[Suggestion] Cortium as a resource to build vehicles

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by BengalTiger, Apr 27, 2016.

  1. BengalTiger

    [IMG]

    In other words, I'd like to mine cortium and end up with this:

    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    Of course there should be a super-Magrider, super-Prowler, super-Reaver, Scythe, Mosquito .... .... .... so everyone could pick their favorite and enjoy something special.

    These vehicles could be 1.5 times as durable/fast/powerful* as a standard, nanite built one. The requirement of mining and bringing the cortium back to a tech plant or warpgate would ensure these are very few and far in between.

    Who would like this?

    * - (depending on what vehicle we're talking about - pick two)
  2. JohnGalt36

    >Mines Cortium for 20 minutes to build tank
    >Drives tank 20 minutes to fight
    >Dies instantly to C4 fairy
    >rages
    >quits
    >uninstalls
    • Up x 3
  3. BengalTiger

    What if it would take 2 C4 fairies?

    It would be chance to a million that they'd work together.
  4. EPIC389

    People hate feeling disadvantaged in fights. So these supertanks would be imo poorly received by the community. Lightnings dont generally count as they can still pick MBTs and they can outplay them.

    But this wouldn't be the best idea in the world
  5. BengalTiger

    Well, staying in a bunker (BTW - did anyone try to put turrets on top of bunkers and make complex bases yet?) that's spontaneously deployed on the high ground, with a repair module and shield umbrella also makes one pretty much OP compared to the poor sobs that have to reach and destroy such a fort.

    These super tanks, planes, MAX's perhaps can be limited to slow firing guns with little to no splash - open field warriors that would counter tanks, planes and fortifications.

    We'll be stuck in WW I trench warfare within days when people figure out how to entrench everything.
  6. JohnGalt36

    You don't play on Connery, do you?
    • Up x 1
  7. Pelojian

    when i tested on PTS you couldn't stack structures on top of or inside each other. i think bunkers should have some hardpoints outside where you can place turrets that while a different model and mounted on a bunker are the same height from the ground as standard turrets without clipping into the bunker.

    the advantages would be wider possible spots to place them but a weakness could be if the bunker is destoryed the turrets mounted on top are as well since they are attached.
  8. OldMaster80

    Is this a buff tanks thread in disguise? :D

    Honestly I feel the construction system should have an important role in the nanites flow. Devs could invent something more interesting than the 750 nanites pool regenerating at a fixed rate.

    Something making resources matter, turning nanites supplies in a real tactical factor. Something that cannot be abused by overpopulated factions but gives smart teams a way to put the enemy at disadvantage.

    Surely to an easy feature to design but imho it's worth thinking about it.
  9. Demigan

    >C4 fairy laughs at stupidity of super tank driver who despite all that effort into their tank is still not situationally aware.
    >Hopes that any people who really are so stupid finally learn from their mistakes instead of quitting.

    As for the OP's suggestion, It's good. I suggested the same with the Galaxy Gunship and Colossus
    [IMG]

    [IMG]

    Although the Galaxy Gunship would need to cost at least 25000 cortium or something to be balanced out. The possibility of linking them to the Silo that build them, and having them cost cortium to keep going, are all ways to balance it. These ultra vehicles would constantly be visible on the radar, and if connected to a Silo that Silo will also be visible on the radar.

    The Colossus tank would need less balancing. With just a ton of health, 4 secondary canons and a main canon it could easily be balanced through slow speed, it's massive size making it easy to hit and a limited fire strength. In fact, you could make the main purpose of both vehicles be anti-fortress rather than anti-Zerg.
  10. stalkish

    I tried, coudnt seem to put anything on top of a bunker, the roof must not count as 'ground' for the markers, says too high.

    EDIT: my bad, some1 already answered..
  11. stalkish

    I think also a way of connecting walls with other walls or bunkers, its hard to get them close enough to block infantry. Perhaps thats the point..
    • Up x 1
  12. FateJH

    I honestly think that at some point you either need to change the lesson that you're trying to teach or change the experience that should lead to the lesson. You can't keep throwing a pitch that clearly isn't working or convincing half as often as you think it should and still say that "It's working."
  13. Demigan

    I saw a base on uneven terrain between Quartz Ridge and Indar Excavation, it had perfectly interlocking walls and between the corners they placed a Turret. Considering the Turret has practically the same health as the wall it might not matter much so it would be a perfect way to plug holes between wall segments.
  14. Demigan

    It's the only thing I can teach.
    But isn't it unfair that I have to change the lesson even though I've given the way forwards on a silver platter? I've told the lesson a hundred different ways, but no matter how I tell the lesson, 1+1 still equals 2. And that's the part where the lesson falls apart. No matter how many different ways I tell these guys that 1+1 equals 2, they refuse to accept it or try it out for themselves. At best using some confirmation bias to say "see, see!? it equals 4!"

    I have given alternatives. Give infantry the weapons and tools to properly deal with tanks, rather than making the force multiplication of a tank so powerful compared to the weapons infantry have available that the only option is to build walls around bases to protect the infantry. In turn, vehicles can get additional weapons to deal with infantry and aircraft, such as co-axial canons and/or a second top-mounted turret with an independant elevation range. But when I suggest that... They don't really react at all or they focus on "but infantry weapons are already viable, just look at the only weapon thrown by one class that can work *plugs ears and starts humming so he won't hear about all the other infantry weapons and how it's unbalanced*"
  15. Haquim

    General Patton is right and wrong at the same time.

    Fixed fortifications can of course stall the enemy.
    But either the enemy can simply go around and ignore it, making it useless - or the enemy stages a well-prepared attack and obliterates it with artillery.
    Also they still need supplies, which you can cut off....
    So yeah, hes right.
    Fortifying any position against more than a surprise attack is wasted effort. Its far easier to keep a mobile force going to intercept the atttack or hit them in the rear.

    He is wrong because Planetside 2 doesn't have artillery, the target is right in the base itself (so no going around it) and both the duration of the fights and the length of the supply lines are too short to make cutting the cutting off the supply an easy solution.
    Or maybe I should have said the quote is not applicable.

    Things like these are what I dreamt of the moment I heard they wanted to create a construction system.
    Superunits that require team effort to create and operate? Propably giving the enemy a global warning like the Hives? Yes please!
    The TR are building their OVERLORD gatling tank at howling pass - you got 5 minutes before the construction finishes, so work for your money!
    The VS are constructing an experimental unit NGV-S25 at Ceres. I have no ******* idea what it is or does, but I'm sure we're not gonna like it, so get going and take it down soldier!
    The NC are constructing a SHOTGUARD at Quartz Ridge. It shoots 11 150mm Titan AP rounds with one shot, so don't let the stupid name fool you. Now get ready and destroy it for Vanu!


    What we have is a nice first step, but its not even close to what we could do with it.
    Only talking about theoretical stuff for UNITS now, I'll annoy the forums with my building ideas after the system has settled in for a while.....

    At the most basic level we could simply take the basic vehicles we have right now and allow to add additional levels to any upgrade that you can buy with cortium. Which admittedly could lead to rather hilarious encounters on the battlefield.
    Imagine an reload speed 10, anchor 10 Prowler shooting at an reinforced armor 2 (armors have only 1 level normally afaik) shield 10 Vanguard.
    Well one should put a little more thought into that than this, but I suppose you know what I'm getting at.
    Everyone knows that certain upgrades get more powerful the higher the level (if somebody doesn't, I'll prove it with MATH) so having to spend a big amount of cortium on another load speed reduction seems like something that could work.
    We should find something for infantery to benefit from too though.... an improved shieldgenerator/armor(=hp) for example? Or going in the same direction, nanoweave level 6+?
    Of course it would ... well unbalance fights a bit if an outift spends 30 minutes to mine cortium and later galdrops a squad of maximum upgraded elite infantery players on unsuspecting "standard" players. Like letting a squad of terminators loose on a couple unsuspecting american cops in comparison.
    But then again, effort should be rewarded, right?....
    It would also give a real reason to keep them alive and give those guys transportation after theyre finished instead of redeploying.

    The possibilities are endless, finding out what does or doesn't make sense will be the hard part...
  16. FateJH

    Not at all. The goal of a teacher is to impart knowledge and get the student to understand. If one method of impart knowledge doesn't lead to further understanding from the audience, begin invoking method B.
    I can tell you for certain that the phrase "situation awareness" has, over these two years, garnered all the context of the word "fascist" in political discourse, even for me. You know what the word means but that doesn't guarantee it will be used correctly or understood precisely in application. You'll have it thrown around wherever because it generates the emotive nature that you want to impart or imbue. It's like the air. You and someone else can't deny it being somewhere around you but you can think it carries a particular odor while the other person might not smell the exact same thing.
    That's not the way I am suggesting to change the lesson plan. The thing is the first "one" and the second "one" are representative of things you understand so, even if your audience knows what the "two" is, he doesn't understand either of the "ones" the same way that you do. 1.5 + 0.5 also equals 2, however. What I am saying is that you need to find a 1.5 and a 0.5 that your audience understands that will get them to the same "two" ...
    ... but you can't do it in such a way that makes the audience feel you are being dismissive. I believe that, what you describe, may be because, from their perspective, it looks like you're deflecting from the issue that they have presented, or trying to make it far more complicated than it needs to be made while in search of a something that can be accepted as a solution.
    (Whether that point is valid or not is indeterminate, based entirely on how the prior exchange occurs, so it will differ from person to person. For example, discussing vehicle balance with you as opposed to someone like Reclaimer: you could both be saying the exact same thing but the conversation would be immensely different.)
    • Up x 1
  17. JohnGalt36

    If you think C4'ing tanks is difficult, you must be terrible at using C4. I guarantee that if I want to C4 a tank, it will get C4'd, no matter how situationally aware they are. There's only so much you can pay attention to. All you have to do is drop out of a valk when they're engaging anything else.

    Child's play.
    • Up x 1