Some Thoughts on MBT's from a Veteran Tanker

[ExquisitExamplE]

UPDATE: I threw together a brief video showing the movement and combat capabilities of ETQW's Strogg Desecrator Tank, A tank that I believe shows what the magrider could and should be capable of. I've been thinking about it quite a bit, and it comes down to the fact that I really don't want to have to steer the vehicle by using the mouse. Hopefully they've implemented some other type of system in Planetside 2.

ETQW/Planetside2 - Desecrator/Magrider Comparison.

The main suggestions I've gleaned from reading your comments:

- ADD ROTATING TURRET TO MAGRIDER
- INCREASE TURRET HEIGHT TO NOMINAL COMBAT LEVEL.
- ENSURE MAGRIDER HAS ADEQUATE ACCELERATION/ROTATION SPEED

Now of course we'll have to wait a bit longer to see how everything shakes out, how the different MBT's handle and how they stack up. I'll reserve judgment of course, but I think the potential issues people have been bringing up are valid ones and hopefully someone from SOE will see this thread and get some ideas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this frenzy of anticipation surrounding the days prior to beta, I finally decided to stop lurking the forums, make an account, and attempt to bring something pertinent and worthwhile to the forums.

A bit of background on myself, I've been PC gaming for 10+ years, my first forays into competitive FPS were with Counterstrike 1.5 (Before they introduced riot shields and the FAMAS/Galil), followed by Quake 3. My first memories of "tanking" were with Westwood studios's superlative first-person shooter, C&C: Renegade. The game had really great vehicle mechanics, complete with artillery, aircraft and faction-specific tanks, it had elements of tower-defense games at a time when they were still in their infancy.

C&C: Renegade - Light Tank Action

I later moved on to Planetside, and then later to Battlefield 2, a game which really fomented my love for vehicle combat. For the last few years I've been really enjoying Id's Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, another extremely well-made objective-based multiplayer fps.

ETQW is interesting in that it has a tank that is very similar to the Magrider, namely the "Desecrator". The main difference is the "dessie" as we like to call it, is about 100 times the combat vehicle the magrider is, thanks in large part to it's fully rotatable turret and different system of movement.

With the desecrator, the mouse controls the turret, W and S move forward and backward, A and D rotate the body of the dessie counter clockwise or clockwise, and Q and E cause the vehicle to strafe. Also, the crouch button would cause you to enter a lockdown mode which operates in the same way as the TR Max, sacrificing all mobility for increased rate-of-fire. The cannon is a direct-fire (travels in a straight line) plasma cannon with a relatively slow travel speed and limited (but still long) range.

The nemesis of the Strogg Desecrator is the GDF Titan Tank, A much more standard tank and somewhat similar to the Vanguard in it's build. It has decent forward speed, but poor maneuverability which it compensates for with heavier armor and a stronger, shell-based cannon which has a trajectory drop, but unlimited range and a fast shell travel speed.

Although these two vehicles are asymmetrical and quite dissimilar, they are well-balanced in terms of power, in the same way that I imagine SOE intends to balance the PS2 MBT's, with the VS gleaning their advantage from superior agility and precision.

Kill times for ETQW Vehicles:

Titan: Takes 4 direct plasma cannon to destroy.
Desecrator: Takes 2 direct tank shells to destroy.

Although the Desecrator dies much more quickly than the Titan, it's ability to strafe combined with it's slimmer profile give it more than a fighting chance in the hands of a skilled driver.

Some brief clips of me playing:
Enemy Territory: Quake Wars - Tanks for everything!


Which brings me (Finally!) to my main point, which is I have this feeling that in order for the Magrider to be able to fill its role and act effectively as a single-man MBT (Something which all MBT's in PS2 are supposed to be capable of), it absolutely needs a fully rotatable turret. As I understand it now, Both NC and TR have tanks that have at least 2 fully 360 degree rotatable turrets, one for the the driver and one for the gunner, while the Magrider still has it's old setup of one fixed gun for the driver, and a rotatable turret for the gunner.

As the pilot of a single-man MBT, I want to be able to keep a high-rate of speed while at the same time being able to keep my sights locked on an enemy vehicle at all times. This means I could potentially be retreating from an area, going full speed and being pursued by enemy tanks, but still have my turret aimed at them and engaging. I would, of course, be at a disadvantage because my weaker rear armor would be facing the pursuing tanks, but at least I would be able to track and/or engage them.

I know this issue has been brought up before, but I thought I'd share my perspective. Any other tank drivers feel similarly?

In short, I'd be more than willing to sacrifice a bit of armor to gain a functionality that tanks have had since 1917. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT-17

[Tuoweit]

It already has that feature. You just need to bring a gunner with you (the gunner being another feature all tanks have had since 1917...). Or, apparently, swap seat positions to the gunner seat (but then you can't drive of course).

[QuantumMechanic]

I believe the fixed-forward main gun of the Magrider is something of a tradeoff that you get for things the other MBT's don't have: the ability to strafe and traverse over water.

[Liwen Diamond]

You make a good argument, but I don't think I'd be willing to sacrifice armor for rotation of a turret. the Mag is already the weakest of the three MBT. Wouldn't want to make it too paper thin would we?

I'm not actually going to pronounce myself on a clear yes or no until I've tested it out for myself. The unique mobility for the Mag might compensate enough for it's flaws Imagine for a moment that it can move backward as fast as it can move forward and your fighting retreat manoeuvers could become viable.

[Ivam Akorahil]

iam a tank driver and gunner (by now out of duty) if i was retreating from the enemy, never with my back to them, allways front armor to the enemy - reversing trying to get into the next best cover/concealment, and then striking while they expected me to flee.

but yes in general i still do agree, a MBT needs a rotating turret. not beeing able to do so makes it almost impossible to fire while maneuvering and fire and maneuver is the key element of armored combat.

[Daemonn]

It already has that feature. You just need to bring a gunner with you (the gunner being another feature all tanks have had since 1917...). Or, apparently, swap seat positions to the gunner seat (but then you can't drive of course).

Lol... cant tell if serious...

[ExquisitExamplE]

You make a good argument, but I don't think I'd be willing to sacrifice armor for rotation of a turret. the Mag is already the weakest of the three MBT. Wouldn't want to make it too paper thin would we?

I'm not actually going to pronounce myself on a clear yes or no until I've tested it out for myself. The unique mobility for the Mag might compensate enough for it's flaws Imagine for a moment that it can move backward as fast as it can move forward and your fighting retreat manoeuvers could become viable.

You make some good points, If the mag has the weakest armor already, I'd rather they just keep that as is and add the turret.

Or course I'll also reserve judgment until I test it for myself, I just hope for the VS' sake they tightened up the controls a lot on the Mag, I always got the feeling I was driving through sludge with that thing. Particularly, I'd really like to see more responsive acceleration and braking.

iam a tank driver and gunner (by now out of duty) if i was retreating from the enemy, never with my back to them, allways front armor to the enemy - reversing trying to get into the next best cover/concealment, and then striking while they expected me to flee.

but yes in general i still do agree, a MBT needs a rotating turret. not beeing able to do so makes it almost impossible to fire while maneuvering and fire and maneuver is the key element of armored combat.

Of course ideally you never want to expose your rear, especially with the recent repeal of don't ask, don't tell (Sorry, I had to o.O). There are of course situations when such a retreat will be inevitable, and in those cases, having your proverbial head on a swivel can prove invaluable. I think we are pretty much on the same page here.

[Inq]

You make a good argument, but I don't think I'd be willing to sacrifice armor for rotation of a turret. the Mag is already the weakest of the three MBT. Wouldn't want to make it too paper thin would we?

I'm not actually going to pronounce myself on a clear yes or no until I've tested it out for myself. The unique mobility for the Mag might compensate enough for it's flaws Imagine for a moment that it can move backward as fast as it can move forward and your fighting retreat manoeuvers could become viable.

Pretty sure in the videos I have seen they have said the prowler is the weakest tank armor wise.

I think a better compromise would be an overall decrease in damage output from the mag.

With the new sidegrade system there could be many options, Such as: change the main gun to a fairly high damage but short effective range plasma weapon OR pick a beam weapon with long range, no drop off but lower damage.

Not sure if im alone on this but I have never liked the design of the Magrider.

I like the concept of a hover tank but not one without a turret.
A forward mounted, fixed gun is something I would normally associate with a very large powerful weapon system for use at long range or in ambushes. (Like an artillery peice/Mobile AT gun)

I feel Magrider has always been the Vanu's 'elephant in the room' as such the faction is all about technology and advancement but to design a futuristic MBT without a turret for the main gun would be taking a step backwards not forwards.

[Gugabalog]

I agree. I have no clue why it was done this way, even if people rationalize it as the whole tank is the turret.

[QuantumMechanic]

Honestly, people have been voicing this same sentiment since we first got pics of the Magrider. If it hasn't changed yet, I don't think it's going to change (sad as that may seem). But be sure to voice your opinion in the beta forum once we get there.

[Electrofreak]

You make a good argument, but I don't think I'd be willing to sacrifice armor for rotation of a turret. the Mag is already the weakest of the three MBT. Wouldn't want to make it too paper thin would we?


The Prowler is actually the fastest tank and, as far as I've heard, is the lightest-armored in PS2.

[ExquisitExamplE]

Not sure if im alone on this but I have never liked the design of the Magrider.

I like the concept of a hover tank but not one without a turret.
A forward mounted, fixed gun is something I would normally associate with a very large powerful weapon system for use at long range or in ambushes. (Like an artillery peice/Mobile AT gun)

I feel Magrider has always been the Vanu's 'elephant in the room' as such the faction is all about technology and advancement but to design a futuristic MBT without a turret for the main gun would be taking a step backwards not forwards.

Agreed. I'd like to see the Magrider as the most lightly armored of the MBT's, with a very slim profile (small hitbox), limited top speed, but great acceleration and maneuverability (which of course necessitates the fully rotating turret).

A tactic that should/would be very common is Magrider drivers juking tank shells by timing the tanks firing sequence and strafing to the left or right just prior to the shell being fired. It's a tactic I've used to great effect in ETQW.

If, and this is a big if, if they can manage to make the Mag as mobile and responsive as the scythe appears to be, but on land, I could maybe be alright with it having a fixed turret, but it would have to be supremely agile and responsive, much more so than the PS1 Mag.

As far as side grades go, while I imagine the NC tacking bigger guns and armor upgrades onto their tanks, the TR utilizing high rate-of-fire, suppression based technology and speed upgrades, I'd like to see the VS use more mobility based, stealth based technology. Imagine if VS tanks could add a cloaking gen that would enable them to cloak for long periods, but would reduce them to an almost unarmored paper tank. Imagine if VS tanks could burrow into the ground and remain hidden, only to emerge right after an enemy tank column passes over them?

It seems to me that for the VS, technology and subterfuge should go hand-in-hand.

[feuerdog]

I believe the fixed-forward main gun of the Magrider is something of a tradeoff that you get for things the other MBT's don't have: the ability to strafe and traverse over water.

This.


We still don'r know what the turret turning rates are like, or the turning rates and speeds of the various MBT. Let alone and ballistic and damage differences between the main guns.
Beta should address this.

From what i've seen so far though, the magrider is a tradeoff of weapon/armor for unique maneuverability.

[ArmedZealot]

Magrider got nerfed coming from PS1 to PS2. Big reason why I won't be playing VS in PS2.


Magrider gun isn't an independant turret? Why? It wasn't a problem in PS1.

[Biohazard]

Magrider gun isn't an independant turret? Why? It wasn't a problem in PS1.

In PS1 the secondary gun was fixed and the main gun was turreted, now the main gun is fixed and the secondary gun is turreted.

EDIT* Wait... did I misunderstand your post?

[ArmedZealot]

EDIT* Wait... did I misunderstand your post?

Did indeed good sir.

[Biohazard]

Did indeed good sir.

Take two :lol:



Magrider gun isn't an independant turret? Why? It wasn't a problem in PS1.

It has to do with the combining of driver/gunner. I think that they didn't want to lose the 'look' of the mag by removing the fixed gun, and they can't give the fixed gun to the gunner because it is driver aimed. So they made the fixed gun the main gun.

Just my take on what happened.

[ArmedZealot]

It has to do with the combining of driver/gunner. I think that they didn't want to lose the 'look' of the mag by removing the fixed gun, and they can't give the fixed gun to the gunner because it is driver aimed. So they made the fixed gun the main gun.

Just my take on what happened.

Yeah I had the same thought. But in this case the gameplay of the mag is more important than maintaining the look.

The devs should make both independent turrets. That is how it is with the other MBT's isn't it?

[opticalshadow]

Yeah I had the same thought. But in this case the gameplay of the mag is more important than maintaining the look.

The devs should make both independent turrets. That is how it is with the other MBT's isn't it?

the otehr thing may have been balence.

the mag hovered, it had the ability to cross water (which mattered at one point in ps1, maybe will in ps2 aswell) which gave it one advantage over the other MBT's. they were also faster.

now idk if thats true or not, but i will say that early on in ps1, when outside of bases were used for warfare, it was annoying to mine out ar oad, and set up ur turrets and fight teh vs, who just went around the murder bridge we set up, i know it let them get into some nasty hiding spots that otehr vehicles had trouble with. now is that a big enough advantage in ps2 to not have the cannon again? idk, well have to see what water areas they add.

but they did mention that some ladnmasses will have alot of water, and if its deep enough to stop the other vehicles, it gives teh vs a huge advantage there. i wouldnt count it for nothing.

[ArmedZealot]

the otehr thing may have been balence.

the mag hovered, it had the ability to cross water (which mattered at one point in ps1, maybe will in ps2 aswell) which gave it one advantage over the other MBT's. they were also faster.


It was def on top of the other MBT's in terms of utility but was it OP?

The Vanguard farmed infantry.
The Prowler could kill anything when full.
The Magrider had the most utility.

The only place hovering gave it the advantage was bridge battles, where pheonixes and strikers could still reach out and touch them just fine. And PS2 has more lockon weapons than PS1 had.

Why did they decide to change it to it's current state?

[opticalshadow]

It was def on top of the other MBT's in terms of utility but was it OP?

The Vanguard farmed infantry.
The Prowler could kill anything when full.
The Magrider had the most utility.

The only place hovering gave it the advantage was bridge battles, where pheonixes and strikers could still reach out and touch them just fine. And PS2 has more lockon weapons than PS1 had.

Why did they decide to change it to it's current state?

i dont think it was OP, i think they were all more or less even. and yeah bridge battles were the big thing, later on that didnt matter. but i can remember year one, when we were holding the bridge, NC would spend hours getting past it, but teh VS could just barrel charge the river with mags, it made fighting them a totally diffrent exp.

in that reguard id say it was a good tradeoff, now once pops went down that didnt happen anymore, idk if ps2 will give them more opportunity to use this unique advantage, i hope they do.

i do hope it stays a fixed turret, not because of any silyl reason. i would just prefer they either give it a better balence adjustment to trade off for it. weather that be more terrian oppertunities, or a tank upgrade to make it worth while. either way, id love to see them keep its uniqueness and make it work, then just copy paste the tank with diffrent number values.

[FuzzyandBlue]

Thinking about the Magrider design I would say a fixed front firing gun would be a massive advantage if the tank had good agility. A Magrider will always have its front armor to an opponent more often. Seeing as there is directional damage in PS2, in a direct 1v1 tank fight, the mag will take less damage per shot more often.

This could be even more of an advantage if the Magrider has the ability to strafe faster than the TR and NC tanks can turn. Anyone who has played a BF game knows that angle of engagement can be the difference between a kill and getting killed. A Magrider in an open field will be a dangerous tool in the hands of an intelligent tank crew.

I for one am interested to see how VS tankers use the unique strengths of the Magrider against the more standard style we see in the Prowler and the Vanguard.

[ArmedZealot]

Thinking about the Magrider design I would say a fixed front firing gun would be a massive advantage if the tank had good agility. A Magrider will always have its front armor to an opponent more often. Seeing as there is directional damage in PS2, in a direct 1v1 tank fight, the mag will take less damage per shot more often.

It's agility won't matter if the other tanks turrets can still track it.

A mag would have to have godly strafe speed to do that and still be able to land hits.

[Haro]

It's agility won't matter if the other tanks turrets can still track it.

A mag would have to have godly strafe speed to do that and still be able to land hits.

You're missing the point. The mag has the ability to circle strafe around enemy tanks without exposing side or rear armor, moving around to target the enemy's weaknesses. Even if it still gets hit, it could potentially have far more armor to bear in a scenario.

Ultimately, it comes down to the mag rider can do something that other tanks cannot, so it loses some functionality so that one tank cannot do everything. It remains to be seen how this balances out, but purely from a philosophic standpoint, it makes sense. No faction should have every feature, especially in the driver/gunner format.

[AzureWatcher]

You're missing the point. The mag has the ability to circle strafe around enemy tanks without exposing side or rear armor, moving around to target the enemy's weaknesses. Even if it still gets hit, it could potentially have far more armor to bear in a scenario.

Ultimately, it comes down to the mag rider can do something that other tanks cannot, so it loses some functionality so that one tank cannot do everything. It remains to be seen how this balances out, but purely from a philosophic standpoint, it makes sense. No faction should have every feature, especially in the driver/gunner format.

Agreed completely.

Magriders can keep their strongest bit facing their target, even while they maneuver to attack the enemy's rear.

Fair trade off in my honest opinion.

[ArmedZealot]

You're missing the point. The mag has the ability to circle strafe around enemy tanks without exposing side or rear armor, moving around to target the enemy's weaknesses. Even if it still gets hit, it could potentially have far more armor to bear in a scenario.

Even so the Mag has a fairly large forward (and top down) cross section and (I think) the least amount of armor of the MBT's.

Ultimately, it comes down to the mag rider can do something that other tanks cannot, so it loses some functionality so that one tank cannot do everything. It remains to be seen how this balances out, but purely from a philosophic standpoint, it makes sense. No faction should have every feature, especially in the driver/gunner format.

I'm not asking for it to do everything, just maintain what it had in PS1. Very few would argue that it had everything there.

[Inq]

You're missing the point. The mag has the ability to circle strafe around enemy tanks without exposing side or rear armor, moving around to target the enemy's weaknesses. Even if it still gets hit, it could potentially have far more armor to bear in a scenario.

Ultimately, it comes down to the mag rider can do something that other tanks cannot, so it loses some functionality so that one tank cannot do everything. It remains to be seen how this balances out, but purely from a philosophic standpoint, it makes sense. No faction should have every feature, especially in the driver/gunner format.

Have they even announced a damage model to incorporate this?
Or do weapons cause the same damage no matter where they hit the target?

Besides in a tank battle its technically not really an advantage all vehicles with treads can turn on a dime therefore you can keep your front armor facing the enemy at all times and fire no matter what mad strafing dance they can pull off.

In the end the faster the Magrider can strafe the harder it is to hit BUT
the Magrider has a harder time keeping its target lined up.

The advantage is negligible.

[ArmedZealot]

Have they even announced a damage model to incorporate this?
Or do weapons cause the same damage no matter where they hit the target?


Tanks take more damage where they are hit.

Forward hit = least damage
Side hit = medium
Rear hit = most

Besides in a tank battle its technically not really an advantage all vehicles with treads can turn on a dime therefore you can keep your front armor facing the enemy at all times and fire no matter what mad strafing dance they can pull off.

In the end the faster the Magrider can strafe the harder it is to hit BUT
the Magrider has a harder time keeping its target lined up.

The advantage is negligible.

This as well.

[FuzzyandBlue]

Have they even announced a damage model to incorporate this?
Or do weapons cause the same damage no matter where they hit the target?

Besides in a tank battle its technically not really an advantage all vehicles with treads can turn on a dime therefore you can keep your front armor facing the enemy at all times and fire no matter what mad strafing dance they can pull off.

In the end the faster the Magrider can strafe the harder it is to hit BUT
the Magrider has a harder time keeping its target lined up.

The advantage is negligible.

They have confirmed directional armor.

The other tanks may be able to in place, but how quickly can they turn? It may be easy for a Vanguard to track a Magrider with its turret, but will the Vanguard be able to turn fast enough to keep its front armor to the Magrider?

With tanks being large, slow moving targets I don't imagine that it will be all that hard to keep on target even with a fast strafe speed.

[Grognard]

Which brings me (Finally!) to my main point, which is I have this feeling that in order for the Magrider to be able to fill its role and act effectively as a single-man MBT (Something which all MBT's in PS2 are supposed to be capable of), it absolutely needs a fully rotatable turret. As I understand it now, Both NC and TR have tanks that have at least 2 fully 360 degree rotatable turrets, one for the the driver and one for the gunner, while the Magrider still has it's old setup of one fixed gun for the driver, and a rotatable turret for the gunner.

As the pilot of a single-man MBT, I want to be able to keep a high-rate of speed while at the same time being able to keep my sights locked on an enemy vehicle at all times. This means I could potentially be retreating from an area, going full speed and being pursued by enemy tanks, but still have my turret aimed at them and engaging. I would, of course, be at a disadvantage because my weaker rear armor would be facing the pursuing tanks, but at least I would be able to track and/or engage them.

I know this issue has been brought up before, but I thought I'd share my perspective. Any other tank drivers feel similarly?


I sure do...

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42513

Some people dont get it, but they will soon enough... Others, my compliments.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

I noticed the liberator artillery piece rotated almost instantly. I think the prowler and vanguard guns rotate quite quickly also - maybe not as fast as aiming your hand held weapon but still very fast for a tonne of steel swinging around.

How fast can you rotate the magrider to aim?

[ArmedZealot]

How fast can you rotate the magrider to aim?

I don't think it's rotation is the right question.

The right question is if the mag's strafe speed gives it enough transversal to dodge tank fire. Which I believe the answer would be no.

[opticalshadow]

another unique thing, though it would be very ahrd to do, but kinda fun, a squad of magriders could travel all facing outwards in a circle, and effectivly be a full 360 degree gun, given they can travel in all cardinal directions.

[Inq]

The other tanks may be able to in place, but how quickly can they turn? It may be easy for a Vanguard to track a Magrider with its turret, but will the Vanguard be able to turn fast enough to keep its front armor to the Magrider?


http://youtu.be/017I9ghLsYA?t=9m37s

9 min 37s
This is a lightning vs magrider at close range, you can see the magrider strafe when he ejects, (its slow). If a Vanaguard can't keep its hull facing towards a Magrider something is very wrong.

[Grognard]

I don't think it's rotation is the right question.

The right question is if the mag's strafe speed gives it enough transversal to dodge tank fire. Which I believe the answer would be no.

I really have to agree. Like the OP mentioned, the acceleration will have to be very powerful to make that boat dodge anything...

I still present as a strong argument, that the Mag, in order to fire, must face a single target, exposing itself to more predictable locational damage, from others. Therefore, the enemy chooses, for the Mag, where the Mag faces his ass... No other tank is presented with this issue due to turret rotation. Make no fuking mistake, that is a big deal...

[AzureWatcher]

I really have to agree. Like the OP mentioned, the acceleration will have to be very powerful to make that boat dodge anything...

I still present as a strong argument, that the Mag, in order to fire, must face a single target, exposing itself to more predictable locational damage, from others. Therefore, the enemy chooses, for the Mag, where the Mag faces his ass... No other tank is presented with this issue due to turret rotation. Make no fuking mistake, that is a big deal...

This is also a good point.

So, what could they do? Implement a rotating turret for the main cannon but make it rotate much slower than the Mag's more primitive counterparts?

[ExquisitExamplE]

Ultimately, it comes down to the mag rider can do something that other tanks cannot, so it loses some functionality so that one tank cannot do everything. It remains to be seen how this balances out, but purely from a philosophic standpoint, it makes sense. No faction should have every feature, especially in the driver/gunner format.

Think of it this way, as it stands now, every tank has 8 axes of movement:

NC & TR
--------
Tank Body has 4 axes:
Forward, Reverse, Clockwise, Counter-Clockwise

Tank Turret has 4 axes:
Raise, Lower, Clockwise, Counter-Clockwise

VS
---
Tank Body has 6 axes:
Forward, Reverse, Clockwise, Counter-Clockwise, Strafe Left, Strafe Right

Tank Turret has 2 axes:
Raise, Lower

The more I think about it, I just don't like having to turn the body of the tank using the mouse, if I could make an analogy, it almost feels like having to use a Gamepad to play FPS games, to anyone who is used to a mouse and keyboard setup, the aiming just feels horrendous on a gamepad. Same thing with the mag, it just didn't feel right trying to aim at things with the driver gun (which was the secondary gun), and now we're to understand that the driver gun has become the main gun?

I dunno, I don't have a good feeling about it, we'll see in beta I guess.

[Inq]

I really have to agree. Like the OP mentioned, the acceleration will have to be very powerful to make that boat dodge anything...

I still present as a strong argument, that the Mag, in order to fire, must face a single target, exposing itself to more predictable locational damage, from others. Therefore, the enemy chooses, for the Mag, where the Mag faces his ass... No other tank is presented with this issue due to turret rotation. Make no fuking mistake, that is a big deal...

There is also a situational height advantage as a Vanguard/Lightning/Prowler, Their main gun is high enough to clear small walls and rocks so they can take cover behind objects and fire while the Magrider will not.

[FuzzyandBlue]

This is a lightning vs magrider at close range, you can see the magrider strafe when he ejects, (its slow). If a Vanaguard can't keep its hull facing towards a Magrider something is very wrong.

Wow that did seem really slow. I do hope that is something that is worked on in beta. I guess we'll see how it works as it is. I would hate to see the VS gimped by having an inferior MBT.

Of course if the Magrider is supposed to excel at longer ranged engagements then its ability to strafe and the lack of bullet drop make it perfect for that role.

[ArmedZealot]

Of course if the Magrider is supposed to excel at longer ranged engagements then its ability to strafe and the lack of bullet drop make it perfect for that role.

I think the mag still gets BD, along with having a much slower projectile than what we saw in PS1.

[RJTravis]

http://youtu.be/017I9ghLsYA?t=9m37s

9 min 37s
This is a lightning vs magrider at close range, you can see the magrider strafe when he ejects, (its slow). If a Vanaguard can't keep its hull facing towards a Magrider something is very wrong.

The player in that tank was never moving at top speed when he tried to gun it he moved very fast so fast he hit the tree behind him he had zero clue how to drive the darn thing & at the end he lived with looked to be 90% of his armor still intact-ed he took a few lighting hits & 2 rockets & took almost no damage.

You need to get that tank in the hands of someone with 200 hours in it & then see if it needs fixing.

It looks to be the best tank in the game by far once you learn how to drive it.

[Grognard]

This is also a good point.

So, what could they do? Implement a rotating turret for the main cannon but make it rotate much slower than the Mag's more primitive counterparts?

Im really not sure, to be honest. I did think of some possibilities, that I am just not sure would be a good fix:

1. As the OP mentions, the strafe and rearward acceleration must be very powerful.

2. I think the rearward speed must cap higher than the true tanks, so Mags can pull off a "Darth Maul", and keep the enemies in the "arc of acceptable risk", situationally.

IE. I say Darth Maul, because of the way he constantly was breaking close contact with Jin and Obi with rearward movement.

3. If the Vanu "Tank" is to be the only tank with an alternative design approach, then lets extend the paradigm, and add a little more "Vanu Tech", and give it a real, configurable, locational damage model... Rather than the front/rear/side/top modifier model on the more conventional true tanks (as I understand it), they could make the MagRider locations independant hit pools, and perhaps even configurable. The total hit pool would still amount to the same total (less than Vanguard, more than Prowler), but Mag pilots could side-grade their armor pools to their own play style.

4. The secondary gun could be more powerful in relation to the main gun. In other words, instead of a 75%main/25%secondary relationship, the Mag could have a 50%main/50%secondary relationship. This may only be practical for the AV role though...

All, or some of these, in concert might fix the problem, or make no difference at all. But its all I came up with.

[Ark]

I still think the NC tank looks like it should be used by the Terrans and the Terran dual-cannon tank looks like it should be used by the NC.

The current PS2 NC tank looks like the type of unit a military force would use, not a group of funded guerilla fighters. Just my opinion.

[Grognard]

Wow that did seem really slow. I do hope that is something that is worked on in beta. I guess we'll see how it works as it is. I would hate to see the VS gimped by having an inferior MBT.

Of course if the Magrider is supposed to excel at longer ranged engagements then its ability to strafe and the lack of bullet drop make it perfect for that role.

Yes, exactly.

This is why I referenced my earlier post about a new paradigm on Vanu armored tactics. It was a prefered method before (range...), its almost critical now... I no longer can say Vanu has a "Tank" with a straight face, because we now have an armored firing platform. Before, to me, there were enough similarities, save propulsion, for me to accept it as a Tank. Now... no way.

Honestly, that is ok. As long as, in the overall synergy of Vanu combat arms, it contributes properly. If we are to accept the role of "visionaries", we must also accept some unconventional tactics, and adapt ourselves to the technology that we have married into... I wouldnt have it any other way.

[SixShooter]

If the Mag had a driver controled turret for the main gun everyone would freak out and scream that it was too overpowered and everything would get nerfed to shit. I'm fine keeping it how it is and learning how to use it well. The fact is that it's probably too late in the dev cycle to make a significant change at this point. It's going to come down to balancing armor, speed and firepower to get people to use it.

I'm also not sure where people are getting the idea that the Mag is a smaller target:huh:. From this picture it looks longer and wider than the other 2 MBTs
http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20120427_4f9af51a56112.jpg

[Salad Snake]

Iirc the Nekomata from Battlefield 2142 was a fixed-gun hovertank, and it was actually more powerful than the EU Tiger tank, which was traditional. Despite having less armor, the ability to strafe made it a terror in the hands of a good driver.

[ArmedZealot]

If the Mag had a driver controled turret for the main gun everyone would freak out and scream that it was too overpowered and everything would get nerfed to shit. I'm fine keeping it how it is and learning how to use it well. The fact is that it's probably too late in the dev cycle to make a significant change at this point. It's going to come down to balancing armor, speed and firepower to get people to use it.

Eh, that is how it was in PS1 and people didn't freak out. The driver controlling it would arguably be less powerful than having a dedicated gunner.

I just want to understand why it was changed.

[AThreatToYou]

Imagine the Magrider as a Tank Destroyer and not a MBT.

[ArmedZealot]

Imagine the Magrider as a Tank Destroyer and not a MBT.

Again this is how it was in PS1. Having a fixed gun makes it worse at this job since you expose yourself to make shots on the tank you are trying to kill.

[Stanis]

AThreatToYou was thinking the same thought I was.

In World of Tanks the tank destroyers are mostly forwardfiring only.
They are compartively, heavily armoured, less maneuvrable but their guns have the biggest tier/class penetration and damage = power.


If the drivers main gun on the new Mag is still about as effective a peashooter - then it won't work as a Tank Destroyer.


I can see how arguements for manueverability and strafe work in theory.
But I'm saving my big whinge for Beta.

I will be playing other empires just to compare flight dynamics and tank handling.

[NoDachi]

What if the magrider's gun had the flattest projectile, fastest projectile speed, fastest RoF and still better damage than the prowler?

The way I've been paying attention to all the information we've got so far is that,

Vanguard - Alpha damage
Prowler - Burst damage
Magrider - DPM.

It'll probably end up handling like the JT out of WoT, but with enhanced maneuverability. See how it handles in game first before writing off the fixed gun.

EDIT: My only real concern right now is that it lacks the ability to go hull down. The gun is at the bottom of the tank and it hovers giving it the tallest profile.

[Inq]

EDIT: My only real concern right now is that it lacks the ability to go hull down. The gun is at the bottom of the tank and it hovers giving it the tallest profile.

Correct, thats one of the point's I was getting at. From a lore perspective even with new technology the engineers on vanu would not forget basic principles of tank design. Such as mounting the main gun at mid/high level on the hull/turret to allow the rest of the hull to remain behind cover.

Whoever made the design of the Magrider made it from an artistic stand point certainly not a combat effectiveness one. The design looks 'cool' but it does not fulfil its role correctly. The design would make more sense if the Magrider could fly not hover.

[Turdicus]

I'm almost tempted to say the magrider deserves the highest front armor rating, it makes some sense to me. If the whole design philosophy of the magrider is that you never have to expose your weak sides in order to maneuver then it should have some crazy front armor rating. That would make the mag a terror in 1 on 1 fights and urban engagements (it never has to go through a corner with a weak side exposed). IMO it would then make the mag just as vulnerable in large engagements as the other tanks, but just as good in small scale and 1 on 1 engagements.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Well, this is kind of making much ado about nothing...

Worst case scenario, use some imagination.

The Mag looks like it has vastly superior agility to the other two. Up close, hostile tanks will have to work extra hard to avoid being flanked. The only way to avoid it is to constantly rotate the hull to face the Mag you're engaging, and if you are, then you're exposing the rear to SOMEBODY. This is true in the Mag's case, too, BUT, he'll have the initiative in the engagement.

Even if it was a "boat anchor" in some shape form or fashion, the logical response to this is to keep it at range, using superior weapon ballistics (i.e. no drop, higher speed) to land precision fire on the enemy at range, and the increased maneuverability to avoid return fire. Can other tanks move back and forth to avoid fire? Yes, but they have to turn their side, and weaker armor, in order to move quickly, whereas the Mag can keep it's front armor to the enemy.

Don't be in a rush to make assumptions about whether something is good or not, just because you saw some incompetents in a video fail at driving.

Don't make the assumption that ALL engagements must be point blank brawls. This has nothing to do with the vehicle as much as your own lack of imagination.

I've rarely ever seen, in any game, something considered "useless" or "underpowered" to ACTUALLY be ineffective. I make a point in many games to go with the presumed under dogs and never seem to have the issues that so many complain about, mostly because I try to be adaptable and work with an overall strategy as opposed to "I wanna go in and make stuff BOOM!" A little thought goes a long way toward making you successful, regardless of the circumstances.

The game should be "approximately" balanced. It does not have to be "perfectly balanced, where everyone has the same capabilities and strengths".

[Gugabalog]

As MBTs are generally designed as tank destroyers as opposed to infantry support platforms (Think Stryker as opposed to Abrams) If the mag got a front armor buff/has heavy ass armor on the front it will be viable.

[NoDachi]

As MBTs are generally designed as tank destroyers as opposed to infantry support platforms (Think Stryker as opposed to Abrams) If the mag got a front armor buff/has heavy ass armor on the front it will be viable.

Errr no.

First you're wrong about MBTs, and secondly why would you say something so unsubstantiated as the viability of a tank in a game you're not even playing.

[Gugabalog]

Errr no.

First you're wrong about MBTs, and secondly why would you say something so unsubstantiated as the viability of a tank in a game you're not even playing.

Look it up. "Errr no" is not a viable counter argument to my statement; give me a source stating MBT's are not used as tank destroyers. And I make my claims based on mechanics in media streams.

[NoDachi]

Look it up. "Errr no" is not a viable counter argument to my statement; give me a source stating MBT's are not used as tank destroyers. And I make my claims based on mechanics in media streams.

A main battle tank (MBT), also known as a battle tank or universal tank, is a tank that fills the heavy direct fire role of many modern armies. They were originally conceived to replace the light, medium, heavy and super-heavy tanks.

as opposed to

A tank destroyer is a type of armored fighting vehicle armed with a gun or missile launcher, and is designed specifically to engage enemy armored vehicles. Many have been based on a tracked tank chassis, while others are wheeled.
Since World War II, main battle tanks have largely replaced gun-armed tank destroyers although lightly armored anti tank guided missile (ATGM) carriers are commonly used for supplementary long-range anti-tank work. However, the resurgence of expeditionary warfare in the past twenty years has seen the emergence of gun-armed wheeled vehicles, sometimes called protected gun systems, which may bear a superficial resemblance to tank destroyers, but are employed as direct fire support units typically providing support in low intensity operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Idunno]

Errr no.

First you're wrong about MBTs, and secondly why would you say something so unsubstantiated as the viability of a tank in a game you're not even playing.

MBT where just not only meant to take on other MBT's. They can do many roles , not just Tank destroying.

[NoDachi]

MBT where just not meant to take on other MBT's. They can do many roles , not just Tank destroying.

Yes, they are universal, they are not designed to be pure tank destroyers as the guy was suggesting.

. And I make my claims based on mechanics in media streams.

Show me the stream which demonstrates the magrider being non-viable because it's frontal armour isn't strong enough.

[Klockan]

Are you guys for real? Of course they wont make a tank just suck, they are humans and they will try to keep things balanced. Yes, having a rotatable turret is better than having a fixed turret, which means that the tank with the fixed turret will be stronger in other ways. Same as how a tank that can strafe will be weaker in other ways than a tank that can't strafe. Thus in PS1 where the magrider was the only tank that could strafe it was significantly weaker than the other tanks. But now the lack of rotatable turret will mitigate that so the magrider wont be significantly weaker than any of the other tanks. In PS1 the hovering cost the tank ~33% armor and damage, in PS2 it cost its turret. Thus instead of just having light and medium tanks like in PS1 the Vanu will also have a heavy tank in this game.

[vVRedOctoberVv]

@Gug


Ummm, no MBTs are not "primarily" tank destroyers. A tank destroyer is a dedicated weapon platform, usually a fairly light, high speed vehicle with disproportionately powerful weaponry geared specifically for armor penetration.

A battle tank is a general purpose, heavily armored, mobile weapons platform, consisting (usually) of a variety of small caliber weapons for close range anti-infantry (12.7mm and 7.62mm usually, in varying quantities, but typically at least one of each). They typically also have a large (often smoothbore) caliber weapon with variable ammunition types, such as high explosive (HE) rounds suitable for soft targets (people, unarmored vehicles, buildings) and a wide variety of armor piercing rounds (Sabot, HEAT, Phosphorous, and so on and so forth).

In WWII, there were a variety of classes of tanks, but they were all concentrated into the "Main" battle tank, which is roughly equivalent to a medium/heavy (depending on a nation's design philosophy).

Being a "tank destroyer" is one role a "tank" can fill, but if tanks were primarily "tank destroyers" than there would be no point in having a tank in the first place.

[Inq]

As MBTs are generally designed as tank destroyers as opposed to infantry support platforms (Think Stryker as opposed to Abrams) If the mag got a front armor buff/has heavy ass armor on the front it will be viable.

NoDachi is right here, MBT's are not solely designed to be tank destroyers they are multipurpose, they cover many roles and are designed as such.

[Tactical Pony]

Im really not sure, to be honest. I did think of some possibilities, that I am just not sure would be a good fix:

1. As the OP mentions, the strafe and rearward acceleration must be very powerful.

2. I think the rearward speed must cap higher than the true tanks, so Mags can pull off a "Darth Maul", and keep the enemies in the "arc of acceptable risk", situationally.

IE. I say Darth Maul, because of the way he constantly was breaking close contact with Jin and Obi with rearward movement.

3. If the Vanu "Tank" is to be the only tank with an alternative design approach, then lets extend the paradigm, and add a little more "Vanu Tech", and give it a real, configurable, locational damage model... Rather than the front/rear/side/top modifier model on the more conventional true tanks (as I understand it), they could make the MagRider locations independant hit pools, and perhaps even configurable. The total hit pool would still amount to the same total (less than Vanguard, more than Prowler), but Mag pilots could side-grade their armor pools to their own play style.

4. The secondary gun could be more powerful in relation to the main gun. In other words, instead of a 75%main/25%secondary relationship, the Mag could have a 50%main/50%secondary relationship. This may only be practical for the AV role though...

All, or some of these, in concert might fix the problem, or make no difference at all. But its all I came up with.

I get it

you, playing vanu, want a magrider with a rotating turret, that moves back faster than everything moves forward, that strafes, that goes over water, that has multiple damage points so that one needs precision targeting to fight against it effectively, and that transforms into megatron.

I, playing TR, want to replace our MBT with our Invader

but for the sake of balance, we cant always get what we want.

Now, as for the potential problem with the magrider, if it is determined in the beta that there is substance to your claims outside of the test tube environment that is your mind, a more legitimate solution can be worked out at the time.

[Blackwolf]

See I haven't played other online FPS games since PS1 (too small). But I have played great tank games. My favorite was a game called Thunder Brigade. The tanks in this game were completely unique and not unlike Magriders sound now.

These were hover tanks. But they didn't have turrets, they were essentially floating turrets. You controlled your thrust with WSAD and your mouse controlled your aim. In order to shoot a target, you aimed your whole tank because even the gun mounted on it was set strait forward and the entire tank sat in a little invisible bubble which gave it full unrestricted rotation and movement.

Two serious difference between Thunder Brigade and PS2 though. One is that there was virtually zero vegetation on the landscape to run into. Obstacles were mostly hill or mountainous terrain. In fact the terrain was more or less barren except for hills and mountains. Second is tanks could rotate and aim in any direction while traveling in any other direction, they could also elevate themselves to about 20m into the air and maintain direction, speed, and their ability to aim anywhere.

The point is those tanks were awesome to drive and fight in. The Magrider has the potential to provide a new and unique means of tank combat and I think we should run with it. If the tank can strafe and travel in reverse as quickly as it can drive forward, then having a turret would actually create a weakness to the vehicle. In the sense that your target might not always be directly in front of you where the thickest part of your armor is located.

[Gugabalog]

A main battle tank (MBT), also known as a battle tank or universal tank, is a tank that fills the heavy direct fire role of many modern armies. They were originally conceived to replace the light, medium, heavy and super-heavy tanks.

as opposed to

A tank destroyer is a type of armored fighting vehicle armed with a gun or missile launcher, and is designed specifically to engage enemy armored vehicles. Many have been based on a tracked tank chassis, while others are wheeled.
Since World War II, main battle tanks have largely replaced gun-armed tank destroyers although lightly armored anti tank guided missile (ATGM) carriers are commonly used for supplementary long-range anti-tank work. However, the resurgence of expeditionary warfare in the past twenty years has seen the emergence of gun-armed wheeled vehicles, sometimes called protected gun systems, which may bear a superficial resemblance to tank destroyers, but are employed as direct fire support units typically providing support in low intensity operations such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the direct fire support MBT's provide generally trump the protected gun systems which supplanted WW2 era MBT's in an urban enviroment. As MBT's are the rule of open ground warfare and invalidate wilderness infantry entrenchment quite heavily (barring other infantry terrain advantages i.e. height in a mountain/valley area) in order for an MBT to be succesful at pushing ground it must be a capable Tank Destroyer in addition to any other secondary roles.

I.E. Lightnings and Sunderers are the infantry support while MBT's counter that support. Not that all mentioned are stuck in that specific role.

A specific instance of the media stream in question was earlier in the thread and should be studied around 9:37

[Inq]

Are you guys for real? Of course they wont make a tank just suck, they are humans and they will try to keep things balanced. Yes, having a rotatable turret is better than having a fixed turret, which means that the tank with the fixed turret will be stronger in other ways. Same as how a tank that can strafe will be weaker in other ways than a tank that can't strafe. Thus in PS1 where the magrider was the only tank that could strafe it was significantly weaker than the other tanks. But now the lack of rotatable turret will mitigate that so the magrider wont be significantly weaker than any of the other tanks. In PS1 the hovering cost the tank ~33% armor and damage, in PS2 it cost its turret. Thus instead of just having light and medium tanks like in PS1 the Vanu will also have a heavy tank in this game.

Even if they keep the fixed gun it would still make more sense to have the main cannon mounted higher on the hull rather than at the lowest point.

Take a hover tank design from any other IP (Star wars/WH40k/Quake/BF2142, you name it) you want and you will see they are either turret mounted or fixed and high mounted on the hull. Its not some random coincidence - It simply does not make sense any other way.

http://images.wiki.wegame.com/i/Vh7oZXSn.jpg

http://cgcookie.com/concept/files/2012/07/rt26Tank-956x534.jpg

[Gugabalog]

Even if they keep the fixed gun it would still make more sense to have the main cannon mounted higher on the hull rather than at the lowest point.

Take a hover tank design from any other IP (Star wars/WH40k/Quake/BF2142, you name it) you want and you will see they are either turret mounted or fixed and high mounted on the hull. Its not some random coincidence - It simply does not make sense any other way.

http://images.wiki.wegame.com/i/Vh7oZXSn.jpg

http://cgcookie.com/concept/files/2012/07/rt26Tank-956x534.jpg

^ This.

[Klockan]

Even if they keep the fixed gun it would still make more sense to have the main cannon mounted higher on the hull rather than at the lowest point.

Take a hover tank design from any other IP (Star wars/WH40k/Quake/BF2142, you name it) you want and you will see they are either turret mounted or fixed and high mounted on the hull. Its not some random coincidence - It simply does not make sense any other way.

Yup, the current tank design with low mounted turret doesn't make sense, from a gameplay perspective it isn't a problem however since as I said the devs will try to keep things balanced so the tank will get other advantages intead. From a realism perspective you should know that it was made by crazy engineers, maybe they could squeeze 10% extra power into the cannon if they had it closer to the main body like it is now or something? WW2 Germany also had many flawed designs where they tried to boost a single attribute at great expense of other equally important attributes. If you look throughout history flawed designs are very common since usually the guys who fight and the guys who design weapons are completely different persons.

Edit: But I think the main reason is is there is because it was there in PS1 as well. Not the main turret maybe but that doesn't really matter, there is just as much reasons to mount any weapons as high as possible.

[Tactical Pony]

Even if they keep the fixed gun it would still make more sense to have the main cannon mounted higher on the hull rather than at the lowest point.

Take a hover tank design from any other IP (Star wars/WH40k/Quake/BF2142, you name it) you want and you will see they are either turret mounted or fixed and high mounted on the hull. Its not some random coincidence - It simply does not make sense any other way.

http://images.wiki.wegame.com/i/Vh7oZXSn.jpg

http://cgcookie.com/concept/files/2012/07/rt26Tank-956x534.jpg

Yup, the current tank design with low mounted turret doesn't make sense, from a gameplay perspective it isn't a problem however since as I said the devs will try to keep things balanced so the tank will get other advantages intead. From a realism perspective you should know that it was made by crazy engineers, maybe they could squeeze 10% extra power into the cannon if they had it closer to the main body like it is now or something? WW2 Germany also had many flawed designs where they tried to boost a single attribute at great expense of other equally important attributes. If you look throughout history flawed designs are very common since usually the guys who fight and the guys who design weapons are completely different persons.

This and that

...now im just waiting on the other thing...

[NoDachi]

A specific instance of the media stream in question was earlier in the thread and should be studied around 9:37

go on. Deconstruct that stream for us.

See how you can substantiate your argument of the magriders viability from that.

I'm in for a laugh anyway.

[AzureWatcher]

Even if they keep the fixed gun it would still make more sense to have the main cannon mounted higher on the hull rather than at the lowest point.

Take a hover tank design from any other IP (Star wars/WH40k/Quake/BF2142, you name it) you want and you will see they are either turret mounted or fixed and high mounted on the hull. Its not some random coincidence - It simply does not make sense any other way.

http://images.wiki.wegame.com/i/Vh7oZXSn.jpg

http://cgcookie.com/concept/files/2012/07/rt26Tank-956x534.jpg

Agreed. I hope some of the vehicle designers from SOE see this.

[Gugabalog]

go on. Deconstruct that stream for us.

See how you can substantiate your argument of the magriders viability from that.

I'm in for a laugh anyway.

What a troll...

Because the Magrider is forced to forward face to engage either A) it is rationalized by increased firepower attributes or B) it is to encourage tankers to keep the forward armor always facing the target as if it wasn't already obvious. If the answer is B then there should have been extra design emphasis on the forward armor and thus it should either A) receive heavier armor if the forward armor is not currently sufficient or B) already have that heavy forward armor.

Between that and how it's ability to strafe give's it the tactical initiative it should be a monstrous tank.

With regards to that media stream, the tank appeared sluggish and pathetic suggesting it is not currently in working order and the discussion was about how to make it so.

[Klockan]

Agreed. I hope some of the vehicle designers from SOE see this.
Have you guys seen this?
http://planet-side.tripod.com/vehicles/fullsize/Magrider_a.jpg
It is still the same tank design and it still look ridiculous. But if it was ok in PS1 why is it not ok now? Real tanks keep all their weapons high, not just the maingun. And you can even switch around the guns so the top gun becomes anti tank and the bottom becomes anti infantry so then we basically got the old mag back, except that the top turret would have 360 degrees rotation.

[Blackwolf]

I'd say the easiest "realism" perspective to go by was that it was just easier to armor and protect if placed closer to the body. Turrets are possibly the weakest part of real world MBTs and if the Vanu thought about which part of the tank gets the main gun, the part that has the heaviest armor and highest level of protection would be ideal.

[NoDachi]

What a troll...

Because the Magrider is forced to forward face to engage either A) it is rationalized by increased firepower attributes or B) it is to encourage tankers to keep the forward armor always facing the target as if it wasn't already obvious. If the answer is B then there should have been extra design emphasis on the forward armor and thus it should either A) receive heavier armor if the forward armor is not currently sufficient or B) already have that heavy forward armor.

Between that and how it's ability to strafe give's it the tactical initiative it should be a monstrous tank.

With regards to that media stream, the tank appeared sluggish and pathetic suggesting it is not currently in working order and the discussion was about how to make it so.

But all tanks in PS2 are forced to keep their fronts towards the enemy, otherwise they die in a couple hits.

The magrider can pivot quicker than most tanks can move their turrets.

[Inq]

Azren over in the idea thread already made this photoshop:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=776&stc=1&d=1342377540

Although he goes on to talk about turrets etc, even as a fixed gun this is positioned 100x better.

[NoDachi]

Azren over in the idea thread already made this photoshop:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=776&stc=1&d=1342377540

Although he goes on to talk about turrets etc, even as a fixed gun this is positioned 100x better.

The thing is, if that did rotate, it would look ridiculous in that design.

But it would be a far superior hull position.

[Blackwolf]

What a troll...

Because the Magrider is forced to forward face to engage either A) it is rationalized by increased firepower attributes or B) it is to encourage tankers to keep the forward armor always facing the target as if it wasn't already obvious. If the answer is B then there should have been extra design emphasis on the forward armor and thus it should either A) receive heavier armor if the forward armor is not currently sufficient or B) already have that heavy forward armor.

Between that and how it's ability to strafe give's it the tactical initiative it should be a monstrous tank.

With regards to that media stream, the tank appeared sluggish and pathetic suggesting it is not currently in working order and the discussion was about how to make it so.

Forward armor is already stronger then rear or side armor. The Magrider is already at an advantage because it's main cannon forces it to face it's primary target.

It's ability to strafe may or may not need looking into, that was a very short engagement between two tanks with one of them seriously out classed by the other. In other words I didn't see enough to convince me that that tank was actively attempting to do more then just ADAD to make himself a slightly harder target to hit. Show me a video of a Magrider cruising sideways compared to one traveling strait and THEN we would have hard data to base speculation on. Until then you have nothing to base any kind of suggested balance tweaks on other then personal opinion.

I'd like to point out that that Magrider was out numbered in that fight and only started showing signs of serious damage after it started taking hits from the side. The tank died an instant before Higby did in that engagement.

[NoDachi]

Not to mention you was watching an alpha build where all the weapon and vehicle stats were probably placeholders.

[AzureWatcher]

There might be decent footage in the E3 streams of a Vanguard/Prowler versus a Magrider.

Although it's probably already outdated by now because of more recent balancing. I'll dig through TB's channel and see if I can find anything.

[Noctis]

Remember that Mag has More armor then a prowler.

[Gugabalog]

Remember that Mag has More armor then a prowler.

If that is the case it should be fine.

Forward armor is already stronger then rear or side armor. The Magrider is already at an advantage because it's main cannon forces it to face it's primary target.

It's ability to strafe may or may not need looking into, that was a very short engagement between two tanks with one of them seriously out classed by the other. In other words I didn't see enough to convince me that that tank was actively attempting to do more then just ADAD to make himself a slightly harder target to hit. Show me a video of a Magrider cruising sideways compared to one traveling strait and THEN we would have hard data to base speculation on. Until then you have nothing to base any kind of suggested balance tweaks on other then personal opinion.

I'd like to point out that that Magrider was out numbered in that fight and only started showing signs of serious damage after it started taking hits from the side. The tank died an instant before Higby did in that engagement.

Armor facing has been a given throughout this discussion. And as I said, from a design perspective if a tank is forced to have any side facing a threat that side should have the heaviest armor. This adds extra emphasis to the already emphasized forward armor.

Perhaps armor certs will address this by allowing people to redistribute/add armor to the front/sides/rear?

[LordSlack]

I guess what balances the stationary gun out is IF the Mag moved the same speed in all directions. If strafing or driving in reverse moves at the same speed as driving forward, I would not complain about the fixed gun whatsoever because you could still to drivebys, you'll just be gangsta leaning to the side. This would also allow you to retreat in reverse with gun pointed back. If strafing and reverse speeds are slower, then I can see the Mag at a disadvantage because you will almost never be driving forward while firing in combat.

[Grognard]

I get it


You sure think you do...


you, playing vanu, want a magrider with a rotating turret, that moves back faster than everything moves forward, that strafes, that goes over water, that has multiple damage points so that one needs precision targeting to fight against it effectively, and that transforms into megatron.


Negative, and dont put words in my mouth, I can state "what I want" when I have the inclination to do so. Your assumptions dont make anything true. I do not want a rotating turret as a matter of fact, and, in fact, in another post after your quoted one, I even said Vanu has to accept new tactics given the technology we "married into"... So, you are wrong.


I, playing TR, want to replace our MBT with our Invader

but for the sake of balance, we cant always get what we want.


Yes, yes, we all know we dont get everything we want...


Now, as for the potential problem with the magrider, if it is determined in the beta that there is substance to your claims outside of the test tube environment that is your mind, a more legitimate solution can be worked out at the time.

There is no reason for you to come off as an ass. I have an opinion, but you are being a first class prick...

[Salad Snake]

What if the magrider's gun had the flattest projectile, fastest projectile speed, fastest RoF and still better damage than the prowler?

The way I've been paying attention to all the information we've got so far is that,

Vanguard - Alpha damage
Prowler - Burst damage
Magrider - DPM.

It'll probably end up handling like the JT out of WoT, but with enhanced maneuverability. See how it handles in game first before writing off the fixed gun.

EDIT: My only real concern right now is that it lacks the ability to go hull down. The gun is at the bottom of the tank and it hovers giving it the tallest profile.

Correct, thats one of the point's I was getting at. From a lore perspective even with new technology the engineers on vanu would not forget basic principles of tank design. Such as mounting the main gun at mid/high level on the hull/turret to allow the rest of the hull to remain behind cover.

Whoever made the design of the Magrider made it from an artistic stand point certainly not a combat effectiveness one. The design looks 'cool' but it does not fulfil its role correctly. The design would make more sense if the Magrider could fly not hover.

You forget how arrogant the Vanu are, and disdainful of any sort of "old knowledge".


Anyway, one thing about the Nekomata that will probably apply to the Mag is that the hover strafe meant nothing at close range where the flight time was too short to dodge shots, but gave a big advantage at middle range. So that might be it's strength. (It also gave it an even larger dodge bonus at long range, but it also was tough to hit with due to it's "slipperiness")

[Gugabalog]

@Grognard just report Pony's posts for rudeness.

[Grognard]

@Grognard just report Pony's posts for rudeness.

I hate doing that, except in the most extreme cases. Although he misinterpreted things like number 2... as "go reverse faster than other tanks go forward", he is entitled to his opinion... I just wish he would not take it so personal, and begrudge me for mine. For him to go off like that there is something else going on in his head, nothing I said should cause that direct of a personal attack. Im a pretty mild fellow on these boards, and try to be reasonable. So, maybe hes just having a bad day...

I refuse to insult people intelligence and over-explain... but just for shitsngiggles, I meant, of course, relative higher speed reverse...

[IMMentat]

I believe the fixed-forward main gun of the Magrider is something of a tradeoff that you get for things the other MBT's don't have: the ability to strafe and traverse over water.

Downsides being that strafe (acceleration/top speed or both) may well be to slow top be of practical use and there's little/no overland water currently known.

I hope the magrider will have a better than average rate of turn and/or a multi-directional strafe acceleration (maybe 50% top speed acchievable when moving to the side or backwards) to make up for the lack of turret.
It is the best way think of for it to maintain some flexibility between attack (face the enemy), and all out retreat (point your weakest side to the enemy while removing any driver capability to counter-attack).

apologies for skippiong form page 2 to page6 but i have al;ready seem many of the arguments posted.

[fvdham]

I hear the Magrider can slide in PS2.

That is, like a spacecraft, it can move in one direction, turn,
but keep moving in the original direction and fire in the new direction.

Also, in PS1, the Magrider was a nightmare to fight against,
because of it sniper cannon, it never misses.

[IMMentat]

slide could be fun, bit then it is down to momentum, friction and the level of control over the drift.
I can't see the magrider ever getting a driver turret, that would result in the drivier potentially trying to rotate a turret to aim and shoot while also managing acceleration, strafe and "facing" (turn) of the main body, oh and keep a finger free for the handbrake (or whatever).
That is a LOT for a driver to do against paper targets let alone moving enemies occluded by dust, weather (hopefully) and gunfire. 3-4 simultaneous buttons on the keyboard plus full use of the mouse-hand, not including minimap, situational awareness or voicecoms interaction.

The ability to "slide" could be a VERY interesting dynamic (high risk, high reward, terrain is not often flat enough to survive such stunts unscathed).
The turn rate of the magrider will decide how useful it is as a firing platform. (lack of response here = no damage)
The strafe and reverse velocity/momentum will decide how capable it is at surviving return fire (lack of response here = hovering target-practice).

What intersts me is the damage scaling for hits that land UNDER the magrider, its wide (though not wider than the prowler), its longer than the vanguard (though with pointed/tapered edging), so some shots are bound to land around and under the chassis no matter how close it ends up hugging the ground it rejects.

How much value/possibility will there be in "dancing" the magrider so that indirect hits become near misses that land under the vehicle. (Early on in the lifespan of BFR bridge battles the mag could weave through long range cannon-spam like a ballerina, intense but fun).

[Biohazard]

Correct, thats one of the point's I was getting at. From a lore perspective even with new technology the engineers on vanu would not forget basic principles of tank design. Such as mounting the main gun at mid/high level on the hull/turret to allow the rest of the hull to remain behind cover.

Whoever made the design of the Magrider made it from an artistic stand point certainly not a combat effectiveness one. The design looks 'cool' but it does not fulfil its role correctly. The design would make more sense if the Magrider could fly not hover.

The design has merit as a tank, just look at all that sloped armor! The mag would dominate if they implemented armor slope into the damage model :lol:

[vVRedOctoberVv]

With regards to that media stream, the tank appeared sluggish and pathetic suggesting it is not currently in working order and the discussion was about how to make it so.


And how do you know that it wasn't just the PILOT who was sluggish and pathetic? I remember the video in question, and there wasn't really a whole lot of maneuvering going on.

There's not enough information to debate this effectively. Wait for beta, see it in action, THEN complain, if necessary.

[Gugabalog]

There isn't a question of the tanks response, it's a question of the tanks acceleration which is a big part of agility (one of the VS's focuses). The acceleration is either on or off due to the nature of a keyboard key. It appeared to accelerate slowly which could be an issue with strafing, especially is one tries to circle strafe a turreted tank.

[ExquisitExamplE]

slide could be fun, bit then it is down to momentum, friction and the level of control over the drift.
I can't see the magrider ever getting a driver turret, that would result in the drivier potentially trying to rotate a turret to aim and shoot while also managing acceleration, strafe and "facing" (turn) of the main body, oh and keep a finger free for the handbrake (or whatever).
That is a LOT for a driver to do against paper targets let alone moving enemies occluded by dust, weather (hopefully) and gunfire. 3-4 simultaneous buttons on the keyboard plus full use of the mouse-hand, not including minimap, situational awareness or voicecoms interaction.

I think it's well within the capabilities of a proficient driver, my update video in the OP demonstrates how such a system works to create a fluid and precise piloting experience.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Well, I'm rolling with AT, so we're gonna have more mags and sundies rolling around that you can imagine. We'll see how it performs in a "highly trained" zergy outfit :lol:

We're probably not even going to use armour anyway. Skip to gals and libs most likely.

[opticalshadow]

The design has merit as a tank, just look at all that sloped armor! The mag would dominate if they implemented armor slope into the damage model :lol:

not to mention since he brought up design being the only insipration, you forget the tech on the tank itself


firstly it hovers, turreted tanks weigh more then non turreted tanks, weight could have been a massive factor in the produiction of a tank that hovers.

its main weapon is a high powered energy weapon. all curret tech values of this are massive in scale in comparison to a projectile weapon (save rail tech) its also possible that the entire length of the tank is needed to house the weapon, putting it on a turret could be non feasable or even impossible (like heavy artilary)

weight ditrabution in use, useing the above argument, the weapon might need alot of room, or be to heavy, the tank, which hovers, would be prone to tipping, now even assumeing it could remain upright while forward facing, its just as likely the turret, when turned, could either A tip as soon as it turns to an angle of unstability. or B, when fired have enough recoil to cause it to roll. even real world tanks during ww2 had this problem, recoil caused alot of tanks to never make production.

mixed tech, we havent seen the vanue actual utilize an empire specific equipment that would use "current tech" mechnisms. they may have not had the ability to mix two diffrent technologies in one tank.


from a strictly engineering stand point, any of these are not only valid, but have been real world reasons for various tanks since ww2 to not make it past the blueprints.

[Haro]

At this point, we're arguing particulars that we cannot really support without actually playing the game. Theory is great and all, but breaking down videos hardly substantiates these hypotheses.

The magrider could be totally balanced in it's current configuration. It may not have turret rotation, or a raised gun, but that doesn't necessarily weaken it if other areas can compensate.

1. We know it can strafe. It will likely be more agile, though slower, than the Prowler.
2. We know it can hover over water.
3. We can make a safe assumption that it has more armor than the Prowler, and more speed than the Vanguard.
4. We can make a fairly safe assumption that the main cannon will be more accurate, if it's anything like the Magrider in PS1.
5. Particulars on speed and more importantly, weapon strength, are unclear at this time.

It is entirely possible that these characteristics will work in a way that the magrider is balanced with the other tanks, or it could even be overpowered.

The lack of turret rotation is most likely a response to the additional characteristic that the tank has, which is its hovering and strafing abilities. Odds are, the developers do not want to give a Magrider a fully rotational turret so that it's physical capabilities, aside from the mechanics of speed, armor, and firepower, do not vastly outweigh the other tanks.

In other words, you don't want a tank that can physically do everything other tanks can do, while also having the additional abilities to hover AND strafe. If that was the case, I think the coding behind the tank (speed, damage, armor, etc.) would have to be lowered significantly to maintain any semblance of balance. In PS1, we obviously saw this with the profile of the Mag compared to Vannys and Prowlers, but with the new parameters of vehicles in this game, I really don't see it working out well, though that's just me.

But ultimately, beta is a few days away, so we'll finally see then. But any arguments on balance are purely speculative, with little to go on. But from a pure, philosophical design, I think it makes sense.

[Blackwolf]

If that is the case it should be fine.



Armor facing has been a given throughout this discussion. And as I said, from a design perspective if a tank is forced to have any side facing a threat that side should have the heaviest armor. This adds extra emphasis to the already emphasized forward armor.

Perhaps armor certs will address this by allowing people to redistribute/add armor to the front/sides/rear?

You make zero sense.

It's armor is probably within the same neighborhood as the Vanguard and Prowler. It might not be the strongest armor but it's likely within 300 HP or so, equivalent to a single Vanguard round maybe.

The fact that it will always be facing it's primary target is an advantage. Prowler and Vanguard can rotate their turret to engage enemies from any side but that means they remain vulnerable unless they rotate their vehicles as well which is extra effort and a risky maneuver. If the Strafe is a little slower then the cruise speed then this is likely the reason for it.

You are operating under a number of misconceptions. One, that the differences between armor levels will be extreme rather about 10% differences. Two that having a rotating turret is a serious advantage at all times. And Three that the Magrider's strafe speed is incredibly slow based on 5 seconds of footage where you see the Magrider ADADing in a typical infantry fashion.

Wait for beta for these kinds of discussions, ok?

Also I'll agree that having the barrel mounted higher on the tank looks better, but the barrel has to aim upwards as well and that would collide with the rotating turret which is probably why they didn't do that.

http://www.rollmodels.net/nreviews/armor/stank/strv103b05.jpg

I give you the S-Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Tank)

This is a Swedish designed tank built for defensive purposes only. Notice something a little unique? No turret. This thing was designed to be planted in a defensive position and hold it's ground rather then engage in active mobile warfare.

The Magrider takes this concept and improves it by removing treads and adding a hover gizmo which allows it the ability to engage in mobile warfare without sacrificing it's defensive ability.

[Gugabalog]

You make zero sense.

It's armor is probably within the same neighborhood as the Vanguard and Prowler. It might not be the strongest armor but it's likely within 300 HP or so, equivalent to a single Vanguard round maybe.

The fact that it will always be facing it's primary target is an advantage. Prowler and Vanguard can rotate their turret to engage enemies from any side but that means they remain vulnerable unless they rotate their vehicles as well which is extra effort and a risky maneuver. If the Strafe is a little slower then the cruise speed then this is likely the reason for it.

You are operating under a number of misconceptions. One, that the differences between armor levels will be extreme rather about 10% differences. Two that having a rotating turret is a serious advantage at all times. And Three that the Magrider's strafe speed is incredibly slow based on 5 seconds of footage where you see the Magrider ADADing in a typical infantry fashion.

Wait for beta for these kinds of discussions, ok?

Also I'll agree that having the barrel mounted higher on the tank looks better, but the barrel has to aim upwards as well and that would collide with the rotating turret which is probably why they didn't do that.

http://www.rollmodels.net/nreviews/armor/stank/strv103b05.jpg

I give you the S-Tank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-Tank)

This is a Swedish designed tank built for defensive purposes only. Notice something a little unique? No turret. This thing was designed to be planted in a defensive position and hold it's ground rather then engage in active mobile warfare.

The Magrider takes this concept and improves it by removing treads and adding a hover gizmo which allows it the ability to engage in mobile warfare without sacrificing it's defensive ability.

What I am saying is that BECAUSE it's forward armor will always be facing the enemy it should have an even heavier emphasis than the standard MBT design. I have also already stated that it is possible that they may add certs that allow players to add/redistribute armor to the front or flanks which would allow for players to add this emphasis themselves.

[ExquisitExamplE]

At this point, we're arguing particulars that we cannot really support without actually playing the game. Theory is great and all, but breaking down videos hardly substantiates these hypotheses.

Agreed, thankfully it won't be long now. Again, I've updated the thread with a new video, I suggest you all check it out if only to get an idea of how a hover tank from a different game operates.

[Blackwolf]

What I am saying is that BECAUSE it's forward armor will always be facing the enemy it should have an even heavier emphasis than the standard MBT design. I have also already stated that it is possible that they may add certs that allow players to add/redistribute armor to the front or flanks which would allow for players to add this emphasis themselves.

And I'm asking... Why? It's heaviest armor point will always be facing the enemy. If you increase that armor point and decrease the side and rear points then you are increasing it's area of disadvantage.

Against tanks this wouldn't be much of a problem unless you are outnumbered. Against infantry and Air, these things can maneuver into positions you can't, and hit you from directions you can't return fire from. Aircraft especially will ignore your heavy front and hit your tail without a problem.

I'm saying that the heaviest armor point will always be facing your primary target. Your primary target won't always be the only threat you are facing though. You need to think about the rest of the tank and if you are proposing that the Magrider gets even heavier armor then what it has now, you are asking for an imbalanced game.

You can increase the armor level by decreasing speed through side-grades. Throwing all the armor to the front (even if this was allowed) is ill-advised.

And this is how I'll always think of real hover tank combat...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMOsDrbfd4&feature=player_detailpage

[Gugabalog]

I like the highmounted turret for gameplay purposes, though whoever said it could be that the gun needs to be low cuz its too big or cuz of recoil made a good point too. I suppose it could be rationalized away for immersion as well. But yea. Can't wait til beta to start getting more informed.

[GhettoPrince]

It seems to me, just going from videos, that PS 2 tanks are nothing like PS 1 tanks, instead of a juggernaut that will only go down to half a dozen people with anti vehicle weapons or a minefield they seem more like something that is supposed to be move with and be supported by a squad.

It looks like it only takes 4 or 5 solid hits to pop them this time around, whereas PS 1 tanks needed upwards of 40 rocket or AV hits , way more if they had shields up.

[opticalshadow]

It seems to me, just going from videos, that PS 2 tanks are nothing like PS 1 tanks, instead of a juggernaut that will only go down to half a dozen people with anti vehicle weapons or a minefield they seem more like something that is supposed to be move with and be supported by a squad.

It looks like it only takes 4 or 5 solid hits to pop them this time around, whereas PS 1 tanks needed upwards of 40 rocket or AV hits , way more if they had shields up.

its also worth noting that hugby stated that balence was no where near right from what we saw in videos so far (such as the one gameplay vid where max units were about as tough as teh rexos around it)

i imagine that thoughout beta we will see a varied amount of tank balences before we even out. i cant imagine theyll make them fall to a handfull of AV given the amount of players that will be there at launch.

[Gugabalog]

its also worth noting that hugby stated that balence was no where near right from what we saw in videos so far (such as the one gameplay vid where max units were about as tough as teh rexos around it)

i imagine that thoughout beta we will see a varied amount of tank balences before we even out. i cant imagine theyll make them fall to a handfull of AV given the amount of players that will be there at launch.

Did he say that? That answers the question about the Mag.

[opticalshadow]

Did he say that? That answers the question about the Mag.

yeah, on top of that we dont even have certs in, which will change even the base values balence to keep on par. not to mention how often things get balenced even after they are released and "balenced"

if something isnt right, it will be changed. SOE has made a big effort this time around keeping in contact with us, theyve kept us in the loop, they are answering alot of our questions leaving very little off the table, i cant imagine given the level of communication given so far, that if something come beta is out of wack, it wont be fixed promptly.

[Gugabalog]

Yea, I agree. Given this level of transparency they will probably be fairly responsive. Though I imagine that it's like a internet writer reading his comments levels of irritating listening to a load of whining.

[Ark]

Turrets are possibly the weakest part of real world MBTs

Actually, the front of the turret usually has the thickest armor.

[Sharkface]

MR. Vanu wants his tank to be OP, what a surprise... If this happens i want nuclear capability on my vangaurd. :evil:

[RageMasterUK]

Honestly dont see the problem here. The Magriders main gun does turn like a turret. The whole tank is a rotating turret. Furthermore whatever you're attacking you naturally point your front armor towards, which is 9 times out of 10 gonna be a really good thing for Vanu tank drivers. Shit you fire at tends to want to fire back.

There is an issue with control also. If you have a driver operated rotating turret for the main cannon controlled by the mouse, how do you "twist" the chassis of your vehicle? Not with A and D thats fo' sure, unless you dont want to strafe. They would have to add in extra key bindings specifically for the VS to allow strafe, turn and turret twist.

VS should get a cert option to mount the main gun on a turret and sacrifice their strafing ability, so they become more like the other factions tanks. I'd be happy with that.

You cant do everything otherwise it will create imbalance...

-RageMasterUK

[Landtank]

There is no problem. Trust me.

[Gugabalog]

Honestly dont see the problem here. The Magriders main gun does turn like a turret. The whole tank is a rotating turret. Furthermore whatever you're attacking you naturally point your front armor towards, which is 9 times out of 10 gonna be a really good thing for Vanu tank drivers. Shit you fire at tends to want to fire back.

There is an issue with control also. If you have a driver operated rotating turret for the main cannon controlled by the mouse, how do you "twist" the chassis of your vehicle? Not with A and D thats fo' sure, unless you dont want to strafe. They would have to add in extra key bindings specifically for the VS to allow strafe, turn and turret twist.

VS should get a cert option to mount the main gun on a turret and sacrifice their strafing ability, so they become more like the other factions tanks. I'd be happy with that.

You cant do everything otherwise it will create imbalance...

-RageMasterUK

If you read closely you would see that the rotating turret would only be given to dedicated gunners, not driver-gunners.

[Blackwolf]

If you read closely you would see that the rotating turret would only be given to dedicated gunners, not driver-gunners.

So VS would have the only tanks that had dedicated gunners and therefore the only tanks that had higher levels of maneuverability and mobile warfare capability.

The more I read the more I realize you really do want a super tank.

[Gugabalog]

So VS would have the only tanks that had dedicated gunners and therefore the only tanks that had higher levels of maneuverability and mobile warfare capability.

The more I read the more I realize you really do want a super tank.

The more you read the more you twist the words you see. Noone stated that only the VS would get a dedicated gunner cert. It would be universal.

EDIT: Cut down the confirmation bias.

[Blackwolf]

The more you read the more you twist the words you see. Noone stated that only the VS would get a dedicated gunner cert. It would be universal.

EDIT: Cut down the confirmation bias.

So now you're re-routing the discussion towards everyone getting dedicated gunners, which goes against everything the game has been geared towards when it comes to ground warfare.

Exactly how much of the game do you want to change to fix this one non-existent problem?

This isn't even your thread, this started off as someone saying "hey another game created hover tanks with driver controlled turrets and this is how they did it!".

[Gugabalog]

So now you're re-routing the discussion towards everyone getting dedicated gunners, which goes against everything the game has been geared towards when it comes to ground warfare.

Exactly how much of the game do you want to change to fix this one non-existent problem?

This isn't even your thread, this started off as someone saying "hey another game created hover tanks with driver controlled turrets and this is how they did it!".

It was an endorsement of making it possible for magriders to have turrets and still remain balanced. If there is a perceived problem within entertainment it makes the entertainment less entertaining and reduces the value of it. It is a potential balance issue where people have made several suggestions as to how to balance it. Go back and reread the OP before you start claiming to understand the subject of the thread.

[Blackwolf]

It was an endorsement of making it possible for magriders to have turrets and still remain balanced. If there is a perceived problem within entertainment it makes the entertainment less entertaining and reduces the value of it. It is a potential balance issue where people have made several suggestions as to how to balance it. Go back and reread the OP before you start claiming to understand the subject of the thread.

It was a statement that it was possible to have a hover tank with a driver controlled turret, which is exactly what his video linked to. He never mentioned dedicated gunner. Not once. He stayed within the boundaries of what the DEVs were driving for with his suggestion. He was not proposing that the entire ground war be changed for the benefit of one vehicle, you are.

Perceived and Potential were highlighted because these are words based on opinions, not facts. Balance was highlighted because it's a word used by people who don't have all the facts. People was highlighted because people aren't experienced game developers who have daily hands on experience with what people are talking about.

The devs are looking at the battlefield from directly above and you are looking at it from personal perspective, that is the difference between your perceptions. They see the big picture and you see personal desire.

Wait for beta. Or present hard data to support your perceptions and suggestions for balance. Right now there is no medium to work with, without a medium everyone here will have different ideas and perceptions of the discussion, which leads to arguments that last for 12 pages.

What I've seen in this thread is an OP who was asking for a turret on the Magrider and demonstrating exactly how it could be done without a dedicated gunner using video. He shared his opinion and supplied hard data to back it up. What I've also seen is a video of a Magrider in PS2 strafing (ADADing really) in a 5 second smoke infested clip and people pointing at that and saying it's strafe speed is really slow.

What I haven't seen, is evidence that the front armor needs to be increased. I've read all kinds of hypothesis, but nothing to back it up. What I haven't seen is a comparison between the Magriders strafe speed, and it's forward movement speed. Nor have I seen evidence that the Magrider is somehow weaker then the other two MBTs in any way shape or form.

The people's perceived balance issues don't exist. And this entire discussion has blown way out of proportion. It wasn't a balance issue that the OP was discussing. It was a change in the mechanics that support the Magrider and presenting a possible method of control for that Magrider which wouldn't impact the balance between the Magrider and other MBTs.

In fact nothing in the OP was suggested that would have a direct impact on interactions between Magriders and other objects in the game. It was a simple suggestion that would only impact the interaction between player and Magrider.

[Gugabalog]

It was a statement that it was possible to have a hover tank with a driver controlled turret, which is exactly what his video linked to. He never mentioned dedicated gunner. Not once. He stayed within the boundaries of what the DEVs were driving for with his suggestion. He was not proposing that the entire ground war be changed for the benefit of one vehicle, you are.

Oops must of gotten this thread mixed up with another one or his post with another of the 100+ posts in this one.

EDIT: I thought he said there was a dedicated gunner in the ETQW video? (Maybe I'm getting a little confirmation biased)

In fact nothing in the OP was suggested that would have a direct impact on interactions between Magriders and other objects in the game. It was a simple suggestion that would only impact the interaction between player and Magrider.

That change in interaction affects the game world.


The people's perceived balance issues don't exist. And this entire discussion has blown way out of proportion. It wasn't a balance issue that the OP was discussing. It was a change in the mechanics that support the Magrider and presenting a possible method of control for that Magrider which wouldn't impact the balance between the Magrider and other MBTs.

I was not equating perceived balance issue with perceived problem. And you didn't address my point about how many will be turned off from it due to even perceived problems which can be addressed without upsetting game balance.

Wait for beta. Or present hard data to support your perceptions and suggestions for balance. Right now there is no medium to work with, without a medium everyone here will have different ideas and perceptions of the discussion, which leads to arguments that last for 12 pages.

All data would be based on media streams on the alpha builds which have balance issues by default. Building balance is apart of beta and there is value in discussing it before going into beta. It can give people multiple perspectives to judge certain aspects from. In addition is there anything wrong with building consensus?

The devs are looking at the battlefield from directly above and you are looking at it from personal perspective, that is the difference between your perceptions. They see the big picture and you see personal desire.

Look at my other threads. Yes I would love for the mag to work a certain way but the ENTIRE argument was about how to have it work that certain way WHILE remaining balanced.

What I haven't seen, is evidence that the front armor needs to be increased. I've read all kinds of hypothesis, but nothing to back it up. What I haven't seen is a comparison between the Magriders strafe speed, and it's forward movement speed. Nor have I seen evidence that the Magrider is somehow weaker then the other two MBTs in any way shape or form.

I am saying that regarding it's design philosophy which places a heavy emphasis on armor facing would seem that the natural progression would be to either A) more heavily emphasize the frontal armor than it already is (either by default or by certs/sidegrades) or B) the flank armor to deal with it's forced vunerability.

It was a statement that it was possible to have a hover tank with a driver controlled turret, which is exactly what his video linked to. He never mentioned dedicated gunner. Not once. He stayed within the boundaries of what the DEVs were driving for with his suggestion. He was not proposing that the entire ground war be changed for the benefit of one vehicle, you are.

I am advocating the remake of the mag to fit in to the EXISTING ground war while still featuring the proposed ideas.

[ExquisitExamplE]

Just a reminder to everyone, I've updated the OP and added a video demonstrating ETQW's Desecrator tank, cheers!


There is an issue with control also. If you have a driver operated rotating turret for the main cannon controlled by the mouse, how do you "twist" the chassis of your vehicle? Not with A and D thats fo' sure, unless you dont want to strafe. They would have to add in extra key bindings specifically for the VS to allow strafe, turn and turret twist.


I actually covered this in the OP, it's not only possible to control such a tank using the keyboard, but also quite fluid and seamless once you've mastered it.

Turret control = Mouse
Forward/Reverse = W/S
Rotate Tank Body Counterclockwise/Clockwise = A/D
Strafe Tank Body Left/Right = Q/E

[Gugabalog]

Just a reminder to everyone, I've updated the OP and added a video demonstrating ETQW's Desecrator tank, cheers!



I actually covered this in the OP, it's not only possible to control such a tank using the keyboard, but also quite fluid and seamless once you've mastered it.

Turret control = Mouse
Forward/Reverse = W/S
Rotate Tank Body Counterclockwise/Clockwise = A/D
Strafe Tank Body Left/Right = Q/E

+1 For spreading the light!

[RageMasterUK]

And thats why I said about introducing new controls specifically for the Magrider.

Q and E are reserved keys as I understand from watching videos that Q is spot enemy and E is activate / enter / exit vehicle. Obviously these could be rebound, but for the purposes of giving extra capability to one faction specific tank that already has extra capability (hover / strafe) , it seems a little extreme to me.

These keys are like "global" keys as well, i.e. they need to preserve their function during infantry, ground vehicle, air vehicle stages of gameplay. Reworking the default control scheme would be a nightmare to include these keys for mag-pilots if spot enemey and enter / exit vehicle were relocated elsewhere on the keyboard, just for the magrider players. These keys always have to be close to the fingers because they get a lot of use :D

-RageMasterUK

[Gugabalog]

I always rebind crouch to x. Idk what to do about universal keys.

[AJay]

I am reinstalling ETQW now thanks a lot.

Can't wait to find it still dead as a door nail.

[RageMasterUK]

Yeah peeps always rebind keys (I do too), but if ExquisitE's suggestion was implemented in game then either...

A) "Spot Enemy" and "Enter/Exit/Activate" would have to be shifted away from WASD in the default scheme (affecting every player on every faction) or...

B) "Magrider tank strafe" in the default scheme would have to be put too far away from WASD to be useful.

-RageMasterUK

[Inq]

And thats why I said about introducing new controls specifically for the Magrider.

Q and E are reserved keys as I understand from watching videos that Q is spot enemy and E is activate / enter / exit vehicle. Obviously these could be rebound, but for the purposes of giving extra capability to one faction specific tank that already has extra capability (hover / strafe) , it seems a little extreme to me.

These keys are like "global" keys as well, i.e. they need to preserve their function during infantry, ground vehicle, air vehicle stages of gameplay. Reworking the default control scheme would be a nightmare to include these keys for mag-pilots if spot enemey and enter / exit vehicle were relocated elsewhere on the keyboard, just for the magrider players. These keys always have to be close to the fingers because they get a lot of use :D

-RageMasterUK

You could avoid this by using combo keys like crouch. (I don't know if its used on a vehicle).

Turret control = Mouse
Forward/Reverse = W/S
Rotate Tank Body Counterclockwise/Clockwise = A/D
Strafe Tank Body Left/Right = Ctrl OR shift + A/D

[RageMasterUK]

Movement keys need to be jabbed at all the time during maneuvers, having to hold Ctrl every time would suck, hard. Also, there'd be no way you can rotate the tank body and strafe at the same time. Circle strafing would be impossible using the binds you're suggesting.

Perhaps Ctrl for left strafe and space for right strafe could possibly work.

-RageMasterUK

[Gugabalog]

Strafe Tank Body Left/Right = Ctrl OR shift + A/D Composite key presses for movement are clunky and not user friendly.

I still advocate a universal dedicated driver cert to allow for this mechanic. It lacks the glaring flaws of alternatives and could be used to reward team play.

[ExquisitExamplE]

I am reinstalling ETQW now thanks a lot.

Can't wait to find it still dead as a door nail.

Hehe, No problem. It's pretty dead to be honest, although there is usually at least one full North American server up at all times. Will probably be deader than usual this weekend though, a lot of people from my clan (The Art of Warfare - www.TAW.net) are actually in Texas right now attending Quakecon.

[AJay]

Hehe, No problem. It's pretty dead to be honest, although there is usually at least one full North American server up at all times. Will probably be deader than usual this weekend though, a lot of people from my clan (The Art of Warfare - www.TAW.net) are actually in Texas right now attending Quakecon.

It is goddamn tragic, the game is so creative and unique among team shooters.

Splash Damage are like the Cool Runnings of Game Devs.

[Blackwolf]

Movement keys need to be jabbed at all the time during maneuvers, having to hold Ctrl every time would suck, hard. Also, there'd be no way you can rotate the tank body and strafe at the same time. Circle strafing would be impossible using the binds you're suggesting.

Perhaps Ctrl for left strafe and space for right strafe could possibly work.

-RageMasterUK

And we're ignoring the fact that if the tank had a rotating turret then most uses of strafe would be obsolete. Reverting the tank back to PS1 era where strafe and reverse were at little more then 10kph speeds while forward was at closer to 50kph. The ability to hover becomes more of a neat trick then an asset yet the entire machine continues to be balanced around this one aspect that makes it different from the other two. This is bad design.

Might as well code the tank controls to be exactly like the other two tanks, where it's ability to hover becomes eye candy and nothing beyond that. No strafe, just an ability to drive over water.

The simple fact is that the Turret over complicates the issue and you end up going full circle strait back to a fixed gun, or veer off into other unhappy areas of development. All for one tank.

Personally, I have no problem steering with the mouse. I've gotten plenty of practice from the Magrider in PS1 which ALSO featured a fixed gun position that the driver could control and had no issues. A high powered splash weapon from that position would do a lot better then the high RoF PPA that the Magrider sported.

With all due respect to the OP and his well thought out post, I'm not personally convinced that this topic needs to be discussed now.

Again, my advice is wait for beta and try it out for yourself before you jump to the conclusion that it's going to be horrible and the world is going to end.

And no I'm not going to discuss yet another beating of the dedicated gunner dead horse topic. The more I think about that subject the more I realize it's actually a far better thing to have drivers gunning their vehicles. This is a balance point that makes tanks more difficult to handle and forces them into stopping to fire or running and gunning with reduced accuracy. This coupled with tanks being a bit more vulnerable (particularly to infantry, who now stand a chance against them) will prevent tanks from being the ONLY things to survive outside of buildings.

[JesNC]

My 2c: Sacrificing a bit of armor is no adequate tradeoff for enhanced mobility at the level the Magrider offers. You'd be down to nearly Lightning-level health/armor to properly balance the Mag with a turret IMO. And that would defeat the purpose of a MBT completely.

Keep in mind the role MBTs play in PS2. They're assault vehicles, supposed to lead an attack and break stalemates and other tanks aren't the only threat to them. Trading armor for mobility might work in a 1vs1 environment, but I don't see how a down-armored Mag would survive even with the rotable turret perk.

tl;dr: I'd rather drive the Magrider as an adequately armored assault gun than as a turreted glass tank.


Again, my advice is wait for beta and try it out for yourself before you jump to the conclusion that it's going to be horrible and the world is going to end.

And this, of course.

[infected]

i'm not a fan of the way soe is holding on to this concept that each faction has some trade-off with vehicles. bottom line is they are all gimped in one way or another, making none of them desirable and ultimately making the game less desirable as a result.

soe should just stick to aesthetic and cosmetic (and lore) differences between factions.

the actual vehicles and weapons should not be so drastically opposite. NC vehicles turn too slow. VS and TR can run circles around them in the air and ground. NC default sniper is gimp. every weapon in the game has random cone of fire calculated in to remove any appeal for skill-based fps gamers.

many of us just wish ps2 would take bf3 modern game ballistics, physics and features and make it into 2000 player maps. bf3 has proper weapon ballistics, feedback, and audio. bf3 vehicles have proper movement, cockpit gui's, 3rd person view, etc, etc.

planetside 2 is failing on a lot of levels in comparison and not living up to the promise of being a modern AAA shooter. and that's just the underlying stuff. i'm not even going to bring up the issues with choice of map/base design, and how all of this broken stuff ruins the flow of the game.

[Gugabalog]

i'm not a fan of the way soe is holding on to this concept that each faction has some trade-off with vehicles. bottom line is they are all gimped in one way or another, making none of them desirable and ultimately making the game less desirable as a result.

soe should just stick to aesthetic and cosmetic (and lore) differences between factions.

the actual vehicles and weapons should not be so drastically opposite. NC vehicles turn too slow. VS and TR can run circles around them in the air and ground. NC default sniper is gimp. every weapon in the game has random cone of fire calculated in to remove any appeal for skill-based fps gamers.

many of us just wish ps2 would take bf3 modern game ballistics, physics and features and make it into 2000 player maps. bf3 has proper weapon ballistics, feedback, and audio. bf3 vehicles have proper movement, cockpit gui's, 3rd person view, etc, etc.

planetside 2 is failing on a lot of levels in comparison and not living up to the promise of being a modern AAA shooter. and that's just the underlying stuff. i'm not even going to bring up the issues with choice of map/base design, and how all of this broken stuff ruins the flow of the game.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[AzureWatcher]

i'm not a fan of the way soe is holding on to this concept that each faction has some trade-off with vehicles. bottom line is they are all gimped in one way or another, making none of them desirable and ultimately making the game less desirable as a result.

soe should just stick to aesthetic and cosmetic (and lore) differences between factions.

the actual vehicles and weapons should not be so drastically opposite. NC vehicles turn too slow. VS and TR can run circles around them in the air and ground. NC default sniper is gimp. every weapon in the game has random cone of fire calculated in to remove any appeal for skill-based fps gamers.

many of us just wish ps2 would take bf3 modern game ballistics, physics and features and make it into 2000 player maps. bf3 has proper weapon ballistics, feedback, and audio. bf3 vehicles have proper movement, cockpit gui's, 3rd person view, etc, etc.

planetside 2 is failing on a lot of levels in comparison and not living up to the promise of being a modern AAA shooter. and that's just the underlying stuff. i'm not even going to bring up the issues with choice of map/base design, and how all of this broken stuff ruins the flow of the game.

You came to the wrong neighborhood, I'm afraid.

[JesNC]

many of us just wish ps2 would take bf3 modern game ballistics, physics and features and make it into 2000 player maps. bf3 has proper weapon ballistics, feedback, and audio. bf3 vehicles have proper movement, cockpit gui's, 3rd person view, etc, etc.

Well, I'm glad I'm not one of your 'many' players. Whenever I play/look at BF3 I see dolphin-diving, C4-spamming, quick-scoping, bazooking, LMG-spamming egomaniacs. It's quite comical, really.
If that's the definition of proper gameplay in a AAA team-based shooter, I'll just play pong again, thanks.

And I don't know how this got into a Magrider debate.


PS: What's with the PC Gamer tag, anyway?

[infected]

Well, I'm glad I'm not one of your 'many' players. Whenever I play/look at BF3 I see dolphin-diving, C4-spamming, quick-scoping, bazooking, LMG-spamming egomaniacs. It's quite comical, really.
If that's the definition of proper gameplay in a AAA team-based shooter, I'll just play pong again, thanks.

And I don't know how this got into a Magrider debate.


PS: What's with the PC Gamer tag, anyway?

the thing about bf3, none of those things you listed are a problem for a veteran fps gamer. you can still take a standard m16 and wipe the floor with noobs who try that stuff.

can i see your battlelog?

and, title is MBT's from veteran tanker. i'm on topic. open your mind.

[JesNC]

You're not on topic, you're rambling, sorry. "Port BF3 to 2000k player maps" added nothing to the discussion at hand.

And I didn't mean to thread on your veteran FPS-gamer epeen, but I still find the BF-series gameplay comical, even hilarious at times.

[FuzzyandBlue]

i'm not a fan of the way soe is holding on to this concept that each faction has some trade-off with vehicles. bottom line is they are all gimped in one way or another, making none of them desirable and ultimately making the game less desirable as a result.

soe should just stick to aesthetic and cosmetic (and lore) differences between factions.

every weapon in the game has random cone of fire calculated in to remove any appeal for skill-based fps gamers.

planetside 2 is failing on a lot of levels in comparison and not living up to the promise of being a modern AAA shooter. and that's just the underlying stuff. i'm not even going to bring up the issues with choice of map/base design, and how all of this broken stuff ruins the flow of the game.

Asymmetrical Balance can add a lot of depth and complexity to the game. It also means that fighting the different factions pose a unique challenge. A great example of asymmetrical balancing is Starcraft 2(an RTS I know). Each of the factions has unique strengths and weaknesses which affect the way they interact with each other. What works good in Terran v Protoss will not always work in Terran v Zerg. This helps keep the game fresh and exciting for a longer period of time.

BF3 has a semi random CoF which also kills that game for many "skill based gamers".

If anything is horrible broken when beta rolls around I'm sure it will get fixed. So I wouldn't worry to much about balance issues when the game is still in alpha.

I would like it if you would type out a well thought out thread as to why the map and base design and all the other things you mentioned ruin the flow of the game.

[Gugabalog]

Asymmetrical Balance can add a lot of depth and complexity to the game. It also means that fighting the different factions pose a unique challenge. A great example of asymmetrical balancing is Starcraft 2(an RTS I know). Each of the factions has unique strengths and weaknesses which affect the way they interact with each other. What works good in Terran v Protoss will not always work in Terran v Zerg. This helps keep the game fresh and exciting for a longer period of time.

BF3 has a semi random CoF which also kills that game for many "skill based gamers".

If anything is horrible broken when beta rolls around I'm sure it will get fixed. So I wouldn't worry to much about balance issues when the game is still in alpha.

I would like it if you would type out a well thought out thread as to why the map and base design and all the other things you mentioned ruin the flow of the game.

Hopefully more forum goers than just him read your explanation of assymettrical balance.

[infected]

other games, you can switch sides between matches. your rank/rating doesn't reset for each faction. zerg/protoss, american/russian.... in this game, your character progression and stuff you buy in shops just discourages you from playing more than one faction. the opposite is true too. this game boasts you can just switch roles mid battle to counter what the enemy is doing, but if you can't go to the terminal and pull out those other vehicles to counter, then the game fails in that philosophy.

what would be balanced is if all factions had access to all vehicles, and each individual decided which one they wanted to use. something even bf3 does with class starter infantry weapons once you've unlocked every gun for a class.

the fact is, if that were possible in ps2, to fly every jet and drive every tank, you would see certain air and ground vehicles would prove more dominant - exposing the truth that one will inevitably be better and thus popular among everyone, which is fine and expected.

but the problem with the current restrictions is that we are just stuck with the ones soe assigns to our faction.

[Blackwolf]

other games, you can switch sides between matches. your rank/rating doesn't reset for each faction. zerg/protoss, american/russian.... in this game, your character progression and stuff you buy in shops just discourages you from playing more than one faction. the opposite is true too. this game boasts you can just switch roles mid battle to counter what the enemy is doing, but if you can't go to the terminal and pull out those other vehicles to counter, then the game fails in that philosophy.

what would be balanced is if all factions had access to all vehicles, and each individual decided which one they wanted to use. something even bf3 does with class starter infantry weapons once you've unlocked every gun for a class.

the fact is, if that were possible in ps2, to fly every jet and drive every tank, you would see certain air and ground vehicles would prove more dominant - exposing the truth that one will inevitably be better and thus popular among everyone, which is fine and expected.

but the problem with the current restrictions is that we are just stuck with the ones soe assigns to our faction.

Wow you really are in the wrong forums buddy.

Picking a faction is about loyalty to said faction, not about figuring out who's the winning side and then playing with them. It's a persistent world which means there is no "between battles".

And btw, it doesn't take playing every faction, driving every vehicle, and flying every aircraft to figure out which one dominates where. It takes perception and observation, that's all.

So far your 0 for however many random topics you've raised in the last 3 posts in this thread for good points. Mind sticking with the actual subject? You could start by reading the OP's post and sharing an opinion that is somewhere within a 30 kilometer radius of said post?

[AzureWatcher]

Magrider sniped my post. Its corpse now needs to be deleted.

[Gugabalog]

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks he's off his rocker.

[Serotriptomine]

I'm fine with the way the turret is locked, you just need to make sure the rotation of the MBT is adequate enough to compete with speedy targets.

The only disadvantage I see the Magrider having with its Main Cannon is it cannot effectively target Air. That's my only concern, when any of the other tanks can target Air just fine.

If you tweak the Mag so it's turret can go 90 degrees then it just looks like an artillery piece, you know?

Bf2142 did the hovertank just fine imo, although I never tried to shoot at air targets.

[NoDachi]

I'm fine with the way the turret is locked, you just need to make sure the rotation of the MBT is adequate enough to compete with speedy targets.

The only disadvantage I see the Magrider having with its Main Cannon is it cannot effectively target Air. That's my only concern, when any of the other tanks can target Air just fine.

If you tweak the Mag so it's turret can go 90 degrees then it just looks like an artillery piece, you know?

Bf2142 did the hovertank just fine imo, although I never tried to shoot at air targets.

Well if the magrider can turn as fast as a turret, and that it has good depression, coupled with the fastest, and flattest shell then it'll probably be even better than the other empires.

[Serotriptomine]

I'm sure it's something that will be balanced.