Ultimate Vehicle Thread- "Vehicles kind of suck to play; We should change that" [+Base Overhaul]

Sure tanks can be blown up by aircraft... but aircraft in turn are made very vulnerable to AA.

The only thing that has a greatly reduced role on the battlefield are infantry, which ironically are the centerpiece of PS2 combat.

The point is that vehicles, not infantry, should play the decisive role in battle. Whether that vehicle is a tank, aircraft, or AA vehicle doesn't matter. All three of those should be mixed in to dictate the outcome of a fight.

An RPG-29 maybe... but your typical RPG-7 is pretty useless against killing most modern MBTs. Heavy RPGs are exceedingly rare, and even when they do hit armor penetration is far from assured.

Even ATGMs have their countermeasures. Whether that's passive or active defense, tanks have ways of dealing with ATGMs. Really only other tanks and aircraft are serious dangers to tanks.

The problem in PS2 (unlike actual conventional warfare) is that the myth of combat centers around the lone infantryman. Everyone wants to be a Rambo, when in reality the combat effectiveness of infantry has been increasingly insignificant since mechanized warfare.

Disagree ...

The problem with PS2 is that everyone wants to be everything ... They want to be Rambo AND Top Gun AND Creighton Abrams all in the same life ..

And to cater to that everything is spammable ...

This is one thread I'm always glad to see alive.

I hope more and more people chime in. The only thing that bothers me is the hard line between the "Realism vs Gameplay" shenanigans.

I've created, modded and designed projects for fun and for study and I'm here to tell you, just because a design is based on realism? Doesn't mean you're making a god damned simulator.
Everyone needs to realize this. It's not easy designing anything with true depth and it's not easy taking a Reality based concept and translating into something far more simplified (and thus Arcade Like) but the fact remains that it is totally possible.

Most people who've not played something like Rome: Total War would be shocked at how high one's APM is when playing a multiplayer match.
It's all too common for everyone to think "Realism = Boring". Yet as a gamer who loved R:TW1? I can tell you that even with attempted WCG status in SC:Brood War under my belt, good R:TW matches made me sweat.

It's realistic LOOKING, it BEHAVED realistically; but in no way is it simulating. Sword combat is way the hell off, unit capabilities are not properly represented with the real thing and blah blah blah.. but you know what? It's still believable and deep.

If I have hoplites position for a phalanx and you're cavalry runs into them? Yup, what you'd think realistically would happen happens!

So all I'm saying is, when we create and brain storm ideas; realism isn't some sort of forbidden fruit. We are allowed to use more than Tetris Shapes when coming up with things. And if you think that if you add "realism", that it will simply lead to "simulation" and "imbalance"; than I dare say that you're gaming experience so far in this life isn't nearly as satisfied and quenched as you may think it is. Plenty of scores of games out there that did super well using realism as a base line and yet made things simplistic enough to be competitive of casual.

Keep your mind, OPEN.

PS2 NEEDS creativity. Don't destroy that.

Single most important line in that entire post.

Creativity is the core of all good gameplay.

Damn you're fast.

I had no idea you were active! Apparently my "follow" selecting did not work...

And yes creativity, PS2 is totally starved of.

Because of that I'd probably remove most of the NS items JUST TO FORCE creative assessments and create incentives for asymmetric design.
I know NS items from a design stand point have a good use and purpose but, cross factional items are being used too much like crutches now - almost like the "EZ way out" method.
And yes I totally just went there, Higgles.

I'd leave the NS weapons, and then make the FS weapons more unique. That way NS weapons would have a purpose as the universal standardized weapons. They'd be the middle ground between the three factions.

Their only purpose is to skew the balance and performance numbers.

That's actually not a good thing if you want more unique ES designs because they will easily contaminate your balance data. You'll also be forced to create your ES designs AROUND the NS ones in a vein attempt to prevent redundancy which; ironically? We already see in PS2. Some of the NS weapons make for good TR ES weapons for example. The Viper for the Lightning? Pretty TR-ish. Hell the lightning tank itself is rather "TR"ish.
The Lib is pretty NC-ish.
The Lib's Tank Buster is pretty NC-ish
The Wraith Flash is pretty "VS"ish.
A cloaking Sundy (like PS1s) was and IS proposed to be for everyone but even you've suggested it being a unique Vanu Sovereignty item! See what's happening there?

NS designs are dangerously stagnate.

NS even contaminates the Meta potential.
Think on it. If we do create a diversified asymmetric game, with a fleshed out macro game (purposeful base captures, end game victories and what not) - We've done well. However the Meta game has another Layer; IE how the TR fight the VS will be different than how they fight the NC. Different tools work better vs different factions with THEIR unique tools.
Everyone having NS options drastically mitigates the Meta potential for the actual COMBAT Meta.
I mean look at the meta we have now just with ESFs?
The only Meta is "scythes have a slender profile" .... .... .... nothing unique with secondaries or anything, no special features. Just primarily items balanced around OR BELONGING TOO, the NS design pool.

If we HAVE TO HAVE NS, we need to ensure the core game's asymmetric designs are established first and THEN add NS over time; and have their designs be entirely isolated - for example, no NS attachments, no NS missile systems, no NS ammo or weapon systems.

Common pool items have a purpose; but it really drowns the one thing PS2 needs... creativity; the very important line you so quoted me on.
And I know my opinion is rather drastic; just stating my case on it - 'tis all.

While I disagree with you entirely, instead of arguing and causing a ruckus on here, I'm going to do something extremely unorthodox.


http://renegade-x.com/download.php


It's completely free. No in-game purchases or anything: a 100% free fan-remake of an old favorite of mine.


The torrent is way faster, and add me on my steam. The name's MrNature72. This game will show you that common pool and faction-specific weapons and vehicles can live in perfect harmony. Add me on steam and we'll play some Renegade.

You're both right. The question comes down to preference, at the end of the day. I, personally, don't really like the idea of NS weapons, but that's just preference. Either method can work.

You should play Renegade with us too.

I should've, yes... but I had a Christmas dinner to attend

Srsly tho. Bacon-wrapped filet mignon is not only a thing, but also the best thing ever.

Inb4 derailment.

On topic, I actually HAVE played Renegade X before, so I can certainly see where you're coming from about NS weapons. Again, it comes down to preference.

Formatting is overdone dude. Jokes distract from your points and the more words to get to the point, the more is lost in translation.

Don't be overly descriptive, no need to repeat yourself.

I think you got too detailed in your suggestions. Remember they are only suggestions, you aren't a developer. The most you can influence is getting across a general idea. Giving examples to add vision to the concept is ok but you went all out.

I like to break the ice with boldly stating the objective of what you're about to read, then following with an example demonstrating why this objective is worthy of developer's attention. This gets immediately gets to the point and lets the reader decide if they should concern themselves with reading the rest.

Come up with ideas for sections and use effective use of formatting. I know your intention was to use formatting to enhance your post but honestly it detracted from it.
I'll follow up with an example using your content.

Descriptive titles and effective styling for section headers.

Indentation for child paragraphs. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean fermentum risus vitae venenatis bibendum. Integer feugiat ante risus. Sed pharetra quis est quis accumsan. Phasellus mauris nibh, dictum nec posuere malesuada, mattis in dui. Aliquam vestibulum tincidunt magna nec rutrum. Integer commodo ligula vitae ligula mattis, sit amet rhoncus ante tincidunt. Cras ac condimentum nisi. Fusce nisi enim, tempus in justo eu, fringilla ullamcorper risus. Phasellus a enim vel nisl rhoncus tempus ac sed metus. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Vivamus lorem eros, pretium nec erat eget, ullamcorper dignissim metus. Praesent vulputate elit eget cursus maximus.

Descriptive titles and effective styling for sub-headers.

• Use
• Bullet
• Points
• To
• Enumerate
• The
• Enumerables

I understand where you're coming from and I have to completely agree. In a traditional sense, yes, you are COMPLETELY right. That format is much easier, both for the writer and the reader, and much more organized.

HOWEVER.

It's really, really boring and doesn't match my flare. I like being a little eccentric, you know? It's my style, and I plan to keep it. And so far, you're the first person on here to complain about it, so it's been fairly effective from a public standpoint.

I have no intentions to change how I write. I love it, and I wouldn't want to make threads any other way.

What?!

We're not arguing, we're debating! I respect you a lot, I hand out your name often and alert people to your threads just as much. If I debate with you as we are know, it's because I respect you, the effort you've put forth and the passion you have. Plus I like your colored texts and humorous banter.

But, for your sake (probably because Forumside isn't the best place to have an open discussion/debate considering the volitile environment that often seethes here), I'll try to make this short.

Oh. My. God.
The memories. It's almost the same as when i discovered that a fan group remade Star Trek Armada 2 using the Sins engine.
I will be adding you as I download this. Thanks for the heads up.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. At no point was I suggesting that Common Pool + Asymmetric Pools = bad mechanics and game play. This isn't a game play related discussion; this is a creative one.
Renegade, ironically; proves both our points. Renegade ( Along with others, like the Star Wars Battle Front series I might add) proves that yes, common + unique pools can work mechanically. But that wasn't my point.
Renegade also proves that when you focus on the core expressions on the asymmetry of each faction first? Common pools fall into place to fill voids, not to be the primary.
This is an awkward example because, fundamentally; the design reasons for each games common pool versus unique design pool items (PS2 vs CnCR) are on the verge of extreme differences.
PS2 treats vehicles as "classes" themselves that everyone has access to from the very beginning. Renegade progresses slightly differently. While each "option" is still readily available to everyone, PS2s progression system is compartmentalized heavily which is why the NS item pools become "lazy design mode". There is a HUGE BULK of crap. The game is overloaded with items and the F2P model will only serve to make this worse.
If I remember, Renegade actually requires you EARN your Vehicles and class tiers. Infantry are practically the ONLY common pool between Nod and GDI and this is because you start out as infantry; period. Need credits/tiberium to buy the vehicles.
Unlike PS2, Renegade actually has very different sides. Once you level up your Infantry or access vehicles, Nod and GDI differences are readily apparent. I remember every vehicle being different with possibly the exception of the APC.

The Buggy was NOT the same as the Humvee, the Nod Tank was different from the GDI tank, the ARTILLERY was even different. They all had different stats and many had different weapons (Nod Apache was a chaingun and the Orca used Rockets).
And it worked very well using first tier infantry as common pool because of the progression system used and the fact that as I stated in my last post; it's better to affirm the core design of the asymmetric concepts BEFORE jumping the common pool concepts. Westwood did this easily with Renegade because Renegade was post- Tiberium Sun: Fire Storm. Each faction was very fleshed out, had several campaigns each; giving them swaths of personality and lore. Fundamentally, each side was already very different and had already PRACTICED being different IN-GAME via the RTSs. That allowed them to easily transition to the Renegade concept; keeping heavily diversified designs dominate with the common pool being primarily introductory-progression tools.


Compare this with Planet Side (even PS1) where the Lore is just there as primarily an excuse and there for little of the game's immersion is really fleshed out. In PS2, the faction traits suggested also go a lot farther than just vehicles, such as "No Drop and Energy based weapons" for the VS. That implies that even as infantry, their faction would be different. In Renegade, it's never elaborated that infantry had massive differences until Tiberium Sun; GDI jump troopers vs Nod Cyborgs would've been a sight to behold non-the-less but Renegade doesn't take place in that time frame.
When we ask for creativity, we're looking for a lot of little details that matter. Immersion, representation, character, personality and behaviors; all things that if one is serious about it? Would need to consider.
The surest way to do this is by removing the temptation of stagnation. That means pushing yourself to the unfomortable edge of your creative boundaries; trying something you havn't before and doing it over and over again until finally; you've expressed yourself thoroughly. I remember that lesson well from my first year Professor, and it's always been true. Artistically; NS = stagnation. NS = Generic. You want creativity? You need to push yourself beyond NS.
This doesn't HAVE to happen of course. The grande majority of gamers are fine with generic crap all the time; hence way we see so many Call of Duties and Assassin Creeds.

Being creative will always land you into a Niche. Always. But if you have a passion for being creative - you will understand that risk and realize that what your imagination births will never please any one; if it can't even please yourself.

Game design is Art. It's high time for the industry to start treating it as such.




I will see you on steam, MrNature.

*salute*

Speaking of boring, I did like when Esamir was a vehicle heaven but these days I've had little or no use to even bat an eyelash to upgrade any MBT for any faction beyond the initial launch of the game. I've considered the Magrider as it looks like it's fun to play with but haven't really found a real need to do so since infantry combat is basically the majority of my playtime and MBT need is situated to essentially some narrow lanes when needed but generally relegated to not really having an impact other than providing spawn room firings or knocking out Sundies. There is a niche for all other vehicles but MBT suffer from not really be "main" about anything.

For example, I feel the Vanguard to be a generic and somewhat boring tank to play with fitting that stereotype of a slow to maneuver heavy hitting tank with respectable armor like it's asking to get fired upon so you have to hit reverse, hop out and repair. Un-upgraded, it doesn't hold out very well as the weapons are toned down so much I'll fall asleep using it. There are one or two worthwhile secondary guns but nothing to really to knock the socks off playing the Vanguard with or look to improve certs into. Sure, the Vanguard Shield is nice and situational but isn't really all that useful if you're not really in a good spot. The Prowler I'm at border line bored with that one too and haven't really considered to bother to play it all that much. The Bonus Anchored Mode just makes me think of it being a giant easier to hit TR MAX with big cannons. I've rarely if ever saw a Prowler not rely on some mobility to stay alive so I haven't really felt that "anchorage" by this vehicle. Again, there are some worthwhile secondary guns but like the Vanguard I think it would be more fun to have them on a Harrasser than a boredom tank for cert investment. Neither of these two "tanks" feel like real tanks and I did recall someone did a real world comparison where these seemed to have fallen from their original being. It was nice that Higby did demonstrate how the G30 could eat away at the Vanguards front but it still doesn't get me impressed to bother with MBTs.

Probably the most interesting tank of the bunch is the MagRider and it's only through my experience fighting it as infantry did I see some interesting things you could do with it for a different playstyle that it even peaked my curiosity. The Prowler and Vanguard the infantry can easily swarm if there is space to maneuver to catch the tank in a bad mobility spot but I've seen some neat skill by some Mag pilots in close quarters that left me impressed.

Overall, MBTs are probably at the bottom of my list to splurge on certs. As it stands now, most of everything designed has been tweaked to ensure vehicles in general don't over farm infantry to the point of no point of really investing in them compared to getting the infantry game going. This is in part due to how the game setup but also due to the way this was "fixed" by narrowing tank country to lane-ing like it's tank of legends or walling off a lot of places.

The PS2 forum text editor doesn't really work that well, especially with indented bullets, but you can still get the point across.

Empire Specific Vehicle Suggestions

Terran Republic Vehicle Suggestions

Harasser - Twin Rumble Seats

• • Doubles the amount of riders in the rear.
  • Decreases armor and repair rate from engineers by 40%.

Prowler - MBT Carrier System

• • Decreases rear armor by 20%.
  • Allows the Prowler to carry 6 infantry.

Mosquito - Rumble Seat

• • Allows two non-max passengers to sit on the sides of the Mosquito.
  • Passengers can only use their primary weapon.

Flash - Lightweight Systems

• • Increases flip resistance and decreases vehicle gravity. (allowing for crazy jumps)

Liberator - Target Acquisition

• • Identifies MBT's and lightnings that are near the target reticule for the pilot.

Galaxy - Fast Drop Systems

• • Infantry who jump out of this galaxy are propelled towards the ground at a much higher rate
  • Galaxy Deployed smoke grenades when infantry eject.

Sunderer - Firing Ports

• • Allows infantry to shoot through murderholes on the sunderer.
  • Exposes passengers to external small arms fire.
  • Passenger engineers cannot use the repair tool while inside.
  • Passenger reload times doubled.
  • Sunderer armor decreased on side, rear, and top.

New Conglomerate Vehicle Suggestions

Harasser - Rear Shield

• • Provides a shield on the back of the vehicle that protects the passenger from small arms fire.

Vanguard - Landcruiser Systems

• • Increase in front, side, and top armor by around 10~%.
  • Greatly increases traction.
  • Decrease in rear armor.
  • Decreases reverse speed.

Reaver - High Altitude Bombing Equipment

• • Max speed while flying downwards increased.
  • Max speed overall increased at extreme altitudes,.
  • Acceleration while facing vertically increased.

Flash - Safety Harness

• • Increases passenger durability.

Liberator - Tail Harnesses

• • Allows 2 riders to be housed in the tail, and can safely jump out.
  • Harness passengers are exposed to external fire.
  • Upgrades increase amount to 4 and add more resistances to riding infantry.

Galaxy - Double-Decker Capacity

• • Increases galaxy capacity by 25%
  • Can be upgraded to 50%

Sunderer - Automated Defense Systems

• • Armor decreased by 25% while not deployed.
  • Armor increased by 20% when deployed.

Vanu Sovereignty Vehicle Suggestions

Harasser - Hover Systems

• • Replaces wheels with hover units.
  • Decreases maximum speed.

Magrider - Magjump

• • Allows the Magrider to perform a small jump.

Scythe - Rapid Gyro Unit

• • Activation causes the vehicle to make a 180 degree turn toward the rear.
  • 45 seconds cooldown.
  • Does not change momentum.
  • Decreases armor by 5%.

Flash - Magnetic Wheels

• • Greatly increases traction.

Liberator - Bombing Systems

• • Greatly increases afterburner fuel.
  • Slight increase to max speed.
  • Slightly boosts armor when traveling at max speed.
  • Slightly decreases armor when traveling at minimum speed.
  • Decreases turning speed and acceleration.

Galaxy - Ambush Launcher Unit

• • Allows the Galaxy pilot to deploy passengers over a great distance by launching them.
  • Deployed passengers are cloaked for a short duration.
  • Pilot can only launch passengers when flying above a certain height.

Sunderer - Stealth Unit

• • Activation causes the sunderer to become 50% transparent for a short duration.
  • Slight speed increase during use.
  • Decrease in armor during use.
  • Above effects do not apply while sunderer is deployed.
  • When Stealth Unit is activated when the sunderer is deployed, the effect instead causes the sunderer to pack up faster.

Yes yes, it looks nice. Thank you.

I always wished Tier 3 bases should have had a shield surrounding the whole area from entry and a separate generator system needed to be destroyed in a bunker or exhausting area for artillery to destroy.

Either way the mech side of things is very poor and always nerfed it's cool we got the Valkyrie but it still needs a few fixes mainly for me it's take off and landing being more smooth and the fact most of it's weapons are all useless. Doesn't bother me too much on weapons I would treat the ship like a transport more than an attack chopper.

You can already shoot while moving if you're good. A separate gunner and driver is unnecessary for this purpose.

IMO, there are three reasons people don't shoot while moving:

1.) They choose not to because they don't think it can work / don't think they're supposed to.
2.) The tank itself isn't designed for it (Prowler).
3.) There is a lack of stabilization which makes it mechanically difficult to be accurate.

#1 is difficult to fix because it requires the player to use their tank a lot and take it seriously, which few people do.
#2 can be fixed by adding a new defense/mobility ability to the Prowler so it isn't scared to get close and isn't reliant on Anchor.
#3 can be overcome by experience or by shooting in third person, but once again this requires players to use their tank a lot. To make it easier for players SOE would need to add true stabilization for tanks.

That's already done.

Tanks have vertical stabilization now, just like all remote weapons do.