[Suggestion] Begin Working on ANT Modules for Sunderers

Here's the problem. You "called me out" on my statement and in my very first reply I did exactly what you said, I told you that most, majority, in general, people only take the lightning cuz the MBT isn't available. So no matter what you thought about my first post, I cleared it up in the second. Then you spend the next page making posts like this about how I'm wrong and need to "be brought down a peg".

If you want to talk about mature, then accepting my clarification and leaving at that is mature. You wasting everyone's time with this big high horse lecture is probably the farthest you could get from mature. So since we're on the topic of being mature, how about you drop this since I cleared up your misunderstanding on the last page.

Nope. You need an apology. Making a mistake and not apologizing for it is not very mature.

I'm waiting.

Y'know what, I was gonna stubbornly refuse but then I realized I don't care and you're dragging this thread off topic. So I'm sorry.

Wasn't that hard right? I even gave you a TU for that!

And for the record everything that I did was extremely petty, unfair, and really not very mature myself. As to why... well there are tons of people who disagree with me on these forums, but most of them I just tell them why they're wrong and let it go at that.

But you... your ideas are good. Good enough that I think they're worth hearing. So if you're going to post your ideas, you got to make them defensible. And one way to do that is to tighten your arguments, so if your opponent is as crazy as I was you won't get pinned down by a mistake, or at least you'll know how to gracefully recover from a mistake. That will make your arguments so much the stronger in the long run, so there's that.

Really I wouldn't be bothered chasing down just anyone with that borderline trolling, you're just worth it.

Resources are not a problem now, still I keep finding many lightnings in tank zergs, even at techplants. Agile low-profile tank is an important sub-role and NS tank, with consistent performance, unaffected by another MBT rebalancing, is important too.
Still cant see that?
Try this -_- --> 0_0

I dont know what will soe make but you too cant be sure, that soe wont just plop ANT module on sundy, so whats your point?

I dumbed down my explanations as much as I could, if they still are too hard for you, i cant help it. You just keep taking about fighting in troop carrier. I cant even imagine where you get that idea.
You may read some military books, maybe they will explain to you why most armies have lighter and heavier tanks, small and big troop carriers etc.

There's a plethora of reasons why you'd still see lightnings in tank zergs. Maybe they don't have enough for an MBT. While resource gain is faster, it's also shared amongst everything. What if they just fought in a hardcore infantry battle and wasted all their resources on grenades and don't want to sit around waiting for enough to get an MBT? What if they were at a base that only had a light vehicle terminal and simply pulled a lightning to continue with the zerg instead of heading off to some random base to pull an MBT?

That second one is probably the most likely. I see it all the time. Zerg is moving down the lattice lane, we take a base, everyone starts mobilizing for the next best but since the base we took can't spawn MBTs, they take a lightning. I mean why not? Gives you a strong cannon and when you die you respawn on a sundy and go back to infantry. Feel free to ask them in game if you want, I can guarantee most of them will tell you they're just taking it because it's there, not because they prefer it over an MBT.

Also, modern militaries don't have "lighter and heavier tanks", the notion of light, medium, and heavy tanks was phased out after WW2 as they realized modern tanks could do everything in one complete package. An Abrams or Leopard has the speed and agility of a light tank, the profile of a medium tank, and the firepower and durability of a heavy tank. Having anything else would be entirely redundant and pointless, why do you think nations only have one tank? In fact real life militaries are a perfect example of what I'm referring to, they aren't wasteful, they have a vehicle to perform a role. You see some overlap such as multi-role fighters and interceptors both being able to perform anti-air duty, but you see that in PS2 as well. But what you don't see is a vehicle that does the exact same thing as another vehicle, and nothing else.

We have light transports in the form of the harasser, flash, and the new valkyrie. We have big troop transports in the form of the sunderer and the galaxy. What you want is redundant and pointless and offers nothing new to gameplay. But even then I aint saying not to do it, I'm saying that doesn't belong on the ANT. What you want is a Humvee, what we want is an M35.

Nope, they spawned Lightnings from terminals with MBTs (i mentioned techplants, as example) even after easy spawncamping fight, which eats very little grenades. Some posters mentioned here that they just prefer lightnings but you chose to ignore inconvenient info or mark them as marginals.
You could spend like 1 minute to research before posting this nonsense. US army has Abrams MBT but also has Stingrey Light Tank. Its not just fluke, they requested development of light tanks and chose one. Same goes for other armies.

By your logic Valkyrie is redundant, since we have Galaxy. What is Valk? Fast and agile air carrier for 4 players with 1 gun. Somehow you dont yell that its just useless mini-Galaxy. What is deliverer? Fast and agile land carrier for 6 players with 1 gun. End of the world, pointless mini-Sundy!!!!!

You are yet to provide any valid reason why Deliverer cant have optional ANT module. It fits perfectly to drive for long distances, attracting little attention. "ANT should be separate vehicle, only paired with ammo/repair truck, because i want it that way" is not valid reason.

Your enjoyment of a shallow mechanic isn't what's being discussed. The fact is, players weren't observant enough to see their impending doom coming in PS1 so they didn't pull ANTs so I had to. Having game mechanics which are both mandatory and shallow is not good game design.

Maybe you've heard of a little game called Team Fortress 2 where payload maps were one of the most popular game types the game offered (even as a longtime team deathmatch lover, I prefer payload maps over all other game modes in TF2.) So no, there's not much concern about this mechanic being "derided" since it's proven to be enormously popular. And that's only one of many suggestions I've provided -- if you want to see the other ~9 suggestions, read through the earlier conversation.

That starts to help a little, but we'd need something that remained interesting to learn and master for quite a while, and a 3-speed ANT still sounds pretty shallow (even a 5-speed ANT sounds shallow, and I don't really think a manual gearbox alone is enough to make ANTs deep enough.)

A lot of it has to do with the lack of player interaction. ANTs are a PVE activity in a largely PVP game. PVP games are largely successful because the other players keep things dynamic and interesting. Whereas with PVE you don't have other players randomizing things and keeping you on your toes. Doesn't mean PVE can't be fun (longtime WOW player) but successful PVE games are about constantly providing new content, and ANT runs aren't going to be that (you end up driving the same paths over and over.)

I prefer lightnings, they are much more versatile than MBTs. An MBT is heavier in theory, but it isn't all that much more heavy than the lightning, and the lightning has more options for things it can use, it can be a dedicate AA platform for example. It also has a smaller profile, again, making it harder to hit. It's faster, it has better acceleration.

PS1 ants will be fodder in this game.. It's way vehicle spam centric then PS1 ever was, plus these devs have not even put the Loadstar in game yet (2 years and still no toad...) so that will make it 20x harder trying to get a ANT though all this vehicle/Max/air spam. They need to make the ant either have

1. Post nerf lib armor or
2. Make the damn thing a flying vehicle (phantom variant anyone?) or
3. Give it a cloak

These things will be needed in order for it to stand a chance in CallOfDutyTeamFortessSide

I really can't bring myself to care if ants are their own vehicle or not...

That said, we need the vehicle to be defeneless for the most part. At MOST it should reduce a sundy to 1 turret. Ideally it would reduce sundy's to 0 turrets.

If you want the game to change you can't cater to the nonsense demands of newer generation gamers. To say that a defenseless vehicle would be worthless in PS2, is just wrong. Un-defended sundy's exist in the game right now, this would be no different.

Un-defended Sundy? Last time I checked most sundys spawn people, people generally shoot and repair stuff when they spawn... The ones that don't spawn people generally have atleast 3 in them that can do all of that.

How does a ANT that cant spawn people to repair it or shoot stuff that is firing at it compare to a Sundy...

I never said every single person would prefer an MBT over a Lightning, just that most would. You keep insisting like people pulling lightnings prove your point. Hell, I pull lightnings from tech plants, does that mean I choose a lightning over an mbt? No, it means I have my reasons for taking a lightning. Maybe I'm low on resources, just because it was a spawn camping fight doesn't mean they didn't spend resources on stuff, you don't know. Or maybe they do just genuinely like the Lightning, who knows and who cares, it's not as if some people taking a lightning proves a point.

Also, you might want to look things up before you try to make me look bad. The Stingrey was developed by america, but it was never used by america. In fact literally the only country to ever use it was bloody Thailand.

As for the valk, in it's current iteration it is redundant and pointless and if you read the various feedback threads you'd see most people recognize this fact. I have, in fact, "yelled" that it is just a useless mini-galaxy which is why I advocate giving it new abilities to fulfill it's role properly, such as a cloaking device. Simply slapping some seats on a smaller vehicle doesn't make it unique in it's role, the valkyrie is proof of that. Your desired humvee would be a pointless mini-sundy just as the valkyrie is currently a pointless mini-galaxy.

I also find this last part quite hilarious. ""ANT should be separate vehicle, only paired with ammo/repair truck, because i want it that way" is not valid reason." and yet you seem to think that "The ANT should carry half a squad and have guns because I want it that way!" is a valid argument? Hypocrisy, ho! As explained what you want is a pointless addition that adds nothing to gameplay and doesn't mesh well with the logistics function of the ANT. Again, you want a Humvee and we want an M35, or to put it in another like you want to slap troop transport capabilities on an MBT.

Of all of my "likes" i have liked this post the most. A lot of us are getting sick of "sunderer do everything"

It's a case of a good idea being taken too far. They've said from the very beginning that PS2 would be less rigid, with vehicles being able to spec into a variety of roles. And that's fine, that's cool. Vanguard can be AI, AT, that's nice. But it's going too far with the sunderer. It's one thing to have it spec into different roles, like battle bus, spawn point, stuff like that. But once you start just cramming everything onto one vehicle, it should be pretty obvious to SOE why that wont end well. At this rate the sunderer will be the only ground vehicle pulled since it bloody does everywhere rofl.

One of the bigger problems is that the characteristics of a Sunderer (speed, armor, HP, armament) or really any vehicle doesn't change depending on how it's used. This creates many problems with stuffing a number of roles into the same package.

Take for instance ESFs, which can be kitted out for A2A or A2G roles. But apart from weaponry (and maybe extended afterburners), an A2A and an A2G ESF perform and handle roughly the same. This leads to issues when you want to reduce the power of A2G ESFs but not A2A ESFs. What they could have done (as do most flying games) is to reduce speed, agility, and thrust the more you load down an ESF with weaponry. On the flip side an ESF just carrying the main cannon should be able to fly in circles around an A2G ESF. This would allow the same vehicle to be equipped for different roles without being unbalanced.

In the same way a Battle/Transport Sunderer has a ridiculously high amount of armor/HP for a glorified MRAP, but sure, if it means that pubbie undefended Sunderers can survive for longer I guess that might be better for the game. But when the Sunderer starts performing rearming and repairing functions, then it should be an easier target to take out. And even more so if it's whisking around mission-critical supplies.

Really if SOE implemented vehicle characteristic changes depending on what weapons/utilities its using, the game would have much more potential.

1. Well if you don't understand the difference between isolated events (the 1-5% of the time when 3+ ANTs showed up) and common occurances (the 50-80% of the time when I was the only ANT,) then you don't quite stand tall enough to pass the "You must be at least THIS logical to have a rational discussion" sign. And to call me a "lying bastard" because of that is comically inaccurate.
2. It makes a lot more sense for me to tell you "go play PS1" than you to tell me "go play TF2". PS2 is currently devoid of mandatory shallow activities.
3. Lodestars didn't prevent ANTs from being a shallow, mandatory chore.

2 guns on a lone blockadeless sundy is easy pickings for anything but a harasser or a lighthing... BOTH of which could still take it with skill and a little terrain.

100% agree.