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

+1 to making it de-facto APC when it doesn't go around hauling 'fields of purple' on its back. I suggest leaving the current Sunderer as the go-to battle-bus/repair/re-arm/AMS vehicle with little to none passenger transport capability. Just segregate combat support from troop transport. The only remaining question, IMHO, would be where would the shield diffuser go.

Also, big +1 to rumble seats, minefield clearer and getting friendly-vehicles-out-of-ditches-via-harpoon-winches ideas.

Dedicated power carrying vehicles?

Here are some early prototypes in consideration:

TR


VS


NC

Hey dude...I do see where you are coming from. But we don't share the same concept of what a resource transport is supposed to look like. I agree with you on a few things.

1. This thing needs to be beefy. It has to have a ton or armor / Hp so it can survive.

2. The movement has to be slow allowing for accompaniment of tanks.

However, I am more privy to making it team based by having the squad / platoon protect it with other vehicles, not with the 3-4 AA/AI seats. I understand that you want the ability to stop infantry getting close enough to pop it with C4. SOE needs to fix C4 first though. There is no way it should be able to do the damage it does to tanks / sundies. Also, SOE needs to either change or get rid of the missile turret for the Engineers. The way they can just snipe vehicles the way they can right now is ********.

We will just have to see exactly how they are going to implement the resource vehicle first before we can give an exact description of how it should look and handle and how it should be equiped. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind your ideas...I would just rather see it as an actual resource transport than an extra gunned sundie with more armor and slower moving

Sorry I had to correct it for you (not meant to be rude). Those striked-through have directional damage.
And I meant air locational damage would be silly in this game. Just by the fact how aircraft is visually designed and their engines are placed e.g. imagine you you rip off a liberator's wing. Vertical thrust on one side is fully gone, so you could fly straight yes, but as soon as you hit the brakes the aircraft would spin around it's longitudal axis once it switches to vertical thrust engines. Same goes for Galaxies. So you could not even try to crash-land it because you have to maintain 60-70 KPH - thus the effect is the same with total destruction except that this hits earlier, and you take away the hopes of landing-repairing.

As on topic

• I think someone said this earlier, but being able to hack the vechicle would be awesome. Based on the model I posted earlier it would be even more awesome to pull if you can only hack it from the top - though hit detection might screw up that feature entirely. Another option to do this is virus upload. e.g. with a new cert line or maybe an added dart gun sidegrade for the Infiltrator - it could establish a 'link' and if he/she maintains it or plays a minigame correctly then the 'ANT' is either shut down or ejects crew or whatever.
• Weapon abuse is supposed to hit the ANT if it is made slow and armored, so solutions are needed versus lock-on spam from distances like 300-500m, engi turret spam from even farther, etc.

Here is the PlanetSide 2 weapon and vehicle simulator. Try it out.

That's why modern (real-world!) military jets have multiple redundant systems and computerised automatic stabilisation in case of the failure of some of the systems. The A-10 Thuderbolt, for example, can still fly just fine with half of one of the wings torn off, one of its engine gone, half of its rear wings gone, and both of its hydraulic systems shot to pieces at the same time. That's a plane from the 1970-ties.

A Liberator without one wing would have a hard time steering and would roll in one direction way slower than in the other, but with a little help from the on-board computers it would be still possible to at least limp away and land safely, if roughly.

The upside is that we could then have the vehicles be way harder to actually fully destroy and give people more different stuff to do and more options to employ. A bunch of C4 bricks would then not need to destroy a vehicle - but it might easily take out its motion system or main gun if placed properly.

Vehicular hacks would be even more awesome if we had different sub-systems to chose and influence as well. Initiating self-destruction sequence in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

There are basically four solutions you can chose from to make the ANT less of an XP piñata for long-range AV bombardment. Ideally, the choice should be on the players, and be somewhat mutually exclusive:

1. Lots of armour, especially from the front and sides.

2. High mobility.

3. ECM systems screwing with the targeting system of nearby rockets and missiles (should not affect dumb-fire mode, but still work against AV turrets and similar "laser designators").

4. Anti-rocket and anti-missile automated point defence systems ("micro-flak" automatically engaging every incoming rocket or missile).

I didn't add anything like "auto-repair" on purpose. If you can't be bothered to pull an Engineer and repair your material transporter, you deserve to lose it.

THE TR ones LOOK OP ,