More Vehicles?

[Saint]

A bomber would be welcomed by me, as long as the pilot gets to drop bombs and it isn't as powerful as the one in tribes 2 was.

[Sputty]

I think a pure fighter would destract from aot of the war making the Reaver require too mcuh escort too be useful., May as well jsut use fighters and more tanks. Also, bomber MAY come in but it'd need alot of tweaking and it could be annoying like artillery is in BF1942

[Fire_Monkey]

Theres screenshots for all vehicles except the stealth quad and the big troop transport...I'm too lazy to look at the real name right now

[doggzj]

How exactly is artilary annoying?

Also, I didn't know the NC enforcer had a cannon on it. Must have miss read it. And I KNOW the other vehicle had been already talked about, but I never said that it was a new vehicle, did I? Lay off...

[Camping Carl]

[Sputty]

Have you ever played BF1942? The spam deaths and massive deaths from arty areannoying. You;ll be spawned, killed, spwan killd, etc. Also, peoplem will jsut firte randomly and just get lucky.

[Toimu]

I think navel ships would be better than more ground or air vehicles.

[Duritz]

Well, we know that the devs didn't add any artillery because of easy death spamming, and I also think that it would be quite difficult to balace many more aircraft without making a lot of people annoyed.

You can't add bombers if you are going to add artillery, so thats out, and what else would you want?

Reavers already have air-surface covered, and Mosquitos have the recon role down as well. And bombing was just discussed.

An air superiority jet would be the only nearly feasible idea not already covered by another vehicle; however, to make an effective AS jet, you need a fast plane with pretty good weapons. Basically, a Mosquito with more firepower. Either you reduce the armor to the point that AA MAXes could own it in a few shots, but somehow prevented it from getting owned by other air vehicles (including itself because its air SUPERIORITY and stupid not to be a good fight) except for maybe the Galaxy's guns, or you just make it too good.

If this happened, it would simply devolve into air battles and land battles, with little mixing, because reavers and mosquitos would not be able to compete with it, and would be destroyed on sight. Land vehicles would not care about it, because it's not very good against them, and Galaxies would need even LARGER escorts. The only thing that could beat it would be another one with a better pilot, or an AA MAX. This would lead to problems with the way battles stop revolving around land, and therefore stop revovling around actually controlling a base. This also would make all other air vehicles even LESS of supporting vehicles, and could only be used once the skies were clear. This COULD add strategy, but it would also tick off people who want to be air-surface pilots, reconaissance pilots, and Galaxy pilots.

I just don't think that many vehicles could be added that didn't already cover what is already being done without unnecessary difficulty and unwanted nerfing.

Next time, Naval battle problems.

[edit] Great idea, you could have this be all fine and dandy if you incorporate one simple thing. Aerial bases. Think of it, bases floating in midair, or maybe on huge pillars kept taut by the rotaion of the planet. This way, you would be required to be proficient in every aspect of the game to be able to achieve continental locks. The only problem is that only elite people and people with a galaxy ride can get there.

Maybe it could be connected to sets of teleporters on the ground in special towers that connect to all sorts of parts of the base. This way you CAN attack from the ground and noobs would be able to at least get there.

Next, you could add more air vehicles more easily by only allowing them to be produced far above the planet, therefore it would keep the attention of the AS jets away from reavers and would add more use to having new, smaller dropships. If they were small enough, they could be quite fast. Maybe that idea would spark some interesting discussion.

I'm gonna start a new thread about this.

[Duritz]

Naval vehicles, contrary to most opinions, need not be restricted to artillery warfare to be interesting. I think that naval battles could, with considerable difficulty, be integrated into this game without death spamming.

The simplest way to do this is simply to use ships that do not REQUIRE artillery to be useful. But, truly before any of this there is no point in having naval units without artillery capabilities and not have naval bases. Not only the harbor ideas, but islands, floating bases, submarine bases, and underwater domes.

Also, if you are going to add lots of water around noobs, you have to let people swim, so to balance this you could simply have a line of swimming armor. Stealth, Agile, Reinforced, and MAX water suits. Then simply do not allow any weapons to be fire underwater. This would not be hard to code, but the art would be EXTREMELY difficult. Once you have the basics, just like on land, armor, bases, and weapons, you can move towards creating vehicles for this environment.

If you divert your concept of naval battle away from artillery, then of course you can see the possibilty for quite a few designs. The only real problem with most of these is that, with the size being considered, how are they to be operated? Anyway.....

Aircraft Carriers, of course, are the obvious first choice. However, it would simply be too powerful to have these spawn planes, so just have it be one HUGE landing pad. Complete with advanced radar capabilites they could be quite nice.

Submarines are easily the next wanted addition. I believe that these could only be either a 1-person or a pilot/gunner setup. There could easily be one of both.

Destroyers also have a role. Simply let them use their AA capabilities and depth charges to basically deter other vehicles from coming too close.

All of these are quite possible, however they would require so much work that I would never even ASK the devs to try an include it until at least an expansion. However, if they have discussed naval battles they have already thought of this so........

[Derfud]

I think when he says vehichles, that we have not seen, such as; The deliverer, or the Sunderer.

[Sputty]

Carriers and transports would be the most useful and some defense ships that have little in the ay of true "artillery" but lots of AA firepweor. Empir-specific too...heh...That'd be nice..Also transports that can hold 50 or more people or light transports thatn hold likwe 16 at max

[Fire_Monkey]

We have seen the deliverer here:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/m...id=39&img_id=2

[Ludio]

Duritz, I don't think that bombers would be classified under the spam category of artillery. With artillery you can bombard areas far away from where the artillery is set up with little fear of retaliation until they find out where you are and are able to take out your defenses. It is an offensive weapon that doesn't have to be exposed. The bomber on the other hand has to fly over the enemy to kill them. This means that they will be able to respond in kind with AA fire. It is not able to hide behind other defenses and attack you from long distance. It is also like a galaxy in terms of its vulnerability to air superiority. In fact it could be made completely defenseless against other aircraft. At least a Galaxy has turrets, but a bomber could be completely focused on air to surface combat.

The air superiority fighter could be put it, but it would be tough to balance as you pointed out without taking the focus away from ground combat.

I like the idea of a smaller transport plane though. They have the sunderer and the deliverer for ground transport so why not a lightweight air transport. Perhaps they could even make them empire specific.

[Duritz]

The reason that the United States uses bombers so readily today is because they ARE death spammers. They are extremely effiecient because they allow for minimal resistance.

Reavers are not completely able to avoid ground fire while attacking simply because its rockets don't do enough damage to REALLY spam and it is vunerable to non-specific-AA fire when near the ground. This is a disadvantage because it is an air-surface attack craft. Also, Reavers attack head on because the rockets seem to be forward firing, so someone at least has to be aiming at you directly to hit you.

A bomber NEVER needs to be near the ground except for takeoff and landing. Now this type of situation would be ok, if the bomber was only attacking units that can fight back. At those types of altitudes, the only resistance to them would be other aircraft and AA MAXes. Also, even MAXes would have trouble taking them down. Look here the TR MAX would have a SERIOUS disadvantage beside the others. And since that's the only truly efficient surface-air defense, it debilitates their entire empire.

Artillery works in all of the same ways, I mean, sure you CAN snipe or fire rockets at artillery platforms, but it doesn't mean that that will prevent death spamming because of that. It's not like you can't figure out where artillery is coming from after 2 shots. Then in a couple shots later you can have a Mosquito fly up and spot it, at the slowest: 30 seconds.

Another thing, doesn't matter if the explosion came from above or miles away, it wouls still suck to some, and noobs get turned away by that kinda thing. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have bombers, artillery, and naval units with artillery capabilities, but I understand why the devs aren't including them in the game and I agree with them. They would make too many people unhappy.

[Jaged]

I think we need more air vehicles!! I want a air to air fighter!