News: The Lightning First Look! [[Updated] Images]]

[ringring]

Do we know whether the L is articulated? I am not sure from the images.

[biertrappist]

Only one guy here properly talked about the consequences of length. Namely to fire a shot perpendicular to itself around a corner/in a base will either have to go 2/3 forwards or arse out. Great idea, it's not some uber vehicle, you have to think.

Secondly, due to the tank's length, the infantry if they have fair mobility, might be able to run around trees and not just get mowed down. It might take out infantry in the medium / long range but it certainly looks harder to benny hill them in the immediate vicinity.

Thirdly, tank length and short barrel relative to its body means it won't have great depression. Think you can shoot up infantry right in front of you, I doubt it.

Fourth, restricted vision to the tank's immediate front. You need to keep it moving, stop just outside your base, and some cloaker will have mined you before you realise it.

PS was always about trade-offs and this great design is a perfect example of it.

Too bad the OS is back!

[Baneblade]

I see the new Lightning as an Armor Sniper. Play it like one and you should rock. The AA makes sense since traditionally a Lightning was always a free kill to Air... well anything really.

The only thing the old Lightning was really good at was killing infantry... and that assumes those infantry weren't shooting back...

[outsider]

Actually the new lightning epitomises the different design philosophy between PS1 and PS2. Where the original lightning had functionality, sounded like a tractor and made you feel pretty good about yourself if you survived 5 minutes in a tank fight; this new one is sleek, fast with a V12 strapped to it and has multiple effective roles to fill.

I just don’t like the front

I get that Version 2 is the love child of the lightning and the skyguard, it’s just a shame that while she’s got dad’s name, she’s also got mum’s nose... poor thing.

[LancerNC]

That bridge looks awesome, I am so excited for some more bridge fights in ps2!

[Tamas]

Mini Vanguard lol

NC does not approve soft curves of the turret.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by outsider

I get that Version 2 is the love child of the lightning and the skyguard, it’s just a shame that while she’s got dad’s name, she’s also got mum’s nose... poor thing.

At least she also got moms knockers to drop those aircraft like flies.

Wait, I'm a pilot. What am I saying?

Seriously though, I loved tank hunting in Planetside, but while MBTs felt like a worthy prey, Lightnings always felt like cheap kills. Sneaking on on Skyguards on the other hand was a load of fun and felt even more rewarding to successfully kill (or heavily wound more often) than any MBT.

Now that tanks have a weak spot on the back, I feel that this will probably be pretty balanced. I'll still have a shot at sneaking up on the occasional skyguard turreted Lightning, but for the most part I'll have to give them a wide birth.

Cheap kill gone, it will be nice to mostly be going after MBTs. Now I'll just have to see how hard it is to attack an MBT with an AA gunner turret equipped. Hopefully not everyone will be running with them, and hopefully it's pretty easy to visually spot which ones are. Maybe something like advanced targeting will help with that.

[frigamache]

things fugly

WTB Empire specific vehicles, no more sharing tech with those filthy sandrakers.

[Lorgarn]

WOAH, epic tank comparison, epic bridge... it's too much! Too much awesomesauce in the same picture. I honestly got a bit teary watching this.

[Xyntech]

All of those tanks with their asses pointing in the same direction. Just makes me want to fly a Scythe down the tunnel behind them and unload some tank busters into their weak spots.

Bridge battles were fun, but could get a little tiresome in PS1. It looks like the new bridges are a lot better designed for fights, so I hope we are fighting over them just as much if not more often than in the first game.

On the topic of Lightnings though, I'm not sure they would generally be a good choice for bridge battles. Not enough room to take advantage of their speed.

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

On the topic of Lightnings though, I'm not sure they would generally be a good choice for bridge battles. Not enough room to take advantage of their speed.

To take the bridge, probably not. To take the land beyond the bridge once that's secure, almost definitely. Same in reverse, to cover a retreat or a route, almost definitely.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by Saintlycow

I was more referring to your sig, but hey, having a laser lightning would be sweet!

Ahhh hehe. Yeah, a rotating turret for the Mag would be good too.

Originally Posted by biertrappist

Only one guy here properly talked about the consequences of length. Namely to fire a shot perpendicular to itself around a corner/in a base will either have to go 2/3 forwards or arse out. Great idea, it's not some uber vehicle, you have to think.

Secondly, due to the tank's length, the infantry if they have fair mobility, might be able to run around trees and not just get mowed down. It might take out infantry in the medium / long range but it certainly looks harder to benny hill them in the immediate vicinity.

Thirdly, tank length and short barrel relative to its body means it won't have great depression. Think you can shoot up infantry right in front of you, I doubt it.

Fourth, restricted vision to the tank's immediate front. You need to keep it moving, stop just outside your base, and some cloaker will have mined you before you realise it.

PS was always about trade-offs and this great design is a perfect example of it.

Too bad the OS is back!

Actually you just listed a bunch of reasons why its a bad design from a balance standpoint, not a good one. The Lightning needs to be equivalent to a solo MBT in overall combat effectiveness (or at least in desirability) otherwise hardly anyone will pull one for anything other than AA duty. And its low armour and lack of a second, dedicated gunner are already enough trade-offs to its superior speed to keep it in balance. IMO it doesn't need all of the disadvantages you listed tacked on top of it.

Since its not powerful enough to tackle a MBT head-on, it needs to be designed such that it can engage in hit-and-run tactics as well as long-range harassment. And in order to do so it needs to be able to do things like fire from cover, which as you pointed out its long front makes difficult to do.

In addition, its length as shown would also make taking advantage of hull-down tactics more difficult since its nose will get in the way of the short cannon when said cannon is depressed. But again, that's just the type of tactic a light tank should be using.

Plus as I mentioned before its length gives it a huge profile when exposing its flank to the enemy.

And its rear armour is also incredibly weak (Devs mentioned 2-3 Prowler shots to the rear will take one out). So basically if our speculations are correct, it can't fire around cover, can't hull-down, can't see very well in front of it, can't take on infantry up close, can't attack vehicles head-on, can't retreat, and can't expose its flanks.

Ok, yeah I'm really not liking the long design now...

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Erendil

Actually you just listed a bunch of reasons why its a bad design from a balance standpoint, not a good one. The Lightning needs to be equivalent to a solo MBT in overall combat effectiveness (or at least in desirability) otherwise hardly anyone will pull one for anything other than AA duty.

Or they could just nix solo MBTs

[Wakken]

Originally Posted by MacTruckuLes

i agree it looks way longer then it needs to be, honestly end it a few feet infront of the headlights and it would look great.

I agree with this, looks a bit too long..

[xXGumpXX]

i wonder when the release date will be for this game , i bet summer 2013 or later on that yr