[Suggestion] Begin Working on ANT Modules for Sunderers

The ANT needs to be a new vehicle. It doesn't take a year to model a box with wheels on it and texture/weigh it. We do NOT want the ANT as a sundy model, its sloppy. It's lazy. You owe it to your playerbase SOE. Release actual new content.

This actually isn't true at all for NC. Our MBT is worthless against infantry, so for NC the Vanguard is our tank destroyer, the Lightning is our infantry tank.

And for other factions, AP Lightning is often better use of manpower for AV purposes. (using MBT's as Inf farming machines, and damage soak front line so AV lightnings can wreck their havok)

Well, while true that doesn't actually change my point. It's not like vanguards can't take out infantry, Lightning's just better at it. My overall point in this rather pointless debate was that the Lightning doesn't do a unique role beyond skyguard, anything it can do the MBTs can do as well. An example of actual specific roles would be like the sunderer, no other ground vehicle can transport a squad, no other vehicl can deploy into a spawn. Or LA, no other class can jetpack over walls. Unique functions that set them apart from others, the only thing the Lightning has is the skyguard turret. But then that means it's not a lightning, it's a skyguard.

Moral of the story is I miss the PS1 system were MBTs required two people and the Lightning was the solo player alternative.

I might prefer a new vehicle...

but I don't think it's a big deal either.

Honestly, what is so bad about ANT module? Sure, a shiny new vehicle is always nice, but they've got Valkyrie, ES Buggies, and NS Colossus to do. All of which will actually bring new fun combat roles.

I don't see how a dedicated vehicle or ANT module sundy would be much different, other than the Sunderer having some basic self defense of course. Not enough to stop even a single MBT or ESF from taking it out though.

I don't think we ever said it was entirely unique.

They have different strengths. But in the end they're both tanks.

In RTS you have light tanks and heavy tanks too. Neither is all that unique. The heavy tank required more tech, more resources, and is more durable. OMG! JUST LIKE PS2!

That's not all that would go into making a new vehicle. Don't make it seem 'easy' when it is not.

But that said, its still sloppy work just to slap an ANT module on the Sunderer for many reasons gone over in this thread.

Aside the lazy factor in that it takes them 7 months to make something that SHOULD only take them a month, maybe two. It's mostly that the sunderer just has too much **** on it. It's massively overbloated with features. I mean look at what the sunderer can do, it can be an excelent anti-infantry platform, the strongest ground based AV platform, a fantastic AA platform, a mobile spawn point, an infantry resupply/MAX spawn point, a troop transport, repair vehicle, rearm vehicle, can crash through gates, and I still feel like I'm forgetting things even after this long list.

Basically, the sunderer has more roles than literally every other vehicle combined. It's just bad game design to put that much stuff on one single vehicle. So we need a new vehicle if for no other reason than to trim some of the fat off the sunderer. The sunderer should be the troop transport/IFV type vehicle, it ferries a squad in, uses it's guns to support them, and turns into a spawn point. The ANT should handle the logistics functions like repair, rearm, and nanite delivery. You don't see MBTs, harassers, etc with six million different roles, the sunderer shouldn't be any exception.

Except my entire point was that the Lightning wasn't unique and served a redundant role to the MBTs. If you aren't arguing that then what ARE you arguing? In an RTS a light tank is typically stronger against infantry while a heavy tank is stronger against vehicles and buildings. Two very different roles. The Lightning is mostly "do what the MBTs do just worse/better in some situations", it's redundant.

Well balance aside, as balance does take time, the time it takes to make a new vehicle actually isn't that long. It may not be as easy as that guy makes it seem but it certainly shouldn't take seven months to model a vehicle and stick it in engine. Again, ignoring balance constraints, SOE SHOULD be able to churn out a new vehicle once every two months. If it was just new models, like adding faction flare to existing vehicles, they could do it in a couple weeks to a month, tops. Making models really isn't THAT time consuming, especially not at the level of detail you see in PS2.

Far from it. You have made bold-untrue statements. I'll quote you myself.. again.

Which as I explained to you above, is literally false. In order for your statement to be true, then you would need to show that in every case where someone used a Lightning, the primary reason was not because people like Lightnings but was because the game forced them to use a Lightning.

Whereas to prove your statement to be false, all I have to do is to show one case where Lightnings were used because someone liked them, and not because the game forced them to use it.

And I have, because I am that proof. If I'm looking at a tank vehicle terminal, and I have the nanites, and I see that I can pick a Lightning or a MBT, I will pick that Lightning. I was not forced to pick that Lightning, and I can say that my primary reason for picking the Lightning was that I like Lightnings.

Ergo because I have satisfied my burden of proof in showing that your statement is literally incorrect, that statement was 100% not truth. And if you believe that you should apologize for making untruthful statements (that part is up to you), then you must apologize for making that statement as it has been shown not to be the truth.

Why would I need to prove that in 'every' case it's this way when I never once said it was 100% of people? You're the one putting words in my mouth and then saying I'm wrong for it. Right now you are literally fabricating an argument so that you can be in the right.

To say something like "Lightnings aren't used because..." is a general statement that implies 100% coverage. To show that the statement is true, you need to show that it is applicable 100% of the time. To show that the statement is false, you need to show that it is not applicable sometimes, at least once.

To say something like "Sometimes Lightnings aren't used because..." does not imply 100% coverage because it excludes some cases. To show that the statement is true, you only need to show that it is applicable sometimes, at least once. To show that the statement is false, you need to show that it is never applicable 100% of the time.

Which one did you say? What were the exact words that came out of your mouth (or keyboard if we're being literal)?

Hmmmm?

It wouldn't take a year, that's for sure. It's not easy but I feel like they stagger their development too much. Instead of a focused approach.

This lightning thing is a sidetrack and probably not helpful, but imo the extra agility and small size of a lightning means that an AP lightning is often a better bet than a 1/2 AP Vanguard. Your mileage may vary depending on faction and preference, but I sometimes pull a lightning by choice.

I'm not sure there's time to develop a new vehicle if we want to see the ANT this century. How about making it a switchable module on the Harasser? Lightly armoured, rapid blockade breaking would be done with either a harasser or a sundy now, and I agree that the sundy is already overloaded with roles, whereas Harassers are hardly pulled.

i don't give a ****, i and others enjoyed doing it. believe me or don't.

so far you've suggested the generally and universally(across every game) derided 'escort' mission for an AI................. or........... a 2 speed ant. neither of which really add the 'depth' you allude to, or are particularly imaginative.

another gear adds depth yes?! maybe a 3 speed ant?

95%............ you think we were outpopped that much? or that my own empire was trying to drain our own base AS WELL!?!?!

and if i ruined my enemies plans(especially if outpopped as much as you think)...........good, screw em, makes me feel more of a badass, how does it feel to know a menial labourer ruined your(not your personally unless you were there) easy 15min cap

good job it's sci fi then.

Don't take this the wrong way, because it's not intended as an insult or some ****, but is English your first language? Because in English you don't have to explicitly state things as you're implying. As you said, my statement is a general statement, the very fact that it's a general statement means that it is NOT 100%, it's general, meaning the majority. If I had said "Nobody ever uses lightnings because" or something, then you'd be correct. However the way I worded it was the same as if I had said "most people" or "sometimes" or whatever. Since I never specified EVERYONE is like this, then it doesn't apply to everyone, and so you trying to say it does is indeed putting words in my mouth. The English language is complex and that is why reading comprehension is so important.

As has been explained, they SHOULD be able to make an entire ANT vehicle in a couple months. I feel like this needs to be mentioned again because it's so perfect to put things into perspective.

http://www.hammerfistclan.com/forum...great-starship-competition-screenshot0000.jpg

That ship is several times larger than anything in PS2 as far as models are concerned. It has a fully modeled interior with working animations so it can land/fly/close doors/move chairs etc. That ship was produced in less than six months by four guys in their spare time after work. Now look at that ship, then look at say.. a Galaxy in PS2. It should be painfully obvious that that ship is of a significantly higher quality than anything in PS2. Yet it took four amateurs six months in their spare time to make and get it in engine.

If SOE can't make an ANT in half that time, that's sad. It really is exceptionally depressing when four amateurs in their spare time can outperform a multi-billion dollar corporation. So we should AT LEAST hold SOE to the standards put in place by independents. I expect the ANT to be an entirely new vehicle and I expect it to be fully modeled and animated and put in engine in two months at absolute maximum. If SOE can't manage something as simple as that, then we all have far bigger problems.

Hmmmm... is English my first language... well I did manage to get my Doctorate of Law, which while not impossible to do for people who have English as their second language is certainly a sign of the command of the English language. I think if we made more than 10 grammatical/citation errors in a 40-page brief the Professor would fail us.

Which is also why you're getting your rear lawyered right now. I can tell you that statements like the one you made are general and understood to cover 100% of cases. To point:

"People buy cats because they are forced to" implies that the only or primary reason that any person buys a cat is because they are forced to. But if we had one cat owner step up and say, "Gee, I didn't buy a cat because I was forced to, I bought mine because he was fluffy" then the original statement is no longer true. For it to remain true it must read, "Some people buy cats because they are forced to" or something to that effect. This is because the first statement is understood to cover 100% of cases, whereas the second statement includes "some" because it is necessary to do so.

In other words we can't have both statements:
"People buy cats because they are forced to"
"Some people buy cats because they are forced to"

Mean the same thing, because that's just silly and makes the inclusion of "some" redundant. A general statement is understood to be absolute, whereas an inclusion of a modifier (some, all, none, etc) might take the sentence in a different direction.

I mean geez, don't they still test people on this on the SATs and such? Or has the English language now devolved to the point where "people" and "some people" are taken to mean the same thing?

Yes yes yes, look at how smart you are. And yet for all your intelligence you were the only one to take my statement as being a literal 100%. Even when I flat out told you that you read my post wrong you continued. I have no desire to help your ego-masturbation session here so unless you have something worth saying I'll be calling it quits on this one.

Look, like I said earlier I generally like your ideas. On the other hand though you're getting a bit big in your britches and need to be brought down a peg.

And I do that by pointing out that logically you're making mistakes, thus weakening your credibility and ability to make a convincing argument. Is it fair? No, not really. I mean the easy thing about these logical fallacies is that everyone (and I'm confident enough here to use the absolute) makes them. I probably have made more than a few on these forums myself. The trick though is that once you bring it up it makes the person who made that statement look pretty dumb.

If I were you what I would have done in response to that is offered a quick apology and a clarification. Something like, "Oh, my mistake, I meant that some or a majority of people would only pull Lightnings because they were forced to." And you know what a response like that would do? It would make you look mature, because it takes a real adult to admit to their mistakes. It would reduce my leverage over the argument, because essentially you've just disarmed that line of attack. It would allow you to refocus on the issue that you want, regaining the initiative.

But no, instead you've been ignoring your mistake or claiming that it wasn't a mistake in the first place (though I detected a few posts back that you've finally started to realize the error you made). And the longer you keep holding out, the more foolish you look. Yet you might be at a point where you simply can't bear to admit that you were wrong, if for no other reason than that you've said, "I'm not wrong" one too many times. That's true irony of course, because it was actually easier to admit your mistake a while back, instead of digging deeper and deeper and deeper...

So... are you going to man up? Or keep going? Because trust me, I'm not going to stop until you admit that you were wrong about Lightnings. I'm not going to give up until you abandon this thread altogether or apologize. Because you don't get away that easily with making misstatements like that, and insulting my precious baby tank.