Well the aircraft are gunna kick the crap out of any balance in the maps, many will become unplayable because first to get air transports wins etc. Just because not all maps are suited to it doesn't mean it's a bad idea, not all maps are suited to Grenadiers, or vehicles in general, so let's cut those out. It doesn't have to work everywhere, and on those maps with a moat, you generally can't get back up, or use it to your advantage. And remember, it's an AFV, not a heavy, not a medium, it uses standard MLs Cannons and MGs. LTs are already unbalanced towards AFVs, I don't see how this will screw everything up.
True, and that's how it should be used, but you gotta remember, an APC is virtually infinite, an AFV can only take 4 people per run, and good luck finding 4 people who will actually get in! Nonetheless, it may be a problem [4 scouts raid an enemy base... D:] I think that with a few MLs and MGs at the water entry to your base, you'll be OK.
Aircraft will only be on new larger scaled maps.. And AFV's have already had alot of work done on them so they could match up with LT's.. I don't personally like afv's but I never have a problem killing LT's with them. You should of saw how horrible the balance was in 1.7, But krenzo made it possible for them to aim lower and that pretty much fixed the problem.
So, you have proof that only new maps will have aircraft? Unless you're a dev, can I get a link to where that's said?
lol.. I dunno where its said but its common knowledge, look up "aircraft maps" the way they are going to work is everything is scaled down like 16x so if we used normal maps we would be mini on it.. I remember back during the testing days we had a match on district where we were mini and it was too funny.. Had to walk for 2 mins to get to the middle, also district with vfs was wierd haha lol see thats what all the regular maps would look like with aircraft..
It's not exactly that difficult to chuck a bunch of waterproofing onto a vehicle. It's just expensive, a big hassle, and most engines need to breathe. (However, non-combusting engines don't need to.) Not to mention that, when you're in a sinking tank, things are very bad for you. Since it's not like you're fitting extra flotation on the thing to make it float (unless you want to discuss the floating-variety of amphibious vehicles) I don't see why the APC couldn't do it as well. However, both teams have grenadiers and vehicles. Only the Brenodi would have amphibious tanks. This essentially causes a balancing hassle for mappers who want to use water as an obstacle, as they'd need to make steep underwater areas to stop AFVs from getting anywhere, and even then you'd probably end up with an afv running around on the bottom of the map once in a while (if not a pile of them in some bizarre attempt at making a bridge). Left unfixed, the imbalance would probably lead to the map being left very much alone (much like that trenches map). If the AFV floats instead, then the mappers have to go to even more ridiculous extremes, which may not pan out well with the inclusion of aircraft or boats. And after that, the AFV's effectiveness has still not been fixed, so people will still complain about that, because the supposed counterbalance is a gimmick that 95% of the time has no practical use, (and an annoying imbalance the other 5%) and thus is absolutely no consolation whatsoever.
Lava. Hey, it's a game, therefore, needs lava. And stop using water as an obstacle, infantry can easily swim across and drop a VF... Not to mention that with the right placements, you can get tanks across rivers anyway. And I'm sure you have said at one point 'Fun > Realism'...
IF: Fun > Realism, THEN: Amphibious APCs > Amphibious AFVs > Nonamphibious Vehicles Ergo Amphibious APCs FTW
Giving one side an amphibious vehicle doesn't imbalance the game if you make the maps properly, they should be balanced so that the NF have the speed advantage while the BE have the mobility advantage.
Yep, exactly my point. No, amphibious APCs for one faction are EXTREMELY imbalanced, that's a spawn point that can go anywhere...
I apologize for not reading the whole discussion, but how would amphibious make the afv better? In mechwarrior you could waste some weight to get jump jets, but if the mech itself sucks, the jumpjets isnt gonna save it.
Give it to both factions. APCs are common, AFVs are not. XD That wouldn't be imbalanced either, since, as Chris says, you just need to make the map properly and it's all good. Or heck, plant turrets on the coast-lines. (APCs already seem to get everywhere anyway, and infantry are already waterproof. I doubt shoving an APC underwater would add much to its usefulness, especially given the current maps.)
Well, the main arguments for: It adds to the mobility of the AFV. It gives Brenodi more reason to fill it up and get it into the enemy base It adds a unique factor to the vehicle [New one I just rhought up]When floating, it doesn't need to worry about LT ramming, but with a STD cannon, they're both in the same range, so there's no unreachable sniping. LTs can't ram a floating target. [Nother new one]It can help the devs work out whether boat should or should not be added [someone told me you guys were adding them, if you aren't then this don't matter v:Dv] Against: Can make a bridge out of them [Lol, right...] It just needs a lower cannon angle [That's added, and it still won't make the AFV less of a fatass target] It can retreat anywhere, even places that aren't normally accessible. It won't fix it's vulnerability [I disagree, in the water it would probably float with everything apart from the turret underwater, making it stealthy and has a very good cannon angle range down that low.] Realism In General I can't remember any more. One of the main points is that the AFV is the problem, we want to make the AFV more useful, not the APC, APCs are already brilliant enough, they spawn troops, carry 8, have massive MGs, decent armor, what more do they need! AFVs have armor, true, but they don't have much else.
Well I admit it'd be a nice feature to add, but when you have a discussion of LT vs AFV, I bet people would still say it sucks. Theres enough discussion on this forum where people will say "but X has X feature! Which can be very useful!" but in the end everyone will agree it still sucks vs the best things in the game.
True. So the verdict, no? EDIT: The difference between the LT and AFV was for a reason, LTs were for combat, and AFVs were for troop carrying/combat roles. A mixture of tank and APC [as obviously stated]. So making the AFV into an LT, that wouldn't please me, or a bunch of other people [you and the devs included] so we should be striving to add something that adds to it's role...
If you think the AFV is bad, do the following: 1: Get a good engine, say, 3 Phase. 2: Ram the side of a NF LT. 3: Enjoy the show as it flips and its driver freaks out.
If you think the AFV is good, do the following: 1: Fight a competent light driver. 2: Try to aim low enough to hit it. 3: Die when you only removed 2 layers of armor for the light. Light tank drives away laughing.
If I have a big enough unblocked area I can quite easily stump a BE heavy with dual rail guns or high explosive cannons with a composite/reflective/reactive light tank.
The LT is wide and easy to hit and if you keep your front facing him and shoot while driving backwards.. The shells you shoot make you go as fast as him and the AFV is slim enough when facing the LT to be a hard target.. Krenzo already gave the AFV the ability to aim lower.. It seems like the only time you cant aim low enough to hit it is when he rams you, and I think you can't hit any tank that rams you unless you back up regardless what tank you or the enemy is in. I like the idea of making them more for troop transport but I disagree that they are unbalanced(maybe a research for an AFV spawn?).. I think you guys have just been getting ganged up on by multiple LTs. Thats the only time I see them take out a competent AFV driver. :D
