[Vehicle] Lightning Secondary Weapons

You mean this?



That wouldn't be bad. It's beefier than a LMG and more akin to what ESFs get. Imagine a Skyguard with a Walker secondary!

A bit changed up...



The Bengal HE/Thermobaric rocket pods. Slightly enlarged over the previous version (because who doesn't like more oomph to their missiles?), these 55mm rockets are sure bring a smile to anyone who's a fan of explosions.

Individually, each rocket is slightly smaller and thus less damaging and less boomy than what an ESF can carry. However, the Lightning can mount more rockets, able to fire off a salvo of 20 before it has to reload both pods.

On the other hand, each pod may be fired and reloaded independently. 10 rockets will fire from one pod first, and then 10 from the other. After a single pod is depleted, it will automatically begin to reload. This means that the Lightning sacrifices killing power for suppressive power compared to the ESF. So long as the operator is judicious, the Lightning can maintain a fairly constant barrage of rockets.

Accuracy, like with the ESF equivalents, is not great, so this weapon is meant for a close-medium range role (unless area suppression is the goal). Lightnings should still have to rely on their HE Python cannon for longer-ranged, more accurate anti-infantry work.

When paired with the 75mm Viper cannon (and a nearby source of ammunition), the explosions around the Bengal-outfitted Lightning might truly never stop!

Also kinda looks like an elephant with the HE cannon and all.

Dayum check out that volumetric light effect.

If only the lighing engine in PlanetSide Classic were anything worth writing home about.

This one's been changed a bit too:



Opting now for a single, larger missile instead of the original two. Field testing suggested that the second missile was much less useful, because the Lightning would have to stay still for much longer in the face of return fire. A more damaging single missile meant that the element of surprise could be better used.

The 125mm tandem HEAT warhead has a small explosive radius (about equivalent to a 60mm Bulldog), though of course the primary role is for engaging enemy armour. It does hit significantly harder than the Lightning's 100mm AP cannon, however the long flight time as well as long period of reloading means that the overall DPS is not as impressive. Still great for delivering a devastating opening argument!

There is a certain minimum range because the missile initially fires upwards and then drops down (not unlike the Hornet). At longer ranges, it simply flies towards the crosshairs. The Lightning operator may switch back to the primary cannon and the Mantisfly ATGM will continue to track the crosshairs.

A new one...



The "funny hat" ATGM, the Mischief. Operates along traditional AV MANA turret/Hornet controls. The only real twist is that instead of firing a single, high-damaging missile, the Mischief fires four smaller missiles at once. As these missiles travel through the air towards the target, there is a slight but constant spread (say 1m) as the missiles weave back and forth. This creates a shotgun-like effect, where hit probability is increased. More effective against larger targets, though it's possible that the submunitions might slip by infantry.

Based off of the British Starstreak design, which also uses submunitions to increase hit probability.



The launcher layout itself is from the American Bradley IFVs, which famously had ATGMs slammed on as an afterthought through the incompetence of design:



The name, "Mischief", comes from the term for a group of mice (ie "a mischief of mice"). This is because the submunitions resemble a group of little mice scampering off to the target.

I think you all are underestimating the power of the Kobalt when you suggest it should be a standard coaxial secondary.

There's a reason it shares the same slot as a Canister, Marauder, and PPA. As well as Halberds, Walkers, and Furies. Its a devastating weapon on its own. Basically a recoiless Gauss SAW. And unlike the Gauss SAW it can get thermals.. the good kinda. I'd imagine you'd want optics on these Coax's right?

With that said, I'm against Coax weapons on MBTs and Lightnings because of the balance issues it would cause in the current setup. With Coax Kobalts.. what is the point of HE or HEAT? Yes I understand that HE and HEAT are useless right now, but assume for the moment and the sake of argument that HE and HEAT had changes to make them ideal for their intended roles (as I do see changes coming to them eventually that will push them in this direction, as they eventually will want sales on these weapons in the PS4).

In fact with a Coaxial AI weapon, why would you need a secondary gunner at all? Much less an AI weapon up there. I mean if you are expecting HEAVY infantry you can go with one. But if its mixed (as most open field battles are) why not go AP/AV and let the Coax pick off anything else?

I mean I'm thinking that's the reason you all want it. And you all aren't being honest about that. Get the full intentions out there. The reason you all are suggesting this is to boost the AI capability of the tanks. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that opinion, but don't hide that fact. If you're hiding that agenda, then there can't really be an honest debate.

With that out of the way. Why would there be a need for HE and HEAT rounds when you've got the AI capability covered? That's one of my biggest complaints about the suggestion of coaxial weapons on the tanks. You sort of generalize the tank by doing it. Right now a driver has to make a decision. Does he he want an AI focused tank with an HE main cannon and a AI secondary. Does he want a AV focused one with AP cannon and AV secondary. Or perhaps a generalized tank with HEAT cannon and Basilisk secondary. Or anything inbetween.

With a Coax AI weapon, every tank will have an AI component without the need to sacrifice something else. And that is the biggest issue with the idea as it stands now. If that is the point, to make every tank have AI capability, and without quoting RL or previous games, make that point instead. This isn't RL, this isn't PS1. This is PS2. In PS2 you typically sacrifice something somewhere to make gains elsewhere. Why should this change for the tanks? That's the argument that must be made.

I don't exactly have an opinion either way. I think things are fine now, and changes to tank gameplay are needed outside the design of the tanks themselves and more to the environments they are involved with. But I'll entertain the idea.

But I'm not going to agree with a suggestion for the sake of getting more kills and increasing cert pools. Tanks are good enough at that. I want to know how this will help with Base Captures and Winning Alerts.

I'm not a fan of Kobalt coaxials either (because I want rocket/ATGM/SAM secondaries), but a few points to make here.

1) Plenty of other things in the game allow a single person to have a variety of capabilities. Heavy Assaults, for example, carry an AI LMG and an AV rocket launcher. ESFs can carry a number of different nose guns paired with a wide variety of wing-mounted weapons. And MAXes can mix and match their arms to deal with a number of different situations. Heck, most infantry classes except the Infiltrator can carry weapons that can OHK tanks while toting around excellent AI weapons. In that sense, allowing a tank to be effective against two different types of targets is no different.

2) HE/HEAT are terrible and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Until those problems are fixed, there's little point to discussing balance in an imaginary world where HE/HEAT are effective. Give tanks secondary weapons first, then if HE/HEAT are ever buffed we can discuss nerfing secondary options.

3) Tanks should have had coaxial weapons in the first place. The Vanguard model is good evidence of that, with two cutouts for a pair of 20mm coaxial Basilisks. So we're not actually adding anything new to tanks... we are simply giving tanks back something that was missing in the first place. From that sense tanks should not be expected to sacrifice something else for something that was originally taken away from them. That would be as if I took C4 away from Light Assaults, gave it back, and then took away their carbines under the pretext that they should give something up because I'm "giving" them something.

4) Coaxial weapons, if done poorly, might result in cases where everyone is running around with AP and coaxial Kobalts. But my suggestions instead have secondary coaxial weapons in each category of AI, AV, and AA. This means that an AP tank with an AI coaxial would still be at a disadvantage against an AP tank with an AV coaxial, and still not be as effective against infantry as an HE tank with an AI coaxial. This creates a situation where tankers can differentiate their tanks even further, either becoming a generalist or heavily specializing in one department. That's not too different from what we have now, just simply more degrees of customization.

I'm having a hard time following your chronological shorthand of tank design history as it pertains to PlanetSide 2. Did our tanks ever actually have the coaxial weapons "to be returned" or did turrets never have anything more than the stylistic cut-outs for a potential coaxial that was never followed-up on? (Yeah, we have a model too; but, that's not the same as having an actual working weapon.)

I always think of something on the 125-damage tier and on the lower-end of DPS among that tier when I think of coax MGs, with decreased/eliminated CoF to compensate for the low damage. Of course having a full Kobalt is overkill and nullifies the biggest reason to have a Kobalt on MBTs, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

Considering tank gun balance at their current state is pointless. AP already reigns supreme by a long distance with or without coax, HEAT and HE are non-factors unless they're somehow buffed back into usefulness, which I seriously doubt would happen in the foreseeable future. Instead of being bogged down by "BUT YOU'RE MAKING THE USELESS WEAPONS EVEN MORE USELESS", I prefer only considering the things that currently work and what they need.

AP+Coax is, frankly speaking, the least problematic way to give tanks their long-overdue buff. AP is borderline non-explosive, coax MG is definitely non-explosive, there goes the common Infantryside complaint of tanks lobbing explosive shells after explosive shells to spawncamp them.

By making AP+Coax the standard "working" build, sure, some borderline-pointless illusion of choice is eliminated, but at the end tanks are more effective, more capable of defending themselves and their kills would take more skill than "Click LMB until something dies from splash damage", which is boring to both the tanker and the victim.

I am all in favor of new options and potential toys. So yes.

This is actually a good idea, lightnings are waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too "specialised".

In ps1 even the skyguard had a coaxial machine gun.

On a side note, you can make supportive secondaries like a laser cannon that automatically destroys rockets (both dumb fire and lock on) that are in a 100m radius, protecting yourself and nearby friendlies from infantry rocket launchers. I do think that infrant rocket launchers are a bit over the top

A balance for it would that every time the turret is shot, not the tank, it stops working for 10 seconds.

Model it like the USAF airborne laser.

I wonder WHY there isn't a secondary weapon on a lightning. Have any of the devs ever stated or hinted at their reasoning behind it? I'm not for or against anything in here -- I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind this decision.

Mostly, I think the argument that "Lightnings are entirely too specialized per spawn" is entirely true.

Keep the dream alive!

I don't see why 2 weapons could be a bad idea as only 1 can be used at once.

Hey colonelChucles how do you do these 3d renderings anyway? I want to make some for myself.

The question is if we got secondaries, would we have the ability to reload one weapon while swapped to the other? HEAT/HE and a kobalt secondary have their uses. HEAT/HE can let you do indirect damage and suppress/kill annoying peek-a-boo AV(tower bases are a good example) and instantly kill a peek-a-boo shooter with one direct hit(useful when they are attacking from a point where there is not elevated terrain or walls to hit to get them hit with splash).

kobalt allows you to suppress an area with direct fire keeping the enemy pinned or at least slow down the rate of their attacks against you and would work well against exposed infantry away from cover regardless if you can't aim well with AP vs infantry and it would allow further interdependency between friendly MBTS.

kobalt is my prime choice for a AI secondary, due to the fact it is not faction specific and will only perform as well as it's operator, you can jump on any faction and use it well if you know how to use it.

as it is now: AV tanks protect AI tanks from vehicles AI tanks protect AV tanks from sneaky infantry.

a 66%/33% AV/AI tank protects AI tanks from AV, but can also have the ability to protect or divert attention from pure AV tanks from infantry threats.

a 66%/33% AI/AV tank protects AV tanks from infantry well, but can also have the ability to protect or divert attention from purely AI tanks being attacked by pure AV tanks.

in short kobalt armed MBT would further encourage infantry to think about their advances and retreating and might be less likely to sprint over open ground and instead pull vehicles for survival or support of other infantry or try to destroy the attacking kobalt tanks.

AP/HEAT/HE tanks is a threat to infantry, a kobalt armed tanks is more deadly to exposed infantry and thus would be higher up on the threat scale, instead of infantry focus firing on an AV tank they may direct fire to a kobalt MBT instead and if the driver in both tanks plays right, the kobalt tank survives and takes enemy fire while the AV tank less hindered by enemy fire can deal more damage to the enemy.

I would like optics, but i think at most we could expect a x1.5 to limit it more to closer ranges and not a x2 or better. tanks only shoot infantry when ether they are a threat or there are no vehicles around to destory

USe tge ps2 extraction tool. Then join the 3ds max/maya master race. Or become a dirty blender using peasant.

They had a working model that featured coaxial weapons. Never saw it shoot, but it had them.

And they were taken away.

Or...

Do whatever the funny yellow mouse says.

Some Google search later...


From the same post that I found it, a valid question about the Prowler design is also raised: