The Ultimate Thread Dedicated To Making The New Power Carrying Vehicles EPIC!

DUDE MAKE A CANNON THAT GIVES REMOTE CONTROL OF A VEHICLE FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME SUPER LONG RELOAD MEDUM RANGE LOW VELOCITY ROUND OMG HOW EPIC WOULD THAT BE!!!???!!! CAP LOCK FTW!

Are most FU players European?

Yes they play on Miller, so I would assume so, and in my opinion they are the best/coolest TR combined arms outfit in the EU

Anyhow what do you think of my and other's ideas of what the ANT should be Phrygen?

I want Fast unarmed Trucks with a Basic Shield buster(only on minor bases can it passthrough)/vanguard shield that runs off the resources its self (say it stores 20000000) resources now... make it able to absorb 95% damage or something and convert absorbed into a resource drain on the stockpiled energy SO basically this makes a well defended run worth while, but also lets lone wolfs try and succeed.

And if the Dev's could figure a way to let it have a EMP burst ( or broadcast Computer virus) or something like that (drain on resources) to counter close by enemy vehicles/Air that would be a major + in my book to. I know this last request is iffy since the chance for abuse .

Maybe make it so it screws views of vehicles so they cannot see it on minimap/ at all no spotting it when pulsing this point defense. (also no lockons to it)

the problem with the landraider is its a beast in combat having more guns than the current MBTs

Completely disagree with all...


It should FLY. Since air gets continually more separated from ground, give us this objective to fight over, so we actually serve a purpose...

100x this. Land Raider pownz!

My 2 cents on this thread are...

• You can limit the "übertankiness" of the transport in the fashion like Warhammer solves it. Give the guns a really limited firing arc e.g. the sides with 100-130° horizontal firing arc and limited (10-15°) vertical adjustability; maybe a 60-70° horizontal but vertically *fixed* front cannon (hell, if so, it can even be a HEAT cannon); forget top mounted weapons firing 360 degrees save for *one* anti-air (so it's guns have blind spots, thus requiring support) + low turning rate for the vechicle itself so it can not bulletspam the sh*t out of everything while doing the primadonna dance. BAM! over-tankiness solved IMO.
• You must give it a weak spot as well or it would be just repairgun spammed 'till the end of times. (rear is obvious - more fun are other hotspots like generator(s) somewhere which destruction disables movement and/or guns on it, or causing a "backlash" hurting infantry nearby giving a window of opportunity as long as the repairgun spam ceases)
• Slow moving highly armored is a must if you want a contested "hotspot" with longevity.

That is all for now, but trying to brainstorm some moar. Give me a unit designer job SOE plz and i'll keep stealing good ideas

P.S. Land Raider pownz!

Check my post above. Moar guns don't need to be better guns. And the picture is only an illustration, so don't compare wh40k Predators or Leman Russ' as MBTs to the Land Raider as ANT.

PS2 vehicles in general need location-based damage and status effects. It's silly, really - currently the smallest and squishiest units on the battlefield, the infantry, have more locational damage modifications than even the largest of vehicles. Not much more (just the "head" location), but still.

They have one - rear armor hits count as "headshots for vechicles" (and I think front, side, and top damage count differently as well). Status effects are harder to balance/implement with all the stuff going on, for two reasons.
If you make it luck based (i.e. random with a chance% value) - then ppl will get mad about it because of the unfairness of the system.
If you make it hit location based (hitting tracks disabling movement, hitting turret disabling weapons) - ppl get mad about it because the hit detection in larger battles tends to fart itself.

But you've gone arguably off topic.

You know .. in PS1 flying in ANTs was part of Air, since Gals and Loadstars could Airlift them to the silo. It's the only option were I can see a unarmed space truck to be a viable blockade runner option.

Did you try that with the largest of vehicles (that is, a Galaxy), as I noted, recently?

*Sigh*
If you insist to go off topic even more... the whole thread was about a land vechicle, so I was talking about land vechicles. And I fail to see where you mentioned the Galaxy, unless "in general". And locational damage for air vechicles would be silly... explain, show or link in a working model (aside simulation games, which planetside clearly isn't).
I really feel that you are only trying to get a jump on me, for reasons unknown to me.

P.S.
I dont know why I wrote "vehicle" as "vechicle" too lazy to correct it sry.

I'm not sure I'd be too worried about Lancers and Phoenixes on this thing (I suppose it depends on how fast it moves, but if it's a mobile objective I would imagine something fairly slow but tough). Strikers, though, I could see being worried about that.

I honestly think that it would be fine. If you were worried about a bunch of strikers on the thing, you still have the option to shoot the guys since they are rumble seats and not turrets. It'd be no different than if they were on foot--a squad of strikers is a squad of strikers either way. If anything, the rumble seats mean you'd know exactly where to direct your return fire.

The elite eskimo has spoken!

Personally, I would rather see the old PS1 ANT make a return. Image is below.



It wasn't overly strong. It didn't have any weapons on top of it. It was a resource transport vehicle and it did it jobs good.

My reasons for wanting this and not some super armor w/e vehicle is because..

1.) It promotes team play. Yeah, its a one seater, you don't need guys hanging all off of it or turrets to protect it. The point of it being weak was due to it requiring a escort/convoy to get you to the objective safely.

2.) Unique: It needs to be a unique vehicle due to the role it is going to provide. It needs to be easily identifiable on the battlefield. I don't know about you guys but I want more vehicles in the game.

If you put a option in to attach a mod to a sunderer for transportation then your going to have to rework the whole balance of the sunderers again. Not to mention all where going to see is a people spam a endless field of sunderers with the ANT mixed in somewhere in the middle. I want teamplay not a blockade running vehicle.

3.) Certs: Give the PS1 ANT a cert line. Allow players to spec into bigger cargo hold or Blockade armor to help protect against small arms. There are plenty of things you can do that want turn these into fighting vehicles being spammed by everybody.

EST

I hear people screaming for a Raider Variant/Something. Well you have that coming down the line later. I recommend doing some research. I'll give you a hint where to start. Go listen to the X-cast where T-Ray talks about them.

I'll also throw ya another bone.


TLDR: Keep it simple. Lets go back to the PS1 ANT. Give it the option for cert improvements so we can promote teamplay not blockade running super vehicles. Also, Raider / EST are already being worked on. Lets not merge them with something else.

Even out of the land vehicles, three out of five don't have any locational damage (eight out of ten if you count the stationary "turret" vehicles). Adding that while making the vehicles as a whole more sturdy and resistant would help a lot with the balance. The transport vehicles might not be easily destroyable, but as a balance they might be easy to stop, for example destroying its tracks or hover system or scoring a critical engine hit using an AM sniper rifle (more roles for the infiltrators!) and then shooting anyone trying to repair that. It would help other vehicles as well and allow for more variations between vehicles. If a vehicle is tracked vs. wheeled should make a huge difference in how easily it can be stopped (not destroyed!) by a mine, how quickly it can be repaired in-field and so on.

(No idea why you ask for examples of non-simulation games with interesting damage models for planes though; what does it matter?)

I'm not trying to "get a jump on you", BTW. I'm just discussing. This is a forum, after all.

Maybe im oversensitive today or forumside is just forumside, and this is cyberspace not face-to-face real-time discussion, so...

I wanted models for air vehicle locational damage, because you were bringing up galaxy not having one, and I had the feeling you might have an idea because I'm clueless in that matter. And of course you are right about not all ground vehicles have directional damage modifiers. Flash has none - or none that matters. All the others have as far as I know. I'm not counting turrets as vehicles, but if I'm correct they have a top armor modifier.

The "generator" (or some made weakpoint) idea was tossed in because I find it easier to implement than locational damage all across the board.

Oh, I have a lot of ideas on how to make air (and space) vehicles with interesting locational damage models. Not only drawing from other games which did it - board games like BattleTech or computer games like the X-Wing and Wing Commander series - but also in general knowing that this is a major point of difference between the different air frames in the real world too. Compare what happens when you tore off half a wing from an F-16 Falcon and from an A-10 Thunderbolt. The first one crashes and dies. The second one becomes slightly harder to handle.

For the ground vehicles, only the MBTs and Lightnings have directional damage. Flashes, Sunderers and Harassers get the same damage from every direction and hit location, with the exception of the latter's rumble seat, which can have a "soft" bullet sponge sitting in there.

I want the WH40K landraider for a normal APC vehicle.