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/s...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.

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.

[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."