The balance issue with multi-gunned vehicles

[Redshift]

They're not suppose to fight each other, the deli and the sunderer were supposed to be troop transports, but they were never used because it was easier to pull mossies, or grab a gal if you really wanted to move rexo's around.

They'll suffer the same problem in PS2 unless they do something to make them more useful than a gal drop, i.e make the sunderer much faster and give it a shield it can deploy like the AMS bubble, then you can ram a BD and shield yourself while you push in, which would be different to a gal drop where things would be faster but more likely to get splattered by vehicles on the way in

[Aractain]

Sunderer types needs a infantry launching cannon.

[Azren]

Originally Posted by Arkanakaz

Option 1 (PlanetSide Now):

Deliverer
Armour: 25
Damage Per Second for each gun 25

Tank
Armour 50
Damage Per Second for each gun 50

If only it was that simple, but you forget the different attributes of the weapons they carry.
Lets make it simple and bring Mr Reaver into the field.
Mr Tank will try to fight him, but if Mr Reaver has a good pilot, it will be a very one sided match (even with the supposedly aircraft killer magriders).
Mr Deliverer on the other hand can shoot at a very heigh angle, at a heigh rate and attack the Mr Reaver even if it is right above him, giving a good driver a very good chance to take him down.

In comparison even for killing ground troops deliverer can be better than tanks due to it's much more precise weapons.

Don't forget to include that the delis can float on the water, making them a very small target.

I personally killed more reavers in my deliverer than my skyguard, just sayin'.

[exLupo]

Red's pretty much nailed it. The problem isn't about armor, it's about role and lack thereof. The ground transport vehicles never needed a proper balancing because they were, more or less, irrelevant. I may be getting my hopes up but I think the new skilling system will put that right.

While it may be possible to get just enough skill to drive a tank or mossie and use that for transport but if you don't put any skill time into it, you'll be easy xp for those who do. The new system sounds like it will incentivize specialization where your boots will need to get into a transport if they want to go anywhere in any kind of speed or safety. Hopefully, this time around, ground transports will be given some kind of unique standing so both they and galaxies will be useful in their own purview.

[cashfoyogash]

Much like in RL IFVs (infantry fighting vehicles) have provided problems in design. The M2 Bradley is severly under armored compared to a M1 Abrams which at the front is like 3 feet thick i believe. The bradley is only around 20 mph faster than an Abrams and is severly out gunned by an Abrams. So SOE kinda hit the nail on the head their ground transports are fast, under armored compared to tanks, and out gunned by tanks...

Now some countries have tried using TPCs (tank personal carriers) which would be like taking a Abrams gutting it of its cannon and making room for a squad of grunts. If SOE wanted to make ground transports more viable they would make them better armored but not over a tank, make them able to keep pace with a tank, and make the armament so it is useful. Since you can specialize your vehicle maybe they could have anti tank versions, anti personal versions, and anti air versions.

The purpose of IFVs were mainly to take pace behind the tanks and would dismount grunts as needed in support of the tanks, meaning flushing anti tank soldiers out of hard terrain like caves or urban areas. The bradley was created in fear of russian tanks crossing over. What you would mainly find in a IFV for the longest time was anti armor infantry. Armored troop transports were made to be able to fight in a tank battle and still function. Other than that troops would travel in things such as humvees or duece and a halfs depending on what military era you looked at.

I think the only way to truly keep people from using mossies or tanks as transports is to limit the equipment players can have when in them. In a RL abrams tank, the crew qualifies with a 9mm pistol (they do qualify with an M16 as its basic and everyone is a rifleman but they dont use them and not sure if any are kept in a M1 Abrams) and they dont wear IBAs (bullet proof vests) they have a slimmer version of it that isnt as equiped to stop a 7.62mm round, they dont wear ACHs (army kevlar combat helmet) they wear a different type of helmet which supports communication i believe. They wear a fire retardant suit (they actually call it a flight suit) not the usual ACUs (army combat uniform with the digital camo which blends with nothing). So I propose that any operators of any vehicle have to fit a similar loadout. If you wanna drive a tank or gun a tank then thats your role, your not going to jump out and clear buildings. Now the driver for a IFV should fill the same role but the grunts in back can be fully armored and equipped ready to dismount and put foot to ass.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by exLupo

While it may be possible to get just enough skill to drive a tank or mossie and use that for transport but if you don't put any skill time into it, you'll be easy xp for those who do.

This is the bit that worries me tbh, powergain in a FPS, i can really see this going tits up

[CutterJohn]

AMSs, free and infinite vehicles, gunner slots, and Galaxies make ground transports largely worthless. To get to the next fight you hitch a ride as a gunner or roll your own vehicle. At the fight you just respawn at the conveniently located AMS someone is bound to bring. And if someone really wants to focus on transporting troops, they'll cert galaxy, which is far superior. Faster, can bypass enemy land fortifications, and put you on the roof, and do it for more people. Delis and Sunderers could never compete with that.



I don't have an issue with there being ground transports, but they should be viable combat vehicles in their own right, and reflected by cert cost, with no penalties for the ability to carry people. If its not a viable combat vehicle, it won't be used, just like the delis rarely are, because people can for the most part take care of their own transport.

[exLupo]

Originally Posted by Redshift

This is the bit that worries me tbh, powergain in a FPS, i can really see this going tits up

Don't let it bother you too much. If it's like EVE, the power ramp isn't that high in a per-unit sense. Beyond that you're looking at either line escalation (MA to HA) or lateral specialization (MA to Sniper). It's been speculated that the raw MA vs MA will be less of a +20% damage and more an aggregate of rof, accuracy, clip, damage and whatnot.

I think I stated it oddly. I imagine the basic MA user will have a player skill gap that could cover them vs another MA user but come up against a user with both MA and HA on his back and the HA one is potentially at a substantial advantage.

Comparing it directly to EVE break down as that's a more extreme beast as you've got not only your ship skill but weapons (with accuracy, rof, damage, energy cost skills), drones (with a ton of skills), speed, acceleration, energy regen, and armor/shield/hull strength skills, not to mention fitting skills that give you more "stats" to use gear with. PS2 will probably have vastly more accessible but an ultimately smaller aggregate pool buff.

[Headrattle]

It shouldn't have any pool buff. It is an FPS, and making higher level players more powerful then lower level players is bad, in my opinion. More options, fine. More powerful, I have a problem with that.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Headrattle

It shouldn't have any pool buff. It is an FPS, and making higher level players more powerful then lower level players is bad, in my opinion. More options, fine. More powerful, I have a problem with that.

Many do, but it seems we're stuck with it. I hate more options just as much. I long for the classic days of FPSs where you just played for the fun of it and didn't have any of this rpg nonsense to deal with.

[Malorn]

Deli is a transport. A tank is supposed to be more appealing if firepower and pushing a line is your goal.

[Logit]

Originally Posted by Headrattle

It shouldn't have any pool buff. It is an FPS, and making higher level players more powerful then lower level players is bad, in my opinion. More options, fine. More powerful, I have a problem with that.

This.

Balance is going to be more of an issue if Veterans players become too powerful.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Headrattle

That isn't how it works at all. Tanks kick out the most damage and have, by far, the most armor. The Sunderer has less armor then the tank with the least about of armor. Why? Because they are transports. The Deliverer and Sunderer are not tank killers. The Sunderer specifically it an assault vehicle designed to drive to a base, let lots of people out, and lay down covering fire. Or just kill lots of infantry. Deliverer does much the same thing.

You are comparing apples to carrots. The transport vehicles are made for transport.

The problem, though, was that at least half the population had tank driving certs. Why roll your squad in 1 Sunderer with crappy armor and weapons, when you could instead roll in 5 tanks, with 5x awesome armor and weapons?

Transports and tanks were not balanced in their availability well, leading to a pathetic presence of transports. Tanks should cost a lot of resources, while transports should be cheap. IIRC, this was more or less the case with NTU in PS1, but that ran into a problem: NTU were a renewable resource.

See, NTU could never be a seriously limiting factor, because to make it so, you also had to upset the stability of the territory control mechanic, as bases would lose power and become up for grabs.

With PS2, hopefully the varied resources can be not only scarce (unlike NTUs, which, ultimately, were only ever an ANT run away), but individually balanced to achieve a more diversified vehicular presence that encourages more efficient means of transport on a macro-scale (1 Sunderer being slightly more efficient per head than 2 deliverers, which would be vastly more efficient than 10 mossies, which would be somewhat more efficient than 5 tanks, which would be on par with 10 lightnings, which would be a bit more efficient than 10 reavers, etc.). In addition, hopefully resources will have checks at a squad and/or outfit level as well as an empire one, so that a few wasteful individuals don't screw over the war effort for another outfit or their empire as a whole -- which was the other reason NTU dependence wasn't balanced more aggressively.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Deli is a transport. A tank is supposed to be more appealing if firepower and pushing a line is your goal.

Which it is. Few people want to gimp themselves by training for a transport vehicle that nobody will want to get inside of.

It has to be a viable combat vehicle worthy of pulling on its own merits, or offer some other bonus aside from people moving, or it will just rarely get used.

[Aractain]

Not every vehicle has to be a combat vehicle though.

I REALLY hope the Galalxy has a radar dish upgrade, I hope the Deliverer (or equiv) has a command upgrade with cool antenas that gives some kind of bonus to something...

The deliverer could have a range of kewl stuff to make it a real small transport such as an EMP cannon, Anti-air weapons, smoke dispensors, ammo/heal terminal. Not to mention it should be very very quick compared to tanks like double the speed (not realistic you say? - gameplay, I say!).

Add to that the very nessesary reward for actual transportation (in the form of XP or something else - not kills while in a transport vehicle thats stupid).

What would be nice is a instant port into a transport vehicle from range to help people loading up.