[Suggestion] Begin Working on ANT Modules for Sunderers

I'm not redundant and pointless.

Okay, so Lightnings can't go toe-to-toe against enemy MBTs. That much is true. But just because they can't smash their faces into MBTs doesn't make them redundant. The Lightning, being the light tank with a respectable DPS, is the flanking tank. Its low profile makes it very easy to go through the mini-valleys of PS2 undetected, where it can then engage enemy armor from a weak point. It's also very good for quickly getting into "sniping" positions, engaging enemy armor from long-range with AP shells. Finally it's in some ways a better Sunderer escort than many MBTs, as it has the speed to keep up with a fast-moving Sunderer that would leave most MBTs in the dust.

Take your pick... flanker, scout, sniper, escort... the Lightning does have very unique roles in PS2 that simply couldn't be performed as well by a MBT. Essentially the MBT is the heavily armored knight of the battlefield, but the Lightning is the nimble and sneaky skirmisher.

Essentially if they removed the roof gunner from the MBT and made it into a 1/1 vehicle, it would still have a very different role than the Lightning.

1 guy brings an ANT from the warpgate, suddenly every ally vehicle on the continent has auto-repair.
That's how I remember it.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "ANT doesn't interact with other players" thing from, because a base only needs an ANT run if there are players at it drawing resources. Otherwise that's what the lattice is for. Not to mention all the secondary logistics functions an ANT can fill, such as delivering ammo and repairs directly to other players.

Therefore, if you need to pull an ANT in the first place that means that you're heading right into a highly contested fight and there are plenty of players whose gameplay will be hugely affected by whether they are resupplied or not.

Your entire argument is steeped in your own personal bias, and based on completely ignoring what everyone else says while shouting the same tired old line over and over.

So you know what? ANTs are deep. If you can't understand how that's your problem.

Good things from PS1 that need to be brought into PS2: AMS, mines, spitfires, motion detectors, inventory, thumper, AoE weapons that are actually AoE weapons, multicrewed tanks, water, bridges, fording vehicles like magriders, TR Raider, Liberators that actually bomb, high TTK, router radiator...and some other stuff I can't think of at the moment.

Bad things from PS1 that don't need to be brought into PS2: CUD, Command Rank, BFR's, "mobile" artillery flail (it would be fine if it were immobile towable artillery piece or deployable), caves, ANT, doors, hacking, cloaker jerks, base design, battle killing generators (SCU)...and some other stuff I can't think of at the moment.

Logistics is bot work.

Unfortunately your joy ride ruined the fight for the other 95% who spent an hour there trying to drain the base, and you set the 95% back another hour because you got lucky.

In real life, the movement or resupply of military forces involves a huge amount of logistics vehicles, not one suicidal guy in an ANT that tries to get by a complete encirclement every 15 minutes.

Logistics is bot work.


Either do it right, or don't do it at all.

The 2 only logistics activities in WWIIONLINE you could engage in that didn't involves shooting at another player: Strategic bombing, manual resupply.

The only 2 logistics activities in WWIIONLINE you could engage in that didn't involve shooting at another player and got totally nerfed because only like 5% of the players engaged in those activities and had too much of an effect on the game for the other 95%: Strategic bombing, manual resupply.

Logistics is bot work

I honestly can't think of one great RTS that had units for the sake of having units. All the classics I can think of had all their units with specific roles. As for lightnings, pretty much the only time you see lightnings is if a faction doesn't own a tech plant or you're fighting at a base that MBTs can't be spawned at. I can guarantee you that if MBTs could be pulled from any base at any time and had the same resource cost as a lightning you'd almost never see a lightning. They aren't used because people like them, they're used because the game forces them to use them if they want to take a tank but don't have access to an MBT.

But y'know what, bottom line is, I'm tired of discussing this. I find what you want to be entirely pointless as the roles are already filled by other vehicles. If you want a new redundant vehicle, go ask SOE. I'm here to ask for ANT, you're here to ask for an APC, two entirely different vehicles for two entirely different roles. I seriously don't understand why you are so obssessed with trying to tack on unnecessary features to a vehicle that's not suited for them. Besides, what makes you think the ANT will even fit your criteria? What if it's as big and has similar driving mechanics as the sunderer? What if it's driver is exposed like a flash? And again, you still haven't explained why you even need this type of vehicle. Flashes too agile? Take harassers, they can be spawned at literally any base and can be purchased once every 3 minutes, by the time you even reach the next base you can pull a new one. And it aint like your squad has to stay in the buggies, they can hop out and fight you know.

However, as I said, this is entirely pointless so I'm gonna end my discussion on this here.

What... that's not true... AT ALL. I enjoy driving my Lightning because in my opinion MBTs handle like garbage. I don't need their heavy armor if it's at the cost of speed and acceleration, because avoiding being hit is a much better defense than tanking damage.

I will be a roof gunner for MBTs, but there's no way you could convince me to drive one. Face-slugging matches are only for those uncivilized barbarians who have no grasp on stealth and tactics.

I heard this sort of argument back in beta, it didn't hold then and it still doesn't hold now. There's literally nowhere a Lightning can go that an MBT can't. Lightning's aren't any more stealthy than MBTs, since I routinely run a max stealth AT-Vanguard and I get behind enemy lines all the time, the slight size difference doesn't play a practical role. Beyond that a lightning sneaking up behind you is better than having an MBT sneak up behind you, cuz with a lightning you can just turn around and swat it away, an MBT will kill you.

So basically, everything the Lightning can do, an MBT can either do just as well if not better. Again, heard all this back in beta and the game hasn't changed enough to validate these claims. As I said in my other post, I can guarantee you 100% that if MBTs had the same availability of Lightnings, you'd never see Lightnings outside a few who genuinely enjoy them, such as yourself. But 99% of the Lightnings you see aren't being driven because the person prefers them over an MBT, they're being driven because an MBT isn't available. As I constantly remind people, don't think your personal opinion is fact. Some people do enjoy the Lightning, you're proof of that. But you are the minority and it doesn't change the fact that the Lightning is entirely redundant and has no real purpose. Just because you like something doesn't mean it's not just a weaker mini-MBT with no unique roles.

Basically, a good rule of thumb is if you can remove a unit from a game and not have to rebalance a whole boatload of stuff, that unit wasn't doing anything worth keeping.

lol what?

I use lightning on all 3 faction (for different reasons because of varying MBT strengths)

MBT is a 2 man vehicle. If you 1/2 a MBT you're no stronger than a Lightning and just overpayed resources for a bigger target.

You're flat out wrong on this issue.

Look, I like most of your ideas, but when you're wrong, you're wrong. This isn't an "in my opinion" you're wrong, it's a "this is a fact" you're wrong.

When you said:

This is factually wrong because they are used because people like them. There's at least one out there, and that's me. So I can, in terms of fact and not opinion, tell you that your opinion is factually incorrect.

In other words some Lightnings are used because people like them, not because the game forces them to be used. I'm proof of that.

Not even that. Factually a 1 man tank you're better off in a Lightning than an MBT.

Vanguard you might be tougher. Prowler you might have more DPS. But Lightning's have speed, low profile, and comparable DPS, at less the cost, far more availability, and (barring prowler) faster refire rates which is better for killing inf (OHK's)

You're also smaller and more often ignored in favor of targetting MBT's around you.

People underestimate lightnings to their own detriment.

If you honestly believe a 1 man lightning can fight a 1 man MBT on even grounds then.. wow... Numbers don't lie. The MBTs have more HP and stronger hitting weapons. Two equally skilled opponents facing off, the MBT will win 100% of the time simply because of the number advantage. The Lightning may be fun to drive around but let's not lie to ourselves here, there's nothing it can do that an MBT can't do

When I say things like that I am very obviously not talking about 100% of people. I'm talking about majorities. I even said that SOME people liked them, but you are the minority. If I'm wrong I'll admit I'm wrong and I expect the same from you. Unless you legitimately believe that the majority of the community would take a Lightning over an MBT if all factors of availability were equal. If a Lightning and MBT had the same resource cost, could spawn at the same bases, and both required/didn't require a tech plant, do you honestly believe you'd see that many Lightnings? Honestly, do you really think the majority of people would still pull lightnings for anything other than skyguards? Because if we're being honest here, we both know they wouldn't.

Yea, I never understood why MBTs always get hit first instead of my Lightning, even when I'm sitting right next to the MBT. I mean maybe it's because MBTs are easier to hit... worth more EXP maybe?

But most people who have an ear for strategy know that if you have two units with comparable DPS, you try to take out the weaker unit first. This means that by taking the weaker unit out of the fight sooner, you can reduce the enemy total DPS more quickly.

Take the Vanguard AP cannon... an impressive 2,075 damage but at a 4 second reload time. The Lightning AP cannon on the other hand does only 1,600 damage but also only needs 3 seconds to reload. At the 12 second mark, the Vanguard has fired 3 times and has reloaded, while the Lightning has fired 4 times and reloaded. Total damage? 6,225 for the Vanguard, and 6,400 for the Lightning, meaning that the Lightning has a better DPS than the Vanguard. Even if they fired off their next shots instantaneously, the Lightning is only behind by 300 damage... not very much by vehicle warfare standards.

the ONLY MBT to beat me in a Lightning with ANY reliability as 1/2 AT ALL is the Vanguard. And that's only if I let them shield up without cover for me to hide behind until it's over.

Equal skill I will make them miss me at least once, and that's all I need to win the fight.

1/2 Magriders are appetizers for Lightnings. Seriously, you can't have an easier tank battle.

Prowlers need to be EXCEEDINGLY accurate to hit my high speed low profile meanwhile hitting their barn sized burger tank is childs play.

2 noobs going at it? Yeah, MBT will prolly win.

I take out 1/2 MBT's relatively easy with my AP lightning when I pull it.

Just so happens usually when I go to tanking, I go with a gunner and we swap pulling MBT. 2/2 MBT's are preferable to anything.

If I'm solo, I usually ESF

You don't get it. Your statement is literally wrong. That's what I'm responding to. You were wrong to say that. And you still haven't apologized for it either.

As for the comparison between Lightnings and MBTs, it's not that different really. I did the math, and compared to an AP Vanguard, the AP Lightning does essentially the same damage over time (more by 175 or less by 300 depending on how you count it). DPS isn't different... the difference is speed/stealth versus armor/HP. That's the difference (apart from cost and availability) that is inherent in the difference between a Lightning and a Vanguard, not damage.

And yes, there are likely many people (beyond me) who would prefer a style that emphasizes stealth tactics at a slight cost of damage. After all, why do people play as Infiltrators in PS2? Or Light Assaults? If everyone cared just about maximizing their armor, we'd end up entirely populated by Heavy Assaults. And while there are a lot of Heavy Assaults out there, they haven't supplanted all other infantry. Why? Because despite the greater squishiness of some classes, some players prefer that playstyle instead of the "in your face" tactics of the Heavy Assault/MBT.

Depends really. AP lightnings are even rarer than AP MBTs, so your scenario is more likely to have a HEAT or Viper Lightning rather than an AP one, in which case it's really nothing to worry about. The enemy MBT is the threat and they're the one that can kill my tank, the Lightning's just an annoyance. So kill the enemy MBT and then effortlessly kill the lightning next. If you're fighting two AP tanks you're in a rough spot regardless of whether it was a lightning or MBT, so since you're probably gonna die anyways may as well take out the more important of the two targets.

Well obviously if MBT's cost less and could be pulled anywhere there'd be less reason to pull lightnings.

Lower cost and pull anywhere are 2 definite advantages to the lightning. You can't just remove 2 advantages and say "SEE! IT HAZ NO PURPOSE!!!"

They aren't the ONLY advantages, but they're certainly notable advantages.

I just don't get why you think hitting a Lightning is hard. I've literally never missed a single shot because of a Lightning driving around. The only time I've missed a shot is if I go over a bump while chasing it, or if it ducks behind a rock. Both are things that'd make me miss an enemy MBT as well. This notion that the Lightning is somehow hard to hit was used beta, it wasn't valid then and it isn't valid now. I find hitting bloody magriders harder than hitting a lightning. In fact I LIKE seeing Lightnings as they're guaranteed kills. Now I'll be fair and say I don't know how prowlers/magriders fair, cuz I don't drive them. But at least in my vanguard I have never once felt threatened by a lone Lightning, no matter how well it was driven, no matter what kind of gun it had. I have never lost a single battle to a lone AP lightning, ever.

Both from first hand experience, the simple math of it all, and the way community uses it's vehicles I just can't see the Lightning as doing anything unique. However that's the thing, and the thing your posts don't address. I never once said the Lightning isn't useful. I said it's not unique. Anything it can do an MBT can do, but the Lightning can still do it. Just because the Lightning has no unique role or purpose doesn't mean it somehow magically becomes worthless at everything. You can argue that the Lightning can compete with MBTs, and you'd be right in that regard, you CAN'T argue that the Lightning fulfills a unique role though, because it doesn't.

Why would I apologize when everything I've said has been 100% truth? You're the one insisting I'm wrong for no reason. Here are the facts, you can either accept them or don't, really doesn't bother me.

1: Lightnings are factually weaker than MBTs, numbers bro, they don't lie.
2: Lightnings are used less than MBTs when both are available
3: Most tankers prefer to take an MBT
4: Lightnings serve no unique purpose

These four things are just facts, it's just truth, you can sit there and say I'm wrong until your fingers fall off, but that doesn't change reality. If a player has max resources and is at a tower with a tech plant attached, odds are they'll take an MBT. That's just how it is. Look at any tank zerg and the ratio of MBTs to Lightnings is staggering. The only time most people would take a lightning is if they CAN'T take an MBT. Now this isn't everyone and I never said it was, but most people will prefer an MBT.

But, as I said above in this post, you can argue whatever you want but the cold hard fact remains that Lightning's serve no unique purpose. You may enjoy driving them, sure, that doesn't make them a unique unit with a specific function. Stealth gameplay? MBTs do it equally as well. Hell even the "fast skirmisher" can be done by the Harasser so that's not a unique role either. Literally anything you try to do with a Lightning, that isn't skyguard duty, can be done by the MBT. Literally every single thing. The Lightning has always been, and likely always will be, a redundant unit. Just because you enjoy it doesn't change that fact, and that's what you need to understand and accept.

Availability isn't a gameplay role, it's a restriction. The Lightning doesn't fulfill a unique gameplay niche just because it's cheaper. I'm starting to feel like neither you nor the Colonel even understand what you're arguing with me about.