VVHY giving sunders better vvepons.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by No0T, Feb 18, 2017.

  1. No0T

  2. No0T

    VVhen harassers got better vveapons they become the natural killer for a sunders... Novv the light assaults have vvays to finish the sunders up so and the heavies have an ultra potent missile launcher for sunders... so give them better VVEAPONS, armor or shields...
  3. No0T

    Stupid tittle cant fix it... VVEAPONS*
  4. Pikachu

    If the devs gave these units better weapons against sunderer without giving sunderer better defenses then that indicates that they wanted not just to add variety but to change balance in the form of making sunderers less durable. Killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Why do you have to kill birds? ;_;
  5. ColonelChingles

    Sunderers are not supposed to be combat vehicles. They're just transport trucks, or at best MRAPs. Everything is supposed to kill a Sunderer, because the Sunderer is meant to either be escorted by combat vehicles or would be protected by the infantry on board.

    The problem is that because casual players cannot comprehend basic tactics like "defend the Sunderer", the Sunderer has gotten to be extremely beefy at a very low cost.

    Consider, for example, how many 100mm AP hits it takes to kill each target:

    100mm AP Shots to Kill
    Lightning, rear- 3
    Lightning, frontal armour, front- 5
    Vanguard, shielded, rear- 5
    Sunderer, any direction- 7
    Vanguard, shielded and frontal armour, front- 11
    Sunderer, deployed and shielded, any direction- 11

    This shows that Sunderers can take a ridiculous amount of punishment... as much as the most heavily amoured MBT in the game, except that the Sunderer has 360 degrees of protection. Even a stock Sunderer can take more hits than a Lightning from the front.

    Additionally, because infantry treat Sunderers as disposable objects, Sunderers are incredibly cheap:

    Nanite Cost
    Sunderer- 200
    Lightning- 350
    MBT- 450

    So despite being as tanky or even tankier than the actual tanks, Sunderers can be less than half the cost. This means that killing Sunderers rarely is an effective tactic, as the Sunderers can be repulled (from just about anywhere) extremely quickly.

    Finally there's the entire problem that HMGs, 40mm grenades, and 60mm mortars have the strange ability to penetrate MBT armour, which means Sunderer weapons already overperform against tanks.

    The problem? Sunderers already have too much armour and HP and carry weapons that are too effective. The reason? Most PS2 players are terrible and can't rub together the brain cells necessary to protect a critical logistics vehicle. The solution? Reduce Sunderer armour/HP by about half and remove the ability of Basilisks, Furies, and Bulldogs to damage MBTs. This will make all the terrible players leave and fix the game.
    • Up x 1
  6. Niamar

    VVelcome to my ignore list, current quantity is 1.
    • Up x 2
  7. TheMish

    As someone who thoroughly enjoys using a double walker sunderer to create no fly zones, absolutely not.

    Sunderers are absolutely perfect where they are now. They can take a hit, they can dish out damage, and can be seriously dangerous in convoys.

    A Sunderer is limited by two things, coordination and its gunners.

    If you're not in a coordinated convoy, with ammo and repair sundies, you probably aren't that scary.

    And if you don't have solid gunners, you're going to be a mediocre threat.

    I think they are perfectly fine, my only complaint is their very poor traction. Unless you've maxed out the combat chassis, the Sunderer acts like a truck with bald tires on a snowy day.
  8. No0T

    But novv they change it again kid... you just didnt noticed... except they didnt vvanted sunderers to be destroy easier... but tanks.
  9. BrbImAFK

    Sorry, but I can't agree with you here. I do think it's silly that Sundy's are as powerful as they are, but I also think that it's a reasonably response to a problem. I'm gonna quote me here and repeat my response to another thread:

    So making the spawn-points tougher to take out simply makes sense. Does it mean that battle-sundy's and sundy-balls exist as well? Sure, but I'm simply not sold that that's sufficient downside to make spawns even more vulnerable than they are now. I mean... it's not like a single dude on a flash can take out a full deploy-shield sundy in less than 10 seconds, right? Oh wait.....
  10. Tar

    Sunderers are already the most OP and cheap vehicle in the game. Get a clue.
  11. OldMaster80

    Why people ignore basic tactics like defending a Sunderer? Because ps2 has been reduced to a deathmatch where only kills farm matters.
    Objectives and strategy disappeared from ps2 long time ago in the name if oversimplification.

    Just think how stupid is the notification "the last ams you spawned at is under attack!".
    • Up x 1
  12. Liewec123

    get a nevv keyboard already!
    • Up x 3
  13. ColonelChingles

    Powerful Sunderers do not fix the problem, because the problem is that many players are idiots who do not understand the notion of defending a Sunderer. The proper solution to the problem is not to create OP Sunderers... but to get rid of or educate idiotic players.

    Powerful Sunderers create a host of problems when Sunderers are used for anything other than deploy points:

    1) Power anti-infantry trucks. Able to drive into bases due to wonky geometry and hit infantry with Kobalts and Furies... the main reason that such weapons have been nerfed for all platforms.

    2) Sunderer balls that can stomp armoured columns. With self-repair and self-rearm capabilities, along with being far less expensive than light tanks and less than half the price of MBTs, Sunderer balls are incredibly difficult to wipe out unless there is disproportionate force. Even if they are killed, they can be pulled from virtually any base for essentially forever. PS2 should never have a single MBT retreating from a convoy of glorified trucks... it ought to be the other way around.

    3) Strong AA vehicles. Not only does the AA Sunderer displace the Skyguard as the stronger, cheaper, and more effective solution, it also messes up A2G balance. Air should be instrumental in destroying enemy logistics... that's what air should be for, taking out high-value targets with precision. But it's essentially suicide for an ESF to try to attack a 2x Basilisk Sunderer with mediocre aim, because Sunderers are so beefy. This leads to pilots picking off softer infantry instead, which then goes into the whole Thermal nerfs (for everyone).

    4) It allows for Reployside. Because it is so difficult to intercept a Sunderer, this moves the battle from the area outside of a base into the area inside a base. Sunderers don't really require escorts, so infantry players are free to just drive it from one base to another. Sunderers are so cheap to pull that even if one is destroyed, it's not difficult to bring in more. And because few fight outside bases, this means that all the action is inside the base... which includes the attention of tanks and aircraft. Perceived rocketpod and HE spam is a problem created by Sunderers.

    Powerful Sunderers have literally messed up the balance that exists with infantry, ground vehicles, and aircraft. There is nothing in the game that hasn't been broken because of the presence of OP Sunderers. These ridiculously powerful Sunderers have even fostered Redeployside, turning the game from a continuous continental battle into a series of instanced arena fights.

    While reducing Sunderer armour and HP by half wouldn't fix everything wrong in the game, it would be a solid step forward.
  14. Inzababa

    is there like a language somewhere that uses keybaords which do not have a "w"?

    I'm seeing more and more of these VV for W

    (obviously, asside from the languages that don't use the alphabet :p)
  15. BrbImAFK

    Uhhh.... no. No, it isn't. Which of these two options do the devs have actual control over : a) stats etc. for ingame assets; or b) the actions of the individual players making up their playerbase. Hint - if you pick b), you're a moron. As I've posted numerous times in numerous places, the only thing that the devs can realistically do is balance the game around the players, rather than trying to balance the players around the game. The second "option" always fails and usually creates unhappy customers and decreases the playerbase.

    Secondly, as I posted and you failed to address, there is no "fun" in doing nothing defending a sunderer that you likely can't protect if the enemy decides to kill it anyway. It's a game. Unfun things don't get done much. WHY should a single person stand around doing nothing protecting a sundy in case the enemy show up to destroy it? They may never arrive.... And if they DO arrive, say they bring a 2/2 MBT. That single person still isn't going to save the sundy, so what was the point? Unless you're advocating that half-a-squad watches over EVERY sundy ALL THE TIME, IN CASE the enemy comes to blow it up, in which case.... god... there's just no help for you.

    Finally, why should the devs decrease their playerbase in the name of a minority of players' opinions on how the game should be balanced?! Every single player that plays the game is a VALID PLAYER, with everything that means. In addition, some of them may become paying customers, and even if they don't, at the absolute minimum, they remain content for those players who DO play. Decreasing the playerbase is BAD, k?

    Yeah... but that's true of just about anything in Planetside 2. I'm going to use VS examples, 'cause I know them best.

    A Lancer isn't OP, for example... but put a squad of them together and you pretty much eliminate enemy vehicles from the equation. A Lasher isn't OP... hell... being the only one usually just makes you a target. But put a squad or two of them around, and you can lock down almost any zone! Air is supposed to be the "counter" to air (because the devs decided "**** G2A" for some reason.... probably whiny skyknights). And yet most air spends their time ******** on ground, rather than fighting air - at least, that's what I see most of our Scythes and pretty much all the Mosquitos doing. And don't even get me started on the Libs! A single 1/2 MBT can completely screw up a "balanced" 1-12:1-12 fight, hell, even a 12-24:12-24 fight. And on and on and on. Almost EVERYthing in PS2 is unbalanced in SOME situation or other. Except maybe the Beamer, I guess.

    And it can still be taken out by a single clever LA or Engy. Or a Comet MAX - and you can still switch to AI or AA and keep your MAX! Or a half-squad of HA firing their rockets at once. And if you want to talk about that sort of thing, how about AI Harassers? They can go pretty much anywhere your Sundy can go and they're more likely to get away if you go after them. Stealth Renegade Flashes can be scary in bases as well, and are MUCH harder to kill than a sundy.... at least you can FIND the sundy. How about Libs or Battle Gals that just hang above bases, shelling the everliving crap out of everything? Or ESF's that lolpod all the infantry. Or tanks that get on the hills surrounding the base and shell the spawns / pointroom entrances or whatever.

    Most of those are way worse than the occasional sundy that finds it's way into a base. Quit pretending like Sundies are the only vehicle that can pull off BS like this!

    Sunderers require 3 people to be effective - 1 driver and 2 gunners. That means that for every two sunderers on the field, you could be opposed by three 2/2 MBTs. Given the average shooting ability of your ordinary planetman, the only weapon that can realistically pose a threat to vehicles is the Basilisk, which is not a bad gun (dunno why it gets all the bad press it does). Even if both sundies are running 2/2 bassies (and my experience is that they often aren't), my money's still on the 3 MBT's.

    Secondly, rearming isn't really an issue. If you've spend even a minor amount of certs upgrading your gun, you're not gonna run out of ammo particularly soon and, since bases in PS2 are so close together, pulling back to an ammo tower isn't half the headache it used to be in PS1. As for the repair, that got nerfed into oblivion a while ago and, iirc, it doesn't stack anyway so it's not half the problem you seem to think it is. I haven't seen the sort of sundyballs you're talking about since AGES back (where I will agree that they were a problem).

    As for your comment about MBT's and "glorified trucks", I will remind you once again that this is a GAME, not REAL LIFE! I know Planetside is SRSBSNS, but geez, man... get a grip! Games are about balance... and as vehicle pilots have been claiming for ages "why should a 1-man skyguard post a threat to my 3-man lib" or whatever. If you put together a 6-sundy ball, and put an equivalent number of people into MBT's (it's nine, if you're bad at math) I'd lay odds that, with a little coordination, you could insta-pop a sundy literally every volley! The dudes pulling sundy's are gonna be out of nanites before you're even out of ammo!

    Again with the "real life" nonsense. Also, air does WAY more than "picking on enemy logistics" in real life, but then, you only seem to quote "real life" when you think it supports your position. Air does transport, and CAS, and anti-air / air superiority, and HVT attacking, and on and on and on.

    In addition, that's three dudes you're talking about to make it effective. I'd lay odds that three Skyguards are gonna have a bigger impact on the fight than one AA sundy. So, no... it doesn't mess up A2G balance. What messes up A2G balance is the ******** balancing the devs did on G2A, as well as the idiotic concept that G2A should be a "deterrent".

    In Planetside 2 as designed, air is meant to be the counter to air (which is stupid, but that's what we've got).... but they made flying pretty damned hard to learn, and the few pilots that DID learn, rapidly made it extremely unpleasant to try to join their ranks, so the few people who DO fly, usually find it far easier to pick on ground targets and try to run away from air enemies.

    As for destroying important things... there used to be a missile for that. What was it's name... I forget.... oh wait! It was the Hornet! But tankers LIKE YOU complained about it until DBG nerfed it into near oblivion. A single ESF with old-style Hornets could'a taken a sundy, even 2/2 with AA guns out no problem. As for today, if you pit two lol-pod ESF's against a 2-man sundy, I'd still wager on the lolpods.

    And don't give me that complete and utter BS about pilots picking on infantry instead of shooting vehicles because SUNDERERS are hard to kill!? How about every other vehicle on the field?! Even when they HAD pre-nerf hornets, they still spammed the crap out of infantry, and it's tankers like you that got their hornets nerfed! That whole line of argument is BOLLOCKS, mate.... and you should feel bad for pretending to be dumb enough to be serious about it!

    I'm, sorry.... WHAT?! Are you MENTAL?! My 3-man dual-basi sundy gets killed all the time by single MBT's... I can't usually tell if they're 1/2 or 2/2, 'cause I'm too busy trying to run my **** away and dodge shellfire - not that that's easy to do when you're the size of a bloody HOUSE. I'm usually OK if it's just a single Lightning, but an MBT?! Toast.

    As for your nonsense about "redeployside", Sundy's aren't the problem. The problem is a combination of two things. First - players prefer to camp in the spawnroom of a lost base looking for kills instead of redploying back and preparing defences or starting a counter-push. Second - bases in PS2 are WAY close together, meaning that, when a base DOES fall and the defenders redeploy back to the next base, it's too late to start a counterpush because as soon as the first one or two vehicles are getting pulled, the entire enemy vehicle fleet is arriving and camping the vehicle spawn. THAT'S what 'causes base fights to be always inside bases, not bloody Sunderers!

    God, this is pathetic. I've usually got a pretty good opinion of your tank and vehicle posts, but THIS BS?! Who the **** are you and what have you done to the real ColC?!

    Absolute and complete nonsense. This whole post is just filled with BS and whines and salt and poorly thought out ideas. Not a single one of your points is even vaguely valid and none of them have anything that resembles support. Except for the decent spelling and the presence of w's, I'd have thought this was a No0T post!

    Where's the ColC I respect, who comes up with the epic ideas for new vehicle designs, and has rational and thought out posts on all sorts of topics?! I want that guy back.....
    • Up x 2
  16. No0T

    This is not the post but the double post...
  17. Insignus

    Guys! GUYS!

    I Bring wonderful news! Having just entered your conversation just now, I am pleased to inform you that I have already developed a perfect solution for our problem!

    You see, in any sufficiently large group of planetman's, I can always generally count on 1/12 of them having either a certed tank or the know how to use one!

    I then, as leader, promise this person, correctly, that they will make tons of certs by driving around the walls or perimeter of a base protecting the sunderers.

    This miraculous activity, which has a high degree of success, is also supported by the usage of claymores and spitfires that I order my engineers to throw around sunderers, again on the promise of easy certs and good spawns.

    I call it "Force Protection", a term that I have now surely just invented, and have not in any way copied from nearly every modern military ever fielded.

    Heresy Exception Thrown due to Unknown Grammatical Foreign Contaminants

    As an aside, RE: Sunderers being glorified trucks.


    Does this look familiar?
  18. Insignus

    Heresy Exception Thrown: Error 101: Compound Logic for Unhandled Exceptions Not Found. Please re-acquire.

    To Calmly address your argument.

    Your misconception is understandable. It is not uncommon for many people, typically those unfamiliar with the finer points of military equipment, to confuse AFVs, IFVs, and APCs.

    AFVs is the big-box catch-all term for any armored vehicle with armament. Within that category there are of course MBTS, SPH artillery pieces, CEVs, MRLS, MCs, SAMs (TEL, TELAR), SPAAs, MEVs, AVLBs and assorted specialty vehicles. There are also IFVs and APCs, which you are confusing.

    An IFV is an Infantry Fighting vehicle. It is designed to carry troops, and is defined variously as having a larger caliber gun. Some treaties do define that as any gun equal or larger to 20mm. This would allow the Sunderer to be classed as an IFV by a technicality under those treaties, and not so much under others. Substantial majority of IFVs are tracked - this is for many reasons. The principal being that they are generally heavier than APCs, but need to keep up with MBTs and cross similar terrain. Because they are operating in close quarters with MBTs, they need more protection, and this also means more weight, heavier weapons, and better equipment.

    APCs on the other hand, are generally lighter weight, but critically mount no weapons larger than 20mm. Critically, it can be argued that the Sunderer mounts 40mm grenade launchers and 40mm Rangers, ergo it must be an IFV. Bear in mind that HMMVs, BTRs, and various other lighter vehicles mount 40mm grenade launchers, and yet are definitively classed as APCs or lower.

    Lets take a few similar era vehicles. Lets keep them Soviet for easy comparison.

    BTR-60. Often viewed as the archetypal APC alongside its counterpart, the M113. 8 Wheels, 14.5mm KPVT in a turret. Carries 14 troops. Has armor that is proofed against 7.62mm rounds completely from the front, and from 100m at the sides and rear, and is proofed against artillery shrapnel. Weighs 10Tons, goes 50 MPH, is amphibious with minimal preparation.

    BMP-1 Viewed as a revolutionary form of IFV. 13 Tons, tracks, 73mm cannon and ATGM missiles. 8 Troops. Proofed against artillery shrapnel, 20mm shells on the front, and small arms on other angles. Amphibious with minimal preparation.

    BMD-1 Very similar to the BMP-1. Also an IFV. But weights 7.5 tons, carries 6 troops, and is air-droppable (In one of the most curious ways possible). Similarly armed to the BMP. It is intended to land separately, mount its crew and infantry, and then act as mobile, organic fire support for its airborne troopers.

    So, weight, is not a determining factor.

    The critical factor here, really is the technical definition of what they are armed with, and the practical definition of what they are intended to do.

    So. Can you engage an T-72 with a HMMV armed with a TOW launcher? Yes. You most certainly can. I'm fairly confident that people have done just that.

    Are you supposed to? No. Not if you can avoid it. Against an APC or IFV, it would be possible engagement if you had the element of surprise.

    The key here is that APCs are given weapons in order to defend themselves. Their principal role is to move people. They are not meant to be survivable against IFVs and Tanks. When they are, it is generally because, due to extreme and evolving circumstances, they have been up-armored in after-market settings or purpose built to do so (See IDF Namer, which is essentially an APC built off a Tank)

    IFVs are kitted out with weapons so that they can provide organic supporting fire in a line that can include heavier armored units and other IFVs, and still deliver an infantry squad.

    Is the Sunderer meant to hold its own against a MBT or Lightning? Can it ford rivers, detect mines, launch missiles, hide under rivers*

    Is the weapon system designed to match or exceed a Lightning or an MBT, or even a Harasser in some cases? No?

    What are all the utilities designed to do?

    Shield- Designed to keep the sunderer alive once its transported, so it can continue delivering troops to the fight.
    Cloak - Designed to hide the sunderer from enemy forces, so it can continue delivering troops to the fight.
    Blockade Armor - Designed to protect the sunderer from enemy forces, so it can reach a point to deploy and deliver troops to the fight
    Mine Guard - Designed to protect the sunderer from enemy mines so it can reach a point to deploy and deliver troops to the fight.

    So. Can a sunderer be used as a fire support platform (Sundy Balls and battle buses?) Yes.

    Is it intended to be a front-line vehicle going toe to toe with other IFVs? No.

    This and the fact of its armament makes it an APC.

    An APC is not a definition that excludes heavy, armored trucks.

    It has 6 wheels and a high ground clearance. This makes it not a Van. It has a foreward cab, and an extended rear cabin. To be more mine resistant than other vehicles, it requires additional equipment. This makes it NOT an MRAP.

    Ergo, it is an APC that is based off a Heavy Truck.

    I spent this much time explaining all of this so that I can basically copy paste the link back to you when you forget this in 4 weeks an re-post this again.

    Also. Even though I think this will go completely over your head, I'm going to link you to something I saw recently. Basically, this is the TLDR version for you.

    *No AFV can do this, because doing so would make it a submarine, a tunnel drilling magic machine, or a swamped wreck with a bunch of drowned souls in it. None of these things are tactically useful in mechanized warfare.
    • Up x 1
  19. BrbImAFK

    I like you. You seem nice. And bonus cookies for spending the time and effort reaching out to the less fortunate among us, BUT.....

    I'm sorry. I'm not even sure why you're trying. Better online-personalities than you (no offense) have tried and failed to educate the No0T. It's like a Sisyphean Challenge.... except that you have a better chance of completing a Sisyphean challenge.

    No0T doesn't want to learn. No0T doesn't want to recognise other viewpoints. If you don't agree with No0T in every detail, you are wrong and nothing in the universe will change that. Any attempt to introduce facts or logic or knowledge or experience or anything that even resembles them will be met with semi-incoherent rants, completely irrelevant statements, any or all fallacies, lotsa v's, and probably more than a few personal attacks.

    As I said... I like you. Please... for the sake of your own sanity... just let it go! :rolleyes:
  20. Insignus

    Oh, I intend to. But if anyone else makes such an argument in the future, I'll have one on file.

    Also, I'm pretty sure that kind of sparky language he's using might cause some trouble.

    I mean, I could've trolled him if I wanted, saying "Is truck, is good!"
    • Up x 1