Planetside 2 V6 - VS capped Indar? It's more likely than you think - Games

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;41398952][URL="http://ps2-stats.com/weapon/vehicle/"]Go look at average usage stats[/URL] and explain to me how a weapon that [I]almost never lands direct hits[/I] is going to lose [I]multiple kills per hour[/I] from a [I]direct hit damage nerf.[/I] Alternatively stop being a big baby and go play for a bit, they didn't ruin Furies any more than nerfing the new Saron ruined it.[/QUOTE] how is this even relevant? they reduced its damage by over half on a weapon that is useless unless you score a direct hit. now its even useless if you score a direct hit.

[QUOTE=dracotonisamond;41399369]how is this even relevant? they reduced its damage by over half on a weapon that is useless unless you score a direct hit. now its even useless if you score a direct hit.[/QUOTE] no because they changed the damage mechanics with armour. like ap rounds.

[QUOTE=NoDachi;41400450]no because they changed the damage mechanics with armour. like ap rounds.[/QUOTE] I've not downloaded the patch yet but according to the notes it still performs as good/slightly worse than before against armor, which isn't good at all when the fury was never very great at anti-armor role anyways and when it has such a small ammo pool that you will literally run out within a minute or two of use I'd seriously like the fury more if they kept everything about it now, but just tripled the max ammo count and made it so you didn't have to reload the thing. Then you could plink away at armor constantly over the entire period where you have ammo, which makes it actually useful (not as a high damage weapon but a nice easy-to-use softener to constantly plink away) against armor or against an area.

[QUOTE=dracotonisamond;41399369]they reduced its damage by over half on a weapon that is useless unless you score a direct hit.[/QUOTE] "A weapon that is useless unless you score a direct hit" isn't what's being discussed here. There is a reason why the Fury has similar accuracy and KPH stats as the Lasher and PPA weapons, not the Saron and Enforcer like one would expect of a rapid-fire, low-splash, heavy direct hit damage weapon. That's because the Fury is a splash oriented weapon, and most players just attribute their dumping three shells on a group of three guys as three PRO MLG HEADSHOTS instead of three rounds that cumulatively splashed them to death.

joined my friend as nc, suddenly this happened [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUVMlftUD38[/media] ignore the convo in the background

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;41401284]"A weapon that is useless unless you score a direct hit" isn't what's being discussed here. There is a reason why the Fury has similar accuracy and KPH stats as the Lasher and PPA weapons, not the Saron and Enforcer like one would expect of a rapid-fire, low-splash, heavy direct hit damage weapon. That's because the Fury is a splash oriented weapon, and most players just attribute their dumping three shells on a group of three guys as three PRO MLG HEADSHOTS instead of three rounds that cumulatively splashed them to death.[/QUOTE] But the splash radius isn't even that big which makes its purpose a "splash oriented" weapon questionable, especially since the alternative (marauder) has a bigger better splash IIRC. I've always had to pretty much land shots spot on with the fury or literally right next to them in order to actually OHK someone with it or damage them. Which is even more questionable when it has such a tiny ammo amount. A lower-damage but high splash weapon you'd think would have plenty of rounds to go with it for an area-denial or suppression purpose, but it has some of the lowest ammo pools of any vehicle weapon in the game.

Instead of tiny bits of the map rolling around, your game decided to replace each rock with entire bridges.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;41401284]"A weapon that is useless unless you score a direct hit" isn't what's being discussed here. There is a reason why the Fury has similar accuracy and KPH stats as the Lasher and PPA weapons, not the Saron and Enforcer like one would expect of a rapid-fire, low-splash, heavy direct hit damage weapon. That's because the Fury is a splash oriented weapon, and most players just attribute their dumping three shells on a group of three guys as three PRO MLG HEADSHOTS instead of three rounds that cumulatively splashed them to death.[/QUOTE] i was under the impression that the fury was a direct hit style weapon given it has an extremely small explosion radius. and that the bulldog was the [del]splash[/del]scrub-gun. i havnt played seriously since GU4 so maybe my understanding of the game is out of date.

my favorite part of this game is joining a public squad and listening to fifteen year olds using military lingo and then yelling "NERDS" every time one of them opens their mouth

Just tried using the fury on my flash post-patch Needless to say, its already hard to hit stuff with it while moving because of how unstable the flash is and how accurate you need to be to hit things with the fury standing completely still (making yourself sniper bait and really easy to be killed in less than a second) it took about 3 shots to kill an HA that hasn't popped his shield, which is terrible for a gun that only holds 5 rounds by default and about 36 max, requires a virtual direct hit to even register for damage, and is hard to aim unless you are completely still. Didn't seem to do much damage against the tank I was shooting at either but it was hard to tell since I had to immediately break off and switch targets against the HA.

[QUOTE=KorJax;41402773]Just tried using the fury on my flash post-patch Needless to say, its already hard to hit stuff with it while moving because of how unstable the flash is and how accurate you need to be to hit things with the fury standing completely still (making yourself sniper bait and really easy to be killed in less than a second) it took about 3 shots to kill an HA that hasn't popped his shield, which is terrible for a gun that only holds 5 rounds by default and about 36 max, requires a virtual direct hit to even register for damage, and is hard to aim unless you are completely still. Didn't seem to do much damage against the tank I was shooting at either but it was hard to tell since I had to immediately break off and switch targets against the HA.[/QUOTE] maybe (just maybe) the low cost atv isn't mean to be an effective offensive weapon [editline]10th July 2013[/editline] no wait that's crazy why would you want to move faster than infantry if you don't get a gun that's better and easier to use than said infantry's [editline]10th July 2013[/editline] maybe if you want to effectively deal damage to vehicles and infantry but retain mobility you should try playing with more people and figure out why they picked the name "harasser"

[QUOTE=innerfire34;41402978]maybe (just maybe) the low cost atv isn't mean to be an effective offensive weapon [editline]10th July 2013[/editline] no wait that's crazy why would you want to move faster than infantry if you don't get a gun that's better and easier to use than said infantry's [editline]10th July 2013[/editline] maybe if you want to effectively deal damage to vehicles and infantry but retain mobility you should try playing with more people and figure out why they picked the name "harasser"[/QUOTE] If it wasn't meant to be an "effective offensive weapon" then why have any on there in the first place? The flash already isn't the most effective offensive weapon because its super easy to blow up and get shot off of it, that's not why you use it. That doesn't mean the gun should also be useless too Especially since you know... the fury is available as a secondary gun on almost all ground vehicles, not just the flash.

[QUOTE=KorJax;41405933]If it wasn't meant to be an "effective offensive weapon" then why have any on there in the first place? The flash already isn't the most effective offensive weapon because its super easy to blow up and get shot off of it, that's not why you use it. That doesn't mean the gun should also be useless too Especially since you know... the fury is available as a secondary gun on almost all ground vehicles, not just the flash.[/QUOTE] maybe it's for getting around fast truly, truly outrageous thought [editline]11th July 2013[/editline] my jetpack should deal damage to complement my lone wolf playstyle

[QUOTE=Jarokwa;41409079]I want to start playing this game but I have no idea what faction to join.[/QUOTE] def TR.

[thumb]http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/901001920656791910/4C0B28CE3DEB4DEA94D9589F27BC4D28EA344D5D/[/thumb] That was probably the best session I ever had. Also, I've found myself playing infiltrator. I love the M77-B, kinda easy to forget to cycle the bolt, though.

[QUOTE=Jarokwa;41409079]I want to start playing this game but I have no idea what faction to join.[/QUOTE] make one of each and spend some time in VR training with their weapons

[QUOTE=Jarokwa;41409079]I want to start playing this game but I have no idea what faction to join.[/QUOTE] Live free with the NC! ...that's all I've got. :(

The Fury was a much needed nerf. It was a ridiculous weapon that had no actual anti-armor value and was actually intended for splash-damaging a spawn area to death for kill farming. Mounting a Fury on the Flash could be good for wiping an entire incoming squad if you had the cloaking for it. The Flash, in my opinion, should have remained a transport vehicle and not have any guns mounted on it period. It's an ATV. It's similar to how I feel about the Harasser. It's almost literally a tank on fast wheels. It'd be better if it were re-designed into a 6 man quick transport. As for anyone that wanted to argue how potent the Fury was, I'd like to point out that I own the Fury and that splash damage spamming could make or break base fights. It was absolutely necessary to nerf it.

[QUOTE=ThePanther;41415523]Live free with the NC! ...that's all I've got. :([/QUOTE] [QUOTE][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/JZaNAPo.jpg[/img][/quote]

The fuck is [i]this[/i]? [thumb]http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/q4q5tnh4w8/20130711_51df43bda9fa3.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/q4q5tnh4w8/20130711_51df43fa8ba5d.jpg[/thumb] A VS weapon that is actually distinguishable from the others? Heresy.

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;41419068]The fuck is [i]this[/i]? [thumb]http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/q4q5tnh4w8/20130711_51df43bda9fa3.jpg[/thumb] A VS weapon that is actually distinguishable from the others? Heresy.[/QUOTE] It's purple and has lights on it. What's different?

[QUOTE=dracotonisamond;41402423]i was under the impression that the fury was a direct hit style weapon given it has an extremely small explosion radius. and that the bulldog was the [del]splash[/del]scrub-gun. i havnt played seriously since GU4 so maybe my understanding of the game is out of date.[/QUOTE] The Fury was only ever a vehicle-oriented alternative to the Bulldog. That's the point. There's an anti-vehicle machiengun and anti-infantry machinegun, there's an anti-vehicle grenade launcher and an anti-infantry grenade launcher. The Fury was outperforming the Bulldog and Kobalt in kills, which meant it was broken. Now it isn't. Be lovely if people would get the fuck over it. [QUOTE=KorJax;41402175]But the splash radius isn't even that big which makes its purpose a "splash oriented" weapon questionable, especially since the alternative (marauder) has a bigger better splash IIRC.[/QUOTE] Don't confuse Harassers being broken with a weapon being broken. If you can mount tank secondaries on a light vehicle there's no reason to mount light secondaries, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that light secondaries on Harassers are pointless. On everything else it is what it's supposed to be- a short range AV weapon that works okay on infantry. It's still the best way for Flashes to dispatch other Flashes and the best battle bus weapon for fucking up Lightnings and Harassers up close. [editline]11th July 2013[/editline] Y'all can think it's as broken as you want but I'm still using dual Furies on my battle bus and Flash and haven't noticed a huge performance decrease. It's just no longer blatantly superior to the Bulldog as an AI weapon.

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;41419068]The fuck is [i]this[/i]? [thumb]http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/q4q5tnh4w8/20130711_51df43bda9fa3.jpg[/thumb] [thumb]http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/q4q5tnh4w8/20130711_51df43fa8ba5d.jpg[/thumb] A VS weapon that is actually distinguishable from the others? Heresy.[/QUOTE] Looks somewhat familiar... [IMG]http://images.wikia.com/masseffect/images/1/11/ME3_Phaeston_Assault_Rifle.png[/IMG]

A friend got me into this game just shortly after he started playing it, and I'm generally liking the game. Although, it pains me to see these massive rushes, head to a point and sit there with all 10000 of us standing around. All the tanks and soldiers not spawn camping while the timer counts down could be attacking the next point. Hell, all the people standing around inside their camped spawn should be re-deploying. Why are they standing around waiting for death? Such is life in a F2P

Base capture exp ruins the game, so many facilities would have been captured and not lost of the people one sector over wouldn't rather sit around for 8 years for 2 certs

[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;41421887]Base capture exp ruins the game, so many facilities would have been captured and not lost of the people one sector over wouldn't rather sit around for 8 years for 2 certs[/QUOTE] a control point gets captured, enemies stop spawning, everyone leaves because there's no reward for staying, enemies retake point and everyone feels really stupid

[QUOTE=Anonymuzz;41422407]a control point gets captured, enemies stop spawning, everyone leaves because there's no reward for staying, enemies retake point and everyone feels really stupid[/QUOTE] It's either that or what we have now, multiple platoons piling into a single facility for the cap XP while they are losing every other base.

[QUOTE=Jimesu_Evil;41422937]It's either that or what we have now, multiple platoons piling into a single facility for the cap XP while they are losing every other base.[/QUOTE] i agree that its a problem but i just can't see a solution that both fixes the problem and avoids creating new ones.

[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;41421887]Base capture exp ruins the game, so many facilities would have been captured and not lost of the people one sector over wouldn't rather sit around for 8 years for 2 certs[/QUOTE] Base capture xp isn't the problem the problem is the capture mechanics We need something like Dustbowl for TF2 or Rush for BFBC instead of the current "trickle down" mechanics. Ideally, in a perfect world, winning the base would require you to go through a series of objectives not unlike what you'd do in Dystopia mod for HL2 or Enemy territory/brink... actually accomplishing specific goals, pushing the defenders back, before finally doing a capture at the last moment. The current base capture mechanics suck because its all passive, as if capturing the base doesn't matter at all and the "deathmatch" is what counts the most (and this style of base capture is basically designed to simply give a goal to deathmatch). The problem is the style of game that PS2 is, is very incongruent to that so you have this entire chunk of the game (territory capture) being kind of a slog and meaningless when all the capture mechanics for every base are all exactly the same and none of them involve active participation in the actual act of capturing territory. So with mechanics like the above there would be no downtime - you win the base when you actually win the last objective you need to capture to succeed. The best part is even on a most basic level (capture these points in order) it would still way better in capture flow, remove downtime, discourage spawn camping (because you'd rather actually do the objective), and make it so when a base is obviously won, it is WON. It'll also speed up territory capture in bases that have no defender presence (because lets be honest here, if you were capturing a place that had no defenders there you'd take control fairly quickly) which means territory capture goes smoother on the map until you actually start meeting in a real battle.

[QUOTE=KorJax;41425762]Base capture xp isn't the problem the problem is the capture mechanics We need something like Dustbowl for TF2 or Rush for BFBC instead of the current "trickle down" mechanics. Ideally, in a perfect world, winning the base would require you to go through a series of objectives not unlike what you'd do in Dystopia mod for HL2 or Enemy territory/brink... actually accomplishing specific goals, pushing the defenders back, before finally doing a capture at the last moment. The current base capture mechanics suck because its all passive, as if capturing the base doesn't matter at all and the "deathmatch" is what counts the most (and this style of base capture is basically designed to simply give a goal to deathmatch). The problem is the style of game that PS2 is, is very incongruent to that so you have this entire chunk of the game (territory capture) being kind of a slog and meaningless when all the capture mechanics for every base are all exactly the same and none of them involve active participation in the actual act of capturing territory. So with mechanics like the above there would be no downtime - you win the base when you actually win the last objective you need to capture to succeed. The best part is even on a most basic level (capture these points in order) it would still way better in capture flow, remove downtime, discourage spawn camping (because you'd rather actually do the objective), and make it so when a base is obviously won, it is WON. It'll also speed up territory capture in bases that have no defender presence (because lets be honest here, if you were capturing a place that had no defenders there you'd take control fairly quickly) which means territory capture goes smoother on the map until you actually start meeting in a real battle.[/QUOTE] Seriously, submit that to the forums. Anything is better than "wait around the spawn with a handful of people near the point for 5 minutes to capture" that we have ATM