[Suggestion] Basilisk

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Newlife1025, Jul 26, 2016.

  1. Newlife1025

    I have a love for the basilisk, i really do. I would love to pool more certs into making it stronger. Here me out here. I was wondering if there could be a new vehicle cousin of the basilisk. Maby a higher damage lower rof weapon. I wod love to us the NC weapons, but i find the mujer useless unless if at short range. And the otjer lne whos name i forget just feels weak. The ease and reliability of the basilisk is what brought me the idea of a stronger counter part (and its also one of the few weapons that can match gate keeper at range). In conclusio, im just implying to be able to unlock a higher damage basilisk, or pool certs into it to make it stronger. What do you guys think about it?
  2. JKomm

    I think alternatively, there should be faction specific versions of the basilisk, each having very similar DPS against the respective targets. NC's could be low rate of fire, higher damage, TR's could be high rate of fire, lower damage, and VS' could be... well, once again Vanu break all balance.
    • Up x 1
  3. Taemien

    Vulcan may suit your needs. More damage, more rate of fire.. shorter range.. but you can get around that.
  4. Sagabyte

    It's already been established that the NC version is a "shotgun basilisk", that fires multiple pellets dealing high damage to targets at close range, the TR version is a basilisk that gradually increases in firing rate over time, and the VS version shoots disco balls instead of bullets.
  5. JKomm

    This would be more-or-less for the vehicles without access to the empire specific secondaries such as the Vulcan or Gatekeeper. What I'm thinking is these should be much more in-line with the Basilisk but with current faction traits to really make them feel unique, but overall have relatively the same DPS as to not make one more powerful than the other.
  6. Newlife1025

    Nooooo. No more freaking shotguns. The reason like basilisk is due to the fact that its one lf the few weapoms that nc ha acess to that is great at range. In most situations, id rather be able to get them before they have a chance to get me. So no more shotguns.
  7. FateJH

    The C85 Canister actually has surprising effective range despite being classed as "short." Unlike the Basilisk, it doesn't damage medium or heavy arrmor though.
  8. Newlife1025

    Hate the spread of "shotgun" weapons. The effective range drops over time and thats what annoys me. My love for the basiliaks is that they are an all round weapon. ****guns would ruin the fun.
  9. ColonelChingles

    If only a tank shotgun worked as it did in real life...

    That's the 105mm. This would be the 120mm:

    Each one of those pellets is potentially lethal. These are effective to 500m, and can easily knock down a dismounted squad.

    Naturally of course instead we're given a puny little weapon that can only tickle someone at 40m.

    Ah, infantryside.
    • Up x 1
  10. KoRneY

    I think a good model for this could be drawn from the original planetside's medium assault weapons.

    Vanu Pulsar - Decent damage, decent clip, ability to switch between AP and AI
    Terran Cycler - Decent damage, better than decent clip, better ROF than VS
    NC Gauss Rifle - Better than decent damage, slightly less decent clip, slightly less ROF than VS
  11. Azawarau

    Great at range...........?
  12. LaughingDead

    Why can't we have this? NC would science the **** out of that. A tank shotgun? ******* market it you corporate genius
  13. Newlife1025

    Im nc
  14. Newlife1025

    You know planetside shotguns... if youre not running slugs, you gotta be able to breath on them to actually do substantial damage.
  15. Azawarau


    Great compared to shotguns

    That makes more sense
  16. Taemien

    You know what you must do.

  17. ColonelChingles

    We can't have this because tanks aren't allowed to be effective against infantry.

    In PS2, the 85mm Canister only has twelve pellets, with each doing pitiful damage. Back in WWII, even the 75mm T30 canister rounds were more lethal, with 400 steel balls, each one being deadly. It's amazing that by the 29th century we have not only managed to make tank weapons bigger, but have reduced their effectiveness by more than 97%. Maybe somehow they forgot to load the other 388 pellets?

    All our HE shells are actually just filled with defective Frag Grenades. Ones that came from bad batches off of the NS factory floor. This is why, despite being significantly larger than a Frag Grenade, our 120mm HE shells do half the damage at half the range.

    Heck, HE is so bad that a 120mm HE shell can land right next to you and you will not die. Instead you will be buffeted by a gentle, warm breeze. This is a significant downgrade from 21st century 120mm HE, which can just about kill most infantrymen in an area of a few hundred square metres.

    Our AI secondaries like the 12.7mm Kobalt and 20mm Basilisk manage to do less damage than a hand held revolver. A 12.7x99 cartridge or a 20x102 cartridge does about half the damage of a 11x32 cartridge. Most likely because instead of being made out of metals they're spun out of cotton candy.

    Heck, that puny revolver still does more damage than a 30mm Vulcan or a 40mm Skyguard shell.

    In fact, being hit by a revolver bullet is apparently as lethal as being right next to the explosion of a 75mm shell. Who knew that the weakness to infantry would not be explosive shells that weighed a 10th the size of a man, but a tiny bullet that weighed maybe 1/1,000th of a person?

    In this twisted world, an infantryman can survive a 40mm grenade or 85mm rocket to the chest. But a 12.7x75 bullet to the noggin? Nope, that somehow manages to kill them in a single hit!

    And the reason for this is... well, there is no good, logical reason for why tanks would be made so weak. Some have suggested it's because tanks are made to be disposable using nanites, but to the best of my recollection so are infantry.
  18. JKomm

    If this game was more focused on realism, the Basilisk would likely become the most devastating weapon in the game, also making the Sunderer the most dominant ground vehicle. I think they need way more damage overall, especially against aircraft(Which lets be honest need less resistance overall... there is no reason whatsoever that an ESF should be able to survive a single Prowler HEAT or AP round).

    A Basilisk however isn't really AI... it's more AE(Anti-Everything), due to it's decent damage, accuracy, and vertical arc, it can be used against any target. Just the other day I shot a Liberator out of the sky with one, it was stock but regardless a Basilisk did the job.

    But this is a game about balance, realism has a hard time finding solid footing in these games... if that were the case, Shotguns would be utterly devastating weapons capable of shredding infantry with a single shot, the pump actions would simply be overkill or used to take on MAX suits. And if realism took hold of Planetside 2, NC would be without a doubt the most dominant faction due to the power and benefit of Gauss technology... just imagine if we had a real Railgun, a weapon like that would tear apart an MBT in a single shot, maybe even several other vehicles behind it as well.
  19. ColonelChingles

    Not necessarily. For starters, the 20mm Basilisk is a Heavy Machinegun. In the 21st century it would be considered an autocannon, but due to advances in armour by the 29th century it is downgraded to a HMG.

    In general, HMGs are effective against lighter vehicles, but against armoured vehicles they do very little damage. At most they would just mess up peripherals, but would not be able to damage the vehicle itself. So against a MBT (and probably a Lightning) the Sunderer would do next to no damage, if any at all.

    The same is true of 40mm Furies and 60mm Bulldogs. There are probably not effective against MBTs (especially considering that they haven't been "upgraded" like the HMG).

    So by making the game more balanced and realistic, Sunderers would probably be pretty harmless against tanks. Sure against Harassers and Flashes they would be decent, but it would most likely change the ground vehicle balance for the better (no more battle Sunderers).

    Shotguns actually would be very weak weapons against armoured infantry. In today's terms, each pellet does fairly little damage to a reasonably armoured opponent. More pellets would not significantly improve armour penetration. You only need fairly low-level body armour to protect against buckshot, and only slightly better to defend against slugs.

    On the same token, most sidearms would also be less effective against body armour. This is why some militaries do not issue a pistol to everyone, due to the lack of utility versus weight. It's more of a "last ditch, better than fists" weapon than anything else.

    Maybe... it's difficult to say whether railguns will hold up to the hype. Currently they seem to be quite the mixed bag, more successful than conventional guns in some areas but failing in others.
  20. JKomm

    All fair points, though that more has to do with resistance values the game offers... Shotguns would still be devastating, but maybe less-so against a Heavy Assault or MAX suit due to their higher armour values... however this isn't present in PS2, we simply have health, a light assault and heavy assault are on equal grounds, engineers and medics are too... only one with less is the infiltrator. If we were to look at the composite armour available to each class, the way health would be valued to classes, from least to most would be infiltrator, light assault/medic, engineer, and heavy assault. Infiltrator with 900HP, Light Assault/Medic with 1000HP, Engineer with 1100HP, and Heavy Assault with around 1400HP. But were this the case this would also impact movement speed as well as a great many things.

    Planetside 2 just isn't well balanced with realism in mind, and it never will be.