[Suggestion] Begin Working on ANT Modules for Sunderers

Well I got to the end of page 4, I didn't understand where the hell Axehilt was coming from, perhaps he should go play COD, somce according to him, that's the deepest game ever.

MEANWHILE BACK IN REALITY....

ANT's in PS1 rarely, if ever went by ground. They were resticted to 40kph and required air lifting by a galaxy to actually get anywhere.

I loved flying a Gal, so I was always first to volunteer to go back to meet up with an ANT driver someone from command chat had /tell'd me was filling at X warpgate, was Y full and needed airlifting.

Hurray! Teamwork + organisation + hierarchical command = depth!

WG's wern't always at the edge of the map though and Geo Warps also allowed filling so there were more 'filling stations' than there are currently.

I'd want the ANT to be a new vehicle OR, it could be a varient of the harasser. The main thing is, it MUST be able to be airlifted by a Galaxy.

If they wanted, a sunderer could have an ANT addon that could fill a silo to 200% but could not be airlifted. A harasser varient could be airlifted bu could only fill 100% or 70% of a silo.


Axe, there are many times i've seen new players and older players drive ANT's around topping off bases just for the XP they brought in.

I'd actually like to see this role added to the Galaxy. The ability to drop a crate (that takes just the pilot to assemble and eject when he wants) but they require charging at a warp gate. [Number, limits and IFF to be debated]

These would repower Sunderers with the repair and rearm addons or directly rearm and repair vehicles and troops via proximity.

Command SHOULD be able to request drops here or there via the mission system that you would opt into.

So when you log in you auto opt-in to a list of roles you like. Your fighting away and get a mission 'braudcast' from command saying we need this, here. Do you accept? Y/N.

All these solid ideas for adding some depth to the game. Are they seriously ignored? There are some seriously functional ways to increase the life of the game tremendously.. Supply drops? That would be brilliant too!

Good ideas either getting ignored or taking years to implement? Sounds like Planetside 2 to me.

No.

95% refuse to do boring bot work, but they are negatively effected by something only 5% enjoy.

Well the more the game simulates real life, the better it is. Unless of course you think rocket jumping, no bullet drop, and a flight model a Commodore64 game of combat would be proud of is a good thing.

I was in that fights and with so few maxes/explosives I find it very unlikely that someone could deplete his resources. Also, mbt is like 2 minutes resource worth from lightning. i.e. too stretched explanation for all these lightnings around.

Thats not what you said before.

So what? Development was requested by USA army, so they have such needs, concept of light tank is alive. Money problems are different issue. There are also toys like M1128, which are essentially light tanks, even if they have different classification now.

It was you, who mentioned valk as valid transport in previous post.

Unlike you I provided valid reasons. I can even repeat, specially for people with reading issues. SOE tries to avoid non-reusable design, so to have more reasons for designing new vehicle for ANT, they could add more possible ways to use it. For now we have gap between harasser and sundy, so its only natural to use new armored truck for that. Coincidentally, same characteristics fit for ANT and deliverer: lightly armored (more that harasser), reasonably fast (ANT is usually needed urgently), pretty manoeuvrable and capable at any terrain (using only roads is boring and impractical).

How exactly it doesnt mesh well? And who are "we"? I see only you here, defending pure as fresh snow ANT role, untainted with rough armed guys.

More than likely, then, they took the lightning cuz all they wanted was a taxi with a gun on it and the lightning's cheaper which means extra grenades and stuff at the next fight. If people genuinely like lightnings they're gonna buy stuff for their lightning. They're gonna buy a decent gun, maybe slap some camo on it. Yet almost every lightning I see is completely stock with absolutely zero changes. That's not the mark of someone who likes lightnings and uses them regularly, that's someone who just wants a taxi to the next fight.

Except my point is that the Lightning is a redundant vehicle with no unique roles beyond the skyguard turret. People liking it or not doesn't change the fact that it serves no real purpose.

Th military requests and funds all sorts of things, and most of them never see the light of day because they're pointless. The fact that the military doesn't have even a single stingray in it's arsenal goes to show that the idea of having light tanks is pointless. Whatever role a light tank performed in WW2 is now done by IFVs or other vehicles. There is no place for a light tank in today's warfare, and thus light tanks aren't used.

Not in it's current state, though. In it's current state it serves no distinct or unique purpose and is just a weaker hybrid of the other planes, unable to perform any role as good as the other aircraft. If the devs add stuff to it and flesh out a unique niche for it, then yeah it'd be valid. But if they just ship it to live as is, it'll serve no real purpose.

It's not like anyone here is asking that the ANT be just an ANT and nothing else. We're simply saying it should be logistics oriented, not combat oriented. You're asking for a combat vehicle, we're asking for a logistics vehicle, the two are mutually exclusive, otherwise you get things like the sunderer that can be a battle bus, spawn point, and repair station all at the same time. The whole point of making the ANT a new vehicle is to avoid the clash of roles. It's fine to have multiple functions on one vehicle, but only as long as those functions are in the same general category, I.E. logistics. If you then took the ANT and slapped seats on it, well that's yet another redundant and pointless feature. Moving troops around in this game isn't hard, from redeploying to galaxies to sunderers to harassers to ESF taxis etc etc etc. Troop transport simply isn't necessary in PS2, bases are like 300 meters away at most, you can RUN that distance in a minute or two. Having an unarmed, lightly armored truck that hauls half a squad is completely and 100% pointless and a waste of time as it serves no unique function to the game.

I simply don't condone content that offers literally nothing to the game, as it's a waste of developer resources. I'd much rather see them work on things that actually add new gameplay elements than pointless additions that will never even really get used.

Well if ALL you want is some passenger seats and nothing else, no guns, then they don't really clash. If you try to add guns you'll see more than just me fighting you on this. But then I go back to my previous paragraph in which I point out that it is a completely and 100% worthless feature that adds literally nothing to the game. On that alone I'm against it. A small transport is fine but JUST a small transport is useless, in needs to have something new beyond just being a half-sized sunderer.

Errr... so long as we're shooting for the moon (because let's face it, in the end SOE is probably just going to add in a new Sunderer utility while still allowing it to be an AMS), why not have both? Throw in a new ANT vehicle as well as a new medium-transport?

They already do have concept art for faction-specific "medium" transports. The NC pretty much get a Hummer. Mount a Kobalt or a Halberd to the top and you're golden:



Although the "troop transport capabilities on an MBT" comment did make me chuckle and think of Israel's Merkava tanks which are exactly that. An MBT that can also carry 6 fully equipped riflemen with their own door in the back:



Then again the Merkava also has its own 60mm mortar in addition to the primary cannon, so it's just one heck of a weird tank.

Really that guy just wants the faction specific buggies from PS1. I heard that SOE intended to add them. So assuming SOE doesn't take the lazy route we would get both.

Also, the concept art for the prowler had the same thing as the merkava, it could transport a few guys who'd exit out the back.

The heavy use of the Viper actually has more to do with the weird treatment that the Viper has been getting rather than people not certing out their Lightnings. In the December PU02 patch the Devs buffed the Viper to be more effective against infantry and vehicles. Before it was decently effective against infantry, but could be handily beat by a HEAT Lightning. So it was relatively rare. After the December buff though it became much more popular... to the point where Lightning tankers were ditching their HEAT cannons to use Vipers instead. Since it wasn't as bad against enemy armor anymore while still performing great against enemy infantry, there was much more incentive to use it.

In fact it got so well-used that in the April patch they nerfed the Viper again, though not as far back as to where it started. They also nerfed a lot of things about vehicles, so it was pretty much a wash.

For the NC, a Viper Lightning is actually the best armor solution for engaging enemy infantry, particularly when you have range and elevation on your side. Both Lightning and Vanguard HE simply don't do the job as well, which is why many NC (and TR and VS too) Lightning tankers go with the Viper.

Also camo is (mostly) no longer vehicle or infantry specific... if they don't have camo on their Lightning then chances are that they don't have camo on anything, so it's hardly an indicator of what they specialized in. I suppose we all got those garish tutorial camos... but some people might just think that the stock Lightning's paint job is preferable.

While the category of "light tanks" is generally not used today (though we were using the M55 Sheridan in combat up until 1990-1991), there still are vehicles that fit the characteristics of that category. If you simple define a "light tank" as:
1) An armored fighting vehicle
2) That has a turreted cannon
3) That is tracked

Then yes, militaries are still using such vehicles today. Just that they've largely been folded into IFVs, but a number of them are modified IFV chassis that don't have much transport capability at all. And there are still some major military powers that operate Light Tanks (normally for airborne, amphibious, or reconnaissance operations).

For instance, the ZTD-05 is essentially the Lightning, with a 105mm cannon and no troop capacity (only a crew of 4):


Another one is the 2S25 Sprut, a Russian current-gen Light Tank with a beefy 125mm cannon:


The French AMX-10RC, though wheeled and not tracked, is otherwise a "Light Tank" because it lacks any troop transport capabilities and simply relies on its 105mm cannon:


Although no longer in active service, the British Scorpion had up to a 90mm cannon and also could not carry infantry. It was discontinued in 1990, though several smaller countries still use it in active service:


Finally, back at home we have the M1128 Stryker, which while not tracked is very similar to a Light Tank design. 105mm cannon with no infantry carry capacity, it has one job in life, to shoot things:


So really out of the 5 major powers in the world, 4 of them currently operate Light Tanks or equivalent vehicles that aren't simply troop transports (the UK has opted for ATGMs instead of cannon). The idea of Light Tanks still remains moderately attractive due to their less expensive cost, capable armaments, greater speed, and lighter weight.

Yea... I remember that one...



It even has SOE copyright marks on it... so there's a chance it was an official concept piece at some point. Though one reason it might have been changed was that it looked too Vanguardy.



Good to see that the Vanguard survived mostly intact. But yea, from a distance they'd both look like "normal" tanks.

So basically what you're telling me is that the Lightning isn't redundant and does serve a unique role... because they nerfed the MBTs into the ground. Well I can't condone that method. If the only reason the Lightning is useful is because SOE rendered MBT HE cannons useless, then that's not the Lightning that's useful, it's the MBTs that're useless. Back in beta/early launch my vanguard did just fine against infantry, better than a lightning could ever hope to do. Just cuz it's been nerfed into the ground over the past two years doesn't really change anything about the lightning. They could just as easily buff back the anti-infantry capabilities of the vanguard and suddenly the vanguard is the better choice for both AI and AT than the lightning.

Y'know, the thing with the examples you provided is that they're all either IFVs (like the stryker) or are amphibious vehicles. Those are literally the only roles any of those vehicles provide. Basically, the staple of a light tank in WW2 was it's speed and mobility, whereas modern "light tanks" are all about supporting infantry or getting across terrain MBTs can't (aka water). Really the roles performed by light tanks in WW2 aren't shared with the examples you provided. So really light tanks don't exist anymore, they're all basically IFVs. Keep in mind an IFV doesn't HAVE to carry troops, the stryker is designed to fight alongside infantry and give them fire support and isn't intended to engage actual tanks. It's an Infantry Fighting Vehicle even though it can't carry troops.

So really my statement stands, IFVs exist, light tanks really don't. In fact, literally the only vehicle on your list classed as a light tank was the russian one. Every other one was classed as an IFV, or something along those lines.

No, I'm pretty sure that part of the requirement of an IFV is that it can carry troops internally. That's the entire point to mechanized infantry versus armor.

Generally an APC is an armored troop transport with armaments of less than 20mm, while an IFV is an armored troop transport with armaments of 20mm or more. If it cannot carry troops internally, then it is no longer an APC or an IFV.

Take for example the M113 APC. It can be modified into the M901 TOW missile carrier. And if you kicked out the passengers to make room for the missiles, it can no longer be considered an APC (instead it's just an AFV).

In the same way if you took an IFV chassis and replaced the troop compartment with munitions and other systems, it would no longer be proper to call it an IFV. They are now AFVs. You don't use them in the same way as you do IFVs, instead they have a significantly different role (namely that they would not be supporting the infantry that they're carrying, largely because they weren't carrying any).

The ZTD-05 is capable of engaging MBTs with a barrel-launched ATGMs, and the 105mm cannon by itself isn't something to laugh at. The Sprut's 125mm cannon of course is equal to that of modern MBTs. The AMX-10RC's 105mm cannon isn't just there for looks, and is rated to penetrate the armor of any MBT in existence today. And the Stryker's 105mm cannon was the same one originally used by the M1 MBT... perhaps not up to snuff for an MBT but plenty fine for a Light Tank. Only the Scorpion is outclassed and unlikely to damage/destroy MBTs... but it's been out of use for over two decades now.

Generally the only difference between MBT cannons and the Light Tank cannons listed above is lethality at range; the smaller bore cannons stop being as useful past 2,000-3,000m, whereas MBTs can effectively engage other MBTs at further ranges. But if that enemy MBT is within 2,000m? Then these Light Tanks still have a good shot at knocking through front armor.

And besides, if all it took for an AFV to become an IFV was to fight alongside infantry but not carry them, then MBTs would be IFVs:

source of those numbers would be your *** and not the SOE database archive i'm guessing? one of the oldest chars in EVE online is a miner doing boring bot-work. people play minecraft. people do this because they like it.
if i shoot you in the head can you get back up without a medic revive forcing, FORCING you to spawn elsewhere? how much did you enjoy it? as convenient for you as it was for me? as much as shooting your enemy in the head and FORCING him to respawn! of course not. why do you even put up with it then?
find me one person who 'enjoys' dying, no one does.......... so remove dying yes?

nothing against rocket jumping in general, used to love it in unreal but don't think it's for PS, if i'm not using bullets then no, no bullet drop, flight model is bad but at the same time what do you REALISTICALLY expect from a game trying to give you ALL the data from everyone around you(i can't think of another game throwing as much 'real time' data about just based on how many are in the battle nearby at any given time, adding more data to what the game is already struggling with won't help connection issues at all and i'm sure you'd be one of the first to complain about it)

a game only has to be realistic within itself, not real life to make it good. instantly being rebuilt with nanites isn't realistic. jumping out your aircraft, rocketing the guy chasing you then re-enetering aircraft isn't realistic(battlefield), neither is firing magic about(WoW). but you suspend your disbelief for that world as long as its consistent within that world.

1. numbers because they make you sound more knowledgeable than you are. you claimed to be the only one, you lied.
2. can't, texture issue and the fix i used to stop my char running faster than a mosi doesn't seem to work anymore.
3. only you and tuco seem to care

Yeah the thread is looking good, lets keep it up until next week.

1. Yes, I exaggerated. You got me. But unfortunately for you, it's irrelevant. What matters is that most of the time I was forced to either pull an ANT (shallow gameplay) or watch the base run out of nanites (auto-lose), which is clearly a bad mechanic.
2. Well (a) that's your problem, and (b) it still doesn't mean we should implement a mechanic known to be faulty, in a game which doesn't currently force shallow gameplay.
3. If you think nobody cares about something just because they're not chiming in on a random thread buried in the internet, you don't understand how the internet works. (Not to mention the fact that there are at least 4 players who are against shallow PS1 style ANTs in this thread. Some are rather heavily in support of it, as I thought there was a bug with forum notifs when I logged in to 41+ notifications. Turned out a couple people had run through and liked most of my posts I'd made in the thread up til that point.)

Oh hey everyone that use to play PS1, I forgot you LOOOOOVE doing ANT runs, that's why you never did them.

And everyone hated it, so they downloaded illegal scripts to automate it and got banned.

You seriously going to argue against simulator progress?

This whole 'shallow and mandatory' thing seems to rely on two arguments:
- ANT runs don't involve interactions with other players
- ANT runs need doing everywhere

I'm pretty sure the resource system is going to use the lattice so ANT runs are only going to be required where
- a base is cut off from the lattice, which is rare and so the second point above is false, or
- a base is spawning a lot of stuff so the lattice can't resupply it fast enough, in which case it's in a large battle or at least on the edge of one and resupply runs will dodge the enemy

It's no more true of ANT runs than it is of gal drops today. And lots of people like galaxy piloting.

That is true however 'deep' or otherwise the actual driving of the vehicle is. You don't ***** about how boring tank or harasser driving is, do you?

Driving Harassers, Tanks, and Galaxies are all fairly deep because of the near-constant interaction with enemy players. Player skill makes a huge difference in the effectiveness of these vehicles. (And that difference is essentially the measure of a game's depth.) That wasn't the case with ANTs, largely due to the lack of player interaction.

Maybe the simplest of gal-drop flyovers is shallow, but that's not the extent of a galaxy's capabilities and there are far more skillful (and effective) ways to use a galaxy.

Whereas with ANTs? Nope, it's just driving. No depth, just go on your lonely journey into the wilderness.