Sunderer is a LOGISTICS vehicle...

Wow, all your logic goes about "in 1v1 in an empty world...." but you know, ps2 is not in a empty world.
The sunderer is a bigger target, the magrider have higher mobility, on high ranges every battletank takes out the sunderer easily.

And if your sunderer transports 12 ppl, you first NEED 12 people!!
Manpower = ressource


Btw. look the Video in my signature ;-), i know how battlesundy works.

You just see them all the time because the MBT are much to expensive for F2P Member.

Thrust me, if you want to make the game BETTER do not weaken the sunderer, make the front armor of tanks stronger.

Well, i am off from this discussion now... just kill the Sunderer and as soon as you are finished with it, anything else.... but without me....

RIP

Vehicles of Planetside 2

So you get all defensive & rage quit the thread, all because I wanted you to answer my question of Who should win in a straight up fight between a MBT & a sunderer?

Implying that the lightning is in the sunderer's face. A lightning can attack from range, where its cannon is effective, while the basilisks are not. If a sunderer ambushes the lightning, it would mean that the fight is taking place in a CQC environment with lots of cover, where the lightning can use the superior manouverability to break contact, or that the driver is really tunnelvisioned. Either way, the unnecessary damage is perfectly avoidable.

A sunderer is fast enough & strong enough to close the distance & can be repaired in a few seconds and pulled from any location.

MBT's needs stronger armor against "small caliber" weapons like Vulcan, Baslisk and Cobalt.. those are AI/AA/LV-caliber weapons.

The Vulcan is AV, the Basilisk is a generalist weapon, and the Kobalt is can't damage an MBT anyway.

Please show me how to kill an MBT with a Kobalt. That thing literally does zero damage against armored vehicles.

Yet the very point of this thread is to make it so that the Sunderer can't take more AP fire than a MBT. I mean that's what we're discussing.

What you're using is called "circular logic" where your conclusion is the basis for your reasoning. Essentially:
1) Observation: Sunderers can take more damage than MBTs
2) Reasoning: Sunderers are heavy combat vehicles
3) Conclusion: Sunderers can take more damage than MBTs

It really doesn't work because the Sunderer could have just as easily been a paper-thin transport unit, and your conclusion would have been the opposite. You haven't critically examined the status quo to see what the Sunderer ought to be, you've just taken what the Sunderer currently is as immutable.

Based on all reasoning of what the Sunderer should be, including considerations of:
1) Role
2) Cost
3) Aesthetics

The Sunderer should be a lightly armed logistics truck, not a Heavy Tank.

I have critically examined the status quo and I happen to like it. My reasoning is
1. What is the sunderer used for in game?
2. Is it imbalanced?
3. If so how is it fixed?

I am 100% fine with sunderers expanding well beyond the original design role as long as what they do isn't imbalanced. To put it another way, I don't want a one trick pony. I don't want to lock it in by saying "The sunderer is a logistics vehicle".

And as I said before, the only problem I see with the sunderer right now is battle sunderers are probably too cheap in nanite cost.

The problem is the Sunderer is trying to fill the role of too many Planetside 1 vehicles. The roles the Sunderer currently fills were taken care of by the Deliverer, Sunderer, AMS and Lodestar in Planetside 1. If the resource revamp goes ahead and the Nanite Logistics Unit ends up on the Sunderer as well, it will be filling the role of the Deliverer, Sunderer, AMS, Lodestar and ANT.

These vehicles were very disparate as well, which leads to our problem.

The Sunderer was a heavily armored wheeled vehicle, meant for carrying a large number of troops safely into fortified areas. It did not handle exceptionally well off road, and did best following roads and bridges. It gave up speed and mobility for its armor, firepower, and carrying capability.

The Deliverer was a lightly armored wheeled vehicle, meant for carrying a moderate number of troops over difficult terrain. It was amphibious, which sadly doesn't mean much of anything in Planetside 2, but was quicker and more mobile than the Sunderer at the cost of armor and firepower.

The AMS was a moderately armored unit with a cloaking field, used to spawn and re-arm troops. Completely unarmed, relatively fast.

The ANT was a slow, poorly armored, logistics vehicle whose sole purpose was to ferry around a giant battery full of Warpgate Juice (nanites) to fuel bases.

The Lodestar was actually an aircraft, but when landed and deployed, functioned as a mobile repair and rearmament site for vehicles. It was large, slow, unarmed, and only moderately armored.

So we have the Sunderer in Planetside 2, trying to fill the role of all these vehicles with very different mobility, speed, armor and armament capabilities. Is it any shock it doesn't make sense?

Unfortunately, while concept art for the Deliverer exists - I doubt we would ever see the introduction of these different vehicles and a re-balancing of existing platforms in Planetside 2. Apparently Planetside 1 was difficult to understand, and there is a recognizable culture that Planetside 2 needs to be digestible to as many people as possible - compounded with the fact that this diversification would not introduce meaningful opportunities for monetezation for the amount of work required.

While Planetside 1 wasn't the perfect game, and had issues of its own (particularly in terms of balance), it certainly was a very solid platform. The fact that Planetside 2 launched with so many of the features from Planetside 1 missing, things that were a staple to the experience and iconic image and not contrary to the faster pace tone wanted in PS2, is the biggest thing I will never forgive the devs, or SOE, for.

SOE is gone, and most of those devs are gone, but the game is what it is now. I enjoy Planetside 2, but weep for what could have been.

I am not "rage quiting" i just "dont feed the troll"... and let the threat here drown as soon as possible ;-)
Yes the sunderer wins a 1v1 IF blockade armor and IF spend A LOT of certs and IF he have skilled gunner...

But you are simply asking the wrong question. Nerfing the sunderer = nerfing FUN.
And i would love to see more options for other vehicles!

It is the same with "maxes are op, nerf maxes" i say ---> Let EMP nades STUN maxes for some seconds, this will give more need for teamplay and make emp nades more valiable.

I just can´t stand this "nerf this nerf that" attetute it is killing the game, let the rest of the developers make something usefull that is FUN and not spending all the time with nerfing this and nerfing that...

This is annyoing, and i dont rage quit i just dont like to push this stubid topic up again.

The analogy is pretty nice. But in this case I would go as far as to say that the "manpower needed is X" argument is not valid. We must look at the vehicle's niche. It's intended role. A vehicle killer is not one of these. The sunderer already has way too many hats.

Technically, the sunderer is an armored personnel carrier, moonlighting as an infantry fighting vehicle. It is designed to have the health necessary to move a group of soldiers into combat zones. Whatever weapons it has would primarily be designed to engage infantry and light armor. Support purpose.

Sunderer in PS2 also has the unfortunate fate of being the "better spawn room". And since people would rather throw a hate fueled tantrum then to have their precious farm-mobile nerfed.

Harasser and sunderer both should categorize as light armor (sundy at best as medium). They should be capable of surviving long enough to let the occupants react. Meaning if the sunderer starts taking hits, everyone inside has the chance to wake up, figure who and from where is shooting them, and get out of the vehicle before it explodes. Sunderer is too heavily armored for this. Not to mention having multiple perks like people spawning an weapons that are very effective against vehicles they should not be very effective against.
And since Sunderer should only be mildly effective against light armor. Lightning should kick a Sunderer's *** every single time, regardless who's gunning what guns on that thing. Lightning should categorize as medium-to-heavy armor. MBT's are heavy armor. Sunderer's armaments should be to support the infantry it's pooping out or to provide point defense for itself when under counter-attack.

I agree that blockade armor ought to be reworked such that the rear isn't the strongest

but other than that, what's the problem? Sunderer is a three crew vehicle that's big as a barn and not terribly maneuverable; is it such a problem that it can beat tanks at short range (with a highly specialized loadout?)

To compare it to a jeep or a striker (modern military transport) is off, for one it is considerably larger, about as large as a main battle tank, compariable to a bus. and definatly larger than a lighting. Also more than carrys has a mobile spawn point so it s a factory for infantry.

It has wheels but it is not small.

Though by that logic, considering its shear mass and what it can do it should cost more resources. And have less armor considering it is storing a whole thing of troops and or a factory to make them.

While the OP is right there is a problem but the problem doesn't lay with the Sunderer the Problem lays with his assumption that the MBTs in this game are Truely Main Battle or even remotely near Heavy Tanks.

The Definition of Main Battle tank is any tank capable of dealing with tanks, supporting infantry and killing infantry with out changing its load out. This doesn't hold true to the "MBTs" in this game, a full AP tank can not deal with infantry with the same effectiveness as one running HE shells or one with a Kolbalt on top. So this leaves that the games current Heavies tanks are nothing more then Medium tanks by the WWII classification system. The only way DBG can fix this is to follow though with a post I made about adding in true Heavy tanks to the game which would operate more like modern MBTs. I reposted my Original document Here on DBG forums back in February.

I think one way to reduce the "battlebus" aspect without making the Sunderer defenseless is to give it a Prowler-like "anchor" mechanic, where the weapons are less powerful when the vehicle is mobile but more so when it's deployed.

In my second post int his thread, here, I addressed the fact that the Sunderer is filling too many shoes at the moment. Not meant to sound condescending, just no reason to re-type all that rambling.

However, there is no fundamental law of combat that says a lesser platform can't harm a greater platform. If we go to the real world to pull an example, the Bradley IFV with its TOW missile and 25mm chaingun more than happily scored multiple kills on T-72 Main Battle Tanks in the Gulf Wars- despite the Bradley being an IFV with "medium" armor and the T-72 being an MBT with "heavy" armor.

Does such a system help game balance? In certain scenarios I am certain it does - but I don't think Planetside 2 is one of them. Planetside 2 is meant to be fast paced and frenzied, and I feel limiting the situations where something is invulnerable to something else is important to this.

Interestingly, despite its much slower pacing Planetside 1 let practically every weapon damage every platform. Even MBTs could be damaged (mind you, a pitiful amount) by small arms simply by switching to AP ammunition or with your knife on secondary mode. I wouldn't mind seeing this return. Infantry would certainly feel less impotent if they could angrily fire up at Liberators and actually get hit markers - the same against tanks.

I suppose you could pull in a bit of the "MMO" in MMOFPS and give Engineers an aura ability like the medics heal that allows nearby friendlies bullets to do damage to heavier armor; at the cost of not having their ACE - assuming introducing switchable ammo types is too much work.

I agree with the op completely.

Although i dont have a huge problem with sunderers being strong, if they are to be as strong as an mbt and better than a skyguard at AA then they should not be as cheap as they are.

I like them as cheap as they are because they are good certs, so they should just get specialized nerfed guns that do about 50% what they do now.

It was designed and formerly performed as a mobile spawn point not a battle bus. Higby in his lunacy buffed sunderers over and over for no good reason at all.

If you want to defend a sundy you should need to have tanks to defend it.

Its all part of Higbys master plan to turn the game into a meatgrinding zerg fest and remove all tactics or strategy completely.

Probably the WoW effect. It is wideley believed that WoW is so popular because a 4 year old can do well at it. Perhaps he thought that if he made the game mindless enough he would attain wow like numbers.

Hopefully the new boss will see the silliness inherent in the current game and fix some of the cheese that really turns people off of the game.