[Vehicle] TR Armor rework concept

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by karlooo, Aug 23, 2020.

  1. karlooo

    This is just a follow up of the Prowler is terrible topic because it has all sorts of discussions, it's too messy.
    I find the Prowler badly and lazily designed with all the TR traits forcefully stuffed into this one tank, in conclusion turning it into an Anti-Air / Artillery tank / Main Battle Tank.

    I'll start off with the final concept in that topic:

    I suggested for the Prowler to get remade into a Sunderer, replace it and receive a new expensive wheeled tank with one main cannon and a top gunner, like this:
    [IMG]
    Physics and armor similar to the ANT would be fine. But this design needs good reverse speed.

    So the Prowler remake idea would be to replace the double 120mm cannons with a 30mm auto cannon, just for imagination something like a BMP-2.
    The Prowler can already deploy. All it needs is to visually add something that would give the illusion that it can transport infantry and because of the cosmetics the entrance can only be in the front. Remove the hydraulic cylinders and add a opaque shield behind the armor, so when it opens it will appear as if you can enter it.

    [IMG]
    [IMG]
    [IMG]
    You will have to crawl into the tank lol.
    _____________________________________

    The question is why? Well faction uniqueness and it would help increase TR's traits.

    "An authoritarian government that leverages military might to maintain strict control over the colonial citizens."
    -This means that they have mighty military production.

    "Loyalty and fealty are core to the Terran Republic ethos and from that grows a spirit of total camaraderie and brotherhood amongst its proud and mighty warriors."
    -Strength in unity basically.

    My Prowler transport/support concept is a cheaper tank design, with just one gunner required that does more damage than one M20 basilisk - 30mm cannon. Because it's a Sunderer but with the tank design, it will have access to usual Sunderer upgrades like the ,GSD, Proximity Repair, so in combination with Lightening tanks it can create a very powerful and cheap force (Strength in Unity), therefore more in numbers....Militarily superior.
    This combo of auto cannons and Lightening cannons will provide sustained firepower...again another TR trait.

    The expensive wheeled light tank concept perfectly fits with the trait speed and mobility. You will be able to say that it's the fastest tank on the battlefield and it would be a fun and challenging choice for solo players.

    ____________________________________

    That is it. I believe this would be nice in terms of both gameplay and appearance. Zones where the Prowler cannot enter cause of its low chassis could be compensated by the Router or outfit armory ANVIL

    I would be glad to hear your opinions and disagreements.
  2. Blam320

    How about the PS2 team designs and implements actual IFVs instead? The Prowler has been the TR's MBT since PS1 and I don't think that needs to be changed; it's not a troop carrier it's a dedicated armored warfare tool.

    I had the idea of designing an ANT variant built to occupy the role of an IFV, moving the current ANT more into the role of a support vehicle. Otherwise, there are still the four "Humvee" type vehicles and ES Sunderer variants from PS1 that need to be added.
    • Up x 2
  3. karlooo

    Hail PS1! All bow down to the PS1 god!
    Ok jokes aside Planetside 2 doesn't have to be the same as Planetside 1.

    The ANT is sort of an IFV. It can only carry 3 non-MAX players, which is terrible and its weapons are always average, except the dedicated AA.
    For the ANT to be an IFV what weapons would it require?

    I think the co-driver should have a fixed machine gun somewhere on the front of the ANT because the top gun cannot do much. Or through the Co-drivers bulletproof glass if it cannot fit anywhere else. For your imagination something like on the hull of a WW2 tank.
    [IMG]
  4. Demigan

    1: there is still nothing wrong with the current Prowler, and your concept would not add anything. What playstyle or advantage would the concept have over a regular Sunderer that would make the overhaul worth the effort?

    2: having something like a Centauro II in the game would be a good idea, but why would the overly traditional TR be the odd one out and replace its MBT with one of these, while the other two factions wouldnt get an extra vehicle at all?
    Give all 3 factions a new asymetrical ES vehicle. That Centauro II is an Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV) and is much more suited for the NC than the TR, big gun and guerilla profile scream NC to me.

    3: making the ANT an IFV is possible, but you need to actually create reasons for infantry to really stick with the vehicle. If all they use it for is a glorified transport and then abandon the driver and its vehicle it wont be able to compete with the Sunderer and current ANT.
    My idea would be to give the IFV some tools to buff up nearby infantry in various ways. This can be done through an AOE ability, infantry that has been inside the vehicle for X seconds will receive a temporary buff the moment they jump out or by allowing them to equip weapons from the IFV that are powered by the IFV's ability energy as long as they stay within a certain radius of the vehicle.
  5. karlooo

    I'm suggesting replacements, nothing extra. Replace the Sunderer for TR with a reworked Prowler and replace the Prowler with a wheeled light tank.

    Lightening is the MBT. The wheeled tank will be more mobile, more damage because of the top gunner, to be specific 4k HP but it depends on size.
    You have the Harasser for quick strikes if you want.
    The NC main force is supposed to use vehicles that hit hard and last long in the fight. TR: fast and lightly armored, move quickly somewhere. The wheeled light tank fits the TR much better.

    Instead they get this slow clumsy Sunderer and receive a faction specific tank, which nobody knows what it's even designed to do.
    It's a terrible design and I'd love to see it burn and get removed.
    Whenever we get ready for tank warfare and I see teammates taking out the Prowler I know we will lose because that tank is not suited for tank warfare...

    How can you say it will add nothing if this change will make TR's armor all composed of light vehicles. No mediums.

    I'll just copy and paste this again:

    It will improve faction uniqueness in a simple way and it supports all of TR's traits.
    "An authoritarian government that leverages military might to maintain strict control over the colonial citizens."
    -This means that they have mighty military production.

    "Loyalty and fealty are core to the Terran Republic ethos and from that grows a spirit of total camaraderie and brotherhood amongst its proud and mighty warriors."
    -Strength in unity basically.

    This Prowler transport/support concept is a cheaper tank design. Not a truck like a Sunderer but a lower profile tank with just one gunner required that does more damage than one M20 basilisk - 30mm cannon.
    Because it's a Sunderer but with the tank design, it will have access to the usual Sunderer upgrades like the GSD, Proximity Repair, so in combination with Lightening tanks it can create a very powerful and cheap force (Strength in Unity), therefore more in numbers....Militarily superior.
    The wheeled light tank is designed for flanking, it's larger than the Lightening so the Proximity repair won't be as helpful.
    This combo of auto cannons and Lightening cannons will provide sustained firepower...again another TR trait.

    The expensive wheeled light tank concept perfectly fits with the trait speed and mobility.
  6. Pelojian

    there's nothing wrong with the current prowler.

    it'd be better to just make an IFV as a new vehicle, give it an NS main gun as default, with a driver controlled secondary (defaulted to basilisk) allow weapons to reload while switched from primary to secondary control and vice versa.

    let it equip the ES vehicle weapons as primaires, allowing them to become more specialized as for secondary weapons let people pick kobalt, G2G dumbfires, G2G lockons, G2A lockons.

    utility slot can choose the normal range of stuff but also have AOE buffs that can affect infantry and vehicles, i.e within 20m all infantry get a small damage boost or damage reduction. as for vehicles why not AOE buffs to reload speed or repair rate.

    with 4 seats for passengers an IFV could become a useful vehicle for teamwork, no other vehicle other then the ANT has the ability to appear weak and then disgorge a few people and shred whatever thought it was an easy target.
  7. Demigan


    Again, how would removing the Sunderer and putting your reworked Prowler concept make players use it any different than they already do?
    How do you justify the effort of overhauling the Prowler and removing the Sunderer from their lineup if it isnt going to be used any differently than the current Sunderer by the average player?

    Why would you screw over the perfectly fine Prowler just for adding a tank that could enhance all factions? Its wasted effort, and it would put the difference between the Lightning and AFV closer than the current Prowler and Lightning, exactly what you say you hate about the current Prowler.

    Why is the NC "supposed" to be hard hitting and heavily armored? They are the guerilla's and freedomfighters right? Be quick, hit hard and get out is basically the standard for those groups.
    I also dont see any "TR has to be light armored" anywhere. Where does that come from? Even if you ignore the lore and go for purely the in-game traits, where the NC has health (one vehicle), shields (one vehicle one MAX) and overnerfed shotguns (a lot) while the TR has deep magazines, Dakka and by now incendiary/flames as its traits. There's nothing about mobility in there... unless ofcourse you accept the fact that the Prowler is the MBT with the fastest mobility on the battlefield.

    Besides being an artillery piece, great CQC Brawler if you combine its high DPS and mobility to get the edge and great mobility to get in a favorable position while under fire or when circling the enemy positions?

    Even if you use it for the basic pop-up attacks that everyone does its a solid vehicle as it's frame is relatively short so its turret is quickly capable of firing, its mobility allows it to easily get in and out of that cover its popping up from and its DPS is just a great trait in dealing with enemy vehicles.

    But you've never pointed out a design flaw that was exclusive to the Prowler. "It cant fire on the move!", none can do that with great effect except the Magrider. "Its double shots make it terrible at range!", why would that be? Its easier to learn what height you need to aim for to get consistent hits and the "trade-off" is higher DPS than anyone else. With an almost non-existant recoil its not as if you'll miss more between shots and I already asked you if you thought if the Vanguard would be worse off if we let it fire 2 shots but added a longer reload so it kept its current DPS.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy? I dare bet you ignore any time the Prowler's win.
    How is the Prowler unsuited for tank on tank combat? Its mobility is more than fine, its DPS is the highest on the ground, its range is probably the best out of any ground vehicle as well, its well capable of CQC brawling especially with a Vulcan on top, the amount of gunners it has is, if I recall Campagnes numbers correctly, the same as that of the Vanguard. Its health and resistances is the same as the Magrider which is still one of the highest of any ground vehicle. There's nothing wrong with the tank unless you expect the Prowler to start winning most fights by just showing up.

    I dare say that when I'm talking about the Prowler rework concept exclusively.

    Also I dare say it of the most traditional and conventional faction. Why would they not build MBT's and rely exclusively on lighter vehicles? It makes no sense for them not to have access to the Main Battle Tank. A tank designed to make the old roles of Light, Medium and Heavy tank's obsolete as it combined the best traits of each in a medium-tank package (although the AFV has slowly been encroaching on many of the tasks).

    Should the TR have access to AFV's? Ofcourse! But so should the other two factions. In fact the lore would argue that NC's "slap armor and a gun on it" and the VS "high-tech lightweight vehicles" would be the prime users of AFV's.

    Always funny to hear about "military production" or "military grade". The thing is that "military grade/production can vary wildly depending on what you are producing. Its easy to get military grade communication equipment as the "lowest bidder" contractor concept means its not exactly high quality. Similarly the quality of military-grade vehicles can vary wildly despite them having more or less the same task.

    But I'm unsure how your two points promote exclusively the use of a Centauro II type of AFV for the TR. You could use the exact same reasoning to say that the TR requires a basic flashlight on every weapon. It helps authoritatians keep control over it's citizens at night and its solid military production!

    You use this to justify an IFV-type vehicle and an AFV, while at the same time removing the Sunderer which already does the role your Prowler concept does.

    This way I could say "lets remove the VS Harasser and replace it with a the Magrider which will now drive like a floating Harasser and we'll dial down its weapons somewhat, then add a new high-tech floaty vehicle that replaces the Magrider as MBT!". It "fits" their doctrine, but the changes are arbitrary and not designed to improve the game.

    Yes, but in what way does this concept do anything the Sunderer doesnt already? The Sunderer is more of a strength in unity as it can use two topgunners and a driver, yet you throw that away for a dialed down Prowler with Sunderer abilities?
    And again, is that Prowler going to be used any different than current Sunderers? Its not as if Sunderers cant keep up with Lightnings in normal combat scenario's, and I dont see people suddenly saying "oh wow an upgraded Basilisk Sunderer with a different profile, I suddenly gotta gang up on enemies next to Lightnings!". If only because you have to deploy to use the AMS ability which ruins the entire theme of keeping up with Lightnings (which again Sunderers can do perfectly well right now) and simultaneously supporting them with Sunderer abilities, a buffed basilisk and infantry spawns.


    Another TR trait, another missed opportunity to say why this would actually be worth it compared to just adding a new ES AFV style vehicle to all 3 factions.

    The current Prowler already fulfills that role. Also if we use your reasoning the other factions arent allowed a Harasser, because Speed and Mobility! Again, give some good reasons why this has to be TR exclusive, give some reasons why the Prowler needs changing in the first place and why it would operate any different than current Sunderers in the second place.
    • Up x 1
  8. karlooo

    I saw it in the faction trailers before I went into the game. This was one that talked about it:


    MAX units are not vehicles.

    But how about this. Before I reply to your points, how about you say why do you want the Vanguard to change? What don't you like about the tank? I find it perfectly fine: normal tank design, hard hitting, can break through with just a press of a button, counter enemy engages with the shield also....To me it is a perfect design, that is a bit too powerful.



    Because the Sunderer is an armored truck and the Prowler is a tank. Prowler has a lower profile, can neutral steer so it's more mobile.
    The Sunderer would not be a good combo with Lightening tanks in tank warfare (open field) because it's too large lol and clumsy.



    The Lightening is the MBT, don't you see? The Vanguard and Magrider are ES tanks.
    Warfare always changes.
    After WW2 Germany's MBT was the Leopard 1, which had really thin armor because of the change in warfare.
    Planetside 2 is again in a different year with all sorts of new sci-fi weaponry.
    [IMG]




    If we get ES AFVs then it will turn out most likely that VS will get another busted one, NC will receive a tough one and TR will get another firepower disgusting mess. I'm very certain. And we will go back to where we were with an extra vehicle that will be hard to balance.



    I have a feeling that there was some misunderstanding when creating the TR ES Prowler tank.
    Its visually was designed like a heavy tank. The stats turned it into a medium tank. And the TR traits where shoved into it making ****** whatever the hell it's supposed to be, nobody knows.
    In Planetside 2 tank combat always happens in an open field, I rarely see CQC and a CQC vehicle is not necessary anyways.

    Lets say it's an artillery tank. What the hell is an artillery tank with double 120mm cannons supposed to do in open field combat?

    Mobility. I would say Magrider has better mobility cause of the after burner. Prowler's mobility compared to a Vanguard's is nearly on par, with some small enhancements....wow! If the Prowler had same mobility as Vanguard there would be 0 difference.

    Say what you say, I play TR, I find the Prowler a filthy mess that just handicaps the Terrain Republic when it's purchased because it's a waste of resources.
  9. That_One_Kane_Guy

    This analogy does not fly in the Planetside universe. To make your argument valid every tank in the game would need to be capable of one-shotting each other from +1000m.
    The Leopard was the way it was because at the time weapons tech had eclipsed armor to the point where RHA was rendered obsolete and tank combat turned into a game of tag with rocket launchers where the first to hit wins. Thus tanks that could move fast and shoot accurately from as far away as possible.

    Planetside is about as far opposite to this paradigm as you can get, since by all appearances armor tech holds the advantage over firepower hence the 'MBTs' that behave and look more like heavy tanks.
  10. karlooo


    Not exactly. You know USSR and the V4 used T54/55 tanks and those were really heavily armored compared to the leopard 1, paper armor. Those where 2 very different tanks in the same period.
    Each nation had their own strategies, knowledge and designs.

    That's what I'm suggesting in this topic for Planetside 2. This is what the trailers even advertised.

    [IMG]
    • Up x 1
  11. That_One_Kane_Guy

    At the risk of knocking this whole discussion off into a Cold War Armor design dissertation:
    The T-54 is not a peer to the Leopard, as it was 16 years old when the Leopard first entered service. It's peer was more accurately the T-64, a tank which outclassed it to such a degree it wasn't even funny. In my personal opinion the Leopard 1 was a flawed design in general but that's beside the point.

    Regardless, even if we use your example comparing a tank designed primarily for offense with one designed solely for defense is a definite non-starter when you try and apply it to an FPS with balance in mind. Obviously you can't have one faction with a tank that only works on defense or they'd never win anything.

    The kind of asymmetry you are talking about could only take place with a ground-up rework to all the vehicles of each faction and probably a re-vamp of the gameplay loop in general. I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
  12. Blam320

    Which is precisely why I said "design a variant." Actually read before you post.

    The variant, which I dub the "Soldier ANT" would feature a carry capacity of six, with more HP than a standard ANT and a turret akin to the Lightning's mounted on the top, for the gunner. As a trade-off its Cortium carrying capacity is drastically reduced, to the point where it's no longer a tool for supporting bases but more useful for supporting an armor column. You could use the Soldier ANT as an independent armored vehicle moving infantry from base to base in relative safety thanks to the main cannon, or you could use it as a heavily armored scavenger to find Cortium to power a Colossus.
  13. karlooo


    Yep. Anyways I mentioned the Leopard 1 as an example to Demigan to show that an MBT doesn't have to be the standard, like we have nowadays. Almost each nation currently has the same MBT design because of worldwide globalism.
    But when nations are divided they have their own designs, strategies based on the situation and the MBT could be even be lightly armored.
    I find the Lightening a perfect MBT (I call it a light tank). It is a nice mix between firepower, speed, HP and size.

    A wheeled tank is a defensive tank? A Lightening tank purpose is solely for defending? I have no clue what you said.

    This actually reminded me of something I wanted to post long ago. Making the ANT combat abilities powered by Cortium should be scratched out. The cloak ability is necessary to get out of situations and protect your Cortium at some cost of it, but using these types of abilities for combat purposes like a shield is not good simply because you have have to play a whole type of different game - farming sim and the game is too swift for that. Everybody stop the war! Wait till I charge up my weapon.

    Does the Colossus even need ANTs Cortium if it can regen it? I never used a Colossus so don't know.
  14. That_One_Kane_Guy

    Don't confuse appearance with function, anyone who tells you all modern MBTs are the same is lying. Modern tanks are already designed taking into account the wants and needs of the nations that build them, hence the plethora of native MBT designs in evidence in the EU. The reason why no one has designed an armorless tank in the last 50 years isn't because of globalism, it's because it's suicidal.

    To me it appeared as though you were suggesting that a light vehicle would be fine as the primary AFV for the TR on the premise that the Germans did it once. I wasn't addressing existing vehicles since I was under the impression you were proposing a rework. Apologies if I've misunderstood your intent.
  15. karlooo

    NP. Just my idea was to rework the Prowler into the new TR ES 'Sunderer', replace the original Sunderer with the Prowler and add in a new wheeled tank for TR.

    So the Terrain Republics MBT would be the Lightening, Prowler would be the support tank, and the wheeled tank would be for flanking and also a fun pick for solo players.
  16. That_One_Kane_Guy

    You would need to rework the Lightning in general and re-balance a lot of things about the vehicle interplay in general to make something like that work. As it is the Lightning being available to all factions would make the TR's 'MBT' the equivalent of the other two factions' light tank, not to mention the issues in stacking up a single-person tank against the two-person tanks of the others.
  17. karlooo

    What specifically?
    So far I can't imagine any issue with this concept. Like if the Prowler/Sunderer could replace the 30mm auto cannon with a low DPS Anti-Tank weapon (Like a laser guided missile), I can imagine the Lightening and Prowler/Sunderer combo being very powerful and distinctive, which could compete against Vangaurds.
  18. That_One_Kane_Guy


    Really? I can think of several without trying particularly hard:
    1) The Lightning is not a match for a 2/2 MBT from any faction, and since all sides have access to it making changes to it does not solve this problem.
    2) Allowing one faction to get a tank/sunderer hybrid means you will either:
    a. Introduce a situation where one faction can simply spam one vehicle type and win since they no longer need to worry about mixing tanks and support vehicles, or
    b. Introduce a situation where only one faction has to mix together a variety of different vehicle types together in order to achieve parity with the single vehicle types (that is, MBTs) that the other two factions have access to.

    Like I said, you either change the rules for every faction or you leave it alone. Tweaking just one faction like this won't fly.
    • Up x 3
  19. karlooo


    Nope not true. I've been only using the Lightening tank for almost a month now and I'm very satisfied with the tank, it's much better than the Prowler in tank warfare.
    IMO the Terrain Republic doesn't need an expensive tank, especially a trash tank like the Prowler. If the devs temporarily removed the Prowler from TR I can bet you nothing would change or it may even be an indirect buff to TR because at least allies wouldn't throw Nanites down the drain.

    Why I'm so disgusted with the Prowler is because it's designed like a suicide car bomb....An expensive one.
    [IMG]

    That's what it is. It doesn't have defensive capabilities, weak reverse speed, terrible design from weapons to shape.
    You go in, expecting to die, but to dish out the maximum amount of damage. You could possibly take down multiple tanks or just one. It's basically equivalent to a car bomb.
    This is not what TR is supposed to be about.

    I assume the creators of the Prowler tank were inspired and had in mind the blitzkrieg strategy.....But the Blitzkrieg is about numbers and speed.
    This is how a Blitzkrieg looked like. I don't see any big tank with 3 Anti tank guns lol.
    [IMG]

    A blitzkrieg was supported with close air support, which the TR has.
  20. That_One_Kane_Guy

    No offense but even if you did have appreciable experience with the items in question, citing yourself as a source is not exactly valid. Especially given your rather-
    -significant bias on the subject.

    Why do you assume this? Why should the TR, an entity that per the lore has enjoyed hegemony for literally centuries, trace the origin of combat doctrine to one designed to fight a peer opponent in combined arms maneuver warfare? Even better, a doctrine focused on destroying the armed forces of an opponent...in a world where re-spawning is canon? Especially considering the fact that when said strategy was used historically against the closest equivalent it failed spectacularly.
    • Up x 1

Share This Page