Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vehicle Doctrine

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Vehicle Doctrine

    Before playing PS2, the game that I spent significant time on was spreadsheets EVE online. While I was mostly an economic player, I did spend some time with Dreddit doing really large ops during the whole Fountain war debacle.

    One of their strategies that I really liked was the idea of ship doctrines: recommended or required loadouts for ships that hold a particular role for a particular type of fleet. This is something I think could easily be applied to our PS2 operations. An example would be Bregard's harasser artillery loadout.

    For a lot of players, we probably end up spending certs on things we end up not using due to lack of experience. While everyone is different and our playstyles can vary, I think having tangible minimum and recommended targets to spend my certs on for common doctrine items could help us newer players learn from our more experienced members.

    Most experienced players know that you need max rank in proximity repair for it to be most useful, but how much is acceptable? When someone wants anti-armor, what sort of vehicles/loadouts will be most advantageous? This can even apply to class specs. For example, having a burster on both arms might be the minimum for a burster max, but the recommended might include some extra ammo and flak armor.

    Agree/Disagree?
    87% Combat Engineer


  • #2
    Re: Vehicle Doctrine

    I think is a good idea. There's been at least one thread in the past that touched on this briefly, but nothing substantial ever happened. We should write up a document that goes into brief overviews of some(eventually most) of the different types of vehicle roles we use, minimum and recommended cert paths, and a brief explanation of why we think that.

    We should be careful to control our attitude and tone with a project like this, however. Unlike some other outfits, we don't force people to use certain camos. we don't have minimum or mandatory participation in ops. We're open to everybody who is interested in playing the way we play, whether or not they've got five extra bucks to buy cosmetics and whether or not they have enough time in game to afford particular unlocks. I don't want to shut someone out from trying something they want to try just because they don't have the certs yet. That's how the Primer reads to me, at least: We don't take pride in the destination, the victory or defeat. We're proud of the journey, the teamwork and camaraderie that got us there.

    Slightly off topic ethical rant aside, I totally agree that we should have a document like this. We ought to start by compiling a basic list of the roles we generally need our vehicles to do, and getting some input from our specialized vehicle players. Paging Ghostshooter, Starstriker, Jengles, et al. After that we can start filling in details of loadouts and reasons.


    Edit: I hope nobody objects, but I make a GoogleDoc: here


    A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its maximum. -Jon McBride, astronaut

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Vehicle Doctrine

      Excellent! Much needed thread for new players. I'll try to figure out this google doc thing later if thats what we are going to use.

      “Big Brother is Watching You.”
      ― George Orwell, "1984"

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Vehicle Doctrine

        In theory, all someone needs to do is click on the link and start typing. It should save automatically. Nobody should even need to be signed into a Google account.


        A pilot who doesn't have any fear probably isn't flying his plane to its maximum. -Jon McBride, astronaut

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Vehicle Doctrine

          Once I get home from work ill put something together regarding the AP vanguard role that I have certed into.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Vehicle Doctrine

            Honestly not sure where to start here. Most vehicles fill their roles adequately out of the gate, and only a few need significant cert investment to keep up.

            A clear case, though, is Reavers. The absence of Breaker rockets or Hornets you can't fill a CAS role, and Flares are IMO a pretty mandatory investment for novice pilots. Experts can get away with something else, but newbies need a panic button. It's also really important to cert into an airframe (hover or racer) and afterburner tanks if you expect to be doing air superiority ops.

            Aside from that, I can't think of much in terms of mandatory certs. That said, I'm typically an infantry or air SL and rarely run armour or mixed squads. I imagine the dedicated tankers will have a lot to say about recommended baseline certs for their tanks and sunderers.



            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Vehicle Doctrine

              Originally posted by starstriker1 View Post
              A clear case, though, is Reavers. The absence of Breaker rockets or Hornets you can't fill a CAS role, and Flares are IMO a pretty mandatory investment for novice pilots. Experts can get away with something else, but newbies need a panic button. It's also really important to cert into an airframe (hover or racer) and afterburner tanks if you expect to be doing air superiority ops.
              (hover or racer OR dogfighting) :P I swear, I'm the only person in the outfit to use dogfighting frame. Hover battles are not the only way to fight...

              For experienced pilots, fire suppression is a must as it gives you 25% of your health back.

              “Big Brother is Watching You.”
              ― George Orwell, "1984"

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Vehicle Doctrine

                I found a video by Moukass1 showing how he certed his vanguard. Its aimed more towards newer players (tankers) I actually recommend going rival chassis first before switching to racer unless you just want to join one of my wolfpacks.

                Its a great video and shows just how effective a single vanguard can be.




                btw- i love his laugh =p

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Vehicle Doctrine

                  Used to run dogfighting exclusively, but now that I run Racer I can't go back. The additional yaw speed is helpful, but I'm given to understand that the other maneuverability advantages basically don't exist, and the frame makes it HARDER to pull off reverse maneuvers. Besides, I love the drifting you can do on a speed frame. ^_^

                  I'm a bit meh with regards to fire suppression. I've rarely found that a chunk of HP that small is the different between getting swatted or not in a prolonged fight (I find it tends to be pretty all or nothing), and flares give you a panic button if a bunch of people lock onto you in open terrain.

                  I suppose it matters a lot if you're doing a face to face hover battle, but I hate fighting like that and generally try to aggressively maneuver for a shot on their flanks instead. I figure if you're actually trading blows you're gambling that your aim, dodging, and luck will overcome theirs (and praying that a wingman or flak battery doesn't tilt it against you); instead, I ideally achieve a tactical advantage first and then exploit it to devastating effect. I'm a decent but not exemplary pilot in terms of accuracy, manuevers, and other such indicators of skill--in a hover duel, the really good pilots would tear me to shreds--but I win a lot of air engagements by ambushing my opponent, playing well off my wingmen, or making good use of terrain. I try not to engage in fights where I don't have the figurative high ground... even fights are for suckers! :)



                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Vehicle Doctrine

                    As a(n AWOL) Platoon Leader this concept really appeals to me. I like standardization, even if only theoretical and 'light', because it helps us in leadership roles to simplify squad dynamics into categories which allows us a more streamlined decision process and in theory forces a more standardized set of results.

                    As an Armored Core guy I really experimented with these concepts. The problem is testing it out, getting people the proper equipment, training for the specific roles, and fine tuning the tactics. I've worked of a few briefs myself but they aren't ready to share yet. However, I've also come up with some 'Cert Paths' to help the newbies; I'll probably update this post with those infos or it might show up in another post down the line.
                    Last edited by Ytman; 03-21-2014, 08:46 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Vehicle Doctrine

                      This brings up an interesting point about vehicle play in planetside2. It seems that it has a rather high and rewarding skill zone for players on their own but it ultimately begins to fall apart when it comes to large battles.

                      In smaller fights Air/Armor can achieve amazing things especially with a bit of skill involved (hover moves, Knowing when to run, etc.) but in larger fights the gameplay falls apart and the extremely determined and organized actions of groups seems to hardly contributes anything to battle, overall. Typically those groups are just better off zerging mindlessly. Their additional effort isn't rewarded.

                      Infantry play actually can achieve this quite well. The only close exception is when maxs are introduced. Which even at that time can overcome the extreme difficulty of horribly massed numbers with; consistently well aimed rockets, C-4, AT grenades, more effective max teams (engi+Max), preventing max revives/repairs, flanking, etc.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Vehicle Doctrine

                        Originally posted by Zepkron View Post
                        This brings up an interesting point about vehicle play in planetside2. It seems that it has a rather high and rewarding skill zone for players on their own but it ultimately begins to fall apart when it comes to large battles.

                        In smaller fights Air/Armor can achieve amazing things especially with a bit of skill involved (hover moves, Knowing when to run, etc.) but in larger fights the gameplay falls apart and the extremely determined and organized actions of groups seems to hardly contributes anything to battle, overall. Typically those groups are just better off zerging mindlessly. Their additional effort isn't rewarded.
                        I'd actually question that. Certainly the scale of the game tends to nudge the game towards chaos their is a large value to organized groups of any kind in this game (well I'd argue that Close Combat near a spawn room is the most chaotic). Tactics might change based on the scale of the battle, this is to be expected, but to imply that large scale operations have no discernable benefit from organization seems a bit far fetched.

                        It is natural that it is easier to organize smaller groups, as such it is easier to see results from such groups. The larger scale is harder to envision, specifically when it is multiple groups coordinating (or not) their efforts (either way the groups themselves have internal organization). The large scale tank battle can hinge on the strategic placement, the supply chain (both Ammo/Repair Sunderers and proximity to allied base), and then other types of combatants. This does not wholly negate the other aspects of a battle, such as tactics or fire methods, it compliments them.

                        Frankly, though, with large scale battles one can see why weapon loadouts do not matter so much. The amount of damage being done over time is necessarily higher and the minor differences between weapon types begin to decrease. As such it would be more relevant, when talking about large scale armor operations, about basic SOPs, targeting practices, maneurvers (and when not to maneuver), than it would be to parse over minor differences in equipment. (This being said there is a world of difference between the Vanguard fully certed and stock)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Vehicle Doctrine

                          Originally posted by Ytman View Post
                          (This being said there is a world of difference between the Vanguard fully certed and stock)
                          I think you just refuted your own point. A squadron of 4 certed AP/Enforcer Vanguards will do more damage than 10 stock HEAT/Basilisk ones. Paired with good logistics including ammo/repair Sunderers and a Skyguard, it is a massive force multiplier.

                          Regarding Zep's point about not being useful in zerg fights, I don't agree at all. Organized and mobile armor working the flanks is devastating against masses of enemy armor that is otherwise occupied with the main blueberry zerg.
                          87% Combat Engineer

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Vehicle Doctrine

                            Originally posted by norelco View Post
                            Regarding Zep's point about not being useful in zerg fights, I don't agree at all. Organized and mobile armor working the flanks is devastating against masses of enemy armor that is otherwise occupied with the main blueberry zerg.
                            I agree

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Vehicle Doctrine

                              I'd go so far as to say a strong armour presence is critical. On offense, the armour is the main thing keeping your Sunderers safe and the enemy locked into their fortifications. On defense, they're the tool that can operate outside the base and destroy enemy Sunderers to end an attack outright, or kill the enemy armour assets that are preventing a breakout push.

                              Infantry win battles, but armour prevents or enables infantry.



                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X