Vehicle Classes

[GreatMazinkaiser]

This post isn't really making too much in the way of suggestions, but I hope to outline the vehicle classes in PlanetSide so it might better facilitate discussion of vehicles in Versus...

Ground Vehicles

Bikes
By and large the fastest ground vehicles in the game, they have very little armour, but tend to be given very powerful or no weapons at all. The Switchblade fits into this class, but statwise doesn't make much sense, it's more of a Light Battle Tank.

Examples: Fury, Basilisk, Wraith, Switchblade

Light Buggies
A fast, maneuvreable 2 man vehicle with weak armour and a pop-gun, good for pissing people off, but not wonderful for racking up kills (except in the right hands). Also serves as quick transport for infantry-based items, i.e. LLU/Mods.

Example: Harrasser

Heavy or Assault Buggies
Shares similar speed/handling characteristics to that of Light Buggies, but might mount an additional crew member/gun, and has thicker armour. Weapon systems tend to be a lot more powerful, outranking even the flexible Light Battle Tank, but is very week versus land mines.

Examples: Enforcer, Thresher, Marauder, Skyguard

Light Battle Tank
The most flexible one man vehicle available, featuring fairly heavy armour (greater than buggies at least), good speed (slightly slower than buggies), and weapon systems that are fairly good against infantry and vehicles, though not ungodly. These fill the gap for Medium Battle Tanks when they are not available.

Examples: Lightning

Light Transport
5-6 man vehicle, with good armour, medium speed, and a few guns for defense. PS features heavier versions with more/more powerful weapon mounts.

Examples: Deliverer, Aurora, Thunderer, Raider

Heavy Transport
One slow motherfucker, but it's got good armour, high transport capacity, and a few defensive weapon mounts. Only land vehicle capable of transporting heavy infantry (MAX/HAX suits)

Example: Sunderer

Mobile Spawn Point
The lynch pin of any assault, it allows your troops to spawn closer to the battle lines so as to avoid unneccesary walking. Also allows for swapping out equipment. Not sure if it's a good thing or a bad thing.
Good armour, but not so fast.

Example: AMS

Resource Gatherer
Used to retrieve facility resources from a remote location. Armour's ok, medium speed, but can't defend itself. A must have in this sort of game.

Example: ANT

Anti-Aircraft Platform
Decent armour and speed, somewhat along the lines of an LBT, but requires a crew of 2. Weapons are designed for WTFpwning aircraft, but are of little use against ground vehicles and infantry due to the way the guns are mounted (so as to facilitate killing aircraft). Cannot properly defend itself against infantry or ground vehicles.

Examples: Skyguard (sort of)

Artillery
Poor armour (for a tank/heavy vehicle), medium to slow speed, requires a crew of two. Able to fire devastating shells/salvos/etc... over great distances, but accuracy is a nil, provided one is without a spotter. Must deploy to fire, and requires a level surface, so as to better stabilize the big guns. Aiming is also a little tricky, as most of the guns have little horizontal traverse. It cannot adequately defend itself against short range targets, especially if they are toting AV.

Examples: Not the Flail

Medium Battle Tank
The king of the battlefield (when HBTs aren't around), it has the heaviest armour, and anywhere from slow to medium speed. MBTs tend to have multiple weapon mounts for dealing with various threats, though are primarily geared toward AV and to an extent AI. They are also one of the larger vehicles and have difficulty navigating narrow streets/forests/etc... All weapons do severe damage to their intended targets, as the MBTs have some of the heavier gun mounts. A crew of two or more is required to operate it. Handling's pretty good, but not as good as some of the lighter vehicles.

Examples: Vanguard, MagRider, Prowler

Heavy Battle Tank
The true lord of the battlefield, though it tends to be fielded in limitted numbers due to production costs (and in game terms, balance). It possesses the heaviest armour and most powerful gun mounts (especially AV) and is intended primarily for hunting tanks, a task at which it excels. HBTs are huge, and travel slowly, offering an easy target, though its armour is a large deterrent. They all require crews of three to be effective and have multiple weapon mounts. In general they should be a one-per day kind of thing.

Examples: Should've been the BFRs, but wasn't (flight variants don't come into the picture)

Air Vehicles

Scout Plane
A lightly built, fast and nimble vehicle designed for scouting enemy positions. Has limitted radar capabilities and a small pop-gun designed for defense. Is not a good frontline vehicle, but can get you places in a hurry.

Example: Mosquito

Interceptor
More heavily built than the Scout Plane, but with similar handling characteristics, this one man craft is equipped with dedicated Anti-Aircraft weapons, and some moderate strength guns for defense against vehicles/infantry. A dedicated dogfighting vehicle.

Examples: None

Gunship
This medium armour/handling/speed aircraft requires both a pilot and a gunner to be effective, and is assigned the role of Tank Hunter. It possesses excellent weapons for infantry suppression and tank hunting.

Example: Reaver with a lot of tweaking

Flying Transport
A large vehicle capable of carrying a number of troops (including heavy infantry) and perhaps a light vehicle or two. Not all that fast, but handling's pretty good, and it has the best armour amongst aircraft. Weapons are of defensive nature only.

Example: Galaxy

Flying Vehicle Transport/Repair Station
Repairs vehicles while depoloyed. Is also capable of transporting all ground vehicles. Medium armour, poor handling, and pretty slow.

Example: Lodestar

Bomber
3+ man vehicle, with good armour, handling characteristics, and fair speed. Features both tank busting and infantry suppression capabilities, and depending on the pilot's ability, can do well at both high and low altitudes. Features gun mounts for defense and offense, most defensive guns being mounted in the rear.

Example: Liberator

Fast Bomber
Same as above, exept lighter, faster, and with better handling characteristics. Primarily good for hunting tanks, but still can fulfill multiple roles.

Example: What the Vulture should've been.


Anyways, that's all the vehicle classes that PS uses (minus the Router, but I couldn't really put it into an appropriate class).

I'm all for having at least one ES vehicle from each class, but I don't know how doable that is. Probably shouldn't have too many vehicles in the first iteration that contains vehicles anyways.

[UGoBoy]

I'm not going to try and stick exactly to the Planetside model with my suggestions, because I don't think it's entirely applicable. Just my thoughts on the Vachir Vehicle Structure...an army based mostly around medium, fairly quick vehicles. This is just a rough first-pass and ground-only, so feel free to pick it apart :P

Light Ground
Scout Bike - Rugged Three-wheeled bike, meant to carry two people. Can only be ridden by light armors, designed to carry forward observer and sniper teams into difficult areas. Amphibious. Doesn't suffer if used by only one person, but having a passenger slot is a convenience.

Warbuggy - Three-man light assault buggy, meant to move troops into combat. Lightly armed with two anti-infantry machine guns. Can be ridden by any armor class short of HAX units. (Think SEAL dune buggies on this one...a great, great design for troop mobility)

Medium Ground (Trying to keep a rough WW2/Soviet Russia look and feel to these vehicles...lots of armor plating, rivets, and hard angles)
Skygod - AA Unit, as outlined in Mazinkaiser's post.

Bullroarer - A motorized anti-vehicle gun. Fills the role of light tank. Two-man crew. The Bullroarer's main gun has a 45 degree traverse left and right, up and down...mostly meant to drive the vehicle towards the enemy. It also has a top-mounted anti-infantry/light anti-air gun mounted on top. Crew of two, driver and gunner. Maneuverability isn't great, speed is good. Meant to support the Spearheads at range. Accuracy and damage of the main gun is good, but refire rate is low.

Armored Car - Vachir ground transport. Six-wheeled truck-like structure. Single Gunner mans a light auto-cannon and one small slot-based weapon. Carries five normally armored troops, or two HAX units (HAX take two passenger slots). One driver.

Transport Truck - six-wheeled like the Armored Car, but with a different body. Single driver, with one Passenger slot. No weaponry. Designed to harvest/transport whatever it is that we harvest/transport in this game :P Could also act as a mobile equipment purchase point for troops.

Spearhead - A four-wheeled assault vehicle. Meant to be the up-front punch of the Vachir forces. One driver, two gunners. One gunner has access to a five-shot Recoilless Rifle, which can be loaded either with light anti-armor rounds, or anti-infantry Frag rounds. The other gets access to a light autocannon mounted on the rear of the vehicle. (I'm very up in the air about this loadout...suggestions are *especially* welcome. I do love recoilless rifles, though :P)

Heavy Vehicles
Heavy Tank - As outlined in Mazinkaiser's other post.

Command Vehicle - An eight-wheeled behemoth meant to transport command and logistics gear. Very rugged, but unarmed. Slot-based, and cost is based on what the slot loadout is.

Possible Gear:
-Radar (immediate area, remote sensors)
-Extended Comms gear (UAV, satelite scans)
-Respawn Point
-Vehicle Drop Point (Allows soldiers to purchase vehicles, which are then dropped in from orbit. Base Vehicle Cost + a Drop Fee)

[Aftiel]

Kaiser's tank is meant to be the medium tank with Heavy Tanks not yet in development (that'll be down the road as they will be more complex), just FYI.

Also the "SEAL Buggy" is a POS.

http://bunker.altervista.org/stranieri/seal29.jpg

Land Rover Defender 110 (SAS ftw) kicks ass. Note: I could only find an Aussie 6x6 online but I'm imagining the British 4x4 model would look better (I think 6 wheels looks kinda ghey). I'll scan a badass shot from a book I have later and post that as well.

http://www.molki.free.fr/6roues/images/Australia%20SAS%20Land%20Rover%20Perentie%206x6%20 LR%20patrol%20vehicle%20near%20Bagram,%20Afghanist an%202002-08-02%20-1.jpg

[Mug]

I like the buggy design over the truck design. The buggy screams scout, quick attack and retreat. A truck shaped body, to me, would be more troop or supply transport or slow moving defense.

[Aftiel]

It's supposed to be the "war buggy" class or w/e though so like a Marauder whereas the buggy looks like a harasser and like a harasser would get owned in the face by one landmine. edit: I think because I posted that pic you're getting that image (of a slow transport), the 4x4 looks much more aggresive/speedy/badass IMO.

As for the speed of the two (and a little blurb about what they are used for):

Land Rover Defender 110 (4x4, NOT the Aussie one posted): 75mph (121kmph)

"The second type of mission employed 12 or more armed Land Rovers and trucks, organized into half-squadron (30-man) fighting columns...each carrying 1.5 tons of supplies and ammunition...Armed with .50 calibre heavy machine guns, GPMGs, 40mm grenade launchers, Milan wire-guided anti-tank missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, these fighting columns attacked mobile Scud launchers, Iraqi bases and communications equipment."

SEAL Buggy: the vehicle is able to achieve a speed greater than 60 miles/hour

"Formerly called the Fast Attack Vehicle; the DPV was reoriented to its less threatening role, due to the vulnerability of the men while in the DPV. The vehicle has no armament whatsoever to stop a bullet. It is terrific for long-range reconnaissance and for strike warfare (downed pilot rescues). The DPV is very fast and agile and can traverse just about any terrain features it comes across. It is basically a lightweight, highly armed, highly maneuverable dune buggy for the modern era rat patrol."

[UGoBoy]

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant. The SEAL buggy 100%!

The Warbuggy I threw out is supposed to be a Harrasser-equivalent. It just happens to hold three people.

The Defender 110 is more the sort of vehicle I had the Spearhead envisioned as. Able to hold a lot more firepower.

[Aftiel]

I don't think you need a Scout Bike (trike really) and a Warbuggy then. That's two vehicles filling the same roll without much differentiation. Every weapon has a place and every place has a weapon or something to that effect. I see the scout bike = suppressor and warbuggy = MA rifle, basically too much overlap in usage areas. Personally I'd drop the warbuggy/trike and make the SEAL buggy the non-dropped one and go with the "Spearhead" as the Land Rover.

[Cogburn]

Let's get this conversation into a more formalized format.

Define Roles FIRST. Furthermore, let's start with GROUND vehicles.

From what I see we have the need for:

* One man rapid transport
* Three man rapid transport w/ light offense
* Small Troop (4-6 troops) transport w/ medium offense
* Large Troop (6-10 troops) transport w/ medium offense
* Main battle Tank w/ heavy offense
* Mobile Anti-Air Artillery
* Mobile tactical ground artillery

IMHO, Command and Control capabilities should be a special function of an existing vehicle type, not a seperate one (ie: a comanders seat in the 3-man vehicle).

Let's restart the discussion here. Are there any other BASIC ground vehicle roles that are not covered?

[GreatMazinkaiser]

Personally I'd rather have a 2 man, lightly armed scout vehicle and a three man heavily armed vehicle with paper armour than Type 2...

And it is debateable whether or not the gap between heavy buggy and mbt needs to be filled (i.e. LBT).


IMHO, Command and Control capabilities should be a special function of an existing vehicle type, not a seperate one (ie: a comanders seat in the 3-man vehicle).


I can see that working, maybe via command-only equipment pods?

On another note, Ugo's given me some ideas and I'll see what I can do with them over this weekend.

[Aftiel]

* One man rapid transport ATV/Dirtbike/Hoverbike
* Three man rapid transport w/ light offense Marauder/Land Rover (maybe 90 instead of 110)
* Small Troop (4-6 troops) transport w/ medium offense Deliverer/LR 6x6/Truck/Hover variety?
* Large Troop (6-10 troops) transport w/ medium offense Sunderer/Bradley(note it'd be larger for this role)
* Main battle Tank w/ heavy offense LandDragon/Prowler/Vanguard
* Mobile Anti-Air Artillery Skyguard/Skygod
* Mobile tactical ground artillery Not the flail

IMHO, Command and Control capabilities should be a special function of an existing vehicle type, not a seperate one (ie: a comanders seat in the 3-man vehicle).

Let's restart the discussion here. Are there any other BASIC ground vehicle roles that are not covered?


My comments in bold.

[NasyVealisanoob]

Let's get this conversation into a more formalized format.

Define Roles FIRST. Furthermore, let's start with GROUND vehicles.

From what I see we have the need for:

* One man rapid transport
* Three man rapid transport w/ light offense
* Small Troop (4-6 troops) transport w/ medium offense
* Large Troop (6-10 troops) transport w/ medium offense
* Main battle Tank w/ heavy offense
* Mobile Anti-Air Artillery
* Mobile tactical ground artillery

IMHO, Command and Control capabilities should be a special function of an existing vehicle type, not a seperate one (ie: a comanders seat in the 3-man vehicle).

Let's restart the discussion here. Are there any other BASIC ground vehicle roles that are not covered?


Add a three man attack buggy. Something with alot of fire power but light armor. Something that, with a good crew, could fuck up an MTB pretty quick if the gunner of the tank sucked and couldn't hit a moving target and/or the driver did something stupid like crest a hill (makes them slow) or hit a tree.

Basically like a Humvee with a rocket launcher or grenade launcher or something. It would be slower and not handle as well as the three man rapid transport but still be pretty quick. Maybe allow bailing on the move from the rapid transport but not from the assult buggy. Give the transport good AI weapons and the assult buggy a good AV gun.

So like the seal buggy for the transport with a 50 cal and a 30 cal machinegun and a Humvee with a rocket launcher (or something AV oriented).

Also add a one man fighting vehicle like the lightning but without the door camping spam factor of the 75mm. Something quick that is used for scouting and light skirmishes. Maybe give it an all purpose AV/AI/AA machinegun that has a somewhat slow rate of fire. It would basically be able to deal with 1-2 infantry but would have to run from more. It could handle light scout aircraft but be an easy kill for the ground attack aircraft. It could stand a chance against the transport buggy but get beat by the assult buggy. Basically something for hit and run attacks on the fringe of the battle.

For aircraft:

Light scout:
Mosquito. PS got it right.

Fighter:
the reaver minus the rocket pods. (a little more armor then the scout, a little less manoverability and speed) Add a few more seconds of after burner. Dual or quad machineguns on the wings. They are too inaccurate (because they are so far apart) to target infantry and didn't do enough AV damage to go after armor but put out a shitload of lead and can shred aircraft.

Attack:
think of a reaver/lib/A10 combo. It takes a pilot and a gunner. The pilot has a heavy AV machinegun which is meant for anti armor work but can be used as AA in a pinch. It kinda sucks for AI because it has a low rate of fire, slow travel time, and is not that accurate (fine for hitting big tanks though and does good damage to infantry if you can hit them). The gunner has a rocket turret that is under the nose of the plane and has about 45 degrees of side to side movement and can move from pointing forward to straight down. The gunner can also drop 1-2 AV bombs. AV bombs have a long reload and are limited by the amount of ammo that can be carried. It has decent armor, ok handling, pretty fast, short after burners. It cannot hover for extended periods of time, only long enough for take offs and landings.

Bomber: the lib, but cannot hover for extended periods of time, only long enough for take offs and landings. Has heavy armor, alot of AI and AV bombs, strong front cannon, good AA rear cannon with full range of motion. Has poor maneuverability and acceleration but has a high top speed.

transport: 5 passengers + pilot. 1 hax suit slot (if any). fast, not very maneuverable, med to heavy armor. Defensive rear AA machinegun turret, light multi purpose machinegun turret mounted underneath or on the nose. Can hover.

Dropship: Loadstar and galaxy combo. It can take a full squad including HAXs and a light vehicle or it can fit a heavy vehicle in its hull plus a tail gunner. Has defensive machinegun turrets on the sides/tail/top/underside. Tons of armor points, slow, not much maneuverability. Can hover

[Cogburn]

The "Small Troop (4-6 troops) transport w/ medium offense", as Aftiel noted, is our "Deliverer" type vehicle. Give the guns on it a little more punch against vehicles and it is exactly the right platform for tank hunter-killer. Think of it like it should be thought of, like a Bradley. Its not an MBT, but you will damn know when you've been hit no matter what you are in.

The "Command Seat" really isn't anything more than designating certain vehicles that give Commanders certain excusive functions when mounted. It need not be a specific "seat", more than requiring that a Commanders ass rest upon it. This role, IMHO, is best served by the MBT. Furthermore, I'd like to assert that "command vehicles" be denoted from the rank-and-file transport by either attaching small flags to the front or additional anntenae.

I simply can't tell you how many times I thought it would be cool as hell to have a 3-star flag on the end of my Vanguard. Sure it tells the world that a Commander is in the vehicle, but its could be a nice balance to whatever additional functionality the Command Seat would provide. Off the top of my head, cost-free Command functions would be those benefits.

[Xae]

This might just be me and my abject hatred of vehicles in most games but:

I dislike any vehicle that is "1 man combat effective". The point of multi-player games is to play as a team, so why remove a teamwork component?

Remember when designing things to try to work toward making them not only fun to fight in, but fight against.

One of the thing I would really like to see is a small squad sized drop-ship type craft. Small, light and manuvrable with little armorment, simply designed to quickly and safely move troops to the fighting.

[Mug]

The "Command Seat" really isn't anything more than designating certain vehicles that give Commanders certain excusive functions when mounted. It need not be a specific "seat", more than requiring that a Commanders ass rest upon it. This role, IMHO, is best served by the MBT. Furthermore, I'd like to assert that "command vehicles" be denoted from the rank-and-file transport by either attaching small flags to the front or additional anntenae.

I simply can't tell you how many times I thought it would be cool as hell to have a 3-star flag on the end of my Vanguard. Sure it tells the world that a Commander is in the vehicle, but its could be a nice balance to whatever additional functionality the Command Seat would provide. Off the top of my head, cost-free Command functions would be those benefits.
Maybe have some sort of incentive for other MBT/vehicles to stay close to the command tank. Nothing too extravagant, maybe increased radar range, vehicle chat for all vehicles X distance from the command vehicle...
Nothing game breaking like more armor/damage/speed, that would be ghey.

[Aftiel]

I dislike any vehicle that is "1 man combat effective". The point of multi-player games is to play as a team, so why remove a teamwork component?


Because...

fighters with more then one crew member are gay.
ATVs/Motor(hover)bikes with more then one crew member are gay.

I think though that we shouldn't have a lightning type vehicle.

[GreatMazinkaiser]

Agreed...

I have no beef with the Lightning, but really, I'm not seeing a need for an LBT, provided another class works just as well.

In PS Lightnings and Ass.Buggies essentially fulfilled the same role (served in lieu of MBTs), the main differences being armour vs. firepower. So, maybe just give the Heavy buggies that kind of armour and likewise weapons, make them a 2-3 person vehicle, and you're probably good.

Save HBTs for an expansion/update/whateva, and make them badass (but that's many iterations away)...

[Aftiel]

MMO Expansions are a BAD thing and should not be considered at all for this game unless you WANT to lose subscribers. To clarify, expansions you have to pay for are bad, updates/patches ala EVE are good.

edit: But that's another topic so yeah </off topic>

[Xae]

I dislike any vehicle that is "1 man combat effective". The point of multi-player games is to play as a team, so why remove a teamwork component?


Because...

fighters with more then one crew member are gay.
ATVs/Motor(hover)bikes with more then one crew member are gay.

I think though that we shouldn't have a lightning type vehicle.


ATVs generally arn't "one man combat effetive", I have no problem with those. I did however like the Bombers in BF2 (F-15E/SU-34), it showed that two seaters can work in an online game. Otherwise, yes "fighters" should be one seat, and be mainly Anti-Air.

[UGoBoy]

In light of Cog's post, a slight revision :P

* One man rapid transport Scout Bike - Rugged Three-wheeled bike, single user. Has no offensive abilities, but has a considerable cargo space.

* Three man rapid transport w/ light offense Warbuggy - Three-man light assault buggy, meant to move troops into combat.* Lightly armed with two anti-infantry machine guns.* Can be ridden by any armor class short of HAX units.

* Mobile Anti-Air Artillery Skygod - AA Unit, as outlined in Mazinkaiser's post.

* Mobile tactical ground artillery Vachir Artillery Piece outlined in Kaiser's post in Concept Art.

* Small Troop (4-6 troops) transport w/ medium offense Armored Car - Vachir ground transport.* Six-wheeled truck-like structure.* Single Gunner mans a light auto-cannon and one small slot-based weapon.* Carries five normally armored troops, or two HAX units (HAX take two passenger slots).* One driver.

* Main battle Tank w/ heavy offense Land Dragon MBT - As outlined in Mazinkaiser's other post.

As suggested in Nasy's post Spearhead - A four-wheeled assault vehicle. Meant to be the up-front punch of the Vachir forces. One driver, two gunners. One gunner has access to a five-shot Recoilless Rifle, which can be loaded either with light anti-armor rounds, or anti-infantry Frag rounds. The other gets access to a light autocannon mounted on the rear of the vehicle. (I'm very up in the air about this loadout...suggestions are *especially* welcome. I do love recoilless rifles, though :P)



Which really only leaves the Heavy Transport vehicle. Truth told, I'm not sold on large transport vehicles...they make magnificent targets, and are often much more of a pain to use than they're worth. Large transport would seem to be more of a job for the air units.

[GreatMazinkaiser]

Which really only leaves the Heavy Transport vehicle. Truth told, I'm not sold on large transport vehicles...they make magnificent targets, and are often much more of a pain to use than they're worth. Large transport would seem to be more of a job for the air units.


Yes, and no... if air transports are as rare as they are in PS, then HAX units will have a hard time getting around (note: no run mode). So something big and nasty's got to lug them around when there's no Albatross/etc... to pick them up.

Why don't we just go with that command vehicle idea you had (something with 8 wheels) and use that as our heavy transport.

Once I'm done with the Hyperion I'll start working on some of the shit you posted...

On another note, personally, I think Quad-cycles/ATVs are more suited to the VT than trikes, but that's just me...

[Xae]

What if there was no small land transport? Just "drop ship" style vehicles?

[GreatMazinkaiser]

Nothing wrong with dropships, but why shouldn't there be small land transports?

On another note, Ugo, I started trying to make-up your Lt. Transport and ended up with what looks like the Hvy. Transport. I'll give it another go later...

[Xae]

Nothing wrong with dropships, but why shouldn't there be small land transports?

On another note, Ugo, I started trying to make-up your Lt. Transport and ended up with what looks like the Hvy. Transport. I'll give it another go later...

I think it would be very interesting to see. Currently infantry arn't seen much outside because they are either too slow on foot, or too vulnerable in transports. What if infantry could move fast enough to support vehicles and still retain their natural advantages?

[Aftiel]

Nothing wrong with dropships, but why shouldn't there be small land transports?

On another note, Ugo, I started trying to make-up your Lt. Transport and ended up with what looks like the Hvy. Transport. I'll give it another go later...

I think it would be very interesting to see. Currently infantry arn't seen much outside because they are either too slow on foot, or too vulnerable in transports. What if infantry could move fast enough to support vehicles and still retain their natural advantages?


See that's the thing vehicles are supposed to move slow for infantry to support them on foot when needed. The rest of the time they are in transports protected by both the transports firepower and the tanks and other things firepower/armour. Just because the magriders never cover the sundy doesn't mean it sucks.

[Xae]

Nothing wrong with dropships, but why shouldn't there be small land transports?

On another note, Ugo, I started trying to make-up your Lt. Transport and ended up with what looks like the Hvy. Transport. I'll give it another go later...

I think it would be very interesting to see. Currently infantry arn't seen much outside because they are either too slow on foot, or too vulnerable in transports. What if infantry could move fast enough to support vehicles and still retain their natural advantages?


See that's the thing vehicles are supposed to move slow for infantry to support them on foot when needed. The rest of the time they are in transports protected by both the transports firepower and the tanks and other things firepower/armour. Just because the magriders never cover the sundy doesn't mean it sucks.

How often does this happen?
In almost two years of Planetside I have never seen it. Vehicles don't move slow, they don't support or recieve support from infantry the vast majority of the time. For most intents and purposes Vehicles and infantry are usually two seperate games. The vehicles just brute force the enemy vehicles then the aggressor sets up shop with AMSes. Why not try for a combined arms game? How often are transports actually used? In PS they where usually just Tech-less tanks.

Why not strive for something different instead of regurgitaing failed formulae?

[Aftiel]

And droppods with no light transport are your different formula?

[UGoBoy]

What i don't see in your argument is anything *against* small ground transports.

And yes...there *did* used to be rather solid combined arms tactics in Planetside early on. The biggest reason was that a group of dismounted AV troops could actually do damage to vehicles. That, and Sunderers actually didn't suck early on because their 75mils actually meant something.

What I would like to see is:

a) ground troops outdoors that *matter*
b) Squad-sized transports that are reasonable in crew size (none of PS' doltish dual gunners) and efficient in the number of troops it can carry. I.e. something *realistic*.

Mechanized infantry isn't a "failed concept", it was just completely mishandled in PS after the balance patch.

[Xae]

And droppods with no light transport are your different formula?


Yes.

What would you suggest to prevent the problems?

[Aftiel]

And droppods with no light transport are your different formula?


Yes.

What would you suggest to prevent the problems?


I think UGoBoy pretty much hit my points with his post. And TBH I see droppods as a bad solution, I think it would lack the elegance/sense of moving troops across open ground. Perhaps flesh your idea out more?

[Cl2v2r]

Just as the 2min (then 5min) HART timer was a leading cause of Galaxys gathering dust, a droppod system makes transports largely redundant.

[Xae]

The change to vehicle armor was simply the catalyst for the shift to Vehicles. As people got more certs more vehicles where being seen, in time it would have happened anyway.

"Drop ship" spec sketch:
1 Pilot, 4 Side gunners, 3 non-gunner.
"Gunners" use their standard weaponry.
~100 KPH (in PS Terms relative)

The reason why I dislike ground transport is the same in my earlier posts. It ends up being used as a tank, not a transport.

[UGoBoy]

consider this:

In BF2, the transports end up getting used like tanks because:

a) They're free.* You jump in one because the tanks (which are also free) have already been taken.
b) You can gun them yourself, meaning that you end up just being a SUPERINFANTRY on wheels.
c) Most of them have stupid splash-damage, straight-firing, rapid-fire autocannons that can farm infantry without raising a sweat.

In Planetside, Deliverers/Variants get used as tanks because:

a) They're cheap to cert, cheaper than "real" tanks and Assault Buggies.
b) Their firepower is superior to the other ur-tank, the Assault Buggy.* This is especially true of Thunderers and Auroras.* Thunderers in particular could go toe-to-toe with an MBT, which is just freakin' wrong.
c) Their ability to carry troops that aren't crew is miserable.* When your crew outnumbers your passengers, your carry ratio sucks.
d) They require no tech facilities, making them easy to get.
e) Mounting/dismounting troops was time consuming, thanks to the stupid "mount up" animations.* Somewhat mitigated with the bail change.

Avoid some of those pitfalls.* Make transports easy to board, have a solid passenger/crew ratio, but don't make them easily whored by a single person.* Make them a relatively light investment in terms of skill points, but don't make them so cheap that people use them in lieu of tanks.* Give better light tank alternatives.

MAKE DISMOUNTED INFANTRY MATTER IN THE FIELD.* Make objectives that are better assaulted from the ground than the air.* Allow infantry AV to be powerful, instead of gimped.* Make vehicles have certain deficiencies that they need infantry to overcome (mines, nested AV guns, barricades, etc).

And yeah, I think there are a place for Dusters, light aerial transports.* Just as long as they don't get a case of Blackhawk Syndrome, where they become a bigger gunship wankfest than any Deliverer ever was.* But aerial assault and transport shouldn't be the answer to everything.

P.s. And another thing about Planetside's slide into vehicledom: The fact that people started getting more certs wasn't the issue. The fact that the devs started bundling and reducing vehicle costs *was*. Characters having one or two vehicles wouldn't have been a problem, but my main character, BR23, which is mainly a heavy grunt has *SEVEN* vehicles available. *SEVEN*, for a whole whopping 7 cert points. And six of those vehicles only account for 4 certs total. ANT, Sunderer, Deliverer, Thunderer, AMS, Router, and Mosquito. In the original PS cert scheme, those vehicles would have added up to at least 21 cert points! Vehicleside wasn't an "eventuality", it was destined the moment that cert prices dropped so low, and infantry didn't have an effective counter other than to mount up themselves.

[Cogburn]

P.s. And another thing about Planetside's slide into vehicledom: The fact that people started getting more certs wasn't the issue. The fact that the devs started bundling and reducing vehicle costs *was*. Characters having one or two vehicles wouldn't have been a problem, but my main character, BR23, which is mainly a heavy grunt has *SEVEN* vehicles available. *SEVEN*, for a whole whopping 7 cert points. And six of those vehicles only account for 4 certs total. ANT, Sunderer, Deliverer, Thunderer, AMS, Router, and Mosquito. In the original PS cert scheme, those vehicles would have added up to at least 21 cert points! Vehicleside wasn't an "eventuality", it was destined the moment that cert prices dropped so low, and infantry didn't have an effective counter other than to mount up themselves.


I've never seen it put quite that way, but that is a great analysis of why vehicles are such a problem. Not to mention your facts are 100% correct.

Food for thought.

[Xae]

P.s. And another thing about Planetside's slide into vehicledom: The fact that people started getting more certs wasn't the issue. The fact that the devs started bundling and reducing vehicle costs *was*. Characters having one or two vehicles wouldn't have been a problem, but my main character, BR23, which is mainly a heavy grunt has *SEVEN* vehicles available. *SEVEN*, for a whole whopping 7 cert points. And six of those vehicles only account for 4 certs total. ANT, Sunderer, Deliverer, Thunderer, AMS, Router, and Mosquito. In the original PS cert scheme, those vehicles would have added up to at least 21 cert points! Vehicleside wasn't an "eventuality", it was destined the moment that cert prices dropped so low, and infantry didn't have an effective counter other than to mount up themselves.
Old system:
Thunderer (2pt)
Mosquito (3pt)
ATV (2pt)
ANT (free)
You still have 4 vehicles, on a 5 minute timer. Almost a vehicle a minute, enough for even the most suicidal players.

You are also forgetting that people follow the easy path to power. Vehicles where easy to use and very powerful, even before the armor buff.

[Aftiel]

P.s. And another thing about Planetside's slide into vehicledom: The fact that people started getting more certs wasn't the issue. The fact that the devs started bundling and reducing vehicle costs *was*. Characters having one or two vehicles wouldn't have been a problem, but my main character, BR23, which is mainly a heavy grunt has *SEVEN* vehicles available. *SEVEN*, for a whole whopping 7 cert points. And six of those vehicles only account for 4 certs total. ANT, Sunderer, Deliverer, Thunderer, AMS, Router, and Mosquito. In the original PS cert scheme, those vehicles would have added up to at least 21 cert points! Vehicleside wasn't an "eventuality", it was destined the moment that cert prices dropped so low, and infantry didn't have an effective counter other than to mount up themselves.


I've never seen it put quite that way, but that is a great analysis of why vehicles are such a problem. Not to mention your facts are 100% correct.

Food for thought.


Remember when being a gal pilot was a career?

*support merit bitch sidetrack*
Remember when being adv hack/med/engy/ams/gal meant something?

:'(

[UGoBoy]

Old system:
Thunderer (2pt)
Mosquito (3pt)
ATV (2pt)
ANT (free)
You still have 4 vehicles, on a 5 minute timer. Almost a vehicle a minute, enough for even the most suicidal players.

You are also forgetting that people follow the easy path to power. Vehicles where easy to use and very powerful, even before the armor buff.


Actually, under the old system:

ANT (Free) yeah, I missed that one.
Mosquito 3 points
ALL ATVs were separate certs. 3 point certs at that. The combined ATV cert wasn't around at release. So certing all the current ATVs under the old scheme would have been a 9 point affair.
Deliverers were 3 point certs. So I'm figuring a Thunderer would be as well.

And even at that, consider that an ATV isn't jack shit when it comes to a vehicle. No armor, very lightly armed. Their threat level against even lone infantry is negligable. Easily deterred by mines, infantry AV, or larger vehicles. But being able to spend 4 cert points on a light tank, a main battle tank, and an artillery piece, or five points on three buggies and a fighter craft...now that throws the battlefield out of whack.

And before the armor buff, MBTs were being slaughtered by infantry AV clusters. I can recall tanks getting practically instagibbed by oldskool TR Striker groups, with the old three-shot clip. Lancer and Phoenix batteries weren't much better. Lightnings were a joke. And yeah, I somewhat miss some aspects of that.

[abathur]

RE: bombers

I have 3 faction specific bomber concepts more or less planned out. I was working with a concept artist on getting it hammered out, but he's been having some problems. Once I get in touch with him and determine the status of that, I may need to hit up kyraal on some IM system to see if I can't relay the ideas well enough to get a good sketch out of him for us to work with.

I've also got an old VS empire specific concept ground assault aircraft that can be pretty easily adapted to our ES (once we get our "theme" behind vehicle design it may be worth slightly re-concepting _visually_ for continuity. (In fact, once we get to the very end we may do well to have one person (at least per-empire) retouch the visual concepts of each empire's vehicles for continuity (unless they manage to fit together well without that effort,) but that's not a huge worry for now I guess.

Guess that's just an FYI. Feel free to post bomber ideas--I'm not "claiming it." Just saying I've got 3 pretty solid (imo) concepts so if you're looking to hit up something that isn't contested... :p

[Pipedream]

Nothing wrong with dropships, but why shouldn't there be small land transports?

On another note, Ugo, I started trying to make-up your Lt. Transport and ended up with what looks like the Hvy. Transport.* I'll give it another go later...

I think it would be very interesting to see. Currently infantry arn't seen much outside because they are either too slow on foot, or too vulnerable in transports. What if infantry could move fast enough to support vehicles and still retain their natural advantages?


See that's the thing vehicles are supposed to move slow for infantry to support them on foot when needed. The rest of the time they are in transports protected by both the transports firepower and the tanks and other things firepower/armour. Just because the magriders never cover the sundy doesn't mean it sucks.

How often does this happen?
In almost two years of Planetside I have never seen it. Vehicles don't move slow, they don't support or recieve support from infantry the vast majority of the time.* For most intents and purposes* Vehicles and infantry are usually two seperate games. The vehicles just brute force the enemy vehicles then the aggressor sets* up shop with AMSes. Why not try for* a combined arms game? How often are transports actually used? In PS they where usually just Tech-less tanks.

Why not strive for something different instead of regurgitaing failed formulae?


I see this as a big failure in PS.* When a CAP finished, half of the infantry would recall back to sanctuary and Hart closer to the next POI.* This ruins immersion, seperates squads and platoons, and just plain aint fun.*

How about this - Often in war video, we'll see soldiers 'hitching a ride' with tanks and other vehicles.* *They are completely vulerable to fire, just hanging on to an outside point of the vehicle.* Different vehicles could have a set number of 'additional transport slots' or whatever, where you could hitch a ride.* I see a heavy tank as having 3-4, a buggy just 1-2.

Add to this a bonus to vehicles enemy detection radius.* If a convoy of vehicles roll thru with infantry hanging on, perhaps they are more likely to see landmines.* *I imagine the vehicles couldnt go full speed when in this 'transport' mode - else infantry would fall off.* Maybe put in a 2 second warning system when a driver sees the need to exit transport mode.

Something like this could go a long way towards keeping troops together.* The vehicle gains the defensive bonus, and the infantry gains transport and heavy fire support.

[Aftiel]

I love that idea, I can't believe I hadn't thought of adding that real world element (albiet dangerous sometimes but for a game where you can respawn who cares that you're hanging onto a tank).

[Cogburn]

Technically speaking, what you ask is rather difficult. It's why you don't see it in FPS games, although its a perfectly logical behavior.

I mean... you can catch a ride in an empty seat in a vehicle in PS now.... What's the difference?

[Aftiel]

Technically speaking, what you ask is rather difficult. It's why you don't see it in FPS games, although its a perfectly logical behavior.

I mean... you can catch a ride in an empty seat in a vehicle in PS now.... What's the difference?


Tanks don't have empty seats. Well most don't. (http://www.defense-update.com/directory/merkava4.htm) But understood on the technical aspect.

[Pipedream]

Well adding points on vehicles where soldiers can hang on shouldnt be technically difficult - Just treat it like another seat, only with a different animation. But maybe the change in deployable detection, or the change in max vehicle speed would be the problem.

I mean... you can catch a ride in an empty seat in a vehicle in PS now.... What's the difference?

The difference in this suggestion isnt much, but it could make a difference. It's technically just adding more seats to the vehicles with a cost and benefit. Cost being vehicle speed, and benefit being additional transportation + deployable detection.

But the real reason I suggest it is to help solve the issue of infantry and vehicle seperation. Besides just a free spot for hitchhikers, it enables a squad to easier move together. I keep thinking about 'real world' armies, where it isnt the case that every 2nd or 3rd soldier can just grab another vehicle to get to point B.

Hopefully infantry riding in this way would still have the feel of being infantry, and not passengers. It certainly could look that way - and would make quite a screenshot later on when marketing comes into play.

[UGoBoy]

I guess it could just be said that "Halo did it". Planetside could easily do it as well...if there were designated spots infantry could sit on.

And I don't think that would be a bad way to handle it, really. Just have some of the larger vehicles have spots that infantry can hop on and off of. Not the ability to sit freely all over a vehicle.

[Aftiel]

I guess you mean Halo 2 since I played Halo and you could not do that.

[mechaman]

I guess you mean Halo 2 since I played Halo and you could not do that.


Pretty damn sure you could do it with Tanks in Halo 1.

[Aftiel]

I guess you mean Halo 2 since I played Halo and you could not do that.


Pretty damn sure you could do it with Tanks in Halo 1.


In multiplayer? I never played SP. If you could I know the 16 of us LANing it up in the dorm never did.

[Cogburn]

I'm not sure I even see a problem here.

Let's talk PlanetSide for a moment.

#1 - An infantryman NOT having some sort of personal transport in the current iteration of PlanetSide is just plain stupid. You can get ATV or Harrasser for 1 point. There's NO excuse for infantry not having a ride.

#2 - Furthermore, it is the responsibility of a Squad Leader to find rides for his people. If you want your group of 10 asskickers to get to a target you had better make damn sure they can get there.

#3 - If you are solo'ing and are in an outfit... get one of them to tote you around or see #1

Other FPS games might need such things as "hitching a ride" on vehicles because the number of vehicles are limited. For PlanetSide, and our game, this is just not the case.

The failure of an empire to be able to move its troops is not a failure of the game design, its a failure in the proper training of that empire in how to play the game.

[Aftiel]

True but it would just be sexy to have it. *shrug* Time to work on the game basics before frills like this. :)

[Stream|ine]

I like the whole hitching ride thing. I also think sometimes less is more. Why have all these different vehicles just make certain vehicles moddable. One buggy that can be fitted for different roles but not at the same time.

I also like the Pelican from Halo. Pelican>Galaxy. Part of my issue with Galaxies is that gunning them sux and being a passenger is lame. They're so slow that i feel i'm putting myself at risk to ride in one.

Tanks should be slow with uber firepower to keep numbers in check.

As for buggies, who cares let them plentiful. But have something more to offer gunners/passengers.