Does anyone els think it woulda been nice to have more armor types.?

[Astrok]

just 1 big tank like the prowler for TR.

wouldn't it be nice to have a few for each faction? with all their own unique things.?

i would also liked the dea if they added 4 legged crawlers like they use in C&C.

[TheDAWinz]

no, thats why they have customization.

[Hmr85]

No, I am happy with what we have. You have a MBT and a Lightning (Light tank) I would say we are good to go in the armor department. What we are missing is Buggies and I would much rather see that way before I see any other variant of tank.

Also, NO to any type of BFR in any form.

[SKYeXile]

Needs more mechs.

[Littleman]

Customization. Though I'm not confident said customization would include body design for the tanks. We'd have better luck with all sorts of armor pieces for our infantry.

Ridiculously huge and spiky shoulder pads, anyone? Wrist blades in place of the knife? How about a trench coat under your armor for the cold, arctic climate of Esamir? Maybe you just want a monocle?

[Xaine]

I'd like to see a type of heavier Armour put in at some point, that needs 3/4 people to use properly. Very slow etc.

Come at me bro(s).

[Hmr85]

Needs more mechs.

I c what u did thar. Trying to start trouble eh.:p

[ThGlump]

I'd like to see a type of heavier Armour put in at some point, that needs 3/4 people to use properly. Very slow etc.

Come at me bro(s).

And call it Prowler, Vanguard and Magrider. Then throw away that one man shit they call MBT now.

[Astrok]

I c what u did thar. Trying to start trouble eh.:p

Would be cool to see a walking base like the crawlers from C&C.

slow unit with like 8 turret spots that can be manned.

a spawn area on it.and a heli pad to refill ammunition.

[Littleman]

Would be cool to see a walking base like the crawlers from C&C.

slow unit with like 8 turret spots that can be manned.

a spawn area on it.and a heli pad to refill ammunition.

I'd rather it just float in the sky and be controlled by the outfit that purchased it. Less annoying for the ground troops that way and gives the fly boys something with a 2m wide port-hole to fire a bunch of missiles into.

[Neksar]

Meh, I like mechs. Futuristic games with mechs are a natural progression for me. Problem with BFRs was the whole flying, solo-piloted tank thing. If they had some sort of combat craft with a lot of gunner seats, I'd be cool with it. Kinda like the multi-seat VS in Lost Planet 2. Couldn't find a screenie, but it's a ponderous armored walker with crappy pilot guns and two secondary gunner pods that each have a single larger gun.

The trick to making a mech that works is to give it a place. BFRs didn't have a clearly-defined place other than being ri-goddamn-diculous. There was too much going on at once, as well, with locational damage and EMP jamming. It was simply too much crap thrown it at once for one vehicle.

The place for what I've suggested would be something that trades movement speed for armor and more firepower - it carries the big guns, and it can take a punch, but if it's not well-covered it would get destroyed simply because it can't really run away that easily.

Disclaimer: No, I don't actually expect something like that to show up in game, I was merely providing an example. It's possible to implement mechs--or even walkers if that's a more comfortable term 'round these parts--in a way that's satisfactory without having everyone crying BFR.

[The Kush]

I like mechs too. These crawlers are a really cool idea. Essentially the land version of the gal gunship. Don't be turned off bfrs "mechs" just because ps1 fucked up and made them too powerful

[Gonefshn]

We need buggies first.

I take your tank and raise you one bigger tank.

[Sephirex]

I would like my armor to be like a giant metal meatball. Then I could play Auraxis pinball. That is all.

[RSphil]

Looks good so far. Ya can't have everything at the start, we need to have stuff for future expansions ect.

[AThreatToYou]

A big point of customization is so they would not have to build multiple vehicles to fill other roles... in that light, point moot, because customization.

Though, buggies. Need buggies.

[QuantumMechanic]

I still want to know what happened to this vehicle (https://twitter.com/NaniteSystems/status/189376580072644608/photo/1). Has he been scrapped?

[Pancake]

Some kind of light transport like a humvee would be nice. Just to make transportation of smaller fireteams convenient.

[FINALCUT]

Meh, I like mechs. Futuristic games with mechs are a natural progression for me. Problem with BFRs was the whole flying, solo-piloted tank thing. If they had some sort of combat craft with a lot of gunner seats, I'd be cool with it. Kinda like the multi-seat VS in Lost Planet 2. Couldn't find a screenie, but it's a ponderous armored walker with crappy pilot guns and two secondary gunner pods that each have a single larger gun.

The trick to making a mech that works is to give it a place. BFRs didn't have a clearly-defined place other than being ri-goddamn-diculous. There was too much going on at once, as well, with locational damage and EMP jamming. It was simply too much crap thrown it at once for one vehicle.

The place for what I've suggested would be something that trades movement speed for armor and more firepower - it carries the big guns, and it can take a punch, but if it's not well-covered it would get destroyed simply because it can't really run away that easily.

Disclaimer: No, I don't actually expect something like that to show up in game, I was merely providing an example. It's possible to implement mechs--or even walkers if that's a more comfortable term 'round these parts--in a way that's satisfactory without having everyone crying BFR.

Try Mechwarrior online till Beta comes out. That game looks pretty good.

[Sirisian]

just 1 big tank like the prowler for TR.
Nah tanks need to stay as the strongest ranged AV in the game. You can try to find a niche outside of that though.

Pretty simple to find niches that aren't filled by a tank or lightning. You just need to think of different weapon systems that make the gameplay different or varied chassis types.

The biggest problem you'll find is that because the developers chose to vary all 3 factions so much that any empire specific vehicle requires 3 different vehicles and removes essentially 3 niches from the gameplay.

We covered this in previous threads. I actually have a section for faction redesign in my signature to help solve this over specialization that removes playstyles from the game. Would require a lot of changes to fix though, but would allow more vehicles in the long run. :)

I'd like to see a type of heavier Armour put in at some point, that needs 3/4 people to use properly. Very slow etc.

Come at me bro(s).
The goal really needs to be single person or two person vehicles. Right now the developers are on the right track with vehicles. Except probably the Sunderer which seemed like an odd design choice seeing as the multicrew vehicles in PS1 were rarely used. I think they want to test the waters with the Sunderer with the higher population. Giving it the ability to heal other vehicles help to make it useful at least.

This concept of multicrew vehicles and overpowered gameplay has been brought up in dozens of threads now related to navy and space expansions and mech threads. You're not alone in a group of players that is fascinated by large vehicles that require a lot of "teamwork". I personally feel strongly about giving all players in a vehicle useful abilities without making the vehicle overly powerful due to a large crew size. That's one of the bigger issues people had fighting BFRs or Galaxy gunships sometimes. That feeling of "wow that's a lot of health". When you stick to one or two person vehicles it's more along the lines of "okay we can do this" and it's about skill, not overwhelming firepower.

I still want to know what happened to this vehicle (https://twitter.com/NaniteSystems/status/189376580072644608/photo/1). Has he been scrapped?
I think it's a concept. No one could figure out what it was for or if it was even designed to fight.

[Silencer22]

What we are missing is Buggies and I would much rather see that way before I see any other variant of tank.

^^^This!

[ChookWantan]

I want an AT-AT

[The Loverator]

i would also liked the dea if they added 4 legged crawlers like they use in C&C.


That wouldn't be a Tank anymore and therefore: No, i don't think something like that would happen.

No "Spider-Tanks" like in Ghost in the Shell please. : 3

[Kriegson]

That wouldn't be a Tank anymore and therefore: No, i don't think something like that would happen.

No "Spider-Tanks" like in Ghost in the Shell please. : 3

Tachikoma?
http://images.wikia.com/ghostintheshell/en/images/e/e7/Tachikoma.gif

That being said, 3 MBT's and one light is fine with customization.

But in the event that it is not, I want this.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-520kSQFtcQo/TshNVjuG9RI/AAAAAAAAAuw/S2woz-qsQhM/s1600/TengenToppaGurren-LagannMECH.jpg

MY DRILL WILL PEIRCE THE HEAVENS!

[Kezz]

I'd like a Tank that's better protected than a Sunderer. I was thoroughly put off by the devs' apparent enthusiasm for the Sunderer being able to outmuscle an MBT. The thing's on wheels FFS. That's assuming the "M" stands for "Main", not "Medium". And if it's the latter, where's the "Heavy" tank?

[disky]

I think they should allow you to combine five Vanguards to form Vantron: Defender of the Universe. Form that Blazing Sword, motherfucker. Facility Defended.

[Karrade]

I'd like to see a type of heavier Armour put in at some point, that needs 3/4 people to use properly. Very slow etc.

Come at me bro(s).

I like this, I suggested it in the vehicle thread. Definitely needs more people to man, 3/4 is good, definitely needs to be slow. Thus only teamwork means it'll do well.

Also needs some vulnerable points on the rear, so it needs to be guarded, maybe some vulnerable points up close if an infantry gets a grenade under it, or attaches C4 to a specific part, the ammo/tracks etc.

I like mechs too. These crawlers are a really cool idea. Essentially the land version of the gal gunship. Don't be turned off bfrs "mechs" just because ps1 fucked up and made them too powerful

They left a bitter taste tbh, and its why I quit playing PS1.

Even after that experience though, on the positive side - If they were half the size, smaller than a tank, (a large vehicle max) and played appropriately as a large max, I'd have no problem with them. Make them 2 man as well. Still I'd prefer more tanks, AMS, artillery, buggies, before touching the mech side of things again.

[Tikuto]

I like a thought of having Outfits who regularly orgnize battalions be able to specialize in 'hand-crafted' armoury.

What I mean by this is not speaking of adding new vehicles, etc, but instead using the same vehicle design, constructed differently thereby having them as better, buffed armors.

Nanite Systems: Readily-available, uses resources inefficiently, PERISHABLE.
Hand-crafts (Outfit): Not readily-available, uses resources efficiently, DURABLE.

Adds more depth to this whole Nanites Systems thing, too.

[Nemeses]

no, thats why they have customization.

Strange answer of a very short sighted person ... more can only be better, that does not mean what we have is not good.

aah people who cant think passed there noses :p

It would eventually I guess be great to have maybe 3 of each type, with as said customization, problem is that if they add 2 more people will still want more.

[Figment]

http://www.wotdb.info/

It depends entirely on the system you're using what can be customized and all, but I would definitely say profile is more than cosmetic: it communicates different things and a profile and configuration have strengths and weaknesses

Compare some tanks on the same tier, on each tab within a horizontal row and a row above and below to get an idea of what can be different.

Big difference between very heavy, heavy, medium and light tanks. Particularly if you compare the French tanks (clip guns vs long reload guns)

Let's start with how roles can differ:

Role:
Scout (high speed and good maneuvrability and visibility, low armour, easy to hide)
Transport (APC)
Constructor (fortifications, bridges)
Logistics (supplies/spawns)
Flanker (circling)
Brawler (melee)
Sniper (long range)
Skirmisher (hit and run)
"Blitzer" (push through fast)
Mine-sweeping
Anti-Tank
Tank Destroyer (low profile, good frontal armour)
Bunker-buster
Anti-Infantry (flamethrowers)
Anti-Infantry (machine gun)
Anti-Infantry (high explosive)
Anti-Air (anti-light: light firepower, but fast to aim and track: anti-fighters)
Anti-Air (anti-medium: medium strength and speed: anti-bombers)
Anti-Air (anti-huge: heavy, slow moving: anti-Galaxy variants)

Of course SOME roles can be integrated or trade-offs, but each requires a bit different built to be optimized.

Within a role you can differentiate further with things like this:

Hitpoints:
Tier 1 +/- 200hp, tier 10 +/- 2400 hp, within a tier can be, depending on tier, around 50-400hp difference.
Rate at which you lose hitpoints (linked to armour thickness values and ability to dodge)

Engine:
Speed (very slow - slow - mediocre - decent - fast - hyperspeed)
Acceleration (very dependend on total weight)
Location (ease of catching fire)

Hull:
Armour configuration (front - sides - rear + thick, medium, thin)
Armour thickness (damage mitigation and absorption)
Armour slope (chance of deflecting incoming round and angle thickens relative armour thickness)
Weakspots (mini turrets, hatches, locally different angles and armour thicknesses)
Tracks (Hull rotation speed and loading weight, as well as speed loss when turning)
Dimensions (length, width, height) - affects ease of getting hit, getting spotted (stealth value of tank) and maneuvring
Amphibious capacity or not
Weight (affects inertia)

Turret:
No turret => fixed gun => aim with hull (Magrider!)
Armour configuration
Armour thickness
Armour angles
Turret weight
Turret location (front - middle - back of hull)
Visibilty (View range, ease of spotting)
Dimensions (ease of getting hit, getting spotted (stealth value of tank), ease of firing or looking over objects)
Turret rotation speed (especially important for melee)
Radio (communication range)

Gun(s):
Position (hull/turret, center/off-center)
Caliber
Length (accuracy and range)
Barrel type (conical, etc)
Depression and elevation angles (can you hull-down or not, determines how close to a hill or edge you can use it from top or bottom)
Weight (affects speed and other things you can carry)

Loading system:
Rate of fire (high or low)
Clip gun or one shot basis (affects reload time and intervals and rate of fire)

Ammo:
Ammo type (High Explosive, High Explosive Anti-Tank or Armour Piercing, etc)
Damage per shot
Explosion radius
Penetration value

Then, if you've got the system for it, there's the internal layout of modules which can be hit. Modules can have their own HP, a chance to catch fire, get broken or ineffective, exploding, crewmember may die, etc. Which can be a very tactical crippling thing. In WoT, lighter tanks used to use High Explosives to cripple a much heavier tank, rather than instantly pulverizing them (which is what the heavier tank tends to do).

Not sure if we got that in PS2, did think Higby mentioned there'd be multiple hitboxes per unit, including that you can disable an aircraft's engines.



If you look at aircraft design, configuration is incredibly important for roles and characteristics of aircraft. Dynamic instability or stability determines how good an aircraft maneuvres, but also how easy it is to fall out of the sky. For instance the difference between having a canard or tailwings. The aerodynamic shape of the wings determines good or bad behaviour at specific speeds. Elliptical is better at subsonic, swept and delta wings better at closer to and over mach speeds. The use of deltawings without tail wing or canard changes the behaviour and use of flaps, elevators and ailerons as they get to be integrated in the same parts (and with it, harder to control the aircraft). Rolling, banking and pitching behaviour changes, etc. Same for engine layout, the closer to the middle, the less moment inducing effect a broken engine will have. Low speeds affect turning rates as well, etc.

Either way, big difference between how a Stuka is designed (pure dive bomber), a fighter aircraft, a bomber and of course a transport of sorts. And within these groups there's a lot of customization difference too. Different engine types, vector thrusting, VTOL, STOL, weight, armour thickness, module placement, weakspots, cockpit positioning and view, you name it.

The A-10 Thunderbolt is an absolutely lovely unit in terms of niche role design. You should read up on it and realise why the engines, gun, wings, etc are located the way they are.


There's a lot of things you can change per vehicle model to create specific strengths and weaknesses and to rely on just a few models, though possible, really puts a damper on customization and role specialisation and optimization, as well as hampering clear communication and identification. Having only a few things and then make them behave completely differently will hamper immersiveness a bit, will make you feel less unique, even if you have a very unique customization setup and overall is a pretty big deal. Perhaps not the priority at launch, but definitely something to strife for over time (which might mean some roles get cut from units over time).

[Redshift]

I'd like to see the buggies return, apart from that i'm happy

[Figment]

Two heavy tier IX German tanks from world of tanks:

E75 // VK4502 (P) Ausf. B

Hit Points: 1920 // 1950
Weight/Load limit (t): 37.9/94,5 // 41.87/80.8
Engine power (h.p.): 1200 // 840
Speed limit (km/h): 30 // 30
Traverse speed (deg/sec): 21 // 20
Hull armor (Front/Sides/Rear, mm): 160/120/120 // 170/100/100
Turret armor (Front/Sides/Rear, mm): 252/160/160 // 252/160/160
Standard shell damage: 368-613 // 368-613
Standard shell penetration (mm): 185-308 // 185-308
Rate of fire (rounds/min): 3,83-4,20 // 3,83-4,20
Traverse speed (deg/sec): 18 // 18
View range (m): 402 // 402
Signal range (m): 710 // 710

Meaning they're virtually identical tanks in statistics. Yet the E75 is much prefered by players over the VK4502 (P) Ausf. B., because of the layout of the tank itself. (A similar comparison can be made between the E100 and the Maus, tier X, virtually identical, E100 is prefered).

E75 on Himmelsdorf - YouTube

World of Tanks vk4502 (p) Ausf. B Gameplay - YouTube



The location of the turret and the configuration of the hull in terms of armour, means that although both tanks have virtually identical statistics, the E75 has a significant advantage, especially in a city map. Why? Because a VK4502P will have to reveal far more of it's side when it wants to go around a corner. The VK4502 (P) with its turret being on the rear side, and only a small distance further, therefore has to expose itself far more in order to fire sideways. It's also a lot harder to fire over cover and ridges, because the position further back creates a worse depression angle. (The closer to something, the easier it is to fire over it). Meaning that around hills, too, it is at a disadvantage.

And obviously driving backwards, through providing a turret that sits on an end would expose its softside and change its directional acceleration capacity etc.

So are there units that benefit from a turret at the rear? Yes, artillery for example can fire over obstructions a bit easier when the turret or fixed gun is at the rear end and it creates a more stable platform, because the moment caused by the weight of the gun is compensated by the weight of the hull. You can see this in virtually all artillery designs. With a tank destroyer, the gun is best positioned at the top of the sloped front of the tank. With a tank that brawls, center is best (due to having to fire backwards as well as forwards). With a tank that is blitzing or hull down and doesn't fire backwards as much, a frontal position is better. Most tanks havea configuration with the turret in or slightly in front of the middle.

For AA, a turret position is best in the middle to rear area if it wants to sit behind cover (firing up angles are more important than firing down angles, so to maximise the range of upwards angles, further back is better). Of course if there's next to no cover or terrain is very flat, for balancing it's often best in the middle for all sorts of tanks.


Please also note, that while watching the video, the profiles on either side are completely distinct from one another, even if they have the same role: you know EXACTLY what you're facing immediately. It's very intuitive and informative.

[Snipefrag]

I think they should allow you to combine five Vanguards to form Vantron: Defender of the Universe. Form that Blazing Sword, motherfucker. Facility Defended.

You sir have won the internet, rofl.

[fvdham]

With Lightning, Prowler, Vanguard, Magrider and BangBus there is enough choice in armor.
I would put the Lodestar (for transport) and the Deliverer (for naval warfare) in the game.

The problem with the buggies is it was hard to balance them against the Lightning.
At one point the Buggy (jeep?) had more armor than the Lightning (tank).

[Metalsheep]

With Lightning, Prowler, Vanguard, Magrider and BangBus there is enough choice in armor.
I would put the Lodestar (for transport) and the Deliverer (for naval warfare) in the game.

The problem with the buggies is it was hard to balance them against the Lightning.
At one point the Buggy (jeep?) had more armor than the Lightning (tank).

Which actually worries me a little, we've seen how quickly the MBTs die to enemy fire, how will you add in the Buggies without them literally being paper-thin death traps?

[Redshift]

The problem with the buggies is it was hard to balance them against the Lightning.

Same armour, faster, bigger gun... balanced. They're 2 man vehicles they should be better than a lighting

[Figment]

With Lightning, Prowler, Vanguard, Magrider and BangBus there is enough choice in armor.

That's not true though is it?

You can't steal enemy tanks in PS2

[Doxy]

That's not true though is it?

You can't steal enemy tanks in PS2

Might be implemented if beta players stress over it much.

[JesNC]

With Lightning, Prowler, Vanguard, Magrider and BangBus there is enough choice in armor.
I would put the Lodestar (for transport) and the Deliverer (for naval warfare) in the game.

The problem with the buggies is it was hard to balance them against the Lightning.
At one point the Buggy (jeep?) had more armor than the Lightning (tank).

Buggies required 2 people, so more armor and a better gun are justified in my book.

The lightning was no real tank either, more like an infatry support Gun Motor Carriage(GMC).

[SixShooter]

With Lightning, Prowler, Vanguard, Magrider and BangBus there is enough choice in armor.

The problem with the buggies is it was hard to balance them against the Lightning.
At one point the Buggy (jeep?) had more armor than the Lightning (tank).

I thnik this is just fine for launch. More cool stuff is hopefully coming down the pipes later on but for launch they have a pretty good lineup.

Definitly need buggies later on and they should not have as much armor as a lightning. The lighning is much more of a light tank this time around.

[QuantumMechanic]

To me one of the biggest benefits of driving a buggy was that you could wear your heavy assault (rexo) armor while driving one.

When piloting/driving aircraft, tanks or the lightning you could only wear the light armor, which limits your loadout options.

It appears there's not going to be such a restriction in PS2. Not sure how I feel about that. I think it makes having buggies around less important to me. Which is too bad cause I really love the Marauder.

[Tatwi]

The movable, outfit-owned base concept sounds pretty cool. Kind of like a cross between an aircraft carrier, battleship, and stationary base. However, I am having a hard time imagining what people would actually use them for. Maybe the maps could have several swaths of hexes that can only be controlled by deploying a one of these movable bases within them. And if two or more factions place a base within the same group hexes, no one owns them - forcing each side to destroy the enemy or flee the area.

Over all, I would like to see alternate chassis for all the vehicles, just to spice up the visuals rather than modify the game play involved with any of them. However, I am very pleased with the variety and quality of the vehicles and character armor that will be available at launch.