Vulcan isn't really a mix of any guns. The gyroscope, the long-ish range, and the insane vertical auto-aims, not to mention the overheating and unlimited clip aspect, make it pretty unique. Calling Vulcan a mix of two guns is like calling Hammer a cross between Thunder and Ricochet.

Viking players usually fill a completely different role than Hunter players. Whereas Viking shines (I'm talking about CTF here, I'll get to other modes in a minute) as a camper and in midfield-ish positions, Hunter functions as a rover or flag carrier. In TDM, Viking is still a camping hull, and Hunter is suited more for flushing enemies out of their positions into enemy fire, since it has enough speed to cover a lot of ground without being too exposed to enemies, and still enough health to make a camper think twice about a 1v1 face-off. In DM, Viking is (again) the camping hull, able to take out several enemies by itself. Hunter is more of a rover, using its extra speed and maneuvering to avoid dying too quickly, and making sure to kill at least one enemy per life. In CP, Viking is more useful for holding the point, whereas Hunter is more useful for taking it in the first point (Unless you're on Polygon, in which case I wouldn't use Viking due to the campers on higher ground, which Viking can't tilt to hit because it's too stable).

Actually, the M3 version is the most balanced version of Viking in comparison to Hunter. M0 Viking is better than M0 Hunter, M1 Viking is definitely worse (Less armor and less speed), M2 Viking is exceptionally better, and then there's M3. Its stats are very close to those of Hunter, and the only major differences between the two hulls are their respective uses in battles. This really depends on which turret you prefer to use, since long and mid-range turrets do very well on Viking, such as Railgun and Ricochet, and basically any turret goes well on Hunter, but the shorter range turrets and Railgun do very well. So really, it just depends on what you want to use...

Those stats are ridiculously overpowered, and the idea is far from original. This thing would basically replace both twins and vulcan, unless you made yourself take damage for every shot fired from the turret, and even then, druggers and teams with pocket isidas would still reign.

More noticeable tracers would be nice. I'm still trying to decide on something unique for the acidex. My current choices look like: 1) Increases damage done to hull 2) Slows reload speed 3) On death, leaves a pool of acid that deals damage to enemy tanks that drive through it. 3a) Instead of damage, slows tanks by corroding their treads.

So it's a medium hull, right? Cuz that sounds right for a hovercraft, since hovering vehicles wouldn't be super fast (aside from that train, cuz the train operates in a vacuum tube so...) Explanation is good, but can it flip when using something like Vulcan, which can flip itself while mounted on a Viking while falling through the air. If it cannot flip while in the air, then it becomes pretty crazy while used with the Vulcan...

Well yeah, but Vulcan wasn't impossible to aim, and the players knew what they were getting into since the gun's description was in the garage. This gun would be very difficult to aim until you got the hang of it after practicing for a long time with it. I really think there should be some sort of minimal indicator for where the shell will hit. It doesn't have to be super precise, but should give an approximate location of where the shell will hit. Eventually players will be able to predict more accurately than the indicator, but the indicator helps to make that prediction. I just think it would be necessary in order to play with the mortar, similar to the shaft's scope being able to move up and down instead of following the normal turret movement line, the shaft is just unusable without that aspect.

Well, players starting off with the gun wouldn't be able to aim it at all. There's gotta be at least some indicator of (approximately) where it will hit. A large-ish target that moves away from the player in the direction they're aiming could work, as it would become difficult to see it, and the shell wouldn't land exactly on top of the bulls-eye of the target.

Well, it seems like it would be extremely hard to aim without something like shaft's scope, so maybe a laser-guided arc visible only to the artillery player (since the projectile speed is so slow, giving opponents the opportunity to see and then dodge it would make it useless).

Where did you hear this BSG?

Could you give some actual numbers instead of comparisons? I just think it would help visualize the whole thing.

We need this.

I'd really like to see a Mortar-style turret in the game. This is the best (most balanced and accurate) description of a possible mortar turret I've seen yet. Thunder wouldn't do the same thing as the mortar. For starters, Thunder's damage decreases as its range increases. Also, Thunder would be unable to hit the same targets as a mortar, since its line of fire is completely straight, and only affects the target if the shell explodes on a wall near them, which isn't always an option. Mortar would be more powerful, and longer range, but much more difficult to aim, and would be used for defending or for suppressing fire, whereas Thunder is used more for crowd control and midfield roles.

Like the acidex. Or the net launcher I thought up earlier in the thread (I thought that would be fun, but it didn't get too much feedback) Wouldn't it also be nice to get a 3-shot burst turret? Medium ranged, above average impact force (total, not per hit), average damage, and average reload? Not gonna include stats cuz that would require research and it's late right now. Maybe later if I get some likes. Also, did you not read the Area 51 Turret? That thing looks awesome!

He actually provided good reasoning for his claim, and you only made fun of him. Firebird actually is pretty OP, and not just the M1 version. Thunder, on the other hand, is very UP, since it takes *3* hits on average to destroy a wasp, during which time that same wasp can charge the Thunder and kill it with an isida, firebird, freeze, hammer, ricochet, or smoky. Seriously, any of these could do the job faster than the Thunder. Not to mention the impact force from the hammer, rico, and smoky forcing the Thunder to miss a shot. Ricochet's bouncing shots aren't necessarily OP, but combined with great stats Ricochet's a superb weapon, bordering on OP. I wouldn't say that it's that good though. Seriously though, I'd like to see Firebird rebalanced...