "bomber", make it behave as one. Make it so that it always has to be moving forward while it's in the air and not landing. Anything that makes it so that it goes in straight lines or long arcs preferably.

A good fix would be to increase the liberator vulnerability to ESFs with a reduction to liberator armor. Or increase the ESF exp. bonus for damaging and killing a liberator.

Your solution is interesting but once pilots adapt, it will not change how a liberator behaves in large zerg fights. The small fights don't overpower a liberator anyway because one liberator is not that bad. Six liberators are very powerful.

A direct nerf to the liberator or a buff for AA weapons or the ESF against liberators specifically would do more for this problem.

 

[norseamd]

think we need more powerful manpads with longer range and maybe stronger damage

 

[norseamd]

how about a dedicated anti air vehicle with 4 autocannons and maybe some missiles

would be able to attack infantry as well

 

[norseamd]

also how about a self propelled indirect fire artillery vehicle

 

[norseamd]

It was removed for a reason. It was far too much of a tactical advantage. Though with cap locking, I don't even see how it would be useful.

how so?

also what is cap locking?

 

[Revolution 11]

norseamd, you don't have to spew separate posts for every single point. Combine them into one and there is less thread clutter.

This is not Twitter.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I think the current big balance issue in this game is the Liberator. I don't think they should be able to take on the Scythe/Mosquito/Reaver so well. I always thought of them as bombers that needed an air escort, but currently a Lib pilot sees an air fighter and he goes after them. They're too nimble and quick IMHO.

Liberators aren't actually that fast but they are far too nimble, being able to flop up and death blossom ESFs with their main gun is stupid, especially when ESFs have such limited engagement ranges with their weapons and liberators have so much HP that you need to get close.

It was removed for a reason. It was far too much of a tactical advantage. Though with cap locking, I don't even see how it would be useful.

I always thought deploying multiple sunderers in one area was no problem, it's the overpowered repair rate keeping sunderers alive under withering fire that's the problem.

I would say you let sunderers deploy right next to each other, but institute some kind of limiting mechanic...spawns per minute maximum for each one, or perhaps some kind of nanite energy reserve that can run out and you need to either get resupplied in the field or go back and get more. These things would make it so that you MUST deploy multiple sunderers to sustain an attack, and whereas previously, being able to deploy 5 together meant that you had to kill all 5 to achieve any effect, now, if you kill some it reduces the ability to spawn.

 

[Ventanni]

I don't think it's because Liberators are overpowered. I think that because of the slight nerf to the Dalton and the complete uselessness of the Duster, people have gravitated to using the Shredder more. And, since people are now using the Shredder, they're realizing how useful it is against air targets.

Liberators are also 2-3 person crewed. It's going to have some inherent advantages to a 1-man ESF for the simple fact that there's a lot more firepower that can come out of one compared to an ESF.

The main problem for the Liberator there for a while was that it was too vulnerable. PS2 is very balanced when it comes to being able to combat air targets (lock-on rockets, Skyguards, MAX burster units, ESF's, etc). Prior to the patch, it also had a very bad blind spot to ESF's that was regularly capitalized on. Now Lib's can fight muscle with muscle, and while powerful, I feel it's about right for what a 2-3 man crewed bomber can bring to the table.

As a side analogy, WW2 bomber formations were extremely dangerous to approach by German pilots. I think Sony is trying to balance this with the same idea in mind.

 

[Ventanni]

I will explain more about the Lib later. I had to cut my thoughts short there. 🙂

 

[Red Storm]

I don't think it's because Liberators are overpowered. I think that because of the slight nerf to the Dalton and the complete uselessness of the Duster, people have gravitated to using the Shredder more. And, since people are now using the Shredder, they're realizing how useful it is against air targets.

Liberators are also 2-3 person crewed. It's going to have some inherent advantages to a 1-man ESF for the simple fact that there's a lot more firepower that can come out of one compared to an ESF.

The main problem for the Liberator there for a while was that it was too vulnerable. PS2 is very balanced when it comes to being able to combat air targets (lock-on rockets, Skyguards, MAX burster units, ESF's, etc). Prior to the patch, it also had a very bad blind spot to ESF's that was regularly capitalized on. Now Lib's can fight muscle with muscle, and while powerful, I feel it's about right for what a 2-3 man crewed bomber can bring to the table.

As a side analogy, WW2 bomber formations were extremely dangerous to approach by German pilots. I think Sony is trying to balance this with the same idea in mind.

I think Libs need to be vulnerable to ESF, otherwise they just fly high enough that ground isn't a threat and then they farm kills below. They're too good against both ground and air. A 3 man crew doesn't justify this.

 

[JeffMD]

Libs flying at ceiling height don't kill anything though. A single ESF has no right to be a lib wrecking crew. Together, sure, but a lib with 3 people is not one role, it is 2, ground and air, and will take 2-3 people to take it down.

 

[Revolution 11]

Air in general seems weird in Planetside 2. As a ground grunt, I never see any air support at all, and I never notice even the largest air armadas unless I am trapped in a spawn room. At which point, the air forces will not do much anyway.

So, what is the point of air then? Stopping tank armadas? Every tank group I have been in has plenty of Skyguards, AA Maxes, and heavies with AA rockets.

That's why I am looking forward to Hossin. No more air in a sense.

Ironically, the only time air has been a pain to me is when I was a sole medic in the middle of nowhere and a ESF decided to make me his plaything. And there is no balance or nerf that could have allowed me to kill him.

 

[norseamd]

maybe we can introduce some air superiority fighters?

And there is no balance or nerf that could have allowed me to kill him.

if this is what they thinking of when balancing then this is the problem. there is no reason why you should be able to take down a fighter unless you had a surface to air weapon

 

[norseamd]

You will love Hossin then, the new forest continent coming out in May/June. It is infantry and small-vehicle focused, tanks are funneled into twisted cover-heavy tunnels which are a godsend for AV troops. And the massive trees and leaf cover make it really hard for liberators to attack most of the map.

Many bases themselves have mini-biodomes preventing direct air attack on the bases. There are also more vehicle shields, increasing the importance of crack infantry squads.

Definitely more compelling than Space Canada Esamir (what a horrible continent, walled off unrealistically, weird lighting that hurts the eyes, no plant cover or trees, no one lives in Canada anyway).

a hive amp would be different than a swamp map

so a hive city might be like taris or coruscant or cloud city.

go look at 40k

www.lexicanum.com

 

[Revolution 11]

if this is what they thinking of when balancing then this is the problem. there is no reason why you should be able to take down a fighter unless you had a surface to air weapon

That's not what I am saying at all. I don't expect that in any game actually. My point is that air is pretty much useless to the game. The only situation for me where it did have a impact is the ESF attacking a sole medic. And there was nothing to be done about it.

To be fair, air is far more useful during large-scale field battles. But you rarely see these, the distance between bases is too short with too much mountain or tree cover. Base fights are rarely determined by air.

 

[Revolution 11]

The game would benefit from "hubs" of bases. A large base in the center of the hub which connects to other hubs. The rest of the hub is smaller outposts which web out from the center base. To attack a new hub from a existing hub, you need the majority of the hub (some percentage) controlled.

Doing it this way would really increase large base fights and allow zergs to skip smaller bases (which are horribly balanced for zergs) instead of being forced to wait 5 minutes for every single base capture while the zerg holds back the 5 defenders. A waste of time for everyone.

It would make fights more productive, more meaningful, more intense, less boring, less time wasted, and give air and vehicles a valid reason to be used. And most importantly, it would increase the scale of fights in Planetside 2, its only saving grace from other better shooters.

 

[norseamd]

That's not what I am saying at all. I don't expect that in any game actually. My point is that air is pretty much useless to the game. The only situation for me where it did have a impact is the ESF attacking a sole medic. And there was nothing to be done about it. To be fair, air is far more useful during large-scale field battles. But you rarely see these, the distance between bases is too short with too much mountain or tree cover. Base fights are rarely determined by air.

the problem is that not many players are willing to fly air vehicles. i have not flown that many times. the reason is because it is hard to control any air vehicle

 

[norseamd]

The game would benefit from "hubs" of bases. A large base in the center of the hub which connects to other hubs. The rest of the hub is smaller outposts which web out from the center base. To attack a new hub from a existing hub, you need the majority of the hub (some percentage) controlled.

Doing it this way would really increase large base fights and allow zergs to skip smaller bases (which are horribly balanced for zergs) instead of being forced to wait 5 minutes for every single base capture while the zerg holds back the 5 defenders. A waste of time for everyone.

It would make fights more productive, more meaningful, more intense, less boring, less time wasted, and give air and vehicles a valid reason to be used. And most importantly, it would increase the scale of fights in Planetside 2, its only saving grace from other better shooters.

actually i wish any base could be captured at any time or at least uncaptured. this would also smaller units to conduct more behind the lines warfare and would result in a more spread out and fluid form of warfare

the comparision would be to contempary warfare

 

[Revolution 11]

actually i wish any base could be captured at any time or at least uncaptured. this would also smaller units to conduct more behind the lines warfare and would result in a more spread out and fluid form of warfare

the comparision would be to contempary warfare

You mean without the lattice system, the way it was for the first year? Actually the lattice is better because you always know where to go, and big fights happen more often now. You are advocating more freedom of movement, and I am wishing for less.

Lattice free gameplay would work if the population magically quadrupled. Population density is already too low with the lattice, removing it would compound problems.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

That's not what I am saying at all. I don't expect that in any game actually. My point is that air is pretty much useless to the game. The only situation for me where it did have a impact is the ESF attacking a sole medic. And there was nothing to be done about it.

To be fair, air is far more useful during large-scale field battles. But you rarely see these, the distance between bases is too short with too much mountain or tree cover. Base fights are rarely determined by air.

The game would benefit from "hubs" of bases. A large base in the center of the hub which connects to other hubs. The rest of the hub is smaller outposts which web out from the center base. To attack a new hub from a existing hub, you need the majority of the hub (some percentage) controlled.

Doing it this way would really increase large base fights and allow zergs to skip smaller bases (which are horribly balanced for zergs) instead of being forced to wait 5 minutes for every single base capture while the zerg holds back the 5 defenders. A waste of time for everyone.

It would make fights more productive, more meaningful, more intense, less boring, less time wasted, and give air and vehicles a valid reason to be used. And most importantly, it would increase the scale of fights in Planetside 2, its only saving grace from other better shooters.

Right now, scale of players is all that's setting PS2 apart from say Battlefield (and of course, the gameplay/TTK is a little better imo even though there are some WTF design decisions).

What you suggest would help in certain ways, but what we really need is larger maps that would increase the distance between bases. Instead of 8km square maps we need 64 km square maps so that there can be several kilometers between bases, instead of a rough maximum of 1 km now or less. That would cause armies to engage in the field a lot more often, that is, you'd have a chance as defenders to meet the enemy in the open before they reach your base, and those open engagements would give air something to bomb. Right now, fights are usually just offensive or defensive sieges and at least offensively, air is usually relegated to trying to find someone not camping behind a shield delaying the capture.

Of course, there are at least two obstacles to doing what I say, one is hardware, that would increase difficulties on RAM/CPU/GPU.

The other of course is that PS2's map size and fast time to battle is just low enough to keep a good bit of people that would otherwise be in Battlefield/CoD interested; as essentially many fights are about the size of a BF map and last about as long more or less, depending on whether the Sunderers are protected. But if those people had to drive 2-3 kilometers to begin an assault and risk being interdicted on the way, sure, that would be a better wargame, but it would drive away the people who play PS2 as if it were a team deathmatch.

Edit: Obviously increasing map size would require some appurtenant changes, such as increasing population per continent, and perhaps redesigning bases to avoid the shield camping scenarios (people delaying captures by wasting time sniping from behind spawn room shields).

 

[Revolution 11]

But you don't have to increase the map size to do hubs. Compress the base density on certain portions of the map, remove bases in other parts, and spread out the rest. You will get hubs just by spacing this way. But if you don't prune some of the existing links, you still won't get field battles. Armies will race for the nearest entry base to the hub and then fight within the hub itself.

Increasing the map size brings other problems. When you are not in a fight, the travel time on foot and vehicle is already very long. You would now spend double or more the time in walking, driving, etc. and then still spend 5 minutes capping a base with only 5 defenders. The tedium and time waste would increase absolutely but the chance of field battles would not increase that much.

The hub system would prevent this because you only travel between hubs when that hub link is opened by majority control of the hub. Either way, you spend most of your time within a hub, close intense Stalingrad-type infantry combat or between hubs in massive sweeping Kursk tank-battle maneuvers. There will always be a lot of interest in controlling a hub either to attack a different hub or to defend this hub. Travel time without combat is minimized. Combat time is maximized.

 

[Red Storm]

Libs flying at ceiling height don't kill anything though. A single ESF has no right to be a lib wrecking crew. Together, sure, but a lib with 3 people is not one role, it is 2, ground and air, and will take 2-3 people to take it down.

Then why fly ESF? If the Lib is great against both ground and air, there's no reason to fly anything but Libs. It needs a more dedicated counter, they have too much armor, are too nimble, and can attack from too far away for ground AA to be a serious threat.

I feel ESF should be the air superiority fighter, the complement to Libs (air to ground specialists).

 

[Revolution 11]

I think the Skyguard, a otherwise good counter in theory, is too weak in its role. Its shots should only burst if they are going to miss the target, and do extra damage if the shots directly hit. I don't know how the current shots work but they seem to burst in all cases.

Buff the Skyguard in direct damage, reduce splash damage or increase ESF armor against Skyguard, and you reduce the Lib's supposed dominance, though as I said before, air is pretty much useless anyway. Fixing air is a fool's task if the ground game does not require air in any significant way besides galaxy transports.