Magrider need fixing?

[Vimp]

I'm not in beta so I can't confirm what I say here however what
information I do have is based on what I have asked people that
are in beta and as well from the PS official site in the vehicle
section.

The Magrider:
http://planetside.station.sony.com/screenshots/Magrider_a.jpg

From the above picture which gun looks like the bigger and more
powerful gun on the Magrider?

At first I thought that this description of the Magrider was a mere
typo:
"their primary weapon, a heavy energy rail beam has a limited
forward pivot. The secondary weapon system, which the pilot
controls, is a light Pulsed Particle Accelerator, and is mounted on
the front of the vehicle."

Based on this description the huge powerfull looking gun in the
front is actually "a light Pulsed Particle Accelerator" while the
small (not even half the size) gun on the top is the Primary
"heavy energy rail beam". Does that make sense at all?
Well I asked someone on IRC who has claimed to have driven in
the Magrider as to whether this description was true or not as I
could not believe that it could possibly be true due to the
ilogicalness of it and to my surprise they said it is true.

Does anyone else see the lack of common sense and logicalness
of this? Why would the much bigger, much more stable gun be
the weaker gun while the small little pea shooter on the top is
the main weapon??

All I can say is that I sincerly hope that Sony does something
about this as it will bug me to no end if it goes unresolved.

[Ubernator]

Think of the fixed gun as a large, diffuse energy beam that turns infantrymen into grease spots. :D

Think of the turret as an extremely concentrated railgun that can tear through armor plating. Thus, it's smaller. :)

I don't see too much of a problem with the MagRider; it has that stylish alien look.

[Vimp]

I'd like some constructive comments if possible as that last responce makes absolutly no sense to me at all. It dosn't justify the way it is nor make sense of why it is the way it is.

[Ubernator]

I don't know. I thought I gave an intelligent response. It seemed to make sense to me.

I guess I am not up to the task of analyzing futuristic energy weapons systems. :D

[Vimp]

As my outfit leader put it:

bigger gun = bigger boom
smaller gun = smaller boom

conclusion:

Big gun SHOULD be the stronger gun.

[killerX]

i think vimp has a point. big gun=big boom and little gun = little boom. come on ppl back this up.

[Streamline]

I have a limited experience driving a magrider. When using the forward gun i found that by the time i was in range to use it accurately i was already running the pour bastard down. So whats the point. It is good for shooting inside doorways. But the power weapon is controlled by the gunner. And yeah... astheticly it's misleading.

[Vimp]

I apologise to Ubernator. Your comment was appreciated but still I didn't find personnally that it justified the way it is.

[Ubernator]

Hehe, thx Vimp. Just trying to make sense of things as I see 'em.

I do agree, for conventional weapons: big gun = big boom and little gun = little boom. Energy weapons, prolly not necessarily so.

Why the concept artists decided on this scheme? Who knows? Maybe this is a strange, twisted view of the future where big guns kill infantry, people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people!

Hehe, as long as the tank gets the job done, I am happy.

[Hamma]

I changed the image to a link because the forum was b0rked

[Matuse]

Size of gun is not a measure of strength of projectile, particularly when talking about energy weapons.

The 16" guns on a US battleship throw shells that weigh over a ton...but a single 100 millimeter field gun can lob a tactical nuclear shell that will do 1000 times more damage.

Perhaps the particle accelerator, since it is apparently firing small-mass projectiles, requires a long length of barrel in order to get sufficient velocity on its shots in order for them to penetrate body armor and be lethal. Whereas anti-vehicular weapon, using (from the description) a combination energy/railgun shot, doesn't operate under such restrictions.

My guess? Designing, modeling, texturing, and animating things is an extensive amount of work. The idea during Alpha testing was probably that the fixed gun be the stronger one, but testing showed that it was too difficult to use, so they switched it. Since making the change graphically is a pain in the ass, they just left it like it was.

[Seer]

That was my theory, Matuse--the big gun was originally the big gun. They either found that allowing the driver to control it was unbalanced or allowing the gunner to control it was unworkable.

[Vimp]

I'm hopping if theres enough support for it that the big gun will become the actual "big gun" instead of the weirdness that is now.
And describing technical issues that some guns that are small are more powerfull is just silly in this scenario. for one the tank is the weapon and it has 2 guns. Natrually the bigger gun of the 2 should be the more powerfull.

[Ubernator]

So, do you want the driver to have the anti-armor weapon and the gunner to have the anti-infantry weapon?

Or the other way around?

(but just so long the anti-armor weapon is the bigger one)

[Rickenbacker]

Originally posted by Vimp
I'd like some constructive comments if possible as that last responce makes absolutly no sense to me at all.

That's kind of ironic coming from a guy who uses the word "ilogicalness.":devilwink

[Knuckles]

Why would the much bigger, much more stable gun be
the weaker gun while the small little pea shooter on the top is
the main weapon??

Don't be discouraged Vimp, because "size doesn't matter". ;)

(I'm suprised no-one else saw it from this... angle.)

But seriously, folks: I think the magrider (with its big/small boom gun being less powerful than its small/big boom gun) has an advantage in that the driver controls the forward pointing AI one. Have no clue on how the weaponry matches up against the other faction equivalents, but I think it's a damn cool tank.

[Vimp]

That's kind of ironic coming from a guy who uses the word "ilogicalness."

So do you not know what the word means? granted I missed an "l" but the word made perfect sense other wise. Or are you suggesting that people that use the word "illogicalness" must not be saying anything constructive?

[Solitudinem]

Illogicalness isn't a real word, man....:rolleyes:

[Vimp]

"illogicalness

Illogical \Il*log"ic*al\, a. Ignorant or negligent of the rules of logic or correct reasoning; as, an illogical disputant; contrary of the rules of logic or sound reasoning; as, an illogical inference."

I found the word easy enough in the dictionary. Why is everyone arguing things they don't know? And on top of it all missing the whole point of the thread.

Edit: You can find the deffinition here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=illogicalness

Or look at it in other dictionaries here: http://www.onelook.com/?w=illogicalness&ls=a

[Happy lil Elf]

Illogicalness is a word because morons, like yourself (no offense), used it. Happens with many bastardized versions of words, enough people use them and they become part of the laguage

Anyway the evolution of the English laguage (or de-evolution depending on how you look at it) aside, you're arguing about freaking aesthetics. This has got to be the worst damn gripe ever :sick:

[NeoTassadar]

Originally posted by Vimp
bigger gun = bigger boom
smaller gun = smaller boomDo you know much about rail guns?
Here we go, boiled down and simplified for those who don't know physics forgive typos, I'm in a hurry. Rail guns use electromagnets along the barrel activated in rapid succesion to propel a very small (~2 mm) projectile at well past supersonic speeds. The entire purpose is penetration (anti-armor). There's more to it, but I gotta go. Mr. Vulcan might be able to shed some more light on it for you all if he's on. We had a discussion on these before.

[Oberon]

So my associate fumbled with words...like you all don't once in your life...:rolleyes:

I would think that it would make sense for the bigger gun to be AI if it was more of a spread shot, and not a concentrated beam (theres a screenshot of it around here somewhere, but im about to go somewhere as im writing this, so I cant look for it....ill post it later if no one else does.). When a HUGE ASS gun shoots a HUGE ASS strait beam, it seems to me it would be used to peirce armor.

Do the gunners control the bigger tank weapons for the other empries tanks? Or is it the pilot?

[Nitsch]

I like how the Magrider manuvers. When i drive a tank, i use the bumper as a weapon as much as the gun.

You can strafe with a magrider, unlike other tanks, also the driver controled front gun comes in handy to weaken a max before you run him over.

I drive my magrider like a freakin maniac... So i occassionaly run over my team mates. I somtimes do more damage to myself than gunfire does, but I have fun and that is what matters ;)

I play my tank character for a while then switch back to my engineer to allow my grief points to settle down.

My pet peve about magrider is that it can be hard for people to get in because the thing likes to rotate when stationary.

[NeoTassadar]

Allright, back on, I'll continue for a little. Larger projectiles have too much drag, and would lose a shitload of that speed (the main advantage of the rail gun) before it reaches the target. 2mm is about the maximum for a rail gun designed for anti-tank/infantry. They are not likely factoring the shockwave such a projectile would produce into this game, so it's probably not effective against infantry and does not blow the Mag-Rider backwards several yards. Of course, I am talking about real life (does not apply to game) but big gun definately does not equal big boom. If you need further proof of that, nukes to conventional payload is a good example.

[Camping Carl]

If you think about it, it really does make sense in an odd sort of way. Think of a water-gun, if you force the same amount of water through a smaller opening at the same speed, what happens? You get a smaller, more focused, yet equally powerfull stream of water. But because it is smaller, it's better suited to puncturing armor. The big gun has a bigger shot that isn't focused enough for that, but it hurts infantry more because it would melt a much larger hole through them. ;)

But then again, since we have no idea what the "energy" is that the vanu weapons shoot, it's impossible to say for sure.

In fact, I think matuse is right, it probably was different originally, but they decided to switch it to this.

[Nitsch]

Whatever energy the Vanu use, it must cause colorblindness. Who else would pick purple and pink as their battle colors?

When i am picking out colors to invoke fear... pink and purple are not at the top.

[Vimp]

Nice how NeoTassadar trys to explain things that he knows no more about then anyone else. I, and probably most others, know what a rail weapon is and the basics to how it works and that has no bareing on the matter at hand. And for those argueing the word "illogicalness", I'm simply baffled at you all. Proper english is rarely spoken nowadays and yet I use one word that isn't proper english yet at the same time is a real word and you all have the gull to jump down my throat on it. And whether its proper according to old school english or not does not change the fact that "illogicalness" has meaning and a deffinition thus its a usable word.

And to educate Neo some. For one this is a "heavy energy rail beam" not some simple rail gun. In fact in all liklyhood theres no magnetic propulsion in this "make believe" weapon due to the fact that it is a energy beam not some solid balistic shell.
I have to agree with Matuse and Camping Carl with regards to the Devs likly having changed which gun was which at some point. However I would much prefer the pilot not even have a weapon to use if it meant the Bigger gun could be the stronger gun.

If anyone would like to argue which gun should be the "heavy energy rail beam" you need only take one look at each weapon on the tank to tell. A "rail" is a gaurd or a guided trail, which the bigger gun supports this use much better then the more conventional looking weapon on the top of the tank. Additionally "heavy" suggests large volume or thickness and again the bigger gun supports that best compared to the smaller weapon.

And to Happy Lil' Elf and anyone else that cares to argue that it is merely asthetics and not a big deal should consider this. If the devs made the rain and snow go upwards instead of downwards would you not agree that it would be very illogical a thing to do and would make for a significantly deprived gaming experience despite it only being asthetics? Making the game feel and look somewhat believable is all part of the experience for many gamers including myself.

[Camping Carl]

Come on people, let's not turn this into the official forums.

About the bigger gun does not equal bigger boom thing.
When you're talking about projectile weapons, yes it does. Neo, if you make the railgun bigger, it's gonna hurt more. It loses speed faster maybe, but you're confusing range with power. And what about in space, where there is no air resistance?

But none of this is relevent anyhow, because no matter what the name says I seriously doubt it means any sort of solid projectile leaves the barrel of either gun on the magrider. The vanu like to use energy weapons, remember?

[TheRegurgitator]

good point about the guns

[Matuse]

However I would much prefer the pilot not even have a weapon to use if it meant the Bigger gun could be the stronger gun.

I wouldn't. I would prefer that the gun IN THE TURRET be the more effective gun. The alternative is to make the MagRider a lot more maneuverable so that the pilot can aim the weapon...and then the problem becomes that it is TOO agile, making it too powerful in terms of dodging incoming fire, and running down infantry.

Additionally "heavy" suggests large volume or thickness and again the bigger gun supports that best compared to the smaller weapon.

Heavy could simply refer to armor-piercing, and weapons that are able to easily do it. It says nothing about size.

[Happy lil Elf]

Just not worth it.
/em walks away shaking his head

[Vimp]

You guys are making weak arguements at best. From the looks of things I'd say you guys are just arguing for the sake of arguing and not because you really believe what your saying.

[Spyd0r]

That's cause it's aesthetics and no one does really care!!! Get over it, I thought the rail gun small projectile explaination was good anyhow.

[Archonxvi]

Let's compare a rifle and a shotgun

Which has the larger bore size? Shotgun

Which would have higher penetration? The rifle. (of course this assumes that you are not using a solid slug in the shotgun, though I /believe/ that the shotgun would still have less penetration

From what I understand, this is more of a "shotgun" energy weapon, from his description of "diffuse." Therefore, it would make the better anti infantry weapon.

[SuperGlue]

God gave us two ears and one mouth so we can listen twice as much as we talk.

You should listen to what these people are sayin Vimp they seem to be good explanations to me.

[Ubernator]

Take a look at Malvision's video, Ruinous. The anti-infantry weapon on the Mag looks somewhat puny compared to the main rail gun. Maybe that picture is old or a mistake or something?

Dunno, but the video rox!

:D