Tank-mounted AA and buggies in PS2

[FIREk]

First of all, we all agree that buggies are awesome, right? Empire-specific ones, of course - the Harasser was a waste of space.

I know that buggies haven't yet been announced for PS2, but info about tank-mounted AA makes me worry that they won't be in.

After all, why design something that most likely won't be used?
A buggy would be statistically inferior to a tank in every meaningful way.
A tank will always have superior main weaponry, both against squishies and vehicles.
And even if a buggy had a proper, dedicated AA gun, like the flak cannon on the Skyguard, it would be more convenient to just roll out a tank with decent AA. Let's face it, a month after launch every single tank will roll out with secondary AA.

Also, if they looked to Battlefield for thoughts on how buggies work in modern games, they would determine that they suck balls and aren't worth implementing. Buggies in Battlefield are made out of paper, are barely armed, and can at best be used for lulz, stunts and as C4 buckets.
While they may not go to BF's extreme, vehicles in PS2 will likely be less durable than in PS1, so a "modern" buggy may end up being so fragile, that it's actually useless, unless it gets some special abilities like immunity to mines, so that it can use its strongest trait - mobility - to its full extent.

On a side note, just how awesome would it be to drive a Marauder (assuming it's still as rednecky as it was in PS1) with a flak cannon? :)

[Senyu]

Make buggies more mobile, faster/harder to hit, give them more accurate weapons, and a wide arsenal and they will be used. Even with all the tanks.

[Talek Krell]

I've been thinking about this myself. Higby talking about how the secondary weapons that the gunners get on tanks are just so awesome makes me think "But for it to attract a gunner it would have to be more effective than just running a skyguard" and then "But if it was more effective then why would you run a skyguard?" followed by "Wait....they haven't actually said there will be skyguards..."

Edit: I voted apathy though. I'd like to see them but I was never a user so it wouldn't break the game for me.

[Graywolves]

Marauder or GTFO

[Goku]

I would like to see buggies put into PS2. I enjoyed my Enforcer quite a bit depending on the situations it was usable. Depending on the resource allocation buggies could see more of a dominant role until tanks could be used?

There have been numerous suggestions to improve buggies in PS that could be applied to PS2 as seen in this thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36192&highlight=improve+buggies). One area I would like to see is more ability to transport more players to say at most 4 players. I liked the marauder due to how it had 3 seats for transport, I think a buggy like this that was beefed up a bit would be perfect. A main gun for a gunner and a machine gun to help against infantry/air. I would rather have buggies having the option to be the AA platform as opposed to a tank with their secondary too.

[Atuday]

Also Hamma is King

[Goku]

Also Hamma is King

Indeed.

Back on topic. If buggies were given the proper tools like different turrets they could be viable. I could see a group of buggies with anti-armor type guns just wreaking havoc on tanks and other heavier vehicles. With the ability to maneuver better and their higher speed it would be perfect for ambushes in my opinion.

[nomotog]

I thought the point of buggies in general was just to provide quick easy to get transport from place to place. Do they actually need a combat roll?

[FIREk]

I've been thinking about this myself. Higby talking about how the secondary weapons that the gunners get on tanks are just so awesome makes me think "But for it to attract a gunner it would have to be more effective than just running a skyguard" and then "But if it was more effective then why would you run a skyguard?" followed by "Wait....they haven't actually said there will be skyguards..."

Oh, I hope not to see another Skyguard ever - the model looked so out of place, I can't find a metaphor for it. :P

Customization is important in PS2, as it seems, so a Marauder/Vanguard/Thresher with AI/AA/AV weapons seems more likely (and awesome!). :)

[Goku]

I thought the point of buggies in general was just to provide quick easy to get transport from place to place. Do they actually need a combat roll?

In my opinion yes. If I want to get to point a to b quickly I would probably just hop in a air craft anyway. I learned that one a long time ago. I don't care if it is even a gun less skeeter. I just want to get there.

[FIREk]

I thought the point of buggies in general was just to provide quick easy to get transport from place to place. Do they actually need a combat roll?

That's the Harasser and the ATVs. Cheap, expendable and pretty fast.

Empire-specific buggies had their use, but were in different stages of "broken", especially the Marauder's GroundPounder gun. In PS2 they could be designed to work well alongside other vehicles, especially if they had an AA option, making them PS2's Skyguards.

You can't argue that Skyguards were hella useful, yes? :)

[Malorn]

One key question would be what role does the buggy serve?

In PS1 they had a few roles...

1) Skyguard was fragile but fast AA defense. This seems obsolete with secondary weapons on tanks having the same function. I'm not sure I like this consolidation.

I liked the PS1 dynamic that Tanks were vulnerable to aircraft, and aircraft were vulnerable to some buggies. Thus you get a sort of combined-arms effect where you don't simply roll tanks or don't simply run a lot of aircraft because they have counters. Aircraft > Tanks > Buggies > Aircraft.

2) Buggies could be driven in Rexo, while all other vehicles only Agile armor. This made buggies good vehicles for the Rexo grunt to use to get to the battle or mess around with before going it on-foot. I liked this dynamic as well.

This too has been rendered obsolete in PS2 with any armor type being able to drive a tank.

3) Buggies were low-tech vehicles (except Skyguard), so you always had them available for use.

This might still be true in PS2 depending on whether tanks require resources.

4) Buggies were faster transportation than tanks, quick to cover the distance between bases or making good LLU-runners.

If they change pacing in PS2 this may no longer be relevant. ATVs still exist and ATVs can fill this same role. We haven't seen any indication of a return of the LLU so that is no longer necessary either.


5) Last, but certainly no least, buggies were fun to drive! Thresher was by far my favorite vehicle to drive around due to its great speed and maneuverability. I also loved driving the Enforcer.

The fun-factor certainly isn't obsolete yet!


As best I can tell all of the roles which a buggy excels are no longer relevant in PS2, save the fun factor. I would like them to be both fun and practical/relevant on the battlefield.

Of all of these, the Tank/Aircraft/Buggy balance concerns me the most. I'm a bit worried that the gameplay is being overly simplified down to tanks, tanks, and more tanks. I liked specialized vehicles because that leads to combined arms. Tanks being able to do everything means that vehicle combat revolves around coming up with the right combination of secondary weapons on the tanks.

No sure I like the one-size-fits-all approach. Going to think on it a bit. Perhaps there are new roles for buggies to operate.

One thing that is different about buggies too is that I don't think they are weapon systems where the driver has a gun. The rough equivalent of a Humvee or the like, but we can certainly put a lot more armor on them.

[nomotog]

Maybe they could have squad spawning buggies? Also they should fold up ATVs and buggies into one type of vehicle.

[Talek Krell]

This too has been rendered obsolete in PS2 with any armor type being able to drive a tank.Uh, what? I thought they'd said that someone wearing agile would be able to drive any vehicle? I haven't heard anything about rexo.

I think maybe buggies would fit best as light raiders. Great speed and decent firepower, but very low survivability. I'd like to see how things would go if they didn't trigger mines.

[Graywolves]

Uh, what? I thought they'd said that someone wearing agile would be able to drive any vehicle? I haven't heard anything about rexo.

I think maybe buggies would fit best as light raiders. Great speed and decent firepower, but very low survivability. I'd like to see how things would go if they didn't trigger mines.

1 - light armored infantry classes can use vehicles - there isn't a "pilot" class, each vehicle have cert trees that are commensurate to the infantry trees.

First question I asked Higby on reddit

[FIREk]

1) Skyguard was fragile but fast AA defense. This seems obsolete with secondary weapons on tanks having the same function. I'm not sure I like this consolidation.

That all depends on how useful the tank-mounted AA will be. If it's only a halfway-decent Reaver repellent, then it's fine. A tank wouldn't be a dedicated anti-air vehicle.

This would be cool, because whereas all tanks would have some rudimentary air defense, AA-centric buggies would be aircraft hunters.

[ThGlump]

Buggies are fun, and should be kept as fast hitting vehicle that can exploits tank weakness (slow turning). But can you imagine driving something that fast as a buggy in circles around tank, trying to avoid obstacles and being hit and simultaneously shooting at that tank? Main advantage of buggy is its speed/mobility, but that turns into disadvantage if you had to do anything else than focus to driving.
Unless they drop that stupid driver=gunner bullshit, there wont be any use for bug. gies as it would be very hard to use and everybody would rather choose to roll much safer tank.

[Malorn]

Per the other discussion, the tank-mounted AA needs to be effective or the secondary weapon is a joke and won't be used and we have 1-man tanks driving around. They've said it isn't a joke and therefore we must assume that it is worthwhile to put an AA gun on a tank and worthwhile to man it.

[Accuser]

That all depends on how useful the tank-mounted AA will be. If it's only a halfway-decent Reaver repellent, then it's fine. A tank wouldn't be a dedicated anti-air vehicle.

It's been confirmed that the secondary gun will rival the capabilities of the main gun. Otherwise, the would-be gunner could just pull something else. Would you sit in a gun turret that's literally designed not to kill anything, just scare things away?

On the other hand, would there be anything better than running columns of diversified AA/AI tanks in that situation?

I don't envy them on the balancing act they have to pull off.

[Malorn]

I would almost think that they have to balance assuming that half the tanks out there won't have secondary gunners.

BFRs were a good example, at least that many ran off without a gunner in spite of some of those weapons being 'no joke'.

[SgtMAD]

each empire should have their own buggy frame design that we can unlock mods for so it can be switched between AA/AV/AI at spawn like the army does with humvees.

and screw all this 12mm talk, lets give them 20mm gatling guns,I love the sound of a gatling gun.

they are stealing everything else from the BF/CoD model, give us a decent mini gun,everyone knows they love the look of those tracers,can you imagine what a big fight would look like during a night cycle

[FIREk]

Unless they drop that stupid driver=gunner bullshit, there wont be any use for bug. gies as it would be very hard to use and everybody would rather choose to roll much safer tank.

Buggies would have to be 2-person. Even if they copied the one-man tank concept off Battlefield, buggies have always had dedicated drivers in that series. They were also very crappy. :p

A buggy could easily sport AI/AV weapons that are just barely weaker than their tank counterparts. A buggy trades off all survivability for raw mobility. While it may be tougher to hit, it might as well go boom after one direct AV missile hit. It's therefore reasonable to give them firepower to be reckoned with.

It's been confirmed that the secondary gun will rival the capabilities of the main gun. Otherwise, the would-be gunner could just pull something else. Would you sit in a gun turret that's literally designed not to kill anything, just scare things away?

I still kinda hope that the "rival" part has got some catch to it.. Like, the top-tier AV secondary attachment could rival the main cannon's AV properties. However, the tank's AI and AA attachments would be mediocre at best, because they designed tanks to be mostly anti-vehicle.

I dunno. I just don't want to see every single vehicle in PlanetSide 2 being a tank with an AA attachment, just because every other vehicle will be a Galaxy, Mossie, Reaver and the odd Lib.
With no buggies for diversity, and uber-all-round tanks, what is there left to drive? ATVs and Sunderers? :O

BFRs were a good example, at least that many ran off without a gunner in spite of some of those weapons being 'no joke'.

You got flying in exchange for the turret, which is a big plus. If my Prowler could fly, I could considering removing the dual 15mms. :P

[ThGlump]

Buggies would have to be 2-person. Even if they copied the one-man tank concept off Battlefield, buggies have always had dedicated drivers in that series.

Ok then whats the point of rolling buggy? You need two times more ppl to operate it than a tank, and even then you will be weaker than one man tank. Put two people in the tank and you can scratch buggies from the game which will be sad (they dont have even tech advantage now, as tech benefit from bases is not in game yet - i hope it will be there in the end). Its all that 1 man tank army thats ruining possibilities of buggies.

[Malorn]

Right, tanks having the weaponry normally reserved for buggies (ground pounder, flak cannon, probably a rocket too) along with the armor of a tank and the ability to have it in any infantry armor means buggies have no real role. If you want combat, you pull a tank. If you want fast transportation, you pull an ATV. In PS they served the role of the alternate weaponry support along with Rexo rapid transportation and a low-tech vehicle. It had a niche. That niche has been eroded.

[Talek Krell]

1 - light armored infantry classes can use vehicles - there isn't a "pilot" class, each vehicle have cert trees that are commensurate to the infantry trees.

First question I asked Higby on reddit
I've read that. "light armored" sounds like agile to me. You're thinking he meant anything below a max?

[FIREk]

Ok then whats the point of rolling buggy? You need two times more ppl to operate it than a tank, and even then you will be weaker than one man tank. Put two people in the tank and you can scratch buggies from the game which will be sad (they dont have even tech advantage now, as tech benefit from bases is not in game yet - i hope it will be there in the end). Its all that 1 man tank army thats ruining possibilities of buggies.

I still desperately hope they will go the "driver controls secondary turret only" route...

Also, if buggies had serious firepower (though with a different gameplay style), they would have a niche among players who prefer a different playstyle - faster, more risky and more exciting. If buggies had the most powerful AA around (like the Skyguard has now), they would not only find themselves a niche - they would be useful and needed on the battlefield.

[Malorn]

I like the idea of buggies being fast, low-survivability but high-firepower 2-man vehicles. They should also be cheap resource-wise. And by high-firepower I mean a bit more powerful than the equivalent weaponry on a tank.

That gives them the role of being specialized support for tanks and for rapid advancement, either AA, or AV, or AI, or some mix.

[Talek Krell]

You know, given their crazy low survivability I don't think I'd entirely object to buggies having firepower equivalent or superior to tanks.

[NapalmEnima]

I suspect buggies will be Much Better at climbing than tanks, and depending on the terrain, that could be a Huge Advantage. Or simply a requirement to get there on the ground.

I doubt MBTs will fit in the back of a Galaxy.

I suspect they'll be much easier to cert in. Time and/or resource wise. In fact, buggies might be a requirement to get to the heavier vehicles.

We Just Don't Know.

[Malorn]

The glass cannon archetype is quite classic. Like Afghanis in the 80's with grenade launchers mounted on the back of a pickup. It can't take a hit, but its more maneuverable than the soviet tank and can still take it out by hitting it where the armor is weakest. And its dirt cheap by comparison.

It could have a nice parallel in PS2 in the form of buggies.

I hope buggies have more of a role than just specialized glass cannons though. I'd also like to see them take more than a few hits before blowing up. Low survivability is one thing but it shouldn't be a coffin on wheels.

[FIREk]

I hope buggies have more of a role than just specialized glass cannons though. I'd also like to see them take more than a few hits before blowing up. Low survivability is one thing but it shouldn't be a coffin on wheels.

I agree that they shouldn't be made out of cardboard (like the Hummvees in BFBC2), but it needs to be a lot weaker than a tank.
If heavy damage causes a vehicle to stall and stop, then a PS2 buggy should break down, but not blow up, after one direct hit from a tank or dedicated AV missile thing (whatever the tankbuster class uses).
Until we know how tough tanks are for comparison, though, we can't really figure much out.

All the more reason to force a secondary gunner to use the main gun - it warrants giving tanks more armor and, by extension, beefing up buggies. ;)

[Brusi]

The glass cannon archetype is quite classic. Like Afghanis in the 80's with grenade launchers mounted on the back of a pickup. It can't take a hit...

unless its a hilux

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk

[NtrSandman]

I was a dedicated Thresher driver in PS1, and I'll be uber-sad if something on par with the Thresher doesn't make it into PS2. I never really wanted to drive a tank...I have always been the type of guy that wanted the S10 instead of the Silverado, or the Dakota instead of the Ram.

[Sirisian]

Make buggies more mobile, faster/harder to hit, give them more accurate weapons, and a wide arsenal and they will be used. Even with all the tanks.
Exactly.

I think the harasser should get rid of its gun and just let the passenger shoot their rifle while sitting. Then let the third passenger in the back stand up out of a sunroof and shoot their rifle all while in rexo. AV would make this fun.

Always wanted a ground/air vehicle that let me shoot my gun out of it.

Not sure how the ES stuff should work.

[Redshift]

Just tanks and reavers would be boring. I'd like to see buggies with a lot of speed and big guns,

[Brusi]

Even just being able to shoot your pistol as a pasenger in a buggy would be awesome! But rifles from a buggy + reduced accuracy due to aiming from a moving vehicle could still be balanced :)

I'd like to see the passenger be unable to fire while the buggy is doing crazy shit, like in the air and such... kinda like an automatic holding-on-for-dear-life weapons lock.

I think i would be pretty sad to see the Harasser gone actually...

[Missundaztood]

Passengers shooting personal weapons out of a buggy whilst moving is just about as useful as the chaingun on the Harasser in PS1. Pointless.

Maybe some form of AV would work but pistols? nah!

[Redshift]

Passengers shooting personal weapons out of a buggy whilst moving is just about as useful as the chaingun on the Harasser in PS1. Pointless.

Maybe some form of AV would work but pistols? nah!

There's loads of good stuff you could do with people being able to fire out of the buggies ;)

imagine them being like halo warthogs, with the gunner up back, gunner and driver would be all you needed to function but you could also fit a passenger in and maybe 2 more in a couple of bitch seats.
Now they double up as troop transports, and with people firing from them those people don't get bored. Plus you still get to go rednecking, imagine a 5 man buggy flying at you with 3 hicks firing sweepers out of it :D

[Senyu]

Buggies should have more effectve anti infantry weapons than tanks. And be able to deliver harder hitting shots to armored vehicles that what a infantry can do but not to the point where it does as much as a tank. The buggy is kinda in the middle of it plus the other roles it provides.

[NapalmEnima]

Buggies should have more effectve anti infantry weapons than tanks.

By default perhaps, but if one were to mount a dedicated AI weapon on a tank, it's gonna be pretty damn big/powerful.

And be able to deliver harder hitting shots to armored vehicles that what a infantry can do but not to the point where it does as much as a tank. The buggy is kinda in the middle of it plus the other roles it provides.

Agreed. OTOH, anything you can mount on a buggy shouldn't be all that hard to bolt onto the side of a tank turret for a little extra punch. quad 20mm chaingun with a side of low-capacity-high-damage-AV-missile

[Malorn]

Exactly.

I think the harasser should get rid of its gun and just let the passenger shoot their rifle while sitting. Then let the third passenger in the back stand up out of a sunroof and shoot their rifle all while in rexo. AV would make this fun.

Always wanted a ground/air vehicle that let me shoot my gun out of it.

Not sure how the ES stuff should work.

The harasser, if it comes back, should be more like a Humvee. It needs to have a weapon worth shooting on the top of it. Not some 12mm gun that tickles but a .50 caliber machinegun that infantry can't normally carry around. That's the reason they put it on a vehicle.

[FIREk]

Not some 12mm gun that tickles but a .50 caliber machinegun that infantry can't normally carry around.

.50 cal = roughly 12mm. Just sayin'. :P

Anyway, buggies should always have at least a weak, coaxial anti-infantry weapon, even if it's just the equivalent of a man-portable light machine gun.

So regardless of whether it's specced for anti-infantry (mortar), anti-vehicle (guided missile / autocannon) or anti-air (flak cannon), it should have at least a little bit of versatility. It's not like a tank with AA sacrifices anti-infantry capabilities, so a buggy shouldn't as well. ;)

[Traak]

I wanna see Toyota pickups with AA on them like in Libya.

Toyota. Official APC of the Jihad!

[Traak]

There's loads of good stuff you could do with people being able to fire out of the buggies ;)

imagine them being like halo warthogs, with the gunner up back, gunner and driver would be all you needed to function but you could also fit a passenger in and maybe 2 more in a couple of bitch seats.
Now they double up as troop transports, and with people firing from them those people don't get bored. Plus you still get to go rednecking, imagine a 5 man buggy flying at you with 3 hicks firing sweepers out of it :D

Rednecks? lol see my previous post.

[CutterJohn]

Buggies should not be considered any more 'disposable' than tanks. Each vehicle should be balanced on its own merits. They should be different than tanks, but not less capable. What a tank has in armor a buggy should have in avoidance.

Make them fun to drive, more difficult to survive in, but also more rewarding for those that have the skill.

In my perfect game they would all be hover vehicles, since I'm biased towards the thresher and the battlezone tanks. Empire theme could be maintained by having the VS have magic hover and TR/NC have thrusters.

[Lunarchild]

I am personally still hoping that they allow 1 big and 1 utility gun, and it's up to the player to set-up which is used by the driver and which is used by the gunner.

The utility gun obviously is far inferior to the big gun, whichever you put on there. That way that if someone wants to make an AA tank, fine, but you'll likely not do very well against about anything else :)

Anyhow, the Battlefield balancing won't do so well in PlanetSide. In Battlefield the amount of vehicles is limited to the amount in one level. In PlanetSide the amount of vehicles limited to the amount of players on a battlefield. This means that while in Battlefield the designers could carefully set the ratio on tanks vs buggies. This is partly why buggies are much used in this game: there are a heck of a lot more of them then there are tanks. This is a relatively easy way to balance things. A way that PlanetSide won't have as much.

They have already said: Tanks will always be available to people who want to use them. Now this still means they could add a requirement for them in terms of training time, or how deep they are in the vehicle tree, but that's not nearly as strong. When a vehicle is unlocked, it will always be available (though there may be a lockout timer, which becomes negligible on a larger player-base).

One other thing: In battlefield buggies can hold at least 3 people. I think it would be interesting if they could hold up to 5: 1 driver, 1 gunner, 3 passengers who can shoot out of the car. You can upgrade to this level, and perhaps start out with just 1 passenger. This could definitely give some additional incentive to pull a buggy for small groups: the group transports would then be for 5+ people.

[NewSith]

OP is severely misjudging buggies. Even if there will be an AA tank, buggies will still fill its niche. I mean cmon, why people use enforcer even though for the same amount of certs they can get a vanguard?

[FIREk]

OP is severely misjudging buggies. Even if there will be an AA tank, buggies will still fill its niche. I mean cmon, why people use enforcer even though for the same amount of certs they can get a vanguard?

When I wrote this post, I assumed many things. That tanks will be very fragile (only slightly less tan in BFBC2) and that buggy durability would have to be scaled down proportionally. Also, the way PS2 gets a lot of stuff from BFBC2, I worried that buggies would be made from cardboard, just like in Battlefield. Lastly, since the buggies' only useful niche in PS1 was AA, and AA got included into tanks, I began suspecting that SOE never intended to introduce them into PS2.

Then came the idea of making buggies "glass cannons" - a concept that I had always liked - and I'm looking forward to, hopefully, seeing buggies as fragile, but fast and hard-hitting skirmishers.

I can see three reasons why someone would pick an Enforcer (aside from the obvious one - they got the cert to get the Skyguard, anyway:p):
1) fun,
2) to be different,
3) it may be somewhat easier to use than a tank, since the rockets fly straight? I dunno. ;)

Aside from the Skyguard, buggies in PS1 were never really useful - they were just an extra, nothing more. It would be nice if they were truly useful and worthwhile in PS2, and it would make sense to make people wonder whether they should get a tank or a buggy, not just go with the superior tank.

[NapalmEnima]

I can see three reasons why someone would pick an Enforcer (aside from the obvious one - they got the cert to get the Skyguard, anyway:p)

A hard-hitting/high maneuverability AV buggy would be a serious threat to tanks that take extra damage from hits to the rear.

I've killed a few tanks in BF2142 that way. Sail past them and let the AV guy in the back seat one-shot-em in the ass. It's hard to pull off, but very satisfying when you do.

[FIREk]

I've killed a few tanks in BF2142 that way. Sail past them and let the AV guy in the back seat one-shot-em in the ass. It's hard to pull off, but very satisfying when you do.

Sounds like just the thing to give me hard-ons every day... :p

[NapalmEnima]

Sounds like just the thing to give me hard-ons every day... :p

Err... TMI.

:cry:

[Chaff]

Buggies should not be considered any more 'disposable' than tanks. Each vehicle should be balanced on its own merits. They should be different than tanks, but not less capable. What a tank has in armor a buggy should have in avoidance.

Make them fun to drive, more difficult to survive in, but also more rewarding for those that have the skill.

In my perfect game they would all be hover vehicles, since I'm biased towards the thresher and the battlezone tanks. Empire theme could be maintained by having the VS have magic hover and TR/NC have thrusters.



I like this thread and tend to agree with most of the input here.

I liked the Redneck rattlebucket feel that Marauders gave. I'd rather keep buggies and lose ATVs if I had to choose between the two. And keep the Deli and its variants. Two full Deli variants with skilled drivers and gunners should have decent odds (30%-40%) of killing or at least repelling a BFT.