Hover vehicle movement.

[Atuday]

How should hover vehicles move? I think being able to move sideways as fast as it does forward or perhaps just a little less. The strafe rate of the hover craft in planetside one felt lacking to me. More speed and less firepower or armor seems like it would be fun to me. Also no slowing down over water.

This is how I feel about this. Post your opinion.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Atuday

How should hover vehicles move? I think being able to move sideways as fast as it does forward or perhaps just a little less. The strafe rate of the hover craft in planetside one felt lacking to me. More speed and less firepower or armor seems like it would be fun to me. Also no slowing down over water.

This is how I feel about this. Post your opinion.

Have you ever ridden a threshy? IMO PS1 VS hovers are perfect. Slowing down on water is a good compensation for the ability. And a vehicle that has a strafe speed equal to vehs full speed is not a good thing. For many reasons.

Side Note: ADAD on Maggy is overly effective as is. Now imagine you can strafe with it as you'd strafe with your body... That's OP. Purest.

[Huma]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Have you ever ridden a threshy? IMO PS1 VS hovers are perfect. Slowing down on water is a good compensation for the ability. And a vehicle that has a strafe speed equal to vehs full speed is not a good thing. For many reasons.

Side Note: ADAD on Maggy is overly effective as is. Now imagine you can strafe with it as you'd strafe with your body... That's OP. Purest.

Agreed. I've logged a lot of hours in a mag and I can safely say that the way they are now is perfect. Though I'm willing to bet a dedicated driver in PS2 will be able to tweak the strafe on their tanks

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Huma

Though I'm willing to bet a dedicated driver in PS2 will be able to tweak the strafe on their tanks

Sacrificing maxspeed, accel, or weapon weight (thus damage). I'm not against it too.

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Side Note: ADAD on Maggy is overly effective as is. Now imagine you can strafe with it as you'd strafe with your body... That's OP. Purest.

Why do we insist that products of an old and meh engine will continue to exist in the new game?

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Why do we insist that products of an old and meh engine will continue to exist in the new game?

Because moving speed to strafing speed correlation has nothing to do with engine.

[Quovatis]

Strafing was perfect in PS1. But remember, there will be upgrades in PS2 so you might be able to upgrade your strafe speed in the cert tree.

Fact you might not know--driving any hover vehicle in PS1 while depressing the accelerate and strafe key at the same time made the vehicle go faster by a few kph. Of course you had to face slightly sideways, but you could eek out a few more kph out of a mag and were able to catch up to an AMS (which has the same top speed as a mag without strafe).

[Sirisian]

As a person that used the VS magrider strafing was perfect. You could already dodge rounds from the enemy by strafing. No other tank/vehicle can do that.

As for slowing down over water I never really noticed it too much. As mentioned there needs to be a disadvantage since on bridge battles it was a very powerful tool to just glide across the water.

[Talek Krell]

I think the original setup will probably work fine, BUT there is one difference that's been concerning me. Armor plating in PS2 will not be distributed evenly. Whether, how, and to what extent that will affect hover vehicles I'm not entirely sure though. It may actually be favorable....thoughts?

Anyway yeah, I'd say strafing should at least be a bit slower than forward motion.

[exLupo]

PS1's strafe (is that slow strafe?) was a great ratio. Mags had the bonus but wouldn't be called nimble whereas the lighter Threshers were a bob-and-weave joy to drive. By far, my favorite vehicle.

Maybe they'll have aux slots. Adding armor adds hp (or reduces damage) but adds mass. Alternately, putting aux thrusters in the same slots make the sides more vulnerable but you gain lateral mobility.

And my eyes glaze over... "My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." - Hedy Lamar

[CutterJohn]

They should move like this

[Huma]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

They should move like this ‪Battlezone 2 single player game play‬‏ - YouTube

The main reason the Mag isn't THAT maneuverable is because its:

1- An MBT (Main Battle Tank) so thusly the heavier armor is going to slow it down a bit.

2- Also a 2 person vehicle as opposed to 1 person. You only need that kind of maneuverability if your the only one in the tank. Since there is a seperate gunner there is no need for the additional maneuverability.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Huma

The main reason the Mag isn't THAT maneuverable is because its:

1- An MBT (Main Battle Tank) so thusly the heavier armor is going to slow it down a bit.

2- Also a 2 person vehicle as opposed to 1 person. You only need that kind of maneuverability if your the only one in the tank. Since there is a seperate gunner there is no need for the additional maneuverability.

What it is is a crazy amount of fun. BZ2 had hands down the best vehicle combat I've ever seen in a game, and the hover vehicle fizziks were superb. Plenty of inertia, and a limited amount of jump jets you could use to get some crazy air if you ramped off of hills right.

[Talek Krell]

I'm not familiar with battlezone, so I'm a bit out of depth. That said I've a sneaking suspicion that the vehicles can handle like that because they didn't have to be balanced with the infantry that didn't exist/were AI.


And I may be unable to take your suggestions seriously if you continue to spell "physics" with a z.

[Atuday]

Yea BZ had some good stuff. The high speed of the strafe was countered a bit by the fact that a body in motion stays in motion. I was thinking it would be cool to strafe at higher speeds in the new physics engine because once you get to those higher speeds going back the other way is the hard part.