Vehicle hard point system

[DviddLeff]

Over the past years I have put together this system which allows players to customise their vehicle chassis to a particular role on the battlefield. I posted it here in its basic from back in 2009 after the survey, but since then I have put together my Planetside Upgrade Project website and refined the concept as I did so.

The system stems from the BFR style system where they can customise their vehicle to a particular role, something which is incredibly interesting as it would allow players to try out new tactics across all vehicle types.

Today I went back over the system and improved the presentation on its page on the PUP site to make it a lot easier to look over quickly.

Here is the link:

https://sites.google.com/site/planetsideupgradeproject/phase-3/vehicle-hardpoint-system

Ultimately I would like to see a similar system in PSN.

[Bags]

"This content cannot be displayed in a frame









To protect your security, the publisher of this content does not allow it to be displayed in a frame.





Click here to open this content in a new window"

Oh, and I think the NC should be able to stick particle cannons on everything!

[DviddLeff]

Right, should be fixed so you can actually see the spreadsheet bits :D

Now that you can see them, you will see that only vehicles with heavy hard points could equip a particle cannon. So the NC could stick one on only those vehicles with what I have judged to have one, such as the BFR, Van and the Lib.

Following my vehicle overhauls other vehicles could also have them such as the AMS which could replace the cloaking bubble with a heavy weapon.

[Bags]

I was joking as particle cannon is ridiculously overpowered. The other faction's heavy gun doesn't even come close.

[DviddLeff]

Yeah it is, if I had my way with it I would reduce it's DPS to probably 2/3 of it's current status.

[Bags]

Still the only BFR weapon I find fun to use.

I'm not sure how I feel about this system. Could be OK, but I feel like we should KISS. Why fix what isn't terribly broken? :/

[DviddLeff]

Because MMOs need depth. Planetside takes a few months at most to master, and each individual role significantly less time than that. This system gives players more options for their kit which allows them to spend more time finding and perfecting their playstyle.

Planetside itself is stale, I hope PSN shakes things up.

[Bags]

Adding more weapons doesn't add any depth.

[Gogita]

I'm worried that vehicles will lose their own style... Every vehicle has a certain role in planetside. If players were able to change the weapon setup of vehicles, all the vehicles can more or less fit in every role.

I wouldn't want that if you spot an enemy vehicle, you also have to see first what weapons it has. Right now it is the case if you see a certain vehicle, you know what you can expect from it, which is nice.

[CutterJohn]

I wouldn't want that if you spot an enemy vehicle, you also have to see first what weapons it has. Right now it is the case if you see a certain vehicle, you know what you can expect from it, which is nice.

Then maybe we should have multiple styles of infantry armors, so that you can immediately recognize what kind of gun they are using?

As it stands, you really have no clue what a soldier has equipped. You can often guess based on position.. A MAX out in the field likely does not have AI weapons installed, but you don't know for certain.

And if the additional weapons had a cert cost, while the basic weapon came free with the vehicle, you would still have an idea of what to expect, though it wouldn't be absolute. Additionally, as time goes on people will figure out the optimal combos of weapons and vehicles, which will also allow you to learn what you are likely to run into.

Ideally(imo) is having people specialize in a particular vehicle or set of vehicles as much as people specialize in being a soldier. If someone wants to be the ultimate tanker, there would be a variety of certs available to upgrade/alter the abilities and capabilities of that person in a tank.

I'd love even more vehicle customization that simply guns, tbh. Maybe an equipment slot that offers countermeasures or capabilities you can cert and install, such as a self repair mechanism, temporary invulnerability shield(like BF2142 had on the tanks), a radar, a camouflage system that perhaps makes you look like a rock when immobile.. Lots of stuff.

Wheels too. Select treads if you want good climbing ability and lots of low end torque. Wheels if you want high speeds. Hoverballs or something to give you strafing abilities and allow you to cross water. On snow maps, front wheel skis and back wheel treads could be nice.

Don't get me wrong, PS vehicle combat was great, but you peaked on capabilities very quickly. If all you did was drive tanks, well, you could be a 100% effective tank driver day one. Cert tanks, cert engy, get the advanced targeting implant. And you're done.

Compare that to all of the equipment a grunt got to choose from.

[Furret]

I feel like this idea comes very very close to what people hated about BFRs. One man armies that could really deal with anything.

Now before everyone goes crazy, its obviously not quite the same thing, but if you can equip a vehicle with an AA gun, an AV gun, and an AI gun, and be able to deal with anything. I think it would change the game to a less large scale coordination to a lot of small coordinated groups. Back when I played, the optimal size for a group was a full platoon, because you could really get some of everything.

If the hardpoints become a reality, everyone will use a deliverer or some variant and cert AA/AV/AI and you'll have a lot of groups of four running around killing each other instead of the more massive aspect of PS 1.

I think there's a way to balance the hardpoint system to make it work (and actually be quite cool) but I can't think of it right now, probably because its 1 in the morning.

[Bags]

Then maybe we should have multiple styles of infantry armors, so that you can immediately recognize what kind of gun they are using?

As it stands, you really have no clue what a soldier has equipped. You can often guess based on position.. A MAX out in the field likely does not have AI weapons installed, but you don't know for certain.

And if the additional weapons had a cert cost, while the basic weapon came free with the vehicle, you would still have an idea of what to expect, though it wouldn't be absolute. Additionally, as time goes on people will figure out the optimal combos of weapons and vehicles, which will also allow you to learn what you are likely to run into.

Ideally(imo) is having people specialize in a particular vehicle or set of vehicles as much as people specialize in being a soldier. If someone wants to be the ultimate tanker, there would be a variety of certs available to upgrade/alter the abilities and capabilities of that person in a tank.

I'd love even more vehicle customization that simply guns, tbh. Maybe an equipment slot that offers countermeasures or capabilities you can cert and install, such as a self repair mechanism, temporary invulnerability shield(like BF2142 had on the tanks), a radar, a camouflage system that perhaps makes you look like a rock when immobile.. Lots of stuff.

Wheels too. Select treads if you want good climbing ability and lots of low end torque. Wheels if you want high speeds. Hoverballs or something to give you strafing abilities and allow you to cross water. On snow maps, front wheel skis and back wheel treads could be nice.

Don't get me wrong, PS vehicle combat was great, but you peaked on capabilities very quickly. If all you did was drive tanks, well, you could be a 100% effective tank driver day one. Cert tanks, cert engy, get the advanced targeting implant. And you're done.

Compare that to all of the equipment a grunt got to choose from.

Er, I can almost certainly tell what weapons a player has based upon their name / where they are.

If they're out and about in rexo, they most certainly have MA / ESAV.
If they're inside a building, they most certainly have ESHA / Decimators.
If their name is ZeroEnigma, they most certainly have SA.

We don't need one man vehicle armies. Certing prowler should not give you effective AV, AI, and AA.

[Sirisian]

I'm worried that vehicles will lose their own style... Every vehicle has a certain role in planetside. If players were able to change the weapon setup of vehicles, all the vehicles can more or less fit in every role.

I wouldn't want that if you spot an enemy vehicle, you also have to see first what weapons it has. Right now it is the case if you see a certain vehicle, you know what you can expect from it, which is nice.That is basically what I was going to say.

I believe that ammo choices should fill the position for configuring the loudout for a vehicle. Planetside is one of the few games that features different ammo types. I'd love to see the game spice things up with different shells for tanks like cluster, air burst, or player detonated shells where a person fires then clicks again to detonate. This could be expanded with flak bullets for machine guns along with the usual anti-infantry and anti-vehicular rounds. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. (Bombers really need this customization since choices were limited).

[DviddLeff]

Good comments guys.

Regarding vehicle choice, the driver chooses the chassis they want first; buggies for speed or tanks for staying power. Buggies would be used for fast response or quick transport, and would be cheaper cert point wise.

The problem with BFRs was not the customisable weapons, it was the shield combined with the fact they only took one or two people to use them.

The prowler as a three man vehicle should be powerful; it already is a great AI and AV machine.

[CutterJohn]

We don't need one man vehicle armies. Certing prowler should not give you effective AV, AI, and AA.

That assumes that vehicle certs would be as cheap as they are in PS, which need not be the case. It took a great deal of cert points to get a super soldier fit together, while a tank was what.. 3 or 4? If The tank was 3 or 4 certs, and the additional weapons 1 or 2 each, for that tank, players would have enough to specialize in one vehicle along with getting a decent infantry kit together.

[DviddLeff]

The way I have it is that the vehicle chassis has the cert cost which grants you the default weapons we have currently. Then as the player earns Associated merits they can pick additional weapons to unlock for that chassis. Perhaps the vehicle could also have a few common pool weapons as well

[Hamma]

I don't think a hard point system is a bad idea per say. But I do have similar concerns as everyone else.

As mentioned, every vehicle has it's role to fill which means you need a variety of players to have a variety of different vehicles.

If a hard point system did exist it would need restrictions to the weapons you could place on it. Different guns for different types of encounters for example. Or as mentioned - maybe even different ammo types could fit that role.

I think it's an awesome idea, that adds some customizability to vehicles otherwise not customizable. But I do think it will need limits to keep vehicles from filling all roles.

[CutterJohn]

The way I have it is that the vehicle chassis has the cert cost which grants you the default weapons we have currently. Then as the player earns Associated merits they can pick additional weapons to unlock for that chassis. Perhaps the vehicle could also have a few common pool weapons as well

I must say I'm not a particular fan of merits. BEP is already there to limit what you can use. The merits just end up forcing you to do X for a period of time in order to qualify for the rather different Y, which is somewhat silly.

[Bags]

Merits should have as little impact as possible in game play. Achievements are ruining games now adays as everyone just focuses on getting them instead of playing.

[Sifer2]

I always felt the reason Infantry got to choose weapon types was because they were more frail and always available. Vehicles were tougher to kill. So it made more sense for their role to be specialized. It's probably a large part of what BFR's did wrong since who ever designed them did not take this into account.

Just seems like when a vehicle can do anything that people will figure out which vehicle is the best an that's all you will see is it with different loadouts.

[CutterJohn]

I always felt the reason Infantry got to choose weapon types was because they were more frail and always available. Vehicles were tougher to kill. So it made more sense for their role to be specialized. It's probably a large part of what BFR's did wrong since who ever designed them did not take this into account.

Just seems like when a vehicle can do anything that people will figure out which vehicle is the best an that's all you will see is it with different loadouts.

But best is highly dependent on what you are trying to accomplish, terrain, and battle conditions. Were BFRs with AA better than skyguards? At surviving, perhaps. Or mobility, if you consider the FV. But they certainly weren't as lethal.

A deliverer with, say, AI grenade launchers(aurora) or AV rocket launchers(Thunderer) would probably not be preferable to a tank like the prowler or vanny for AI work. But it would certainly be preferable around a bridge.

And speaking as one who spent a disgusting amount of time in tank columns, vehicles aren't that hard to destroy, except for exposed infantry on open ground.

[Evilmp]

I don't agree with weapon hardpoints if the weapons do damage. Instead, let your implants augment the vehicle's abilities.

[Firefly]

I think a points system basically gets rid of the need for all but a handful of vehicles. I don't want to be running across a base courtyard only for some asshole in a Harasser to splash-damage me with a Vanguard main-gun.

[Hamma]

:rofl:

I agree, if it was to be done (as I said) it would have to get away from a jack of all trades mentality.

[Krushiev]

Instead of vehicle hard points, how about in open vehicles (Harasser, Skyguard, etc) the gunner could opt to use his personal weaponry, at an accuracy or RoF penalty cost, of course.

Something like out of an action film, where the gunner sticks half his body out of the passenger seat from a Harasser and uses his Striker instead of the mounted chain gun. To balance it out, if a bump is taken too hard... Ooopsie, gunner just fell out.

That would be the only middle ground that I can see to this topic, because there would definitely be a "jack of all trades" mentality that would develop if the players could switch weapon types for a vehicle.

Krush

[CutterJohn]

I think a points system basically gets rid of the need for all but a handful of vehicles. I don't want to be running across a base courtyard only for some asshole in a Harasser to splash-damage me with a Vanguard main-gun.

1. What if some asshole in a vanguard splashes you with the vanguards main gun?

2. Considering the vanny is a tank, and the harasser is at best a jeep, I doubt it would fit the same level of weaponry. Harasser has the 12mm. Suitable replacements for that would be things like the furys rocket launcher or the 75mm cannon.

Oh, one other thought. What if only the gunner could add these things? I.e. the gunner needs to be certed in the weapon system in order to pull it, while the driver needs the vehicle.

[Traak]

I don't think a hard point system is a bad idea per say. (THAT'S PER SE)

But I do have similar concerns as everyone else.

As mentioned, every vehicle has it's role to fill which means you need a variety of players to have a variety of different vehicles.

If a hard point system did exist it would need restrictions to the weapons you could place on it. Different guns for different types of encounters for example. Or as mentioned - maybe even different ammo types could fit that role.

I think it's an awesome idea, that adds some customizability to vehicles otherwise not customizable. But I do think it will need limits to keep vehicles from filling all roles.

Yeah, don't want a Reaver with rockets, bombs, OS cannon, DL-make-all-cloakers-glow pods (Plasmanades), EMP, AWACS, OMG, RQ and US.

Rage Quit and Unsubscribe were the last two.

I don't agree with weapon hardpoints if the weapons do damage. Instead, let your implants augment the vehicle's abilities.

Oh, no, not that. The Cloaker Uber-Pistols on a vehicular scale.

Big, steaming dish of NO THANK YOU.


And speaking as one who spent a disgusting amount of time in tank columns, vehicles aren't that hard to destroy, except for exposed infantry on open ground.

Which is stupid and should change. The reward for being in an armored column should be battlefield supremacy, not "sardine can for Reaver spam" crap that it is now, or even for Mossies to pick apart Scot-free.

Easy cure for Air Cav: One-shot-kill missiles. You hear the trilling of the one-shot missile, and it's either bug out, or die. I would pay 12 certs for that.

[Evilmp]

Oh, no, not that. The Cloaker Uber-Pistols on a vehicular scale.

Big, steaming dish of NO THANK YOU.

what are you talking about?

explain a little bit more as to how that situation would come about please

[DviddLeff]

If an aircraft gets hit by a tank shell it should die.

[Sirisian]

If an aircraft gets hit by a tank shell it should die.Step back think about what you're saying. It's not that hard to hit a plane with a tank shell. Also only NC and TR have tank shells. Would the round from a lightning count? Would the energy shell from a Magrider count? I used to shoot planes out of the air all the time with the Magrider. If it was one hit that would take all the fun out of it.

[stargazer093]

hmm..personally, i don`t think that vehicle hardpoint was a bad idea.. however, there MUST have some limit on what weapon can be equip on what vehicle. For example: a harraser can choose between a 12mm chaingun, a small grenade launcher, or a hellfury missile, not an 150mm cannon or heavy railbeam or whatever on tank.
As for Vanguard, beside the mighty 150cannon and twin-link 25mm gun, it can choose to equip one sponson weapon between a 12mm chaingun for anti-infantries, a hellfuty missile for additional anti-tank, or something like that._.,but not too powerful for sure. Certainly, a sponson weapon MUST require another person to use.

[DviddLeff]

Step back think about what you're saying. It's not that hard to hit a plane with a tank shell. Also only NC and TR have tank shells. Would the round from a lightning count? Would the energy shell from a Magrider count? I used to shoot planes out of the air all the time with the Magrider. If it was one hit that would take all the fun out of it.

Maybe not for the larger vehicles like the Gal or Lode, but if you get hit by a tank shell while in air cav, you are doing something wrong or are just damned unlucky. The Mags gun is fine as is against aircraft however, underpowered against infantry yes, but not aircraft.

Check out the link stargazer, you will see that I have given each vehicle light, medium or heavy hard points which restrict the weapons they can equip.

So no 150mm cannons on an ATV.

[Raymac]

Maybe not for the larger vehicles like the Gal or Lode, but if you get hit by a tank shell while in air cav, you are doing something wrong or are just damned unlucky. The Mags gun is fine as is against aircraft however, underpowered against infantry yes, but not aircraft.

Check out the link stargazer, you will see that I have given each vehicle light, medium or heavy hard points which restrict the weapons they can equip.

So no 150mm cannons on an ATV.

Yeah, there are alot of good Mag gunners out there that could nail my Reaver from an impressive distance. That thing already did alot of damage that would make me drastically change my tactics against it, so a 1-shot kill would be a little too much.

But if I got clipped by a Prowler or Vanguard cannon, well, it was probably because I fly into point blank range and came to a near stop so I could roacket spam some more. I wouldn't mind getting 1 shotted in a situation like that.

[CutterJohn]

Check out the link stargazer, you will see that I have given each vehicle light, medium or heavy hard points which restrict the weapons they can equip.

Still not a perfect system, though. Example. Skyguard. Has 1 light, 1 medium.

But so does the lightning.

Who would ever take the skyguard for AA duties again, when you have a vehicle that could sit in the back lines, be an ideal AA turret, then move out at max speed when encountering a threat. Granted, I dreamed of being able to do that constantly while playing, but it would probably be unhealthy. :)

So its not like it can be an easy copy paste operation. There would definitely need to be more to the balance than that. I would expect some weapons to be unique to a vehicle, and some to be be denied to a vehicle.

Though I would be fine with tossing the skyguard entirely and just fitting those weapons on a normal buggy. It was an ugly model anyway. :D

[DviddLeff]

Changing the lightning to a two man vehicle as they are doing with the reaver would work

[Aractain]

Lightning is a mossie analog, Reaver is tank analog so Id say fine as one man. We DO want solo options for all aspects of the game. Reliant teamwork obviously gives many advantages (for the disadvantage of reliant teamwork).

Anyway why are so many people 'scared' of a modular weapon system? Its not like you can just take any weapon and slap it on. Each one would have its own balance.

Not only that but each one would probably cost cert points anyway so there is no real difference than a seperate role unless you want different graphics (which is understandable).

Having Reaver with the option of rocket pods, cannon, bombs, missiles (lock on gunner fired) or ECM would enhance the gameplay. Its role would roughly stay the same (air to ground) but can be shifted slightly with choice. I.e. cannons make it less powerful against tanks but more able to shoot down other aircraft. It wouldn't come close to the role of (probably...?) the mossie however. Even better if each hardpoint would be indavidually configurable.

I can see the argument of "not worth it" but providing viable choices for a diverse player base is IMO the magic of Planetside after the scale and scope of the game.


We still know so little about PSN, maybe they something far superior already?

[CutterJohn]

Yeah, I wouldn't like the only solo offensive ground vehicles to be the ATVs, since I doubt the alien vehicles or FVs will be making a show. A better solution is to just make weapons specifically for each vehicle.

Or just make the flak less crazy, and ditch the skyguard. :)

[Hamma]

Anyway why are so many people 'scared' of a modular weapon system? Its not like you can just take any weapon and slap it on. Each one would have its own balance.

People seem to be afraid because they seem to think orbital strike launchers, BFG9000's and artillery cannons are going to be placed on every vehicle.

I think something like this has its place but I'm not so sure it's "Worth" the trouble of adding such a system. It would really have to be VERY closely considered and made.

In my personal opinion I doubt we will see hard points added. At least not to every vehicle.

[DviddLeff]

Agreed Hamma. Looking at the Vanguard in particular it looks like those guns are not going to be modular.

[Aractain]

True. I hope they have thought of ways to expand the game easily and usefully ahead of time though.

[kaffis]

Because MMOs need depth.
I disagree that hard points add it, though.

When talking about game design, one game I continually come back to referencing is Team Fortress 2. If you read some of the developers' blogs, and listen to the bits of commentary they've included with the game, they did a good job of letting the interested player in on a lot of their very excellent game design decisions and epiphanies.

The one that prompts me to bring this up is ready recognizability. When they were designing their game, around the time where they made the big shift in art style, one of the things they decided was that the realistic style they were releasing screenshots for around 2002/3 wasn't conducive to good gameplay. The character models for the different classes were too similar. They realized (and I fully agree) that ensuring that your player can, upon spotting an enemy, instantly evaluate what the capabilities of that enemy are leads to a more fun and engaging game experience. That's one of the reasons they went for the exaggerated and very characterful art style; it allowed them to give each of their classes a very distinct silhouette that is readily identifiable even at a distance.

This is something that I believe Planetside benefited from, and should strive to retain, as well. The vehicles are easily identified, and once you've done so, you know what you're dealing with. Modular weapon systems will run contrary to this effect, and I believe that will be a detriment to gameplay.

Right now, if I'm cruising around, mowing down some infantry in a light vehicle with a buddy, and I see a prowler crest the next rise? I know to spin the wheel and head for the hills, because it's a fight I don't want to engage in. I can identify the fights that will be to my advantage, and those that won't, and choose when and where to engage in order to both have fun and promote my success.

Now, throw a modular weapon system into the mix, and see how that affects my gameplay. There's a prowler! Should I engage, or will I get slaughtered? I don't know! He could have his AA gun loaded. Or, he could have the standard prowler gun, in which case I'm utterly screwed. What do I do?

That's not depth. That's confusion, which is bad game design. You haven't given me a new choice ("What do I do?") or layer of strategy. You've deprived me of the information to MAKE that choice.


Now, that's not to say that I don't desire variety, and a diverse array of options to allow me to find the vehicle/weapons that best fit my desired playstyle. Want to give me the option to run an AA weapon on a heavily armored vehicle? Great! Make a new vehicle, though. That way, the variety and options should just be unique enough to visually identify at a distance, without having to squint and decide whether the gun is 2/3s the normal length, or maybe it just looks shorter because it's at an angle.. and boom, I'm dead.

That assumes that vehicle certs would be as cheap as they are in PS, which need not be the case. It took a great deal of cert points to get a super soldier fit together, while a tank was what.. 3 or 4? If The tank was 3 or 4 certs, and the additional weapons 1 or 2 each, for that tank, players would have enough to specialize in one vehicle along with getting a decent infantry kit together.
Hmm. I don't want to see people specialize really deep into one or two vehicles, though. I think one of the contributing factors to the strength of Planetside's combined arms was that basically everybody had room to cert some infantry stuff, so there was never a shortage of available infantry.

I think what you'd see in your example would be that a lot of people would "specialize" in multiple vehicles, while dropping their infantry kits entirely. After all, heavy tanks aren't always available, neither are good air assault vehicles, so you want to have multiple options. And if you're in the vehicles all the time, why keep an infantry kit, when you need the points to ensure you've got effective builds for vehicles available? Now, when the courtyard is clear, though, you've got a bunch of guys certed for 3 vehicles sitting around in their tanks instead of the same guys certed for 3 vehicles jumping out to hack a console, switch armor, and storm the base.

Encouraging breadth as you advanced was a strength of Planetside.

[Bags]

That's exactly what I was thinking and a great point kaffs. I argue this a lot on the WoW forums when people suggest adding an appearance tab (letting you look like you're wearing whatever you want), and I too reference TF2's original design philosophy. It's very important to be able to tell what you're up against.

[Rbstr]

I'd find it kind of silly if you could be swapping out a Vany's 150mm for instance.

Now, changing the reaver to carry a divebomb or rockets...or swapping the vany's MG to a little grenade launcher or flamethrower is a different thing. Buggies with AT/AI swappable weapons ect.

I mean it has to make sense...modular tank main weapons isn't something you really see, because they are, to some extent, designed around them.

The real worry is that you end up with modular weapons removing an aspect of empire-specificness.

[Bags]

Not to mention there's enough AA in this game now as is... don't need to encourage even more of it.

[DviddLeff]

Great points kaffis. I'll have a think and post again.

[Grimster]

People seem to be afraid because they seem to think orbital strike launchers, BFG9000's and artillery cannons are going to be placed on every vehicle.

I think something like this has its place but I'm not so sure it's "Worth" the trouble of adding such a system. It would really have to be VERY closely considered and made.

In my personal opinion I doubt we will see hard points added. At least not to every vehicle.


HEY!

A Orbital Striker launcher would be soooooo awesome. I would defiantly get one. :D :rofl:

[CutterJohn]

I disagree that hard points add it, though.
Now, that's not to say that I don't desire variety, and a diverse array of options to allow me to find the vehicle/weapons that best fit my desired playstyle. Want to give me the option to run an AA weapon on a heavily armored vehicle? Great! Make a new vehicle, though. That way, the variety and options should just be unique enough to visually identify at a distance, without having to squint and decide whether the gun is 2/3s the normal length, or maybe it just looks shorter because it's at an angle.. and boom, I'm dead.

Now, that's not to say that I don't desire variety, and a diverse array of options to allow me to find the armor/weapons that best fit my desired playstyle. Want to give me the option to run an AA weapon in heavy infantry armor? Great! Make a new armor, though. That way, the variety and options should just be unique enough to visually identify at a distance, without having to squint and decide whether the gun is 2/3s the normal length, or maybe it just looks shorter because it's at an angle.. and boom, I'm dead.


Its interesting because you approach this from an infantry centric point of view. You should not cert too much in vehicles so that you can cert into some infantry stuff. You should not have to guess at what vehicles can field, but infantry and MAXs, fine.

Why is it fine that infantry armors have a huge range of customization, but vehicles do not? Because there are more vehicles than infantry armors? Sure, but thats a symptom of the problem.. Too many vehicles. Make fewer. You don't need the buggies, harasser, AND skyguard if you can swap weapons, as the chassis all have pretty similar characteristics.


As for the cert costs of specialization.. Look at the whole CE tree(10 certs)? Unimax(6)? Hacking(9)? MA/HA/AV(9)?

Meanwhile the tanks, the backbone of the outdoor game and one of the best all around units... 3 whole certs.

So what if it cost 6 or 8 certs to get the tank + extra weapons? Its not like there aren't things you can focus on that don't cost more.

It becomes even more fair if the bonus weapons require the gunner to have the certs, rather than the driver. Split the costs evenly.

[kaffis]

It is an interesting point you bring up, CutterJohn, that I consider the vehicles and infantry somewhat separately in this regard.

I think it stems from three things:

The ranges at which you need to make choices about infantry combat are much closer, and allow you to make out the weapon alright, for the most part. (As I just got done saying in another post before I read this one, I can recognize a rocklet rifle vs. a repeater at 40m well enough; they have distinctive shapes.) In addition, infantry combat is rife with cover and hearing stuff approach. This means that I can see explosions around the corner, and know that I've got somebody with grenades down the hall to face, even though we're not engaged yet.

As an infantry combatant, I have access to multiple guns since I've got 2-4 holsters. This means I'm better able to adapt to misjudging the situation. (I've got a thumper and gauss rifle, and see somebody armed with a repeater approaching. I like my chances. Oh, wait, he's closing on my position and has pulled out a MCG? Okay, I can take some cover and apply indirect fire with my thumper to try to mitigate my bad call.)

Important infantry combats are almost always determined by large numbers of mixed arms. This means you can go by a kind of law of averages, as it were. Okay, about 30 guys approaching the gate; there's probably 10 HA, 5 AV, 10 MA, and maybe 5 SA approaching. Vehicular combat rarely has that kind of sample size.


Finally, MAXes and infantry are all vulnerable to the same types of weapons, and don't have enough HP relative to weapons to really draw out fights, so even if you're not positive exactly what weapon they may have, you know whether what you've got can kill him. If I've got a deliverer against a prowler, I can kill the prowler -- but the fight will be so protracted that I'm dead before I can. If he's somehow equipped skyguard flak, then I'll have that time. With infantry, that's not as much a concern. If I've got a gauss rifle and no AP rounds, I'm not going to engage the MAX no matter what.

I don't know. I think I'm rambling now, and may not be making any sense. I don't know that my position is entirely solid to begin with.

As far as certs go, though, if you feel that CE and tanks are inappropriately weighted as far as cert costs go, I think that's a perfectly valid observation. Perhaps CE is too piecemeal, and should have some of its sub-certs combined. Does it /need/ all the granularity? Maybe not. Or maybe tank certs are too cheap, and they're really as strong or stronger than CE. Fine, bump up the cost on them; now's the ideal time to do so while the game's in development and you're not sucking away an established character's cert points to hold onto the build he's played with for 2 years.

[Hamma]

kaffis,

Very awesome points I had not thought about myself. Great contribution to the thread! :D

[kaffis]

kaffis,

Very awesome points I had not thought about myself. Great contribution to the thread! :D
Thanks, sir! I figure that if you're digging up and brib-- err, cajoling -- the only news, screenshots, and other goodies on PSN out of Sony that I can find, the least I can do is contribute to the discussions. =)