What is the ideal vehicle range for PS2?

Memeotis · 2013-08-23, 10:14 AM

I've given this question a great deal of thought, and here is what I have come up with. Needless to say, most of these vehicles are in the game, but some of them will have their roles altered and/or expanded upon.

The following proposal will include tweaks, overhauls, as well as the addition of entirely new vehicles. The descriptions of their roles (and effectiveness) was constructed with the idea that Planetside 2 is a game that should encourage teamwork, and therefore vehicles that require only a few people should either by weak, or fill very specific roles.

The vehicle types will also have different colors, here is what they mean:

White: No notable change
Yellow: Additions and alterations to existing vehicle
Green: New vehicle

- ATV: Flash

Primary role: This vehicle - as reflected by its cost and attributes - is one which serves primarily as a transport vehicle, designed to transport players over relatively short distances. It is designed to get people where they need to go either un-noticed , or simply because its driver is unlikely to be viewed as a threat in a large skirmish, and is therefore ignored.

Secondary role: Although it has a range of weapons, it is not designed to function as a killing machine, but rather serve as a slight nuisance, which can have tactical value as a decoy.

Note: I believe that Flash currently fits its role reasonably well, and though it may have access to some weapon and functionality (most notably Wraith cloak) which seems a little over-powered for a cheap, 1-man-to-operate vehicle, the fact that the driver is as exposed as he is, makes up for this.

- Buggy: Harasser

Primary role: Unlike the Flash, the Harasser's primary role is to distract. Its greater speed, armor, and weapon range makes it a vehicle that people are forced to deal with. However, similar to the Flash, it cannot be classified as a killing machine.

Secondary role: A very speed transport, able to break through fairly defend areas, in order to deploy small groups of players, whose role - due to their low numbers - is also to distract and harass.

Note: Currently the Harasser is what it shouldn't be: a killing machine. It it powerful against both infantry and vehicles. However, before nerfing it, I think that the addition of another vehicle called the Deliverer can help lessen the effectiveness of the Harasser, simply by introducing less things for it to run over and shred apart with AI weapons.

- Light tank: Lightning

Primary role: This tank's primary role is to specialize and respond to the need of the battlefield. It is designed to deal with a very specific type of threat, but at the cost of being vulnerable to everything else.

Note: I think the Lightning is in a good spot at the moment. It is designed as a one-man combat vehicle should be; effective in the right conditions, but often highly dependent upon teammates. This is crucial, because the vehicles that only require one person to operate effectively, are the ones that should force its driver to work with his teammates.

- Heavy tank: Main Battle Tank

Primary role:
The primary fire-power on the ground. It's designed to be the vehicle that forms the front of any vehicular ground-battle. It is relatively versatile due to its range of both primary and secondary armaments, thereby making it the backbone of large, open ground engagements.

Note: As a vehicle type, the MBT is also fairly balanced. It is versatile, yet it requires two people to truly optimize its potential.

- Light troop transport: Deliverer (6 seats; 1 driver seat, 1 gunner seat, 1 utility seat, 3 passenger seats)

Primary role: This vehicle is designed to deploy small groups of troops around the battlefield. Its combination of speed, armor, as well as its compact size makes it an ideal vehicle for actively relocating ground troops quickly and precisely. It provides great tactical value for platoon leaders, by giving them an inexpensive option for when they want to designate specific objectives for smaller groups of players.

Secondary role: This vehicle has a unique utility seat, in which the player who sits in that seat will have influence how the vehicle behaves, based on their class.

- Medic: Slowly heals friendlies within a small radius of the vehicle.
- Engineer: Provides infantry ammunition to people near the vehicle and repairs MAX units.
- Infiltrator: Can deploy their drone/MAV from the roof of the vehicle, with the only restriction of having to remain within a certain distance of the vehicle.

Note: Unlike the Sunderer, the Deliverer has both the attributes and the functionality to actively support the flow of infantry. It is a vehicle, which is expected to be constantly on the move, or at least providing some form of active support to nearby troops, be it cover against small arms, or repairing a group of MAX units.

- Heavy troop transport: Sunderer

Primary role: This vehicle is designed to serve a forward deploy station; acting as a spawn- and resupply-point for troops.

Secondary role: Unlike the Deliverer, the Sunderer is too large and cumbersome to be viable for active transportation of infantry. Instead, it is most useful at one-time bursts of deploying an entire squad of players, in the hopes of overwhelming the enemy with a quick wave of concentrated numbers.

Note: The secondary role is definitely under-utilized, however, I think that the introduction of a Deliverer will get people to realize that deploying troops, rather than the Sunderer itself is a viable tactic

- Light transport aircraft: Intruder (6 seats; 1 pilot seat, 1 utility seat, 4 passenger seats)

Primary role: This aircraft's focus is similar to that of the Deliverer. It focuses on both deployment and extraction. It is designed to weave itself into advantageous locations for infantry, as well as being an option for quick extraction. It is great for giving troops a good vantage point, and deploying a small group of troops in unexpected areas.

Secondary role: This vehicle has a small range of non-lethal weapons that can be accessed through the utility seat. The utilities include smoke, concussion, and flash grenades that shoot from a cannon and detonate on impact, enabling it to be a viable support in larger engagement

Note: This vehicle is very similar to the Phantasm from PS1, except without the ability to cloak.

- Heavy transport aircraft: Galaxy

Primary role: Like the Sunderer, the Galaxy is designed to deploy a high concentration of troops on a small area; using shock tactics to overwhelm the enemy.

Secondary role: Has access to AMS functionality, however; to keep it from being a vehicle that lessens the importance of having a strong front-line on the ground, the AMS has some restrictions.

- Can only be accessed by the squad who owns it.
- Has a wave-timer, as opposed to a timer for each individual.
- Has a limited amount of biological nanites available for respawns, meaning that it has to return to re-arm once in a while.

Note: The wave-timer keeps the Galaxy from being a continuous threat, and instead makes it vulnerable for long periods at a time. And in conjuction with the limited respawns, the G-AMS becomes a very pilot-intensive role.

- Close air support: Empire specific hovercraft

Primary role: This vehicle's primary role is to hover at low altitude, engaging in close teamwork with the ground troops below. It is fairly susceptible to most types of ground fire, except for small-arms fire, but due to its slow speed, high-velocity tank shells are especially dangerous. This aircraft is therefore highly dependent on working together both with its own secondary gunner, as well as other troops on the ground to keep AA at a minimum. It is extremely lethal against both enemy armor and infantry, if it manages to catch them off guard. Unlike the current ESF, this aircraft cannot rely on speed, and therefore has to use it maneuverability to utilize the terrain in its favor.

Secondary role: Rather than being actively offensive, it can also act as source of longevity with the ground troops it cooperates with. Since it has access to both an A2G and A2A arsenal, combined with a great vantage point over the entire battle, this vehicle can create a "sphere of safety" for all friendlies in its vicinity.

Note: What is key to the balance of this vehicle, is the fact that you don't need AA weapons to pose a threat to it. Because it is a relatively slow, low-altitude vehicle, it is relatively easy target to hit with dumb-fire weapons. Its speed is also a factor as to whether or not you can find cover before it reaches you.

- Air superiority fighter: Empire specific fighter

Primary role: This vehicle is no longer the same hyper-versatile aircraft. Instead its effectiveness is now more in line with the fact of it being a one-seat aircraft. It is the equivalent of the Lightning; forced to specialize. That said, this vehicle is primarily designed to keep the skies clear. Its speed gives it a high survivability against AA, but now that its hover-ability has been greatly weakened, it is much less lethal to ground troops

Secondary role: In cooperation with ground troops, or the other types of aircraft, it can become a viable A2G vehicle; able to come in for strafing runs. This could potentially make room for a type of laser designator, which could help overcome issues of render-distance and render-speed

Note: The vehicle is essentially the same, however it has had two aspects nerfed: Vertical thrust + transition time between hover- and jet-mode.

- Bomber: Liberator

Primary role: This aircraft is designed to be a vehicle that benefits greatly from being escorted, and if this requirement is met, either by jets for high-altitude bombing, or by ground troops for low-altitude bombing - this vehicle quickly becomes one of the most lethal in the game.

Secondary role: Not quite as lethal, this vehicle can also rely entirely on its own arsenal to stay alive, but it will most likely have to resort to strafing runs

Note: The Liberator should not be entirely dependent upon other aircraft to stay alive, however, cooperation with other aircraft ought to have a very powerful multiplier effect.

---------------------------------------------

Most of these vehicles are the same as they are now, but I felt like I had to describe their roles, in order to justify adding new vehicles and altering some existing ones. Do you guys think this game would improve if it had this vehicle line-up?

Phantomdestiny · 2013-08-23, 10:50 AM

i really like the intruder idea .

Memeotis · 2013-08-23, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Phantomdestiny

i really like the intruder idea .

Thanks. I've seen many people mention a similar idea, and Planetside 1 had an almost identical aircraft called the Phantasm. The Phantasm didn't have the a cannon that shoots non-lethals, but it did have the ability to cloak. However, I think cloaking is a terrible mechanic, and should be avoided whenever possible. The skill level of a pilot who can genuinely sneak a group of players into a good position, is many times higher than a pilot that only has to press one button.

Also, an important thing to note is that the implementation of an aircraft like the Intruder, would make the Galaxy even less useful. I've therefore added some additional features to the Galaxy to make up for that.

TheAadvark · 2013-08-25, 01:11 AM

Yes to everything. Would like to give it a more thorough once over to show why I like it but I am tired now. I'll be back later.

Memeotis · 2013-08-25, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by TheAadvark

Yes to everything. Would like to give it a more thorough once over to show why I like it but I am tired now. I'll be back later.

Looking forward to your reply.

The general idea of this line-up is that there should be a gradient of vehicle types, ranging from large vehicles that have quite a bit of versatility, as well as the ability to be somewhat independent, moving gradually towards smaller and smaller vehicles with less versatility, and then either less power or the need to specialize - thereby forcing them to work with other teammates.

Sunrock · 2013-08-25, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Memeotis

- Buggy: Harasser

Primary role: Unlike the Flash, the Harasser's primary role is to distract. Its greater speed, armor, and weapon range makes it a vehicle that people are forced to deal with. However, similar to the Flash, it cannot be classified as a killing machine.

Secondary role: A very speed transport, able to break through fairly defend areas, in order to deploy small groups of players, whose role - due to their low numbers - is also to distract and harass.

Note: Currently the Harasser is what it shouldn't be: a killing machine. It it powerful against both infantry and vehicles. However, before nerfing it, I think that the addition of another vehicle called the Deliverer can help lessen the effectiveness of the Harasser, simply by introducing less things for it to run over and shred apart with AI weapons.

Hmm how do you plan it to have a harassing roll without being a killing machine? IE how can it do it's job without being a threat?

I think it's fire power is ok as is now. If anything needs to be "nerfed" is that it should be vulnerable to AP rounds and maybe to all type of damage. Making it more of a "glass cannon".

Originally Posted by Memeotis

- Heavy transport aircraft: Galaxy

Primary role: Like the Sunderer, the Galaxy is designed to deploy a high concentration of troops on a small area; using shock tactics to overwhelm the enemy.

Secondary role: Has access to AMS functionality, however; to keep it from being a vehicle that lessens the importance of having a strong front-line on the ground, the AMS has some restrictions.

- Can only be accessed by the squad who owns it.
- Has a wave-timer, as opposed to a timer for each individual.
- Has a limited amount of biological nanites available for respawns, meaning that it has to return to re-arm once in a while.

Note: The wave-timer keeps the Galaxy from being a continuous threat, and instead makes it vulnerable for long periods at a time. And in conjuction with the limited respawns, the G-AMS becomes a very pilot-intensive role.

Just no to any type of AMS on the Galaxy. This was proven during the beta over and over again. Way are people still even thinking this? Even if the Galaxies AMS can only respawn it's own squads troops it would still be a big enough impact on the ground game for it to fuck it up. The main reason for this is that it's way too short between bases and the continents maps are not big enough to support this..... Maybe it could work if you also nerfed the speed of the Galaxy equipped with a "G-AMS" to 80 km/h when using Speed frame 3. But then it would be so slow that any AA would easily kill it before it even manage to get anywhere. But would be a viable options to take undefended/poorly defended bases

Memeotis · 2013-08-25, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

Hmm how do you plan it to have a harassing roll without being a killing machine? IE how can it do it's job without being a threat?

I think it's fire power is ok as is now. If anything needs to be "nerfed" is that it should be vulnerable to AP rounds and maybe to all type of damage. Making it more of a "glass cannon".

I didn't want to make this thread about specific stats in terms of damage output and vulnerability to certain weapons. I'm just proposing some fundamental changes to how the vehicles' mechanics function, both by themselves and in relation to other vehicles and infantry. The point I'm trying to make about the Harasser is that the game very creates an environment where infantry are aplenty in large, open areas. And though I think that there might be some room for adjustments to the Harasser's stats, I think the ultimate nerf could be much smaller, because the introduction of a Deliverer would mitigate a lot of the problems people seem to have with the Harasser.

Originally Posted by Sunrock

Just no to any type of AMS on the Galaxy. This was proven during the beta over and over again. Way are people still even thinking this? Even if the Galaxies AMS can only respawn it's own squads troops it would still be a big enough impact on the ground game for it to fuck it up.

As for the AMS. The G-AMS in the beta was awful, and it had none of the restrictions that I mentioned. First of all, it didn't require any teamwork what-so-ever. All you had to do was to fly it to a good location, deploy it and then leave it be. There was no requirement for the pilot to be actively engaged. My proposal does exactly that.

It would be extremely stupid to land it and leave it alone. The wave-timer means that there would be 'windows of opportunity' in which the Galaxy is completely undefended, as opposed to having a constant stream of new respawns pouring out. So in other words, the Galaxy would have to remain in the air as to not be completely vulnerable.

The squad limitation means that you go from 666 potential players to 12, sure these people can have an impact on the ground game - but isn't that the point?

And finally, even if the G-AMS might be able to give its 11 frequent droppers an unfair advantage on the ground, the limitation that the Galaxy has to return and restock on "biological nanites" every once in a while, means that the developers can tweak the performance of the G-AMS very directly. Should it have a stock of 50 respawns, or 500?

Sunrock · 2013-08-25, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Memeotis

I didn't want to make this thread about specific stats in terms of damage output and vulnerability to certain weapons. I'm just proposing some fundamental changes to how the vehicles' mechanics function, both by themselves and in relation to other vehicles and infantry. The point I'm trying to make about the Harasser is that the game very creates an environment where infantry are aplenty in large, open areas. And though I think that there might be some room for adjustments to the Harasser's stats, I think the ultimate nerf could be much smaller, because the introduction of a Deliverer would mitigate a lot of the problems people seem to have with the Harasser.

Moving infantry in the open over large open terrain has been a stupid move sens the American civil war when the rifle was invented. Way should it be less stupid in a sci-fi game? Those that want to foot zerg between bases do so on there own risk.

Originally Posted by Memeotis

As for the AMS. The G-AMS in the beta was awful, and it had none of the restrictions that I mentioned. First of all, it didn't require any teamwork what-so-ever. All you had to do was to fly it to a good location, deploy it and then leave it be. There was no requirement for the pilot to be actively engaged. My proposal does exactly that.

It would be extremely stupid to land it and leave it alone. The wave-timer means that there would be 'windows of opportunity' in which the Galaxy is completely undefended, as opposed to having a constant stream of new respawns pouring out. So in other words, the Galaxy would have to remain in the air as to not be completely vulnerable.

The squad limitation means that you go from 666 potential players to 12, sure these people can have an impact on the ground game - but isn't that the point?

And finally, even if the G-AMS might be able to give its 11 frequent droppers an unfair advantage on the ground, the limitation that the Galaxy has to return and restock on "biological nanites" every once in a while, means that the developers can tweak the performance of the G-AMS very directly. Should it have a stock of 50 respawns, or 500?

I'm skeptic. The main reason for this is the speed in witch you can move troops between point A and B and establish a spawn point without the need of hacking a terminal to pull out a AMS Sundy.

And there is allot of spots you can leave a undefended galaxy some what safely where it would only be vulnerable to air. Creating kill zones where you can respawn with between bases that no ground units can touch. Ok sure you can do that today with a squad beacon too. But at least there is a decent amount of time before you can respawn on a squad beacon.

Memeotis · 2013-08-26, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Sunrock

I'm skeptic. The main reason for this is the speed in witch you can move troops between point A and B and establish a spawn point without the need of hacking a terminal to pull out a AMS Sundy.

And there is allot of spots you can leave a undefended galaxy some what safely where it would only be vulnerable to air. Creating kill zones where you can respawn with between bases that no ground units can touch. Ok sure you can do that today with a squad beacon too. But at least there is a decent amount of time before you can respawn on a squad beacon.

Sure, I get why you would be skeptic about this. I think the G-AMS deserves a second chance, SOE just has to make sure they have several aspects of the Galaxy that they can adjust.

The beta G-AMS didn't really have any stats that could easily be modified, you would simply land it, deploy it, and then everyone could spawn on it.

However, if they decided to implement the G-AMS with the features I'm proposing, they would be able to balance it effectiveness by tweaking the wave-timer and the amount of respawns it has, before it has to return to re-arm.

camycamera · 2013-08-26, 10:27 PM

i think that the MTB should have 3 seats; one for the main gun, one for driver, and one for secondary gun.
why?
because it conflicts with the lightning; the lightning is supposed to be the one man tank you are supposed to go to, but you can do the same thing with the MBT with much more armour and firepower.

however, i think that the magrider should stay the same, making it stand out against the other two MBTs(and so it would put less stress on the devs to redesign the damn thing). other than that, i agree.

TheAadvark · 2013-08-27, 04:07 AM

As far as the harasser is concerned , I believe it's fine. Foot zergs can actually decimate a harasser with concentrated small arms fire, hell I can make it smoke with one clip from my T-16 Rhino.

However the harasser is hell against small squads moving up in the open often because the harasser can pop up and kill them before they retaliate. They should instead load up in a sunderer to move from base to base (forget YOLO flashes) but the resource cost is too high and the sunderer drives like it's a Fing beachball, or a ship in the middle of the perfect storm. Either fix the sundi's handling and have seperate resource costs for non AMS sunderers or introduce a lower profile better handling APC.

The Intruder? hell yes! Now non-lethal armament and no cloak, it would be pointless. They will be canon fodder for any ESF. And since they are supposed to be used for surprise/tactical drops you can't have a guard of friendly ESF's. Cloaking is exactly what is needed for such a vehicle. It's the future too so come on.

Memeotis · 2013-08-30, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by TheAadvark

As far as the harasser is concerned , I believe it's fine. Foot zergs can actually decimate a harasser with concentrated small arms fire, hell I can make it smoke with one clip from my T-16 Rhino.

However the harasser is hell against small squads moving up in the open often because the harasser can pop up and kill them before they retaliate. They should instead load up in a sunderer to move from base to base (forget YOLO flashes) but the resource cost is too high and the sunderer drives like it's a Fing beachball, or a ship in the middle of the perfect storm. Either fix the sundi's handling and have seperate resource costs for non AMS sunderers or introduce a lower profile better handling APC.

The Intruder? hell yes! Now non-lethal armament and no cloak, it would be pointless. They will be canon fodder for any ESF. And since they are supposed to be used for surprise/tactical drops you can't have a guard of friendly ESF's. Cloaking is exactly what is needed for such a vehicle. It's the future too so come on.

That's why I think the Deliverer would have a big impact. If you're a small group of 2-6 guys, it doesn't feel right to spawn a Sunderer to take you to the battle. If you want to get there fast, you'll all get ESFs. I you want to do some damage when you get there, you'll all get tanks. If you want to do some interesting ground ops, where you utilize vehicle transport, you're only left with the Flash. The last tactic isn't used in Planetside 2, and instead most people choose to simply join the zerg and find a well placed Sunderer to spawn from. As a result, many are on foot, and that makes them vulnerable to Harassers.

As for the Intruder, I'd hate to see it implemented with stealth. It's a lazy mechanic to circumvent other issues in the game. If it was to be implemented now, it would have to have cloak, I'm not going to argue against that. It would be torn to shreds by AA and ESFs. However, if the ESF was split into 2 vehicles instead of being just one vehicle: 1 high altitude fighter + 1 low altitude close-air-support, and then suddenly it becomes somewhat viable. Pilots of the Intruder would have to fly relatively low to avoid the fighters, and the close-air-support, wouldn't be able to keep up with it.

And finally, I've argued in another thread that if you make this change to the ESF, you would also be able to nerf ground-based AA, simply because there would be more threats into the sky itself, thereby lessening the need for excessive AA.