there's a reason the best ps2 player in the world has a whole lot more bases defended than captured. it's an xp farm (especially somewhere like the crown).
i'm really disappointed in the rocket changes. i understand they wanted to nip the rocket sniping thing in the bud with the aa launchers (and i admit i have used it to my advantage), but i'm never going to carry a launcher that can't dumbfire at armor. there's no way. it makes the aa launcher way too situational, and i never would have purchased it in this state. i really hope they offer refunds on items they make fundamental, core changes to.
ETA: welp, it looks like they scrapped the lock-on change, instead opting to fuck with the velocity of the rocket. it now has more drop than the default launcher and moves quite slowly. sigh.
Only a month into the game and not only we have balance issue changes, but base layout? Scared to think of how the game will look in a quarter or a year.
Is it me but is this game is gravitating towards World of Tanks (and Planes)? Being infantry is just useless - bases are made easy to capture with heavy armor (something that humanity has learned how to defend against in middle ages). Anti tank weaponry has iron sights and dumbfire - solutions dating back to 1939????
I guess all certs should go into mag riders (can't fly sh*t) or other heavy armor
I have a lot of fun with infantry.My best moment was last weekend when we stopped the TR zerg in a canyon just by shelling them with Heavy Assaults.
But the way the game is set up you can use armor for almost anything - capturing most bases, anti-air, anti-personnel - meanwhile personnel effectiveness against armor was just reduced in the latest patch. Tech plants were one of these places in the game where infantry played the key role (Biolab, Crown being other examples) and were nerfed to make it easier for zerg to capture.
I don't know about others but I find idea of mags spawn camping ridiculous.
Heavies are still extremely powerful en masse against tanks, as it should be in this game with it's scale. It always bothered me in BF that I as a support with C4, or an engineer really, that knew how to run and play the game would 90% of the time win a 1on1 with a tank.
I have no trouble taking out tanks, it's 100% about flanking and leading your rockets. I find the RPG in this has a nice feel to it and is easy to learn but hard to master.
I think we need less tanks and more infantry fighting. When I'm playing as an infiltrator and see 20 tanks worth of zerg coming down the road with not a single person on foot.. I feel sad about my life choices.
Agree with Ridebird here on the dumbfire launcher; it works just fine. Took out a Vanguard 1on1 yesterday, by firing two shots up its rear, whil it was busy taking down my Sunderer. Hate the iron sights though. Would love to be able to put 30 certs on a reflex sight, or something at least.
Second: I hate being told that since someone is a better player than me - that a balance problem in the game does not exist. Judging by PS2 forums and the fact that there are no more queues on servers - it very much exists.
EDIT: As for dumbfire - i know it works - but why should a launcher with lock-on be stripped of it. In what way does it imbalance the game? Especially that the guided missile does lower (sic!) damage than dumbfire.
Video on the Decimator:
Looks solid but not sure if it's worth its price...
Because then it goes from being a sidegrade to a straight up, fairly necessary, upgrade. I guess you could lower the damage by 20% or so, but then it feel quite pointless to hit tanks with. I have one on ones a few times, but I rarely win..
I don't think it's overly hard to hit still though, but yes, I am pretty good at leading targets (except with the saron, sorry Qazz..).
A good sight would be nice, yes. I just sort of shoot on "feel" though.