PS2 has many playstyles, but the vehicular playstyles are limited due to their nanite cost. I think it would be relatively good for the game to let players buy vehicles for free. Rules: -Lets make these a variant of the regular vehicles so you can track their seperate statistics. - these vehicle variants have only access to the basic weapon options without upgrades. No abilities, no scopes, no extra ammo. That means a Flash can get a weapon but no stealth. It also means a Magrider could equip it's HESH option with a PPA, or a Saron and AP gun. - inherent abilities like the Prowler's Anchor could be allowed, but not upgraded. This gives all players the ability to play vehicles all the time, but if you put in resources you can get better vehicles as well. I do expect infantry to get some better anti-tank options to deal with the extra vehicles though. Although these ant-tank options would cost nanites as the costless versions are already available to some extent.
I think a lot of your ideas are great Demi But this one would be a nightmare imho! XD Getting a base zerged can suck, but there is no greater feeling of hopelessness than getting a base zerged by vehicles, Looking at the map and seeing the swarm of tanks surrounding the spawn, yup it sucks. Also I'd hate to roll up to a base with my fully certed bulldog/walker shield-sundy and discover that the only few good sundy spots in the base have stock sundies sitting in them, ready to get oneshot by an LA. Also also, if you give me access to infinite free skywhales prepare to piss off every lightning player in the game! Splat! Splat! Splat! Splat! Splat! I just feel that free vehicles would bring a lot of downsides and a ton of abuse That said perhaps the game could do with cheap variations of some vehicles, Like an ESF with only a A2A nose gun and no wing mounted weapons for 100 nanites, so new players can get in to air play, (It'd also solve the problem of A2G groundpounders since there would be more A2A ESFS flying around hunting them. Though even this would still have its abusers, like LAs being able to pull cheap ESFS to c4 any target anywhere.
Having actual good infantry AV, costing nanites if necessary, would solve that. Additionally since these are cheap vehicles you could modify their resistances and let infantry AV like rocketlaunchers deal more damage, allowing infantry to deal with costless vehicles with their own costless AV weapons. Even if you cost 50 to 100 nanites it would still work for the most part. The goal is to make vehicle gameplay as accessible as the rest of the game. Some vehicles could be excluded, like the Galaxy since it's too much of a flying tank with the ability to crush certain vehicles. Sunderers could also have limitations, like not having access to the AMS module since it's an ability. I also focused on ground vehicles for the most part. Giving players like LA's costless ways to travel across the map in an ESF would not really be a good benefit for the game, while making sure that all players can enjoy the vehicle game even if they run out of nanites is a good way to let players keep going. Perhaps you could even only allow such vehicles to be pulled if the player has below a certain threshold of nanites. Would that be enough for your appetite?
Seeing as to how bases already get heavily zerged by armor in general . Having access to an endless supply of somewhat weaker armor in which to throw at this scenario for the defenders. Would certainly help. And it would also likely result in bigger drawn out vehicle battles.
Uh, no. Big no with a side of "are you trolling?" Drawing a vehicle is meant to be an investment from the player, and destroying them is meant to be an accomplishment. While the cheese of spamming lightnings from a PMB is funny, even I as a builder will admit that it is OP to have 0 nanite cost vehicles. This post also comes with an implication that bone stock vehicles are weak. It's true that the upgrades are well worth having, but the DPS of the Viper is very high even without upgrades. If you are having problems with nanite limits while trying to play vehicles, then I'm going to sound like a **** for saying the following 2 points but 1. It's dangerous to go alone, bring a buddy, or maybe even... join a squad? *gasp* (I know, solo players are king...) 2. Stop dying so fast. By now I know I've made enough posts that I've made it obvious that I don't play infantry much because it's not the style I enjoy. I spend most of my game using something I had to pay nanites for. I rarely run out of nanites, and I'm usually driving, not gunning. When I was newer I did have to alternate between driving and gunning as I learned what not to do the hard way. Regarding living longer, I'll give a few pointers: -if you take unexpected damage, your immediate actions are to step on the gas and switch to 3rd person camera. -If you plan to hold still for much time at all, drop a spit fire. It won't kill the LA trying to C4 you, but it's a good alarm system. -any time you get even a second of down time, switch to 3rd person and do quick shoulder checks -never draw from a base which is already under attack, draw from at least one base back -keep your distance! At range tanks counter infantry, up close infantry counter tanks. Be the counter, not the countered. -always keep aircraft in mind. Know where friendly infantry are in the area, some of them have launchers. Know where either of tall terrain features or overhead cover are. Know where the slopes you can ram to shoot up are. If all else fails, drive towards the ESF shooting you, shooting straight down is difficult for many of them.
I get that new players especially would gain a lot from this as it allows them to spend as much time as they want learning what is tbh a pretty harsh learning curve that is PS2 vehicles but I think you are not really thinking of the consequences of this in general. Vehicles are force multipliers and they need to have something limiting their use, even though the devs think having 'free' ESF/Lightnings etc from PMBs is fine, having actually free vehicles would open a huge can of worms of abuse like actually only using your ESF as a homing missile and nothing else or pulling free MBTs and just suiciding into Sunderers, at least Prowlers and Vanguards have enough ability to trade their lives for a Sunderer in most cases simply by going to it baring any quick reaction C4 use. Also why would anyone use Lightnings if they can use a free MBT instead and just go crazy with it? its still a upgrade in most cases than what a Lightning provides. Honestly its about as apocalyptic a change as suggesting MAX suits be free if they have the starter weapons, its not really a big enough trade to allow endless free spam as it will always be better to use them than not and it would massively devalue the real ones that cost nanites because even fully upgraded vehicles/MAXes dont get that much of a advantage to take on a endless swarm of free basic vehicles/MAXes.
Their current design is supposed to be an investment, however that is a bad design idea. It requires vehicles to be high powered in a game where defenders have much more difficulty rebuilding a vehicle force, and infantry has a hard time defeating them. We see this in everything in the game. Vehicle zergs became a lot less frequent and defenders more often were able to pull at least a token defense force after a defeat once the cost of all vehicles was cheapened early in the game's life. Bases are all build to segregate infantry and tanks as much as possible since infantry does not have the power to really beat them with their basic AV weapons. So why keep a design philosophy that has failed already? Adding options for players to always have access to vehicles is a good thing. You can still have the whole "investment" thing with the resource costing vehicles. After all there's no Vanguard Shield or Barrage on these vehicles right? Weaker, not super weak. Which is a good thing, as with skill or cooperation you can overcome the advantage of a resource-costing vehicle. I don't have problems with it, but it would be great for the game if you had more access regardless of your nanite status. And even with costless vehicles I have a tip for you: 1. Don't go alone. 2. Don't die so fast. 3. Die fast as you can experiment and sacrifice your vehicle to try and break an enemy without being punished for it by lacking access to vehicles. It means you don't have to wait for someone else to go first and sacrifice their precious vehicle, you can do what you are supposed to do and fight as hard as possible. Some of these points... why aren't you in 3rd person before you get unexpected damage? Unless you are in combat there is no reason to be in first person mode. These points also provide no reason to keep a nanite-costing vehicle aa the only option. Just because you had to learn it "the hard way" does not mean everyone has. Also some of these points are points I make in just about every single "OMG C4" thread. Its kinda strange to get them lectured to me as if I don't know about them. Also as tanker I can say I'm more than decent. I managed to equal the AP Lightning vehicle kill stats of the average player with the old HE Lightning. An HE gun that at the time was considered suicide to use in tank vs tank combat. I don't think I need a lecture on how to drive tanks.
Since I quite literally stated several times in this thread that infantry should get nanite-costing AV weapons to compensate, something that needs to happen anyway even if this doesn't happen, why are you drawing the conclusion that I want to nerf vehicles? That isn't what I asked for, so are you just building a strawman or did you not actually read what I was writing? I want to improve the entire game, not give vehicle players or infantry players a kick in the nuts. So far each time we made vehicles cheaper and easier accessible it was better for the game. Adding a series of vehicles that are costless, or as I said in the second post I made here a very low cost version, would benefit the game as a whole. To make sure infantry aren't overwhelmed you don't nerf the vehicles but you buff the infantry AV capabilities instead. Do that well enough and you can remove the ridiculous walls around bases and get rid of most of the segregation. Then vehicles can play greater roles in the overall gameplay without punishing infantry players. That is all better than the current system. There can some extra limitations or alterations to such vehicles. Like Galaxies not being available to protect against Galaxies suicidally crushing certain vehicles or making sure aircraft aren't used as disposable fast-travel mechanisms. But the idea of adding cheaper or costless vehicles is sound.
It feels like the point of the free vehicles is kinda vague. Why does the game need free vehicles that are nearly as good as the ones costing nanites as well as some high powered AV infantry weapons that cost nanites? Are C4 not good enough? Why would anyone use a nanite costing infantry AV weapon if they have unlimited Prowler/Vanguards to throw at whatever is making them displeased? Wouldnt attacking any base with a vehicle terminal be nearly impossible as there would just be a endless stream of Lightnings/MBTs pouring out?
To make sure that vehicular gameplay is always accessible. To make sure players don't have to worry that they might not have access to their vehicle if they lose it. Why would they have needed more than 1 tank? Isn't the Lightning good enough? Should they have stopped designing more tanks? Or do you want variety so you get more types of gameplay and choices available? C4 is just a CQC weapon that can realistically only be used against vehicles from stealth, which limits it to the LA for the most part. What would be wrong with adding new resource-costing utilities? From non-lethal protective measures like distortion fields that make it harder to see into the area the farther you are away to lethal ones like a LAW with several shots pre-loaded. Ofcourse since it wouldn't be fun as vehicle to be ripped apart by infantry just because they got such a weapon it would be wise to let the attacks temporarily nerf the vehicles in various ways so the infantry gets the time to actually kill the vehicle before it gets out of range or behind cover, while giving the vehicle a better chance to defend itself. Because you may not always have access to a vehicle where you are, because you may want to use the infantry gameplay, because you don't have to use the costless vehicles and you can pull them if necessary after you use your nanites, because infantry AV might be the best choice at that moment. Enough reasons? Also you severely underestimate both the Lightning and the Magrider. In fact if I would put 50 people against 50 other people in vehicles I would think that 50 Lightnings would have almost an equal chance. Smaller, fast, maneuverable, high DPS, hard to hit. Its what made the Lightning the secret equalizer in vehicular gameplay. Also as mentioned in the second post, some limitations can apply. MBT's could cost a little bit of resources, some vehicles could be completely inaccessible as it only encourages trolling gameplay or using it as a quick abondonment transport, which is OK for the Flash but not for an ESF. [/quoteWouldnt attacking any base with a vehicle terminal be nearly impossible as there would just be a endless stream of Lightnings/MBTs pouring out?[/quote] No? Is it impossible to take an point with an unlimited amount of infantry available? With the much more limited spawn capacity of the vehicle pads to spawn vehicles and how easy it is to shut them down by simply arriving at the spawnpad how could they ever shut down an enemy permanently? All it would do is create more extended and lethal vehicle gameplay as players can be more goal-oriented instead of trying to safeguard their vehicle and try to mainly use it as a farm machine. In fact if the defenders can acquire more vehicles more easily it gives tanks much less time to farm infantry.
Personally I think its a good thing to have, people should be worried about losing their vehicles otherwise you will get super careless and suicidal gameplay where people just drive around like homing missiles in their vehicles, so what if they only killed 3-5 people at the Sunderer they were driving around road killing infantry? They will be back in like half a minute or something and do it again. Groups of vehicles just driving around and bumrushing everything they see. Right now people dont want to lose their Lightning or whatever because they are limited if you are careless, this shapes how the game is played which would be lost, like people not bumrushing everything because they think they might lose their vehicle if 2-3 Lightnings just drive towards a enemy MBT so they are more careful until they get the advantage, which they are likely to get if done right. Just asking since ground vehicles are one of if not the most hard countered things in the game with what weapons and tools are already available, even if only 1-3 people pull lock on launchers its enough to send MBTs running for cover, doesnt really feel like there need to be some nanite powered infantry ones running around all over the place as well since putting a nanite cost on something is either to stop it from being spammed and often its also 'more powerful'. Sure, you got reasons but I dont agree with them, could use the same arguments that there should be free MAX suits available and I hope you can agree that it would be a horrible idea to make them free. Since im mostly a solo player and VS is my most played faction im basically a Lightning main, its by far my most used vehicle so I know its a great vehicle but it takes some skill to use anywhere near its potential. Prowler/Vanguard is in comparison very easy to use and still get more than decent results with as they can simply overpower Lightnings by stats and abilities alone. Used with skill and experience, there are few reasons in wanting a Lightning over one of them. Magriders though, they are weak, the exception to this is a experienced and skilled driver making the tank dance which is not something average Joe can do just as a Lightning is is weak when put against a MBT, it takes a above average driver in the Lightning to pull out a win and most Lightnings dont win against MBTs. I play all factions, I fight all MBTs, Magriders is by far on the bottom of my "Which Tank I dont want to fight" list, a solo Magrider is basically a free kill, I would rather fight that than another Lightning and a Magrider having a gunner is just above a Lightning purely because of the DPS they can bring and even then a lot of the time its easier fighting a crewed Magrider than another Lightning just by how many ways you can bully a Magrider and that the average Magrider driver doesnt have nearly enough experience/skill in using its advantages. Also why I think having free MBTs would still result in very few Magriders being pulled, it would still need a gunner and it lives and dies with its upgrades since thats its ability to boost. Having one or two charges of boost per fight is not even close to being enough to fight a rank 1 Barrage/Vanguard shield as those are performing at max ability with just that one point in them, Maggie would need about 3500 certs more dumped into its boost ability or up to 5300 certs to actually max out the boost recharge with Multi-directional. Kinda why I have the opinion that there are much fewer Magriders around in general, the cost to get it up to its combat potential is orders of magnitudes higher than the Vanguard/Prowler that anyone can put a single point into their abilities and still get a really good feel for how they work as well as have near peak performance available. Im thinking that not a lot of people will just dump more than 3-5k certs into something they dont even know if they will like to use on top of needing a 2nd person since the Magrider main gun is not exactly amazing on its own, basically a Lightning AP(So why not use a Lightning? -Lots of VS players). The point was more about how there already is a lot of people pulling vehicles from the 'next base' once one gets captured, that flood of vehicles would probably be like 3-4 times as large as well as never ending with free tanks available, it would be hard to gain any ground since if you kill one its just a dozen seconds or so away from coming back again. I doubt it would be nearly as easy as you make it out to get to the actual vehicle pad, only way to really do it is to already be there camping/sabotaging it before the base you are taking gets flipped and hope the zerg continues to be unable to pull vehicles from one base over and flooding you with tanks/C4 deliveries.
