[Vehicle] Making Room for the Upcoming ESB

Higby has mentioned the development of the ESBs in a few of his videos.

That's kinda the whole point - is to divide up the roles so that there is a place for the ESBs to fit into. You've got a lot of valid concerns, but they're really off-topic in this thread.

1) I know, right?
2) True. But, if you're going have something specifically pointed at killing infantry, it's good for them to be able to kill it too. Additionally, it's less to make it "better at AI" than it is to make it "worse at AV".
3) And you don't have to be. My thinking comes from the "Pre-Nerf" Harassers that were out-tanking tanks. I don't want to revisit that with the ESBs. I'm trying to maintain a hierarchy among the vehicles for common sense sake.
4) Nothing! I'm just spit-balling ideas out there. I don't know better than anyone else, but I don't think anyone else knows better than I either. The goal is to get a conversation going, and get lots of ideas and feed back so the devs have a good idea of what the community wants before they start carving stuff in stone. I will say that I came up with my idea because it "feels right" to me, and I'll continue to make my case for it. When people come up with better ideas, or point out something really wrong with mine, I'll change and incorporate that.

Ooooh no. There's nothing "simple" about it. I have no illusions about what a complex task this is, and that trying to divide up the roles between the harassers and the ESB make it even more complex. But that's kinda inherent in adding a new vehicle in the first place.
Yes, I'm guessing 4 or 5. and I'm guessing a top speed of around 86~90 KPH.
You lost me on this. I don't know what you're referring to. Why wouldn't I think a Lib or a Gal are vehicles?

I don't have to suppose. That's the very boat I'm putting myself in. Yes, I am kicking myself in the nuts on this one. Here's the thing: I don't make suggestions based on "what makes ME happy". I'm trying to look at the game as a whole, and trying to fit these pieces together in a way that makes the most sense.

I was thinking that maybe the Halberd would be the default weapon on the ESBs. If that's the case, you'd get a refund on the certs you spent on it. I don't know, what do you think? The same problem still exists for the Bulldog. I'd think that would have to refunded too, and then the answer is "yes", you'd have to re-cert into it for each Empire. As for the ESAV weapons, they already have to be unlocked individually.

That's a good question. I'm glad you asked. I did think about that at first. I also considered not moving the Skyguard at all. The reasoning is this: The Skyguard NEEDS a two-man platform. This actually is a buff to the Skyguard. In spite of it's need for two players, this would make the Skyguard way more powerful than it its now. I'd don't see the 2-man Skyguard as the down-grade most do, because the ability to move and shoot are so critical to the skyguard. Giving the Skyguard that ability - the ability to keep pace with air vehicles for medium distances is really a huge game-changer. Pilots will feel the burn right away. Just "getting over a hill to repair" will not be enough anymore.

So, how do you balance that? By making it squishier. The thing can run, climb, and jump now so you're going to need to make it so that pilots can still fight back. I love the skyguard, but the last thing I want is for it to go back to clearing the skies completely. Right now, pilots can, and do, terminate skyguards by circling around and blasting it. But that is predicated on knowing where the little bugger is. With it on a Harasser, that becomes almost impossible (except for a soloing Skyguard), and so when the pilots do get a bead on it, that needs to really count. If you put the skyguard on the ESB, you are giving it the speed, maneuverability, most of the armor of the Lightning, the ability to move and shoot, and the ability to have two HA AA guys bail out of the back. That's just too much. On the other hand, with the Harasser, you can update the Skyguard model to lay a "hatch-back" style cover over the rumble-seat and make it unavailable, converting the Harasser to a two man crew only - no "repairing on the run".

On top of all of those very logical reasons, there's an emotional reason too: Mounting the Skyguard on the Harasser takes it "back to it's roots":



I don't expect the devs to build the skyguard its own (very awesome) chassis like the one above. But I would like them to think about using the Harasser chassis to bring back the "Skyguard of Old".

But that turns them into just a redundant "cert pinata" just like the Valkyrie. That is literally the exact scenario I'm trying to avoid with this thread.

Which is EXACTLY why a spot needs to be carved out for it. Think of it less of "replacing or replicating" the Harasser, and more of dividing it in half. One half is a beefy brute for hammering tanks at high speed. The other is a nimble cat; there to murder infantry waves by the bushel with high speed passes.

You actually don't need to build them from scratch as far as the coding goes. You can pull in the Harasser mechanics, and tweak the speed down, tweak the turning radius up, tweak the armor up a bit, and "viola!"

The benefits for SOE would be "more stuff to sell". The benefits for us are "new toys!" and "Greater role specialization".

Anyone questioning whether the harasser is useful or not need to go up against more of them. They are a real beast against armor still. The fact that they can hit with high-damage AV weapons, move so fast and nimbly that it requires a certain level of clairvoyance to nail them with tank rounds, AND repair on the move makes them still very difficult enemies to contend.

As for the Val...yea, it's kinda a wet noodle right now. If they let maxes ride in the thing, I bet you'd see a lot more of them in the air - but that's off topic.

Or, they save a lot of time they can spend on fixing stuff and let the art team do most the work.

And voila you have yet another harasser... I read your idea of making it the vehicle to pull to take out an AMS. We have that, it's called a tank. We have two of them and they are rather good at taking out vehicles. Why would you pull one ESB instead of one 2/2 AP MBT or two AP Lightnings?

I heard the NC's ESB ability would be a ramming shield! Something ACTUALLY designed to run people over! It's so amazing!

Gosh I love NC.

Maybe the harrasser needs a nerf to better slot ESB's into their role?

See, I don't agree with the sentiment of removing the AV weapons on harassers.
If for no other reason than that the harassing AV Harasser is one of the most enjoyable things in the game, as far as I'm concerned.
For the current Harasser, to the best of my knowledge it -is- 2 shot by the Titan AP.
If it was nerfed so even 2 lighting AP shells did this, it would probably break the vehicle, making it useless.
It's currently only really worth using because it's dirt cheap.
It's not efficient use of crew, with regard to it's HP and fire power.

So no, I don't really see how you think reducing the glass cannon to a paper cannon is at all justified.
Because you know what? The harasser already has to flee from tanks if the tank is looking at it.

As I mentioned above, it'd be perfectly fine to just set the ESB to be roughly as tanky as a lighting.
And how said it was made to fight tanks? It's not released, and it's role hasn't been clearly defined, besides how it'll carry mostly the same guns as the Harasser, and that it can hold more passengers. And that it won't be as fast as the Harasser.
Doesn't mean it's going to be a brawled that competes with the tanks.

You should spend some time in a harasser, then you'd appreciate your survivability, what there is of it. Harasser is plain food for air. Besides, there's plenty of reasons for why there should be a viable 1 man AA vehicle. By all means, do something to the Harasser (or ESB) to fill a role for a multi-crew AA vehicle, but leave the Skyguard alone.

Currently the ranger is useless, and the Walker is borderline OP (seriously, 1 000 m/s?! Lancer only has 800 m/s!)
So if you want the ranger to be used, it has to be on the receiving end of a buff stick. Simply making it the only option will only help highlight a problem that's already known. You may like it, but the gun is plain bad.

All those points aside, you're also suggesting changing certain roles of certain vehicles, where people may have spent SC etc to get their stuff. So in addition to how I personally and I'd imagine a lot of others plainly don't like your ideas (although kudos for trying at least), SOE won't do it.

Are you understanding that these changes would only be made if the ESB went into the game?

I'm not saying "do that NOW, and wait for ESBs." No, these changes would NOT be made unless the ESB is there to fill that role.

And if you have access to the ESB, which has the weapons, which has the speed, which has the maneuverability, and which actually has more armor....WHY WOULD YOU PULL A HARASSER TO ATTACK ARMOR???

I don't get this...insistence that the harasser, which original role was to harass infantry (in Planetside 1), MUST have AV capabilities. If you have a buggy that is better at it, why do you need THIS one to be good at it too?

I mean the whole premise of my original post was to divide the duties of the current harasser into two vehicles, so that they both have their own identities. How is that being missed?

I KNOW it hasn't been clearly defined. That's the whole point of the post in the first place!

No, it's NOT perfectly fine for it to be as tanky as a lightning. We already had that - it was the original release of the harassers. And it was a disaster. You're talking about a vehicle with no downside, no balance.

You're right, it doesn't mean it has to be a brawler...but what else would it be? And that's the whole point of the post. I want better ideas, but frankly I'm not hearing any. So far, I've gotten:

1) Re-skinned harasser
2) The old OP Harasser
3) A 6 man death pinata

None of which give it a unique role.

Of course they are fodder for Air, because they have real way to fight back. I mean seriously, how many times have you put a Ranger on a Harasser? I bet you can count 'em on one hand, and half of those were in the VR.

The ONLY reason there should be a 1-man AA vehicle is because it'll get pulled more often. But even now, I really feel like I'm the only guy who does. And when I do, I push the air back and then immediately get run down by MBTs, who ignore the other tanks around me and bee-line right at me on a suicide mission. Then, when I'm dead, the air comes roaring back and kills all of the armor that was around me. That happens over and over again.

Putting it on a Harasser gives it the ability to chase air down AND evade heavy armor.

It's not a killer. It's just a deterrent, and I've found it does quite well at that job.

You're probably right about that. However, I gotta try. I think SOE would be better served to create a niche for the ESBs (however that happens) instead of making the same mistake they did with Valkyrie again. Yes people may have played SC for weapons, but they would still have access to those weapons - they'd just be on a different vehicle.

Oh that was obvious from your first post. I just don't agree that it's a needed change. Did libs, ESFs and Gals change to make room for the Valk? No. Nor would they need to.

As for why you'd take a harasser? It's going to be faster, smaller. And let's assume the ESBs will get the tank secondaries, the Harasser will do less damage. But that's all fine.

The role the Harasser played in PS1 may have been relevant when it was introduced. But now it's been in the game long enough to make the time in PS2 the only really relevant frame of reference. It does AV, and it makes no sense to remove it just 'cause.

It's been defined to the point where we know they'll be slower than the current harasser, but faster than tanks. And it'll be more durable than the current harasser.

With the nature of only having one gun, when you don't carry an AA one you're kinda buggered. That said, I'm of the mind that the ESF is too versatile regardless of loadout. But that's a different topic.

So, few people pull skyguards, hm? Imagine then how hard it'd be to make people (ignoring the few crazy people like me who like driving, we're rare), how do you expect people will want to take a harasser skyguard? People don't want to drive because it's unrewarding, and if you don't have a driver you're a sitting duck.

At least with the Lighting Skyguard you won't be forced to sit still.

Yeah and put it on a harasser and you'd get a cert piñata. For Air.

You can try, but because it would involve refudning/changing purchased digital goods it's not going to happen.

My point is that this new buggy will most likely end up the same as tge valkery. The valkery is just a mix of gal and lib with no real strength in either of those categories. It serves no special purpose that isn't already covered by other air options in game. Why waste time on developing things that are already ingame? Why not develop something new and exciting?

i've cut quite a bit away; as otherwise posts become too long and 'unfocused'.
Even so, still rambling/ 'stream of conscious' style posts ahead:

Yep, if you build something AI, it's nice if infantry can kill it. Hello, liberator duster. Hello battlebus. Hello, HE shells. Now, heavies can kill liberators, but the rest of infantry can't. Etc.

You mentioned making the harasser the anti-infantry weapon; yet you want to give it the skyguard.. an anti-vehicle weapon. Air vehicles, sure.

Also: theoretical dps of skyguard vs walker:
Walker vs an ESF:
Walker dmg range goes 130-85 (400m). I presume 100 dmg/shot; 600 rpm. ESF has 35% dmg reduction vs AA machinegun according to wiki;
100*600*0.65/60=650dmg/s.
Skyguard: flak; 60dmg in 6meter; -60 dmg multiplier for esf; 480 rpm.
60*480*1.6/60=768 dps.
For a liberator I come to 250 vs 312.
Overall: the walker harasser as is, is quite an effective AA platform; trade-off vs skyguard:
-less damage (but not by a huge amount, unless at extreme range)
-direct-hit damage only, so good accuracy is necessary
-highest muzzle velocity (1000m/s vs 400 m/s skyguard)
-buggy that literally only costs half of the skyguard. Less, actually.
-2 man vehicle, but more mobile. 3rd dude optional; either an engineer, a max-flak, or a heavy with a lockon can work quite well.

Also: the valkyrie was a cert pinata. It can take over twice the amount of Walker fire or Skyguard/Flak firepower as a normal ESF. In addition, it can be repaired in flight. And it is cheaper than a ESF.
Not my video:


Anyway: my view on current vehicle balance, what I would do:

-I would lower mbt nanite cost to 400 nanites.
-I would lower lightning cost to 300 nanites.
-I would increase the sunderer cost to 300 nanites, at least. (It used to cost 400 vehicle resources!)
Battle sundy's are already quite effective vs tanks.
Compare a 3 man battle-sundy against a 3 man harasser. 50 nanite-difference atm. Massive difference in manoevrability and no repairing on the move, but also twice the firepower, options like being a mobile repair point or ammo dispenser, option to become an AMS, ...
-Soo.. the new vehicle: we have some options:

Default, it has squad spawn, 6 man transport (half a squad, like the valkyrie; but this one can transport maxes),
one forward facing weapon, choice of flash weapons, with perhaps some valkyrie weapons.
one turret weapon, choice of harasser weapons, again perhaps some of the valkyrie weapons.

Upgrades:
-Deploy, and have an infantry terminal
-Deploy, and become a platoon spawn point.
-Deploy, and become a AMS. This disables the vehicles weaponry?, (and disables stealth? )
Also an option is to become an AMS, but not allow switching into MAX-suits.


For 150 (-200?) nanites you get a 'el cheapo' sunderer.
This buggy wouldn't get things like repair sundy, vehicle ammo,..
I would also consider removing 'gate shield diffusor' from the sunderer, and inserting it here.

Give it access to the 'flash' upgrades; such as scout radar, a turbo, wraith cloaking (no weapons, can't deploy/be deployed? )

Compared to sunderer:
-wraith cloaking option+stealth. Scout radar+stealth. Turbo option..
-no certs from vehicle ammo or repair...

-Less armor
-Less firepower in general; but you can mount one AV turret with a halberd or Empire specific weapon; unlike sunderer.
-unlike sunderer, picking 'AMS' should fill up a slot, or have a downside like disabling turrets when deployed,...

Risks: that this becomes a far better option than the harasser, as it has more transport capability, same/better firepower, and can become an AMS.
-Harasser 150
-ESB 200
-Sunderer 350?

Addendum:
another ES option for vehicle weapons: give the buggy max weapons.
2 gunners, each with one max arm.
Issues: NC will pick ravens or bursters pretty much.
TR AV are then the worst at range..

One option is: bursters, or the first type of max AV weapons, so no ravens, no 800m/s AV weapon for VS, etc.
Just an extra option...

Auzor

Make ESB weapons being controlled by driver and youve got room for them.