Gameplay: On Combined Arms: A Treatise on Theory and Implementation - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: This is the DUST514 forum, right?
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Idea Vault

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 2013-09-27, 10:51 AM   [Ignore Me] #1
Gromduraz
Private
 
Post On Combined Arms: A Treatise on Theory and Implementation


A couple of months ago I started drafting a list of proposed changes that would, in my mind, serve to improve the Combined Arms aspect of Planetside 2. I drafted an outline that eventually grew too large to flesh out to be a real post, so instead I have linked to the Google Doc outline that gives at least an overview of my ideal vision. Also note, there may be one or two outdated views (burster MAXs were just too OP when I drafted this)

I understand the amount of changes proposed would change the game a lot; as a passionate PS2 player I feel the need to at least voice my opinion once.
The feasibility of actually seeing any of this is understandably low; I'll be ecstatic if 5% of this shows up in game, or even just inspires some other discussions. I also understand this is a bit more of a train-of-thought document; I'm happy to explain any of my points further.

Sorry for the length, but revising how combined arms works isn't something that can be quickly explained. I posted this over at /r/planetside first, but I decided to make an account here at PSU and post it here for discussion and feedback. Thanks!

On Combined Arms: A Treatise on Theory and Implementation
Gromduraz is offline  
Old 2013-09-28, 11:23 AM   [Ignore Me] #2
MrMak
Sergeant Major
 
Re: On Combined Arms: A Treatise on Theory and Implementation


For now i only skimmed it but i thought ill writee down a few first impressions.

On the high altitude laser guided bombs. This sounds good and along with the (slooooooooowly) upcoming Galaxy revemp could make a good reason to increase the flight celing. The laser designator however sohuld be something that either requires time to deploy and use, expensive to uso and/or easy to counter. Otherwise we will get another wave of "Air keeps bombing me and i cant do anythign about it!" rants.

I definatly agree on buffing tanks. HE cannons feel almost redundant now. While the other Cannons are baryl better (in some aspects arguably worse) than the secondary weapons. I think that is also part of the reason Harassers are so ridicoulus.

Armor and primary cannon damage should be beffed up for all the MBTs. ESPECIALY if we should venture back to the dediacted driver conept. Heck, the Python cannons for the Lightning could us a slight buff.

On a isdenote the HE cannon for the Vanguard should either be able to 1 hit kill on a near impact or have its blast radious increased becouse as it stands it has no benefit to counterbalacne its slowere fireing rate compared to others.

One thing that could also improve how tanks fare against infantry (particularly if the dedicated driver returns) are coaxial weapons ofr the main gunner. A few models are actualy in the game files since beta (though they would have to be moved a bit to not interfere with the secondary gun)
.

A Kobalt, Basilisk, Fury and a specialised empire specific anti infantry weapon (the small railgun in the video would make a for a nice slow fireing tank mounted heavy sniper rifle for instance) would be sufficient to give the MBT an edge. Though i think making them wreck infantry regardless of cover is a little bit overboard. The Buff should force infantry to think and coordinate a bit more (No more entire tank column rining for cover becouse of one guy with a AV mana turret) but it sohuldnt make thme run and panic bcouse of one tank.

With tanks as versatile expensive 3 seaters with heavy firepower and armor we could use a new specialised single person vehicle. The Tank Destroyers form another thread on the first page woudl be a perfect platform. Apart from beign a single seat, less versatiel counter to tanks they could also be what deals with infantry in cover. Simply replace the heavy anti tank weapons with artillery turrets. They dont ncessarely have to have particularly long range (which would cause issues with how the rendering system works and with peopel complaining about somethign spaming them from too far away for them to do something aobut it). Instead they would simply focus on fireing HE munitions over very steep angles to fall behind cover.


As for Air vunerability. I have mixed feelings aobut it. Malance seems to be decent on that right now. Id only make lak do signinficantly more damage up close but mid to long range seems to be fine. MAAAYBE a specialised weapon to "snipe" Liberators and Galaxies like the Skylance that is curently used as a prop inside tech plants but apart from that air balance actualy seems decent.
MrMak is offline  
Old 2013-10-21, 04:03 AM   [Ignore Me] #3
TheAadvark
Corporal
 
TheAadvark's Avatar
 
Re: On Combined Arms: A Treatise on Theory and Implementation


Beautiful.


And I totally agree with your views on air power being more in support of infantry movements. I would love nothing better than to be called in by my squad leader to clear the way for them. I mean if anyone has played Arma you know how much fun it is coming in to the rescue of your people on the ground during inter clan matches.
TheAadvark is offline  
Old 2013-10-28, 07:10 AM   [Ignore Me] #4
Oracen
Private
 
Re: On Combined Arms: A Treatise on Theory and Implementation


At the risk of plugging another game, I've been recommending Wargame: Airland Battle to anyone discussing combined arms. The way they handle combined arms there is almost a perfect fit as to how I'd implement the combined arms structure in Planetside 2. Asymmetrical balance (between 11 odd factions) and a real simple UI make it a fantastic case study...besides, it's one of the most underrated games of the last year or so. Deep enough to satisfy milgeeks, simple enough that your average player can kick butt once you complete the tutorials.

I have a few problems with the OP's document, mainly with his understanding of armor/infantry balance or gameplay concepts. (Tanks do not wreck everything. Vehicles do not wreck everything. They have a defined role which they excel at, and a properly played unit will defeat its counter if the counter is misused.) I like that he's looking for a solution, but I disagree with the implementation.
Oracen is offline  
 
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Idea Vault

Bookmarks

Tags
combined arms, vehicle, vehicle combat

Wiki Activity Read More >
Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.