[Vehicle] The Lightening C75, whats it purpose now?

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Villanuk, Sep 29, 2017.

  1. Villanuk

    the Lightning’s C75 Viper has been repurposed as a tank busting weapon that unloads a high amount of damage over its 6 round magazine, but can only achieve that damage over short ranges due to cone of fire bloom.

    Thats from the Dev.. Oh really? please tell me how this is any use at all. We have hassers for that which are quicker and compile faster and more destructive damage. The C75 was an all rounder for infantry and again vehicles, but its bloom has made this an obsolete item in PS2 for anything other than meters away. Its now pointless again infantry, which really was its main purpose and a little again tanks..

    Why would i even risk getting close to a MBT, in fact with their secondaries i would not even get close and it would be nothing but shear stupidity to do.

    We are all for balance but this update has removed a valuable tool against infantry, nothing more.
  2. LtBomber1

    Its a shotgun for the lightning!
    High burst potential makes it very good at short range with some cover. Less time out of cover, but still high damage. It is crap vs Infanty now. At longer distance use tap fire to deal some damage.
  3. Lamat

    How is it against harrassers now though?
  4. Humoreske

    Viper + Racer lightning is like a one-man vulcan harasser. MBT is bait.
  5. Rydenan

    I like the idea of it being a close-range tankbuster. But I agree, the bloom is too high. It's basically useless because half the shots won't hit the target if you're more than 10m away.

    That, and infantry lethality has been wrecked. I get that it's "AV focused" now, but tanks need the ability to defend themselves from infantry. The Lightning has no top gun, so it must rely on its main cannon. And the new Viper is terrible at this. An entire salvo is unlikely to kill a single unit. I believe you need to land three direct hits, which is all but impossible with the ridiculous CoF bloom.

    Until these things are improved, I don't see myself using the Viper anymore.
    • Up x 5
  6. Villanuk

    Pointless, you have little hope, against them.
  7. Villanuk

    I agree with you but they have the AV option with the variety of cannons to choose from. the 75 was a not over powered and without thermal, not a farming machine, and it had its place in PS2, but now this pointless PS2, nerfside or codside again.
    • Up x 2
  8. LordKrelas

    You know, I agree about the weapon needing work, with the whole range issue.
    What I find comic is that what seems to be an AV gun, is being complained about a lack of effective AI in said AV focused weapon.
    Find an ally with AI, or other AV vehicle or infantry.. and you have combined arms.
    You defend against vehicles, other defends against Infantry, no singular effectiveness against all.

    (And yes, my gods is that Viper ineffective against infantry. The one thing it did kill was a flash at 3 meters)
    So yes, fix the range \ bloom on that.. as jesus that bloom.. AV is sorta hard when you must ram the target.

    But we need to consider the comic nature of wanting full AI on an AV weapon.
    At the same time we talk about needing AV allies to handle such vehicles, or AA allies to handle aircraft.
    Mystically needing different weapons for different roles vanishes when it comes to mauling infantry.
    AV? More like AV \ AI.
    (Mind you, that was basically mirrored for infantry weapons, beyond firing rate & magazine limitations for infantry prior)

    • Up x 1
  9. Rydenan

    I'm not willing to give up all AI capability for the Viper unless the Viper is very effective at AV, which it isn't.
    Instead, I'll get more reliable AV capability and viable AI using AP or HE instead.
    Nothing 'comic' about it; it's the logical decision.
  10. LordKrelas

    The comic that you missed, was the combined arms angle of being ****e at AI while being effective at AV in some regard.
    (Some I say, do recall I mention how hard it is to use presently due to the Bloom & range)
    As presently it's "You are AV, get someone to handle AA" or "AI", but when a MBT, Aircraft, or other vehicle is concerned with infantry:
    It's every weapon must be able to handle Infantry near perfect.

    That's the comedy.
    AV handles AI vehicle-wise, which is one reason an AV-Focused Tank pretty much has an easy time handling infantry.
    As it isn't needing the combination of multiple dedicated forces to handle multiple threat types.
    Those same people trying to avoid needing any additional vehicles, or weapon-systems are often those who tell infantry to pull a vehicle or aircraft to handle other threats, as it's combined arms.

    That. That is the Comic bit.
    Logic dictates combined arms, isn't only until infantry is the target.
    So an AV weapon having issues with Infantry, is very comical to complain about.

    But that was my jab which was after my point:
    Yes the Viper needs work.
    • Up x 1
  11. Oleker2

    2 mags to kill a MBT with all the shots hitting rear side... Harasser also 2 mags to kill if all shots land... Nice "Tank Busting" DBG...
    • Up x 1
  12. Moisture

    I really like idea of every player having access to a AV light tank you can pull even your empire lacks a tech plant.
    I think this could really address the large imbalance when you are facing a large armored threat any your faction cant pull MBTs Locally.
    It might be unconventional but I think simply supplying a alternate AV viper variant (Or firing mode) from the get go as unlocked by default.

    Simply taking away a rather powerful and user friendly learning tool for armored warfare as the old viper in planetside is a harmful change for the new player experience.
    To use the current viper now requires a pretty experienced player to do well with it since its pretty hard to use well.
    • Up x 2
  13. Rydenan

    Mjolnir? M40 Fury? Gatekeeper?
    And now Halberd and Viper?

    The game has plenty of examples of highly-AV-focused weapons that have little-to-no AI capability. I don't see the devs conforming to this 'rule' you hint at.

    Most weapons strike a balance of AI and AV capability. And yes, some of the AV-focused weapons are perhaps too effective at AI (Vulcan, Prowler AP, pretty much all of the VS top guns.)
    But my point with Viper is that I won't use it unless it falls into either the "great AV" category, the "all-rounder" (good AV + good AI) category, or the "great AI + mediocre AV" (e.g. old Viper) category. Currently, it falls into none of those.
  14. LordKrelas

    I didn't hint at a rule, I made fun of the " AV weapons not being highly effective against infantry" complaint.
    As the very same people, usually speak of Combined arms, with different weapons to handle different targets.
    Now if that wasn't clear:
    That means, they say Vehicle AV should work as Vehicle AI, but they also Say AV should be AV only not universal when the discussion comes to non-vehicle weapons.

    I have not hinted, nor stated AV weapons actually must be effective at AI.
    I mocked the bloody idea, to put it bluntly & simply... Jesus ****.

    Most weapons?
    AI weapons, prior to the update did not scratch vehicles well, if at all.
    Infantry AI weapons obviously won't.
    Only AV weapons had the power to one-shot infantry while also being the superior weapon in AV.

    Fury is ironically, an AI weapon with slight AV capabilities for direct hits, but it was altered in a comic fashion.
    Mjolnir is a close-range AV, with a firing arc.
    Gatekeeper is a long-range (now burst fire) AOE type AV weapon.

    Halberd is the literal perfect example of an AV weapon outshining AI weapons with a one-hit hit, while also being one of the best AV options for Top-Guns.
    So, it not being the perfect I-kill-everything-best nearly, is actually good - with it still being good at AV presently.

    Viper, yeah that needs work, just to be able to handle AV, as it is meant to be.

    So you not using the Viper, unless it is a universally effective cannon, hellish AV cannon or the old one...
    Certainly you not understanding, since you mention this thrice, that I have stated the Viper needs work to do the bloody job it's apparently made for.
    Viper needs work done on it. Yet have I said, anything to contradict that.

    I have nothing about any rules, the devs must follow..
    Let alone about AV being AI for vehicles, I refer to this concept however since often enough an vehicle AV is complained about not mauling infantry at the same time as the same person is stating Combined Arms, one weapon handles one thing, and another handles a different threat.
    Which is hypocrisy, and irony.

    This is one of the longest repetitive explanations in response to something I haven't even bloody said, nor implied after two entire posts explaining it already.
  15. TheMerc

  16. Rydenan

    We know.

    But there's no one in this thread suggesting that all AV weapons must be effective at AI, and, as I mentioned previously, neither do the devs seem to abide by this philosophy.

    So the real question is, who exactly are you mocking?
    • Up x 1
  17. LordKrelas

    There is no "whom" in specifics, as I am not mocking a "whom", I am mocking the entire bloody concept listed.
    .. as explained each time, and that case, repeatedly.

    Here it is again.

    And the literal most direct one:

    I mocked the entire idea.
    If you want a specific person, You are out of bloody luck.
    This was stated directly in words.

    Heaven forbid, I actually start to mock someone indirectly, given this.
  18. Campagne

    Well he's not in this thread, but ColonelChingles often advocates for that sort of thing. :p
    • Up x 2
  19. Rydenan

    But y tho.

    Why start mocking a concept that was not brought up.
  20. LordKrelas


    And the concept is brought up every time, Infantry AV is mentioned, or Vehicle combat vs Infantry when dealing with AP or Anti-armor weapons trying to demolish infantry as if it was designed to kill infantry not vehicles.

    That is why.
    My first post even clarifies this.

    Which is this, the Literal opening sentence.
    As your post complains that an AV weapon should be able to kill infantry.
    And due to the manner it is said, it's as if an AV gun should easily be lethal to infantry severely.
    As if an AV Specialized Vehicle, need not bother with an AI Specialized Vehicle to handle Infantry.
    Which implies, that an AV vehicle should not be impaired against infantry, but be the best of both worlds.
    Or the very least, not actually need anything else ever.

    If you got this far, be aware, the first picture is of Your own post.
    Yes, You brought it up yourself.