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

No they don't.

Secondaries have true stabilization.

Primaries don't. They have some stabilization, but your aim still rocks up/down over terrain.

Might lose support for this. But bumping this old thread because the ideas are just what we need.

Vehicles need somethings to capture.

Right now their roll is just to protect and destroy spawn points

Because the vehicle game sucks right now.

I like how your proof is two examples where the Magrider only survived by pure luck, one of which where two hits with a Basilisk would've killed it, and a third where it just instantly explodes.

Wow, such an advantage.

Who'd have thought, a TR crying on the forums. Bloohoohoo. Maybe Higby will find a way to turn your tears into bullets.

I think the biggest problem with the Magrider is that its ONLY advantage over the other tanks is its manoeuvrability... which it doesn't even have a whole lot of. It has neither the stats nor the weapons to reliably take on enemy armour like a Vanguard or Prowler can.

At the end of the day, it's just not a good tank. It's weaker than the Vanguard AND the Prowler, it doesn't have *much* more manoeuvrability, its weapons have subpar damage output at best, and it has abysmal effective range due to the insane drop on its projectiles (which, I might add, flies in the face of VS faction traits).

Now, here's a thought: instead of just flat out buffing its toughness... why not give it the same health and armour values as a Prowler, but make half or even 3/4 of its effective health a regenerating shield, like the one infantry have? Also, for the love of God, get rid of that damn projectile drop. On all of its weapons. Then buff the damage a little (and just a little - we don't want to make it OP). Finally, make it faster. Let it strafe and reverse at the same speed as it can move forward, and then buff its overall movement speed a bit, possibly even letting the Magburner work in all directions, finishing the job by letting it climb steeper inclines.

I may be retired from PS2, but I know the Magrider well enough to feel confident that this would put it on par with the Prowler and Vanguard.

separate drive and gunner is just more fun for some of us
obviously not to you but for me i played ps1 for 8 years or so doing separate driver and gunner and it was way WAY more fun for me

1/ yes it can work but not as well as having them separate - no matter how serious you take it, i move while i tank but no where near as much as was possible in ps1 because you cant see where you go and shoot at a 90 or 180 degrees angle at the same time, if you try to shoot behind you or to the side you risk running into other vehicles which cant be helped
2/ none of the tanks are really designed for it - why is the prowler so different? (since i returned to the game from my 1 year break i have put in loads of time into the prowler and i cant see why its any different to the vanguard - you still cant see where you are going)
3/ being accurate isnt the issue its running into things which cant be helped when you have your turret turned 90 or 180 degrees to where you are driving

if you really think its possible next time you drive your car try driving it with your head and eyes at a 90 degrees angle to the road
i bet you run into something

anyways not asking for the tanks to be ONLY separate driver and gunner but as an ADDITION to what we have now for those of us that do prefer it

I think you need to read the main post, man.


I literally said all of those things already.

...Remember when I said it's been ages since I read the OP?

I wasn't kidding.

*Goes and reads*

Vehicles suck to play because they are all bland infantry farming machines with zero specialization. It also heavily hurts them that the game gives them zero weight or value, meaning they can never be strong otherwise why bother playing infantry when you can literally always be in a force multiplier (vehicle/max unit). Yet Higby has decided to abandon the resource revamp for 'bases 2.0 dur dur dur much to the detriment of regular day to day play. It really makes zero sense.

Vehicles need much more clearly defined roles and weaknesses. This would require buffs, nerfs and removal of some weapons from some vehicles. Not every vehicle should be ez mode infantry farming (currently they all are, even the flash!). Not every vehicle should be capable of AV work. There also needs to be more to vehicle combat, such as weak points (example being tires that can be blown out/flattened, tracks that can be broken, turrets that can be jammed, control surfaces that can be blown off). Vehicle vs vehicle is currently the single most shallow, boring and unskilled combat in the game outside of ESF nose gun 1v1s. Another thing is performance and render distance needs fixing, but those hurt everything including infantry. Also, map design is god awful. We have these great big maps that are completely wasted by piss poor design that makes them play like a series of small BF maps rather than one large one. The terrain is way too channeled. This also hurts all forms of game play, but vehicles the most since they are frequently forced into very narrow choke points.

God, the combination of Gameplay Discussion and Suggestions was the stupidest thing ever.

Jumpjets + droppable C-4.

Also gone vehicules section...

I really, really want to know why they did that.

I generally don't disagree with OP. But as with anything, on paper looks better than it would in practice.

Here are a couple examples:

- NCs tank would be unable to retreat for repairs. Similar issue with Air. tanky alone =/= effective.
I do like the empire specific properties however. We're losing that throughout the game due to normalization.

- I do like the bases w/ gates idea for vehicles (or general entry). However, current problem with bases is that they're too holy for infantry. Need to shutout infantry to allow vehicles to make more openings (perhaps I TLDRd that part). But w/o that bases would be weaker not stronger.

- Security Tower idea not unlike PS1 Command consoles w/ certain benefits provided to a facility. Perhaps a different form of it, but same idea. This would necessitate a greater class rebalance, particularly for infils and LAs. (again, TLDRd it, but I didn't notice much for infantry).

Not bad at all. But much would need to be fleshed out.

I totally agree it would need to be fleshed out, but that's as good as it gets without playtesting.

If the people here at SOE would allow me to run tests on these ideas, I could do so on the test server, and without even needing any new models. I'd just adjust the numbers of current models to test new guns, vehicle concepts, and so on and so forth. What these concept need is rigorous amounts of playtesting. Of course mark the items I'm adjusting so people know they're more like a test bed than anything else.

I'd love to get the entire community involved in that case. I adore listening to ideas, reading through posts, so on and so forth. I would do it all for free, and all I'd need is access to a few people who could adjust stats for me on SOE's side, access to the test server, and a willing community to run my ideas through the f*cking wringer. It would take months to get everything juuuuust right, but I'd be totally down for sacrificing my time for the sake of the game.

I honestly hope SOE sees this offer. That would be huge for me, and with a revamp like that, I could do some serious good for the game. Everyone would still enjoy it, and something like that would catch some serious attention outside of the game. Imagine that.

"Game developer lends passionate player the reigns. The result? A completely revamped game everyone is clamoring to play."

"What happens when you give a player the test server? Good things, that's what."

It would be amazing. It would extend the life of the game, make things much more interesting, garner plenty of attention (which leads to profit), and you know what? I'm sure I could squeeze some sales in there somewhere. Because we know how SOE loves their sales. *rolls eyes*

You're talking about this clip.



I will caution you, however, on this line of argument. Most casual drivers don't have the experience to perform things like this, and some don't even consider it possible so they never try. They would try and pop and shoot around the cliff side into the teeth of the locked down prowler.

There are advantages and disadvantages to all three MBTs. Most people like to go to the extreme and label things "useless". The mobility advantages don't play out in MBT v MBT as well as the shield/alpha damage of Vannie or the long-range shelling of the Prowler... but it plays out against Sundies, Harassers, Lightnings, Infantry in general, etc.

To discount those things when talking about the vehicle as a whole is flawed. Fighting a Vanguard in CQC when it hasn't popped the shield and without getting rear shots is not an easy task.

There are plenty of ways the ability of the Mag to quickly navigate rough terrain gives it an advantage. It's just not as easy to see as the High damage or Shield. It also doesn't help as much in equal-skill vs equal-skill engagements.

The standard definition of "Tank" is what is at odds with the Magrider. People expect a tank to go forth, soak damage, put out damage and slowly move forward decimating things. Front to Front combat... slug it out, etc. The Mag isn't good at this. Therefore, I've always said its a bad "Tank", but a very good and effective vehicle.
It also relies much more on driver experience and skill to squeeze out the mobility advantage than the shield or added-DPS does.... So it's not very forgiving on casual or newer drivers.

Honestly, if you want to buff the Mag a little in the "Tank" rolls... maybe look for a slight buff to the frontal armor add-on. Would make the sidegrade of picking armor plating to be focused on frontline work without overbuffing it for other roles (like flanker, etc)

Problem is 90% of the point of tanks in real life and in-game is to fight other tanks. It's like the Lasher. It's good for spamming wildly at a chokepoint, but in terms of actually being a weapon, it's ****. The TR have the mother of all LMGs, the NC have an instagib splattercannon, and the VS have a gun that has the absolute worst DPS of anything in the entire game and will lose every single head-to-head fight.

You don't get to just give one side a highly situational niche weapon and leave them with a massive gap in their primary arsenal. The Magrider may work against Sunderers, Lightnings, and infantry, but Lightnings work fine against Sunderers, Lightnings, and infantry as well. Harassers work even better against all those. There's also aircraft which also work great against those. The TR and the NC don't have something like the Magrider which is good against that list and they don't seem to be having a problem, so why does the VS somehow need a special weapon platform in lieu of an MBT? There's tons of garbage already in the game to counter all that crap.

The VS don't need a hideous floating gimmick, they need a TANK. There's several things you could do to improve the Maggies performance against other armor, but one thing's for certain, if you want to claim 'maneuverability' is the advantage, you need to give it more speed. Right now it's literally exactly as fast as a Vanguard. That's ********. I would happily give up hill-climbing ability to be able to 1v1 another tank without REQUIRING a top gunner to make the fight vaguely balanced.

I should caution you, then, that the vast majority of the maps and vast majority of style of armored warfare in this game makes that maneuver wildly impractical if not outright impossible. You showed me a single tank being destroyed in a very small, specific engagement, and that was your argument for the entire concept of the tank being bad? Because IF you're fighting on Esamir, and IF there's a huge terrain feature you can boost over, and IF there's literally nobody else in the area even attempting to shoot at you, you can probably do a maneuver to fight the tank?

What good does that do you on Hossin? Or Indar? Nothing, that's what. I could show you videos of people dumbfiring Decimators wildly into the air and shooting down ESFs, does that mean that we should remove the Bursters from an entire faction?

You're mixing me up with the other guy. I've never argued that the entire concept of the tank is bad. I've stated its bad in some circumstances and good in others. I know where and when the Mag is the most effective, and I also know that the majority of the Maps and Terrain are against armored units in general and the artificial chokepoints are confining to a mobility based vehicle in specific.

The main reason I entered the discussion (besides the fact that my videos are being used in a debate) is to combat the hyperbolic statements that people throw around.

Like this one:

While I agree its definitely uninspired... I would argue it is not without utility in many ways. Using it to navigate terrain easier and faster, getting superior position, using it to burst to cover quickly, being able to angle for rear/side shots, using it to jump off cliffs and land level... If you can't see the usefulness of it, then I'm sorry. I, however, use the f$3k out of it. I'd also say I'm pretty good at using it. I'm not just talking "glitching into bases" (although Mag Parkour is fun....) but in actual combat scenarios against various targets. Even the small burst of acceleration that the Magburner gives you can be very useful in combat positioning. Especially with PS2 directional damage model.


Your complaint that the Mag isn't a Tank and that's what Vanu needs has some truth to it. However, don't discount the Mag as a combat vehicle just because you think it should be used a certain way... and thus its "useless" to you. It won't help you in the arguments you are trying to make. If you constantly state that the vehicle is useless, then you just look like a fool.

Oh, btw.... I make maneuvers like the above pretty much every playsession.... while in combat and while being effective. Yes, it depends on terrain, but so do most combat maneuvers. You should have a full toolbox to draw from and use the correct tool for the circumstance. The Mag has a lot of good tools instead of 1 or 2 exceptional ones.

Strafe speed needs to be a bit faster, as does the mag. This or a small Magburner buff (like 1.3 X duration or 1.6 X fuel regeneration) or both strafe and burner buffs (preferable IMO).

EDIT: Change the description too, it says that the mag has a "LOW ARC MAIN CANNON", which is clearly incorrect.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. What the Magrider needs isn't a buff; It needs to be reworked around it's current concept. They tried to slap a tank onto a mobile gun platform, and it didn't really work. If you want an example of what I consider the Maggy to be closest to in real life:

The M8 mobile gun system. It has a full-scale tank cannon, but it's on a much, much smaller body, which henceforth, is also much faster, faster to accelerate, and has a much lower profile.

The Magrider will never compete in 1 on 1, straightforward slugfests with the other tanks. Just like the Prowler will never compete with the bullet-soaking ability of the Vanguard, and the Vanguard will never be able to keep up with the raw amount of lead the Prowler can put down. The issue is that the Magrider is definitely the least straightforward of the three tanks. And with the way it's built, you're not encouraging players to test it in new, interesting ways.

The Magrider II (which is what I'm calling it) I discussed in the primary post (the changes to the maggy) would completely revamp it. It would be fast, significantly more mobile, and have a true niche it could sit in.

The design concept I had when redesigning the tanks was to find a way to keep them all 'tanks' in the traditional sense (the heaviest piece of armor a given faction can bring to bear), but also giving them their own role as tanks without impeding on the territory of the other tanks. To put it simply:

Magrider: Fast, nimble, able to flit around the battlefield and conquer basically any terrain. It has unique low-arc and multipurpose cannons, and the most rounded armor, possessing the most rear armor out of any of the tanks. This gives it complete freedom in mobility, as the driver has to worry less about his armor. Replacing most of the health with a recharging shield further increases this, giving pilots more breathing room when taking shots out of cover, further enhancing the concept of the Magrider as a fast, hit-and-run mobile gun platform that uses the terrain to its advantage.

Prowler: The Prowler is probably the best tank right now, so I wanted to keep it in its current role. The turret is now more stabilized and easier to aim with, as the camera is centered. It has high DPS and, more importantly, high sustained damage, with most of its weapons providing powerful options capable of taking out a multitude of targets. The Prowler is most comfortable already, so only minor changes are needed.

Vanguard: The Vanguard will be the most tankiest of tanks. It will have utterly ridiculous front, side, and top armor, making it a dangerous head-on assault vehicle. It's new unique weapon (the Railgun) will be the final solution for any enemy vehicle that dares to get in range of it, but it will require more precision than other cannon options. It will also struggle to deal with infantry in comparison to the two tanks, instead relying on a gunner and its ridiculous armor to fight off the infantry hordes. However, if you get behind a Vanguard, it's frighteningly low rear armor makes it an easy target.