-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Goliath chain guns are no more 'serious' than Viking chain guns. The Marine is using the same weaponry. The Marauder is using high impact grenades that deal more damage than the Vultures concussion grenades. The Hellion's flamethrower is bigger than the firebats.
Just calling the SC2 versions 'weak' or 'wierd' is your own opinion. Maybe it's not the units that need to be changed, but your outlook on the units. By all means, all the weaponry involved are improved versions of previous technology. The 'nerfed' siege tank damage is explained by better pathing in SC2, which clumps units more closely together. This means enemy units will be taking MORE splash damage. Overall, the siege tanks are dealing similar damage to their previous incarnation. This is similar to the change in workers mining rate, due to better pathing.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pandonetho
Not me, I couldn't care less if it used wheels, my problem is with the unit's main body.
That's fine, I see no problem with the main body myself.
Quote:
That's assuming that repairing the vehicle would be faster and cheaper than just all together assembly line manufacturing a new one.
Depending on the damage you'd have to take it apart and see what's broken or dented, make specific changes or scrap certain parts to be replaced by custom parts.
It always is; unless you seriously think IRL that an M1 Abrams with a damaged main gun should just be left in the desert to rust and a new one ordered up from Lima. Recovering and refurbishing a damaged vehicle will always require less resources than being forced to build an entirely new one from scratch.
Quote:
I didn't see anything exciting there. Just a helicopter shooting some missles and some jets dropping some flares. And I was talking more along the lines of gameplay and lore. Gameplay wise, using jets and whatever have already been done, there's nothing new and exciting about them. Lore wise if everything used treads and wheels it would be boring to imagine.
Then you have a pretty poor imagination. Plenty of "exciting" things can be done with sensible military designs. Excitement does not require that you act stupid in the process.
Quote:
Technically shouldn't hover crafts have the ability to go over water as well? Also, the AK47 trades power for accuracy, so there's always going to be a tradeoff. If SC has engines capable of keeping battlecruisers up in the sky in atmospheres, then I'm pretty damn sure you can expect near 100% reliability from something of a much simpler design than a battlecruiser's technology.
That depends on how Terran anti-grav works. And your assumption is baseless, just because a piece of tech can be made smaller doesn't mean it is suddenly fool-proof. Anti-gravity is still going to be vastly more complex system, with more moving parts, which requires a constant power supply to maintain the effect, then treads or wheels. And this is ignoring failures caused by battle damage.
Quote:
I'm going to assume that with hovercraft technology, traversing terrain will be smooth without all the bumps of rocks and uneven ground. Aiming a machine gun in that case would be much more easy than if you were on a jeep. Also, if weapons COULD be swapped, a flamethrower would be vastly inferior to a machine gun anyway, which has a longer range. Why bring such a weak vehicle into close range with a flamethrower?
Again, from where do you get such an assumption? As for weaponry, flamethrower has advantages over a machine gun in certain situations; they are good for clearing out enclosed spaces and causing destruction across a wider area. They also have psychological effects which a dictatorship like Mengsk would appreciate.
Quote:
And clearly it's the future, I'm pretty sure they've reduced the chances of such parts breaking down to molecular chances. Also, for a vehicles like the vulture which is cheap, mass produced and has a simple role, scouting, I don't possibly see how wheels could do a better job.
More baseless assumptions. As for wheels vs. anti-grav, again it's a question of reliability and ease of manufacture.
Quote:
Maybe, but one goliath or two, or a tank or whatever in SC is not going to save you.
Why the false dilemma? Either you only save a few or you don't bother at all?
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
That's fine, I see no problem with the main body myself.
That's because you're always thinking in terms of realism whereas people who have more of an imagination than just placing 100% real life aspects into future sci fi games actually look at other things, such as the rule of cool.
Quote:
It always is; unless you seriously think IRL that an M1 Abrams with a damaged main gun should just be left in the desert to rust and a new one ordered up from Lima. Recovering and refurbishing a damaged vehicle will always require less resources than being forced to build an entirely new one from scratch.
Fine, hovercraft would suffer from not being able to be dragged home to be repaired.
So how are tanks repaired if their treads get ruined? They're pulled back on busted treads?
Quote:
Then you have a pretty poor imagination. Plenty of "exciting" things can be done with sensible military designs. Excitement does not require that you act stupid in the process.
Yes, plenty of "exciting" things that we've already seen a thousand times in the movies.
Quote:
That depends on how Terran anti-grav works. And your assumption is baseless, just because a piece of tech can be made smaller doesn't mean it is suddenly fool-proof. Anti-gravity is still going to be vastly more complex system, with more moving parts, which requires a constant power supply to maintain the effect, then treads or wheels. And this is ignoring failures caused by battle damage.
And you're not assuming things yourself? We'll always have to assume in sci fi games where nothing is solid evidence. You're assuming that just because hovercraft technology is a hundred times more complex than making a wheel, that it's not worth replacing the wheel for. Even though you have no idea itself how reliable the technology is, as well as not knowing whether the benefits of being faster and not suffering from rugged terrain justify replacing the wheel 500 years into the future where Flying machines can turn invisible and Battlecruisers which should be using nuclear power to power themselves can still reserve nuclear energy to use the yamato cannon.
Quote:
Again, from where do you get such an assumption? As for weaponry, flamethrower has advantages over a machine gun in certain situations; they are good for clearing out enclosed spaces and causing destruction across a wider area. They also have psychological effects which a dictatorship like Mengsk would appreciate.
I'm fine with the flamethrower, I don't have a problem with it, but using it for psychological effects is completely useless against anyone but other Terrans.
Quote:
More baseless assumptions. As for wheels vs. anti-grav, again it's a question of reliability and ease of manufacture.
Seems to me we have no evidence to suggest that the Vulture is at all hard to manufacture, and game evidence that they're extremely easy to mass produce and manufacture, costing 75 minerals, no gas, and not requiring any additional research technology or machine shops.
Quote:
Why the false dilemma? Either you only save a few or you don't bother at all?
You could save a few but I doubt it would do you any good. That's beside the point though, so you can't save a goliath because it has legs, how are you going to save a tank if it's dead on power? Drag it on its treads by tying a string to it and pulling?
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pandonetho
Seems to me we have no evidence to suggest that the Vulture is at all hard to manufacture, and game evidence that they're extremely easy to mass produce and manufacture, costing 75 minerals, no gas, and not requiring any additional research technology or machine shops.
Difficulty of manufacture is just speculation/a logical excuse to explain why Vultures are no longer in multiplayer and have been replaced tech-tree-wise by the Hellion.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Difficulty of manufacture is just speculation/a logical excuse to explain why Vultures are no longer in multiplayer and have been replaced tech-tree-wise by the Hellion.
And now we also have transforming mechs to replace the goliath don't we?
The Hellion is obviously easier to manufacture, that doesn't mean the Vulture was hard to manufacture. And for the last time, I don't care about the realistic aspects of the Hellion, I just care about the art which is getting redesigned anyway so yay me.
Oh one more thing, hover vehicles don't suffer from mines, units with wheels and treads do. Realistically speaking, lurkers without any recon shouldn't even know when hover vehicles are nearby as they have no means of "feeling" them.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pandonetho
And now we also have transforming mechs to replace the goliath don't we?
Precisely. There aren't any 'realistic' explanations for their absence. At best, there are just tacked on ones like Dragoons needing special shrines, etc. The real reason is that they wanted to change the tech tree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pandonetho
The Hellion is obviously easier to manufacture, that doesn't mean the Vulture was hard to manufacture. And for the last time, I don't care about the realistic aspects of the Hellion, I just care about the art which is getting redesigned anyway so yay me.
Since the unit's role/function is going to be fundamentally different, they might as well completely design a new unit rather than modifying the Vulture. Also, there are people who think buggies are cool (even if a little generic; which is again fine especially seeing how it's the Reactor-capable/mass-producible unit for the Factory).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pandonetho
Oh one more thing, hover vehicles don't suffer from mines, units with wheels and treads do. Realistically speaking, lurkers without any recon shouldn't even know when hover vehicles are nearby as they have no means of "feeling" them.
That's only if Spider Mines are pressure-sensitive mines. There are many other possible mechanisms such as motion-sensored mines.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mr. peasant
That's only if Spider Mines are pressure-sensitive mines. There are many other possible mechanisms such as motion-sensored mines.
I'm pretty sure we can safely rule that out given that Spider Mines aren't triggered by motion in the game, but by presence of non-hovering units. :p
I've been drawing up some concepts of an alternate Hellion model... and I think I might have stumbled across one of my biggest problems with the design, as strange as it sounds.
It's the flamethrower itself -- a fragile little thing sticking out from the unit that looks like it would come off from a single stray Gauss rifle shell. What if instead of shooting the flame from the top, the unit had two separate flames come out of its sides -- so from underneath -- and converge on the target?
And while we're at it, if we take the new Vulture design, attach a propane tank to either side of its 'beak' with long funnels directed toward the enemy unit, I think that really might work. Mind you, there would have to be some thick glass protecting the pilot from flames redirected by the wind, or somesuch, but... it has potential.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
How about the Hellion, instead of using a flamethrower, shoots incendiary grenades? Low-range splash damage, and it makes sense against the Zerg, which is the only reason (I assume) the Terrans are using it.
It's basically the vulture with wheels at that point, but it's still different enough to be unique.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Muspelli
How about the Hellion, instead of using a flamethrower, shoots incendiary grenades? Low-range splash damage, and it makes sense against the Zerg, which is the only reason (I assume) the Terrans are using it.
It's basically the vulture with wheels at that point, but it's still different enough to be unique.
Well, most people like the Hellion's gameplay but not its appearance, so this is kind of fixing what ain't broke, and breaking what's fixed. :confused:
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
Well, most people like the Hellion's gameplay but not its appearance, so this is kind of fixing what ain't broke, and breaking what's fixed. :confused:
Oh, sorry. I got that backwards.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
I'm pretty sure we can safely rule that out given that Spider Mines aren't triggered by motion in the game, but by presence of non-hovering units. :p
I've been drawing up some concepts of an alternate Hellion model... and I think I might have stumbled across one of my biggest problems with the design, as strange as it sounds.
It's the flamethrower itself -- a fragile little thing sticking out from the unit that looks like it would come off from a single stray Gauss rifle shell. What if instead of shooting the flame from the top, the unit had two separate flames come out of its sides -- so from underneath -- and converge on the target?
And while we're at it, if we take the new Vulture design, attach a propane tank to either side of its 'beak' with long funnels directed toward the enemy unit, I think that really might work. Mind you, there would have to be some thick glass protecting the pilot from flames redirected by the wind, or somesuch, but... it has potential.
I think you've pretty much put the finger on it. The flamethrower on the top of the Hellion indeed looks tacky.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eligor
I think you've pretty much put the finger on it. The flamethrower on the top of the Hellion indeed looks tacky.
About that: I think much of the design of the Hellion is largely based around the design of the Desert Patrol Vehicles that Navy SEALs currently employ which includes a gun similarly positioned.
http://www.americanspecialops.com/im.../seals-fav.jpg
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mr. peasant
Yes, but it doesn't stick out quite the same way as the Hellion's gun, which really looks tacked onto the vehicle (much like a toy).
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Blizzard is no stranger to direct copying of other franchises. Why not stick with what works :D
http://host.trivialbeing.org/up/smal...rthog01USE.jpg
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArcherofAiur
Well, they already have the Stinger established in lore, which some would likely say is influenced by the "Puma". Also, I bet DemolitionSquid will most likely come in saying how they should have put the Stinger in the game due to his suggestion aeons ago. :p
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Stinger
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kacaier
Well, they already have the Stinger established in lore, which some would likely say is influenced by the "Puma". Also, I bet DemolitionSquid will most likely come in saying how they should have put the Stinger in the game due to his suggestion aeons ago. :p
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Stinger
LOL looking at the stinger model makes me feel allot better about the current hellion model.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kacaier
Well, they already have the Stinger established in lore, which some would likely say is influenced by the "Puma". Also, I bet DemolitionSquid will most likely come in saying how they should have put the Stinger in the game due to his suggestion aeons ago. :p
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Stinger
Was anyone complaining about the fact that the Stinger is a jeep when StarCraft: Ghost was still being made?
Why not just use that model, and make it shoot fire? It is certainly better than the Hellion.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArcherofAiur
Don't see why people would complain seeing as how the design was good enough for Blackwater (the military contractors) to copy:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5seys6Shk6...%2BVehicle.jpg
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kacaier
DemolitionSquid will most likely come in saying how they should have put the Stinger in the game due to his suggestion aeons ago. :p
Damn straight.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Muspelli
Was anyone complaining about the fact that the Stinger is a jeep when StarCraft: Ghost was still being made?
Why not just use that model, and make it shoot fire? It is certainly better than the Hellion.
No, no fire. Just as it is. That would be awesome!
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pandonetho
Edit: WTF? No one has mentioned that goliath? I just noticed it. I also noticed the blue lightning-ish attack for the Diamondback, I'm pretty pleased.
Way too late to be mentioning this, but are those goliaths? Not vikings?
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArcherofAiur
The design is older than that, it dates back to WW1, thus it's a tried and tested design.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
You guys know what? The Diamondback model looks the same as the Cobra model from the Terran release video... and you know whats funny? That alot of people here who say that Diamondback looks cool were saying that the Cobra looks like shit...now isn't this hypocrisy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kimera757
Way too late to be mentioning this, but are those goliaths? Not vikings?
yes those are Goliaths
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spychi
That alot of people here who say that Diamondback looks cool were saying that the Cobra looks like shit...now isn't this hypocrisy?
Not hypocrisy, just inconsistency. And hating the Hellion enough to want to bring back the Cobra design simply because it levitates...
I still like the Hellion. If they want to touch it up a bit, then fine, but I don't think any of the art at this point needs major reworks. (But look at the new Lurker, I'm pretty sure that's just a redo of the old Lurker model, and it looks great. So they can do pretty amazing things just with a retexture.)
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Honestly there were few unit models that I hate in the past but right now I don't understand the whole hate at the Hellion and Thor.
Those are great and useful units with nice models. The Hellion fits to the lore, as we all know that Terrans like buggy/motor-cycle-like vehicles.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
spychi
You guys know what? The Diamondback model looks the same as the Cobra model from the Terran release video... and you know whats funny? That alot of people here who say that Diamondback looks cool were saying that the Cobra looks like shit...now isn't this hypocrisy?
s
well im not sure about that. not everyone hated the cobra, in fact people didn't really care. But from the looks alone the cobra seems a little bland and lacking so thats why it was gone but just for a moment.
Apparently in case of the hellion, some/most hated the moment it was revealed bcoz of its buggy design alone and now more people realized that the buggy could still get better or maybe needs to be changed completely to something else maybe like a hover car like the cobra.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mr. peasant
About that: I think much of the design of the Hellion is largely based around the design of the
Desert Patrol Vehicles that Navy SEALs currently employ which includes a gun similarly positioned.
The difference, as Eligor mentioned, is that in the design you show the machine gun takes up like half of the image. From above, your view would be, predominantly, of a big-ass gun on wheels.
The Hellion's design is of a big-ass buggy with a tiny fragile turret attached to the roof.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
The Hellion's design is of a big-ass buggy with a tiny fragile turret attached to the roof.
That's for unit recognition and silhouette purposes. A large gun on a turret will significantly change the silhouette of the unit as it points at other targets. It'd be better to not have that.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
That's for unit recognition and silhouette purposes. A large gun on a turret will significantly change the silhouette of the unit as it points at other targets. It'd be better to not have that.
Right, because we all know the Goliath and the Siege tank don't do this.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
The difference, as Eligor mentioned, is that in the design you show the machine gun takes up like half of the image. From above, your view would be, predominantly, of a big-ass gun on wheels.
The Hellion's design is of a big-ass buggy with a tiny fragile turret attached to the roof.
Actually, the Hellion's gun is pretty large as it is. Any longer and it would look too front-heavy.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/st...2_DevRend1.jpg
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
You have to remember, Terran is a mix between piece meal units that were built to respond quickly and high tech units. Look at the new Sci Ves, it almost looks super clean and years ahead of any other Terran unit. All in all I like the direction of the art design and where it is headed. Just need to get into the beta.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
The reason Nighthawk looks clean and sleek is because it a covert ops unit.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mr. peasant
Actually, the Hellion's gun is pretty large as it is. Any longer and it would look too front-heavy.
I refer the discussion back to the image you originally posted:
http://www.americanspecialops.com/im.../seals-fav.jpg
That is decidedly not front-heavy. But you can't ignore that the gun is, proportionately, three or four times larger than the turret on the Hellion.
In any case; as I proposed earlier, a solution isn't necessarily to make the gun as big as possible. If we remove the turret completely, and instead line the sides of the Hellion with propane tanks, with tubes stretched out to point where the unit is facing, I think that would look a lot more interesting.
Alternately, doing the same for the Vulture model: attach a propane tank to either side of the beak, with extending tubes to funnel flames at units directly ahead.
It's not so much about intimidation or even practicality as it is about giving the unit a unique and interesting design. A fragile-seeming gun attached to the very top of a vehicle is hardly anything we haven't seen before.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
I disagree. The gun in that pic is longer, maybe, but the Hellion's flamer is of a much larger bore.
I'm gonna side with Mr.Peasant on this one. If the Hellion's gun were any larger, it would look comic and unbalanced.
Still, I understand where you're coming from. Perhaps a compromise? Two flamers set in parallel, maybe?
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
One issue I can see is weight distribution. Currently, much of the Hellion's weight is over its rear wheels while the front ones are out on spars. Maybe it would appear less dinky and comical if some of the weight were moved forward.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pandonetho
That's because you're always thinking in terms of realism whereas people who have more of an imagination than just placing 100% real life aspects into future sci fi games actually look at other things, such as the rule of cool.
Rule of Cool falls flat when the thing being defended by it usually isn't all that cool. You can craft things so that certain ideas work where otherwise they would not make sense, but that can only so far until the idiocy of the idea outshines any "cool" aspect of it. Meanwhile, that pesky "realism" gives us plenty of scifi-y things like power suits, laser cannons, optical camouflage, sonic weaponry and heat ray guns! (the Martians must be so pissed we stole their shit). I suspect if you ever read any "hard" scifi you will fine plenty of new exciting things being used to create compelling stories.
Quote:
Fine, hovercraft would suffer from not being able to be dragged home to be repaired.
So how are tanks repaired if their treads get ruined? They're pulled back on busted treads?
Tracks can be replaced in the field, but if other parts of the drive system are damaged, that's exactly what happens. The tracks help make pulling the sixty-ton vehicle that much easier.
Quote:
And you're not assuming things yourself? We'll always have to assume in sci fi games where nothing is solid evidence. You're assuming that just because hovercraft technology is a hundred times more complex than making a wheel, that it's not worth replacing the wheel for. Even though you have no idea itself how reliable the technology is, as well as not knowing whether the benefits of being faster and not suffering from rugged terrain justify replacing the wheel 500 years into the future where Flying machines can turn invisible and Battlecruisers which should be using nuclear power to power themselves can still reserve nuclear energy to use the yamato cannon.
The assumptions I make are based on very basic principles; i.e., anti-grav only works when the generator is being powered; wheels are always "on" and do not require additional power than necessary. The whole point of this argument is that even with anti-grav tech, there are plenty of reasons and situations where using a more traditional drive system would be more advantageous.
For an in-universe situation, traveling over Zerg Creep. When Mike and Kerrigan drove their Vulture hover bike over Zerg Creep in Liberty's Crusade the hover unit couldn't find any traction, and the thing slid into a crash. A wheeled vehicle would not have that problem. If you expect to be fighting the Zerg, then having your scout units rendered impotent is not a good idea.
Quote:
I'm fine with the flamethrower, I don't have a problem with it, but using it for psychological effects is completely useless against anyone but other Terrans.
And that matters in situations where you are fighting other Terrans? Besides which, for the past four years the Dominion has been spending most of its time putting down human rebels, and it still has to contend with two other human powers in the sector.
Quote:
Seems to me we have no evidence to suggest that the Vulture is at all hard to manufacture, and game evidence that they're extremely easy to mass produce and manufacture, costing 75 minerals, no gas, and not requiring any additional research technology or machine shops.
Again, this has nothing to do with how hard or not a Vulture is to manufacture, it has everything to do with the method by which it is propelled.
Quote:
You could save a few but I doubt it would do you any good. That's beside the point though, so you can't save a goliath because it has legs, how are you going to save a tank if it's dead on power? Drag it on its treads by tying a string to it and pulling?
Why yes, in fact, you can. Your thinking goes against the very reason armies like the US maintain fleets of recovery vehicles like the M88. Of course, even a tank that has its entire drive system shot out and can't be recovered can still act as an improvised pillbox; a Goliath that loses a leg and falls over can't even continue using its weapons to fight off the enemy.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
When Mike and Kerrigan drove their Vulture hover bike over Zerg Creep in Liberty's Crusade the hover unit couldn't find any traction, and the thing slid into a crash.
What? A hover vehicle couldn't get traction and slid?
And people actually talk about the realism in this universe?
Quote:
A wheeled vehicle would not have that problem.
No. Hovering vehicles should be able to hover over any surface; that's usually the point of them. There is no surface-to-vehicle contact, so the idea that a Vulture should slide due to being over the Creep is asinine.
However, a wheeled vehicle does need traction. And thus it could lose traction on a slippery surface like Creep.
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicol Bolas
No. Hovering vehicles should be able to hover over any surface; that's usually the point of them. There is no surface-to-vehicle contact, so the idea that a Vulture should slide due to being over the Creep is asinine.
However, a wheeled vehicle does need traction. And thus it could lose traction on a slippery surface like Creep.
Actually, the really asinine thing is that the Vulture doesn't slide under normal circumstances, I mean given that it has no contact with any surface (even a hovercraft has some friction where the skirt touches the ground, and a lot more if the skirt deflates, say when it's braking).
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Actually, the really asinine thing is that the Vulture doesn't slide under normal circumstances, I mean given that it has no contact with any surface (even a hovercraft has some friction where the skirt touches the ground, and a lot more if the skirt deflates, say when it's braking).
I'm pretty sure the italics emphasizing the word 'slide' were meant to say exactly that. :D
-
Re: Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
I'm pretty sure the italics emphasizing the word 'slide' were meant to say exactly that. :D
And I didn't quote the part with the italics in. Besides, my point still stands, the Vulture has no contact with the ground, and thus slides everywhere anyway.
