Key Parts of PS1 Vehicle Combat Missing from PS2

[Malorn]

Lots of various discussion on this topic ranging from the role of buggies to the fixed mag main gun. I wanted to bring it up a level and look at the larger picture of vehicle balance.

In PS1 we had a variety of vehicles and a paper-rock-scissors balancing mechanism to them. We also had a "1+1=3" principle where multi-manned vehicles had a lot more power than single-manned vehicles.

From what w know of PS2, a lot of vehicle consolidation has occurred. While there remains a diverse set of aircraft - Mosquito, Reaver, Galaxy, and Liberator (not confirmed, but Higby did mention it). However, ground vehicles seem overly consolidated into just a few - ATV, APC (Sunderer), and MBT. These ground vehicles generally coincide with the Battlefield Games where you have solo/quick transportation with the ATV, a "medium" assault vehicle with the APC, and the Tanks. The tanks also rolled up the other more specialized roles which buggies previously held, such as mortar and AA.

While I want to embrace the new changes, my gut tells me something isn't right. Two of the core principles which I believe was vital to making Planetside great are being kicked to the curb with the current ground vehicle changes. First, the paper-rock-scissors balancing is being canned with a one-size-fits-all tank and no buggies, and second the 1+1=3 principle seems to be in grave danger.

My fear here is that the single-man tanks will be prevalent, with primarily AA as a secondary weapon which some will use when necessary, but mostly it'll just sit there. From a population perspective, now everyone can pull a tank, and they don't need a gunner to be effective with it. Since there's really few other vehicle choices that's what they will do and the majority of tanks will be single-manned except where AA is needed. Since there are few choices any vehicle timers on tanks will be fairly short, likely 5 minutes max, but probably less than that.

Additionally, the class system means you won't have 2/3 of the population with AV weaponry, which implies that AV weaponry must be much more effective against vehicles in order to keep up with the increased population of tanks, or their armor is simply less. So then we'll end up similar to BF style AV where 3-4 hits will kill a tank. In other words, with have a 2-man Lightning. This increases the pace of the game but it also means there is no true "armor" for infantry to push with.

In PS1 where tanks required a 2-man investment, tech, and an agile driver to be functional and had 5-10 minute vehicle timers you could justify the high armor of the tank and its killing power. This made tanks the primary territory-takers, but other options existed, such as buggies or the lightning or a deli. Moreover, tanks had a built-in weakness to aircraft which can be easily mitigated in PS2 with a secondary gun. In PS1 we could have strong coordinated force effectiveness as a team with a few tanks and a few buggies, maybe a deli or a couple aircraft. The strongest force was a mixed force of tanks, skyguards/buggies, supporting infantry, and aircraft. In PS2 its just going to be a blob of tanks, many of which don't even need to be fully manned. And those tanks will die much easier by comparison because they must in order to maintain some sense of balance.

I greatly enjoyed vehicle combat in PS and along with the persistent world it was one of those things that set it apart from other games. I had a tank that could take a beating and make a difference. I had a team that could adjust to enemy tactics and counter them with the appropriate vehicles and weapons and I had a diverse set of vehicles with which to enjoy.

The result of all this I believe will be bland gameplay, where sheer numbers always prevail and a team cannot do much to react and no strong counters exist.

---

I would much prefer a more rich set of ground vehicles where Buggies have a place as a light support skirmisher (ideally with a rather beefy gun), capable of supporting infantry when tank presence is light and making a difference, as well as transporting heavy infantry.

I would much prefer an experience where the paper-rock-scissors principle was clearly present and strong counters exist so smaller forces can adapt and destroy larger ones and the coordination and organization of combined-arms forces is rewarded with effectiveness and strength.

And I would much prefer a strong, powerful tank with thick armor that requires teamwork to fully operate. And that tank makes a significant difference on the battle. I spent a lot of time driving a Vanguard in PS1, and it was rewarding, in spite of not having a gun myself. Being able to run over infantry foolish enough to be in the open, coordinating with my gunner to take out targets, and making a big impact in the local engagement was highly rewarding. I don't think I'm going to get that in PS2 based on the information presented.

[Goku]

Good post Malorn as always. I agreed with every bit. Too much is being cut out on top of a need for only solo vehicles.

[nomotog]

Your reaching too far. Your post is based on conjecture and guesses that you then full up with even more guessing.

[FIREk]

It's what we do - we fuel our discussions with scraps of information, then, as more information gets released, we use that instead. :) There's nothing wrong with what-if-ing and some, like me, actually like it.

Malorn, I agree with everything you wrote, especially the need for diversity, but I disagree on one point.

While you appreciated the protection tanks guaranteed in PS1, I think they were way too tough, and don't want that to happen in PS2. This was because of how widespread AV weapons were in PS1, of course, but it meant that driving one required no real skill.
Making tanks more vulnerable, and have weak points, forces the driver to think about more than how much hit points he's got left and where the nearest hill is.
I think adding skill to game mechanics is alsays a good thing - this is what is happening to air vehicles in PS2, for instance.

I will be a tank/MAX buster in PS2. Since my class will be geared towards this very task, I want to make a difference. With cunning, timing, good aim and use of terrain etc, I should be able to take down a tank on my own.

That being said, I would prefer PS2 tanks to be tougher than in BFBC2, but require 2 people to work. Secondary gun for tank drivers, dammit!

[Hamma]

Your reaching too far. Your post is based on conjecture and guesses that you then full up with even more guessing.

This is a discussion forum to discuss ideas, please contribute to posts constructively or don't bother posting.

[SgtMAD]

no, Malorn is not reaching too far, he is pretty much correct in his analysis,making tanks a one man veh is a huge mistake that strike directly at the principal of teamwork that made PS different than every other FPS.

and the idea that buggies aren't in the game is just stupid.

the idea that F2P isn't going to make PS2 as bad as when we had free trials and you couldn't play an hour without getting fooked over by some hacker.

after seeing a lot of the crazy conjecture that is flying around on these forums,Malorn has hit a core valid point that concerns all of us,SOE is headed down the wrong track and that is going to affect how long PS2 lasts

[Senyu]

I am hoping their will be a larger variety of ground vehicles with their weakness's so they have their places and counter. With that I think resources should be considered as they are implied they are required to purchases everything. So given tanks cost rescources and your battleing them, they may be a limited amount of vehicle selections (hope not) but I think would be balanced out by being fewer in numbers due to cost

[FIREk]

making tanks a one man veh is a huge mistake that strike directly at the principal of teamwork that made PS different than every other FPS.

The teamwork/balance aspect of one-man tanks is the most serious problem, because this will be countered by their relatively weak armor (like tanks in BFBC2). Indeed, his alone endangers tanks, because it would be much better if they were tougher, but required two people to operate.

The big problem is that tanks will be, as Malorn coined it, one-size-fits-all vehicles. With AA at their fingertips, the current information suggests that we will end up with varied aircraft in the air, and just blobs of tanks on the ground. Unless we find out that buggies will be in the game, and that tank-mounted AA will be mediocre at best.

and the idea that buggies aren't in the game is just stupid.

Luckily, we don't know for sure that they won't be in. At least not yet. :<

[FIREk]

So given tanks cost rescources

Tanks will be free - this had been confirmed by the devs on at least two occasions. It is the upgrades/sidegrades that will cost you.

[Logit]

More and more as I read about the sequel I wish they would have just done the graphics revamp of the original game.

[SgtMAD]

More and more as I read about the sequel I wish they would have just done the graphics revamp of the original game.

I think this would have been preferable to the BF clone we are going to be seeing

[Talek Krell]

Malorn, you've very nicely echoed and summarised my own concerns lately. It's true that we lack the complete picture but what we've got so far is worrisome.

[Malorn]

The tanks that have no weaknesses is something that bothers me the most. There's no diversity, no combined-arms rewards, and it'll just be a big blob of tanks with no natural enemy. The various types of secondary weapons means that in sufficient quantity tanks have no tradeoffs because you can cover all your basis with a few different configurations and just roll around with a bunch of tanks killing aircraft, ground, infantry - everything. The only way to counter it would be to have more tanks.

That seems an awful lot like the BFR problem where the only effective counter to several BFRs was to bring more BFRs yourself. In fact, the tanks have configurable weapon systems just like the BFRS, complete with driver and gunner customizable options. I'm getting the feeling that they basically just took BFRs, got rid of the shields and put them on a normal tank chassis. That might get rid of the shield problem and the jumping problem but it doesn't get rid of the no-hard-counter problem and teamwork-is-optional problem.


More on the secondary guns...

If the secondary gun isn't good enough then nobody will use it other than as air defense. I still have a hard time imagining how 2 fully manned tanks with AA secondary guns are going to fare against 4 gunner-less tanks. That's double the hit points and double the firepower. Even if the secondary gunner gun was on-par with the main gun in terms of AV capabilities you're still down half the hitpoints of the single-manned tanks, which means you still lose quite horribly. They would have to make the secondary gun significantly more powerful than the main gun. That being the case - why call it a main gun at all? Unless that secondary gun is on the order of 1.5x more effective or more it will always be preferable to have single-manned tanks unless you require the AA capabilities.

PS1 had the vehicle concepts mostly on-target. Multi-manned powerhouses, single-man vehicles were significantly weaker, each vehicle had tradeoffs. Combined arms ruled, no one vehicle to rule them all (until BFRs...).

[FIREk]

Logit and HtSgtMAD: We'll have to wait for the beta to figure out whether the new direction is good or not, but I'm sure about one thing.
If PS2 was a PS1 revamp, I don't see my friends wanting to play it, ever. It's just too slow, and all the gameplay mechanics are unbearably primitive by today's standards.
PS2 won't be a BF clone (and deep down I'm sure you realize this), but even if it were, it would have a LOT more appeal to non-fanbois than just a PS1 graphics+netcode revamp.

[SgtMAD]

Logit and HtSgtMAD: We'll have to wait for the beta to figure out whether the new direction is good or not, but I'm sure about one thing.
If PS2 was a PS1 revamp, I don't see my friends wanting to play it, ever. It's just too slow, and all the gameplay mechanics are unbearably primitive by today's standards.
PS2 won't be a BF clone (and deep down I'm sure you realize this), but even if it were, it would have a LOT more appeal to non-fanbois than just a PS1 graphics+netcode revamp.

what more do they have to "lift" before you realize this is going to be a clone,its all they talk about,the class system, the driver gunning,umlocks,the locked down inventories,spawn on teammates,hell the only idea they haven't stolen is the box art but then again its still early on in process

everything about PS1 is pretty much gone, a couple of cont/base names don't make it planetside

and its goddamn hilarious to hear all this talk about PS being too damn slow,I can remember when this game was fast as hell and guess what,the forum whiners got it nerfed right out of existence,surgile was too tough for players back then so SOE turned it into rexo side.

[ThGlump]

Well its the secondary guns thats ruining it. Without them wouldnt be that universal tank that dont need any other support, gives driver gun because there are 2 now, making other ground vehicles obsolete and basically throw off balance between 1-2 manned tanks. Right now it seem there wont be any variability and only tanks as a ground vehicle and that would end boring fast.
Pushing back to 1 gun per tank (even exchangeable) would fix most problems that we predict with actual state.

[Raymac]

Malorn does a great job of expressing the concerns I think most of us have about vehicles in PS2. I still firmly believe that tanks should be accessable to more casual players that just want to jump in and jump out of the game. I'm not too ashamed to admit that there have been a number of occasions where I have waited a long time spamming "V-N-G" or saying over platoon chat "hey if anyone needs a gunner, let me know". That IS a problem especially if you don't have chunks of hours to play, and letting the driver of a tank control the main gun is a solution to that.

I sincerely hope they implement what Higby mentioned on twitter that they are looking into making dedicated drivers and gunners an option in PS2. I believe that would be the best solution to appease everyone. It would only take a little tweaking to make sure that 1 good 2-man tank crew is better than 2 1-man n00b tanks.

I absolutely agree with Malorn that I want to see more variety in vehicles, not less. Considering the value the devs are putting on customization, I find it a bit odd that they would only have 2 types of ground vehicles, so perhaps there are more we just don't know about yet.

Finally, I just ignore these people that repeatedly claim "PS2 is just a BF clone" because they are the same type of people that claim every single mmorpg is simply a WoW clone. Of course there are going to be similarities (it's an fps with vehicles), but a clone? Hardly.

[FIREk]

They based a lot of stuff off BFBC2, but that doesn't make it a clone... The broad selection of classes, sub-classes and air vehicles is a huge difference in itself. Not to mention vastly different objectives and a completely different goal of the game.

Would you prefer them to make up new, broken mechanics just for the sake of being original? I would rather see them learning from the good and bad design concepts of other games.
A game developer should do their best to make a good, successful game, nut pull half-baked "original ideas" out of their asses, just so that a bunch of whiners don't call their game a derivative ripoff.
Neither should they adapt old ideas that would appeal to a very limited group of people.

Plus, was there anything original in PS1's gameplay? Everything in the game was already present in other titles of that time. The only differences were the scale, MAXes, AMSs and the oh-exploitable cert system. Does that mean PS1 was a Mobile Forces ripoff, with some "minor changes" and on a bigger scale? I don't think so.

But this thread wasn't supposed to be about whether or not PS2 is a BF ripoff...:P

[Lonehunter]

This looks like a very good long post, and I promise I'll finish it later. But just getting through the first part and speeding over the rest I just have to add, you COULD be right. IF these things are true, they've been holding back a lot of info and could double the amount of vehicles we've heard of so far.

[TacosWLove]

Yes very nice post, totally agree that a diverse and segregated(by ability) vehicles is the way to go. Having a single driver tank blob with AV and AA is not going to be too much fun in the long run.

But who knows what will happen when we finally see it in action...

[FIREk]

Yes very nice post, totally agree that a diverse and segregated(by ability) vehicles is the way to go. Having a single driver tank blob with AV and AA is not going to be too much fun in the long run.

But who knows what will happen when we finally see it in action...

Luckily, the tanks would need two people to operate the secondary guns. Unless they implement vehicle seat hot-swapping, which would invalidate two-man vehicles forever.

[2coolforu]

I dislike the one-man tanks idea, it really negates teamwork and rewards killwhoring. It also demonstrates a shift from vehicle/infantry being complimentary to vehicles just being there to use for personal benefit. Planetside was a demonstration of how multi-manned vehicles really benefit teamwork and reduce killlwhoring, despite being the best and most powerful vehicle in the game tanks are generally used sensibly and well. Before BFR's tank combat was one of the best parts of the games (raids and organization) however BFR's came about and gave a player the option to control everything on their own, the playstyle I see with BFR's is similar to that of lone infantry - they just wander up to a good camping spot and try to rack up the kills rather than contribute anything to the battle.

With one man vehicles I believe they will be very similar to how BF2/BFBC2 vehicles are used; as a method to pad ones kill/death ratio. I thought BF2 had some good roles, the attack chopper had some of the most damaging attacks but required 2 people to use it, but vehicles like the APC and Tank were treated as iron infantry and not used to gain territory or transport people. The worst example from BF2 was the jet, it was the exemplification of a solo killwhore weapon giving vast amounts of power to a single person, if your team didn't have the best jet pilot then prepare to be bombed into a hell of spawnkilling.

It's important to know that the vast majority of the power in Planetside, and in Planetside 2 will be/was the zerg. A mass of people unified by a common objective, beyond that they had no organisation, no teamwork and no communication. If you don't force teamwork then the de-facto state of the zerg will be to use the most effective solo tool in the game. Planetside balanced this well as the only all-purpose solo tool for a long time was the infantryman. The BFR, once again, shows how adding in a powerful generalist solo vehicle (even if it has a secondary gunner) can totally upset a game dependent upon teamwork and combined arms.

Didn't the TR disprove the concept of a secondary gunner, having a 12mm prowler/marauder gunner was a liability rather than a bonus, one Raider would be up against 2 Thunderers and which would win that battle?

Anyway on topic I think Tanks HAVE to have a seperate gunner and driver. If the game is going to have 2000 people per battle as has been hinted then having the bread&butter, main stay vehicle which will be the core of every fight be a one man affair is just silly. Make the tank more effective in its role and require more people to operate so it isn't just a glass cannon (a style of gameplay that merits camping and stationary action) , if the driver wants to keep his super awesome attachment then give him control over the secondary weapon, not the main weapon. Surely that's the one he's certed for in the first place? I don't get the whole idea of designing the game for selfish people, people are more than willing to selflessly get a galaxy fully certed to give benefits to the people who spawn at it, but then moan when they don't get the kills from the tank they drive? Why not make the driver assist exp huge?

There are plenty of people out there who will become specialists in vehicles that someone else reaps the benefits of, just look at medics/priests/healers in many games, FC/logistics in EVE. I know people who WANT to drive the tank and that's what they love. I mean, in Planetside the medic could only revive other people so those 2 cert points in ADV Med were totally selfless yet plenty of people took the role. I think designing the game for selfish gameplay will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Senyu]

^

agreed. Also small point is having a tank require more than one person will downsize the amount of tanks. Instead of having 1 for 1. (Tank to person) It would vary from 1 for 2-4. More people on the field and less lone "iron infantry" or BFR type players as said above

[Raymac]

Didn't the TR disprove the concept of a secondary gunner, having a 12mm prowler gunner was a liability rather than a bonus.

Not meaning to cherry pick here, but as a reaver pilot, I absolutely loved the TR that had this mentality. It really did alot to progress my tankbuster merits. Just pointing out 1 reason why having a secondary gunner is not just adventageous, but almost a neccessary to survival.

[NapalmEnima]

In PS1 we had a variety of vehicles and a paper-rock-scissors balancing mechanism to them. We also had a "1+1=3" principle where multi-manned vehicles had a lot more power than single-manned vehicles.

With you so far, mostly. BFRs broke that, which is one of the reasons I despised them. They've been nerfed quite a bit from back in the day, but are still head & shoulders above a lightning.


From what w know of PS2, a lot of vehicle consolidation has occurred. While there remains a diverse set of aircraft - Mosquito, Reaver, Galaxy, and Liberator (not confirmed, but Higby did mention it). However, ground vehicles seem overly consolidated into just a few - ATV, APC (Sunderer), and MBT.

What are you basing this on? We've heard the following:

Specific mentions of Reaver, MBTs, Sunderer, Lib, Gal, Mossy, empire-specific fighter... am I missing anything?

We've heard that 70% of the vehicles will be common pool and the rest will be empire-specific variants (the opposite of infantry gear).

Incidentally, we've also heard there will be empire-specific upgrades for common pool stuff, but its not clear if that will be infantry gear, vehicles, or both. I think "both".

If that ratio is accurate (shaky, I know), that means:
A multiple of 10 types of vehicles. 7/10 only works out accurately at multiples of 10.
So, a minimum of 7 (or 14, or...) different common pool vehicles, with 3 (or 6, or...) empire-specific vehicles. Lets go through what's been mentioned and see what we can see.

Common Pool: Mossy, Reaver, Lib, Gal, Sunderer. That's 5. We're missing at least 2.
Empire Specific: MBT, fighter. We're missing at least one.

And 2/5 is 40%. Close to 30%, but not that close.

So there are 3 (or more) vehicle TYPES we no nothing about.

And here's an argument that isn't so shaky.

The devs have stated that they're trying to bring everything from PS1 (non-core-combat) into PS2. As such, I expect to see Moar familiar vehicles. Buggies, ATVs, the Lightening, Deliverer... what am I missing. No AMS. Ooh ooh! The ANT.

PS2 is going to have More Variety than PS1. Count on it.


The fact is we don't know a lot about vehicles yet. That's no reason to ass-u-me that we know of all the different vehicles.

Quite The Opposite


These ground vehicles generally coincide with the Battlefield Games where you have solo/quick transportation with the ATV, a "medium" assault vehicle with the APC, and the Tanks. The tanks also rolled up the other more specialized roles which buggies previously held, such as mortar and AA.


I'm convinced there are more vehicles we haven't seen, so I see no reason to conclude that any of this is true. Again, Quite The Opposite.

They've also said things about multiple variants of different things. We may see faster/lighter tank hulls, slower/heavier ones, and so forth. We may even see much lighter empire specific 1-seat tank variants instead of Lightnings. Perhaps with a wider-but-not-necessarily-360 field of fire.


While I want to embrace the new changes, my gut tells me something isn't right. Two of the core principles which I believe was vital to making Planetside great are being kicked to the curb with the current ground vehicle changes. First, the paper-rock-scissors balancing is being canned with a one-size-fits-all tank and no buggies, and second the 1+1=3 principle seems to be in grave danger.

We've heard there will be more A2G options than in PS1. We've only heard about two of the three A2G options from PS1 (reaver & libby, no word on a gal gunship). Ergo, there's more stuff we don't know about here. Maybe the fighters will be able to dive-bomb or something. I believe the empire-specific fighters were called "light fighters" at one point. There may be a common pool fighter/bomber. Liberators may have options other than a bomb payload (ripple-fire rockets or something). Lots of possibilities.

Having said that, I agree that the varied secondaries on tanks reduces the rock-paper-scissors effect.

But do you realize that your Argument A revolves around "1 man MBTs are Very Bad", while Argument B is "MBT's gunners' AA wrecks Rock-Paper-Scissors" has a flaw? Will tanks have manned secondaries or won't they? You can't have it both ways. You say "when necessary", but the quintessential zerglings are just going to pull a tank and run off into battle. They quite likely won't know in advance if they're going to need AA... and may not even care.

Now. The 1+1=3 effect. I agree that 1-man MBTs will reduce this. Some. But there are two mitigating factors:

1) 1-man MBTs will be vulnerable to both AV troops and A2G.
2) You can't really "run away" any more. The weak rear armor means that if you turn tail, there's an excellent chance you'll die Very Quickly.

Those two combine to mean that when a 1-man MBT runs into something it cannot easily handle, it'll DIE.

All the brush/grass/etc (which we've seen in various screen shots, looks great) will actually provide places for infantry to hide from tanks. Tanks with their backs to AV troops will die quickly.

Imagine this ambush:

Engineers lay a mine field JUST PAST where the AV troops are hiding.
Enemy one-man MBTs roll past AV troops hiding in brush, find mine field, and stop to destroy the mines.
AV troops shoot those fish in that barrel
Alternatively, some infiltrators can run out and plant explosives on the tanks and kill them that way.

If you scale this up a bit, you can have more AV troops "in front" beyond the mine field that hold their fire until the tanks turn around to deal with the AV infantry behind them (who are all back behind cover now). At which point the surviving tanks try to run, presenting their weak rear armor to all the AV, and they take more losses.

Infantry losses: 0
Tank losses: at least 1 tank for every two AV troops. And that's if they immediately turn tail and run. If they try to fight, they're doomed, though they may inflict some losses.

And A2G will just have a field day with 1-man tanks. It'll be Pac Man working his way through the dots. Wakawakawaka... only a little slower. Pac Man doesn't have to reload.


My fear here is that the single-man tanks will be prevalent, with primarily AA as a secondary weapon which some will use when necessary, but mostly it'll just sit there.

Again, you're trying to have it both ways. Furthermore, we have no reason to believe people will be able to jump from seat to seat internally, though I understand that's still at least a possibility.

From a population perspective, now everyone can pull a tank

We have no reason to believe that everyone can pull every vehicle at day one, and given PS1, we have a precedent of the opposite being true.

As I've explained elsewhere:
1) we know that every CLASS will be available from the start.
2) We also know that there's no driver/pilot class[es].

Therefore, vehicle availability is not tied to a specific class. I suspect it will be tied to Something Else. Either a separate cert tree, or unlocks that have to be purchased with resources. Slap down your 5000 titanium, 2500 nano-units, and a partridge in a pair tree, and now you can pull tanks from vehicle terminals (subject to whatever timer they're on). Those unlocks may also form a tree.

Further, I suspect that different turret types will also be unlocks. The default might be somewhat effective against both infantry and air, but to get dedicated AV, AA, or AI weapons, they'll have to sink time and/or resources into their tank. That means Senior Zergisimo may not have access to an AA secondary even if they have unlocked the MBT.

, and they don't need a gunner to be effective with it.

In a tank vs tank role, true. But Reavers & Liberators will slaughter them wholesale, as will AV infantry in the right terrain: Anything with plenty of cover for them, which I suspect will be at least 50% of the total terrain... and the vast majority of the terrain where infantry will do their outdoor fighting.

Since there's really few other vehicle choices that's

Refuted twice... once rather shakily, and one that looks pretty solid to me.

what they will do and the majority of tanks will be single-manned except where AA is needed. Since there are few choices any vehicle timers on tanks will be fairly short, likely 5 minutes max, but probably less than that.

Conjecture based on a flawed foundation. If vehicle timers get shorter, it'll only be because of the increased speed of play.

Additionally, the class system means you won't have 2/3 of the population with AV weaponry

OTOH, because everyone has access to every class, that means anyone can pull an AV troop. And outdoors with lots of vehicles floating around, that's precisely what you'll want. A squad with local spawning ability could shift to 100% AV troops. And I agree that AV will be more lethal than in PS1, if only for the "increased gameplay speed" they're aiming for. It may even be possible to one shot a tank if you hit it Just So, in "the thermal exhaust port, just below the main port."

which implies that AV weaponry must be much more effective against vehicles in order to keep up with the increased population of tanks, or their armor is simply less. So then we'll end up similar to BF style AV where 3-4 hits will kill a tank. In other words, with have a 2-man Lightning. This increases the pace of the game but it also means there is no true "armor" for infantry to push with.

Again, conclusions based on a flawed foundation.

A few AV hits to the rear will do the trick, absolutely... but I suspect the front armor will be made of sterner stuff.

The exact number of hits it takes to kill tanks from various directions is a balancing issue that will probably undergo some tweaking during beta.

In PS1 where tanks required a 2-man investment, tech, and an agile driver to be functional and had 5-10 minute vehicle timers

Tanks have always had a 5 minute timer IIRC. And we know PS1 will also require that drivers/pilots not be in heavy armor.

you could justify the high armor of the tank and its killing power. This made tanks the primary territory-takers, but other options existed, such as buggies or the lightning or a deli. Moreover, tanks had a built-in weakness to aircraft which can be easily mitigated in PS2 with a secondary gun.

That won't be manned (according to you).

And all the MBTs in PS1 had some anti-air ability. The Mag Rider's rail beam worked pretty well, as did the dual 20mm of the Vanguard. I think can count on one hand the number of times I've crewed the 2nd gunner spot on Prowlers, but I suspect they do just fine as well.

In PS1 we could have strong coordinated force effectiveness as a team with a few tanks and a few buggies, maybe a deli or a couple aircraft. The strongest force was a mixed force of tanks, skyguards/buggies, supporting infantry, and aircraft. In PS2 its just going to be a blob of tanks, many of which don't even need to be fully manned. And those tanks will die much easier by comparison because they must in order to maintain some sense of balance.

So the kill-everything force of tanks will die much easier? Err... again, it sounds like you're trying to have it both ways.

I firmly believe that not everyone will be able to pull tanks. Even those that can won't necessarily have access to all the different secondary weapons. So most people will have to choose between Lesser Vehicles, a gunners seat, being a passenger in some troop transport, or hoofing it. And a good mix of CREWED secondaries will have much more survivability against a variety of enemies, including other tanks (I suspect we'll see AV secondaries as well).

I greatly enjoyed vehicle combat in PS and along with the persistent world it was one of those things that set it apart from other games. I had a tank that could take a beating and make a difference. I had a team that could adjust to enemy tactics and counter them with the appropriate vehicles and weapons and I had a diverse set of vehicles with which to enjoy.

Absolutely agree. I'm a tanker first myself.

The result of all this I believe will be bland gameplay, where sheer numbers always prevail and a team cannot do much to react and no strong counters exist.

"Force Multipliers". Things that make your side more effective. Good intel, prepared fighting positions, solid tactics, superior gear, etc.

I think we'll still see well organized outfits beating the tar out of twice their number of zerglings.

Fer instance: If you can have smoke grenades (deployable volumetric fog) & Special Goggles That Can See Through It (IR or whatever), a prepared group can slaughter folks who aren't with very little chance of retaliation. Throw in a couple of those deployable MGs and you've got yourself a kill box worthy of the name.

Mines within smoke: Evil!


I would much prefer a more rich set of ground vehicles where Buggies have a place as a light support skirmisher (ideally with a rather beefy gun), capable of supporting infantry when tank presence is light and making a difference, as well as transporting heavy infantry.

I agree, and I see no reason to believe that PS2 won't meet that desire. A fast attack vehicle with an enforcer-esque big punch could be a Serious Threat to forward firing tanks with weak rear armor. I expect we'll see that very thing. There's your rock-paper-scissors... just with a different brand of paper.

I would much prefer an experience where the paper-rock-scissors principle was clearly present and strong counters exist so smaller forces can adapt and destroy larger ones and the coordination and organization of combined-arms forces is rewarded with effectiveness and strength.

While the rock-paper-scissors effect will no doubt be different, don't think it will up and vanish. I think PS2 tank crews will live in fear of AV troops to their rear. And I suspect a squad of A2G attacking a squad of tanks will still favor the A2G.

And I would much prefer a strong, powerful tank with thick armor that requires teamwork to fully operate. And that tank makes a significant difference on the battle. I spent a lot of time driving a Vanguard in PS1, and it was rewarding, in spite of not having a gun myself.

Ditto. While I prefer the Vanu, my friends were all in an NC outfit, so that's where I ended up. And I did LOTS of both driving and gunning the Vanguard. Good times.

But I think everything in PS2 will be less survivable than in PS1.

Reduced TTK + shorter delays to get back into the action = more deaths.

Now folks with the tricked out upgrades will still want to avoid losing their investments, but the F2P zerg will probably not care nearly so much. So again, dedicated and organized players will butcher the zerg.

Being able to run over infantry foolish enough to be in the open, coordinating with my gunner to take out targets, and making a big impact in the local engagement was highly rewarding. I don't think I'm going to get that in PS2 based on the information presented.

I do think you're going to get that in PS2, also based on the information presented.

And if PS2 is genuinely F2P (no box price), the only reasons not to give it a try is HD space, download time, or a sub-minimum-spec PC. And I DID play PS1 with a below-minimum PC for a while. Painful, but I could still play. And did.

[Malorn]

The 3-man TR vehicles were a bit different concept, but the idea is the same. If it takes 2 men in a vehicle to equal the firepower of 2 men in 2 different vehicles, then the game design failed, because the two solo vehicles are the better choice every time. That's why most prowlers went without the 12mm gunner - it was better to have 3 prowlers with main guns than 2 prowlers with 2 extra 12mm guns.

If Air defense was a concern it would still be better to have 2 prowlers + 1 skyguard than 2 prowlers w/ 2 12mm gunners.

I think when they made that 3-person design they expected random people to hop into the 3rd seat that wouldn't otherwise pick up a tank or use it to hitch a ride or what not.

The Raider was definitely the superior Deli variant if your purpose was transporting troops from point A to point B. If your purpose was killwhoring/combat it was the worst. If just transporting then the extra guns just meant more defense.

[Logit]

But this thread wasn't supposed to be about whether or not PS2 is a BF ripoff...:P

Because we all know this answer is yes, in fact it is.

Is PS2 a sequel to Battlefield, or Planetside 1? Without knowing the title and faction names I might not know at this point.

[Malorn]

What are you basing this on? We've heard the following:

Specific mentions of Reaver, MBTs, Sunderer, Lib, Gal, Mossy, empire-specific fighter... am I missing anything?

We've heard that 70% of the vehicles will be common pool and the rest will be empire-specific variants (the opposite of infantry gear).

Incidentally, we've also heard there will be empire-specific upgrades, but its not clear if that will be infantry gear, vehicles, or both. I think "both".

If that ratio is accurate (shaky, I know), that means:
A multiple of 10 types of vehicles. 7/10 only works out accurately at multiples of 10.
So, a minimum of 7 (or 14, or...) different common pool vehicles, with 3 (or 6, or...) empire-specific vehicles. Lets go through what's been mentioned and see what we can see.

Common Pool: Mossy, Reaver, Lib, Gal, Sunderer. That's 5. We're missing at least 2.
Empire Specific: MBT, fighter. We're missing at least one.

And 2/5 is 40%. Close to 30%, but not that close.

So there are 3 (or more) vehicle TYPES we no nothing about.

And here's an argument that isn't so shaky.

The devs have stated that they're trying to bring everything from PS1 (non-core-combat) into PS2. As such, I expect to see Moar familiar vehicles. Buggies, ATVs, the Lightening, Deliverer... what am I missing. No AMS. Ooh ooh! The ANT.

PS2 is going to have More Variety than PS1. Count on it.


The fact is we don't know a lot about vehicles yet. That's no reason to ass-u-me that all we know of all the different vehicles.

Quite The Opposite

I don't know what half of that stuff you wrote is about, but my statement was about the fact that we have a lot of diversity in aircraft, but very little diversity in ground vehicles. I forgot about the Fighter, thanks for the reminder. That makes at least 4-5 different types of aircraft, while only having 3 types of ground vehicles - ATV, Sundy, and MBT.

They confirmed ATV, Sundy was mentioned last week, and we know tanks. Buggies were not in according to that interview last week. Confirmed no AMS or cloaking vehicles, no buggies, no artillery, and no lightnings.

I was just making a simple point that the diversity is real low for ground vehicles, especially when you compare it to PS1.


I'm convinced there are more vehicles we haven't seen, so I see no reason to conclude that any of this is true. Again, Quite The Opposite.

I was convinced there was an AMS too, and expected buggies, but alas, neither is true anymore. I'm not going to assume anything is in until I see a confirmation. And even then, AMS were once confirmed a few months ago...they changed their minds. I'm hoping we can change their minds here too by bringing up diversity concerns.

If they do have more vehicles then we have fewer things to worry about, but as of last week it's a bit concerning.

I'm not going to respond to all that wishful thinking on diversity. If its there its there. But from what we know now, there's little of it. Sure, plenty of possibilities, but they don't appear to be going in that direction.


But do you realize that your Argument A revolves around "1 man MBTs are Very Bad", while Argument B is "MBT's gunners' AA wrecks Rock-Paper-Scissors" has a flaw? Will tanks have manned secondaries or won't they? You can't have it both ways. You say "when necessary", but the quintessential zerglings are just going to pull a tank and run off into battle. They quite likely won't know in advance if they're going to need AA... and may not even care.

I had a feeling someone would mention that, but here's the catch - you only need enough AA gunners to fend off the aircraft and no more.

I expect roughly 40% of the tanks will have secondary guns. That seems to me about the right amount necessary to fend off aircraft, assuming they spoke truth when they said "secondary guns are no joke" - meaning that AA secondary guns would be effective. If they're effective you don't need them on every tank. Therefore many tanks can go without it. If they aren't effective then you don't need them on any tanks and the secondary guns would have failed entirely. We lose either way.

In primarily tank vs tank fights, you don't need the secondary gunner because unless that thing really does about 2x the damage of a main gun the added effective hitpoints of having another tank instead is better.

So yeah you can get the worst of both worlds had have a ruined Paper-Rock-Scissors while having a bunch of 1 man killing vehicles running around.



Now. The 1+1=3 effect. I agree that 1-man MBTs will reduce this. Some. But there are two mitigating factors:

1) 1-man MBTs will be vulnerable to both AV troops and A2G.
2) You can't really "run away" any more. The weak rear armor means that if you turn tail, there's an excellent chance you'll die Very Quickly.

All the brush/grass/etc (which we've seen in various screen shots, looks great) will actually provide places for infantry to hide from tanks. Tanks with their backs to AV troops will die quickly.

1) Plenty of infantry died to the Vanguard's main gun. You don't need a secondary gun to take care of infantry. Also, they aren't vulnerable to A2G if there is sufficient AA from the handful of tanks with AA secondaries (as described above)

2) Tanks don't have to "turn" to run away - they can move in reverse. Also there's a good deal of cover in the game. And if they die so very quickly then that just amplifies one of my other points about tanks being too squishy.



We have no reason to believe that everyone can pull every vehicle at day one, and given PS1, we have a precedent of the opposite being true.

As I've explained elsewhere:
1) we know that every CLASS will be available from the start.
2) We also know that there's no driver/pilot class[es].

Yes, we do. Higby stated at the Fanfaire that day 1 you can learn all the base classes and certs specifically mentioning "drive a tank" on day 1. We also know armor doesn't matter for driving vehicles. And as you point out - there isn't driver class, meaning ANY class can drive a tank. So yes, anyone can pull a tank when they want to based on the information we know.


Tanks have always had a 5 minute timer IIRC.

All vehicle timers were 10 minutes at release. It changed after 3-6 months or so to be 5 minutes. Wasn't a lot of tanks or aircraft at that time because of that. I remember actually laughing when they introduced the skyguard because there were so few aircraft we hardly needed a dedicated AA buggy. Then the population rocketed almost overnight after the timer change (they also consolidated some of the air certs). And the skyguard became a staple part of any ground force after that. Amazing what a few cert bundling and vehicle timers can do. Repair/rearm made it even worse.

Longer timers, like 10 minutes, would be one way to mitigate population issues, though it would need to be in conjunction with other factors.

[NapalmEnima]

They confirmed ATV, Sundy was mentioned last week, and we know tanks. Buggies were not in according to that interview last week. Confirmed no AMS or cloaking vehicles, no buggies, no artillery, and no lightnings.

I gave that interview and didn't get that feel at all.

No AMS: Check.
No cloaking vehicles: check.

No buggies?

Here's the bullet point Bags came up with:
"Buggies on list of things to put in, hopefully"

That says "buggies aren't in yet" to me, not "there will be no buggies". Maybe not at release, granted.

No Artillery: Check-ish. No dedicated artillery (flail), but one of the secondaries he mentioned was a mortar.

No Lightnings? Where'd that come from?

I just went through Bags' Q&A doc, the info thread, and her lunch interview summary. No mention of the lightning at all, one way or the other. That does NOT mean there will be no lightning in PS2.


I'd also like to point out that there's a fair amount of wiggle room in "can pull a tank on day 1". It could mean that a brand new character can pull a tank right out of the gate. It could also mean that it takes 24 hours of dedicated training and or resource earning to unlock tanks. I suspect the final gameplay will be somewhere in between.

[nomotog]

You start out by saying that vehicle consolidation has occurred. A lot of it you say. Where did you hear this? I haven't seen anything to say that. I want to know where you got that impression. they seem to be adding not taking away. I mean they even kept the shredder.

Who said they where cutting buggies? Buggies can still play a role as the faster more agile tanks. Maybe even getting into places tanks cant like up hills. (one of the upgrades for tanks is a motor that lets you climb easier. Buggies always climb easy so I guess that buggies can climb better then default tanks)

You shouldn't assume that a class system will lower the amount of AV weapons. It might. You might have classes that don't have AV weapons, but people could gather around the classes that do have AV weapons.

Why do you assume that all tanks will be single maned with AA turrets? A tank driver could have an AI or AV turret and most will probably be maned by two people because the tanks secondary will deal more damage then a hand held weapon. We have squad spawning now, so if your on foot, you can get back into battle faster. Tanks still have to drive. People get to battle faster then tanks. That will mean there will be fewer tanks then people encouraging the side turrets to fill up.

[Malorn]

"Buggies on list of things to put in, hopefully"

If buggies were a vital part of the vehicle balance, they wouldn't "hopefully" make it in -they would be must-haves for the game.

This statement means...

1) Buggies are not in.
2) Buggies are not must-have for launch.
3) Buggies have functional replacements in the game.

On the third part we know that at least 2 functions of buggies have been specifically named:

- Mortar for Tanks => Marauder Ground Pounder
- Flak gun for Tanks => Skyguard

"secondary guns are no joke"


It' pretty obvious that buggies are not in, might not get in, and their weapon systems and role have functional replacements in-game in the form of upgradable tanks.

There is no skyguard. Instead you have a tank with an upgradable secondary weapon system that you can convert into a flak cannon.

There is no marauder. Instead you have a tank with an upgradable secondary weapon system that you can convert into a ground pounder.

I suspect there is also a weapon system that replaces the enforcer rocket and probably the thresher flux cannon also.

I would also suspect that via upgrades to your tank you could make it faster and more maneuverable, almost like a buggy, possibly even with armor tradeoffs.

As far as I can tell they basically have a single key ground vehicle that can be upgraded and converted to fit all main battlefield needs. The two notable exceptions would be transportation (Sundy), mobile spawn point (AMS), and fast personal transportation (ATV).

[Sirisian]

I agree with Napalm's points. You're really reaching to make your arguments. Your assumptions about the role of vehicles in PS2 is mostly based on an argument that a vehicle used by one person isn't as a good as a system of mandatory teamwork.

You're also making assumptions about balance since you want this system to be like BF. Chances are it's not going to be exactly like that. I imagine it's still going to take a few passes from a Reaver/Bomber and a lot of hits from tank to kill another tank. (Picture long range battles on an open field where tanks are trading shells back and forth).

In PS1 we had a variety of vehicles and a paper-rock-scissors balancing mechanism to them. We also had a "1+1=3" principle where multi-manned vehicles had a lot more power than single-manned vehicles.
meh, the PS1 system was more Driver + Gunner = 1 AV Gun

New system is Driver + Gunner = 1 AV Gun + 1 AA/AI Gun.

The original system was the "bland gameplay". When you had 10 people you had 5ish tanks and 5 people gunning. You really needed to enjoy driving to assist players. For me it was dull. I don't play an FPS game to assist a player for hours. I need to shoot a gun. The new system has 10 people with either 5-10 tanks depending on the amount of AV needed. 10 AV only tanks is going to get destroyed by AV infantry, Reavers, and Bombers.

The goal will be to keep tanks to open areas fighting other tanks which is how I believe tanks should be used. If they roll into an infantry area with rocks they're silly AV cannon with what I can only imagine is a slower fire rate than before will leave them dead.

[Malorn]

Sirisian doesn't agree. Didn't see that coming.

[Baron]

I agree with Napalm's points. You're really reaching to make your arguments...

Actually given what information we know, Malorn isn't "reaching"... it's fairly good reasoning. Again, with what information we have.

[Hamma]

Sirisian doesn't agree. Didn't see that coming.
:lol:
I just went through Bags' Q&A doc, the info thread, and her lunch interview summary. No mention of the lightning at all, one way or the other. That does NOT mean there will be no lightning in PS2.
:confused: Bags is female?

[FIREk]

meh, the PS1 system was more Driver + Gunner = 1 AV Gun

New system is Driver + Gunner = 1 AV Gun + 1 AA/AI Gun.

The original system was the "bland gameplay". When you had 10 people you had 5ish tanks and 5 people gunning. You really needed to enjoy driving to assist players. For me it was dull. I don't play an FPS game to assist a player for hours. I need to shoot a gun. The new system has 10 people with either 5-10 tanks depending on the amount of AV needed. 10 AV only tanks is going to get destroyed by AV infantry, Reavers, and Bombers.

This makes a ton of sense, really.

There is one point of concern, still. Even if tanks will mostly be manned by 2 people (which is reasonable, since there are benefits to manning a comparably weak gun, but still superior to infantry weapons), will tanks' survivability be balanced around it being a 2-person or 1-person vehicle?
If it's the former, it's reasonable to expect higher survivability from tanks. If it's the latter, tanks will likely be as fragile as those in BFBC2.
I would prefer the former, even if it made my job as an AV trooper more difficult..

For this reason, a tank should always need 2 people to operate it, both with something with which to shoot stuff. This doesn't force the devs to gimp its armor (either before launch, or post-launch after tons of forum whining) to compensate for the possibility of it being a reasonably successful solo vehicle.
And yes, I'm very stubborn with my secondary-gun-for-the-driver concept. ;)

[Accuser]

Fully support everything Malorn has said. I see all the little zerglings taking a one-man tank into battle, with the vets and team players rolling tank+AA. People who take out reavers or fighters will quickly learn to stay away from the "no joke" AA within the mixed tank columns. So assuming that only one class has AV, and that 1 tank > 1 AV guy... why would you see anything else out in the field?

By the way, they're welcome to clone the Battlefield aiming system. The "no moving hindrance and minimal accuracy hindrance for moving" system of PS1 was crap.

[Malorn]

The new empire-specific fighters might also change the AA landscape quite a bit.

I expect MAX will have customization allowing them an AA option. I believe the reddit Q&A had Higby stating that there will be viable Infantry AA as well, so tanks may not require all that much AA to be effective.

I can also see solo-tankers running around with no gunner & an AA config. When Air shows up they stop, hop out and into the gunner seat and become an armored stationary "no joke" AA gun. People have done it for years with the Skyguard, so its fair to say we'll see it with tanks in PS2 as well.

Also, the main gun on tanks is not just AV - it's AI also. The only thing you can't effectively kill with it is aircraft (unless they fly low and slow/hover giving you a good shot) thus the default secondary config will be AA.

[Sirisian]

There is one point of concern, still. Even if tanks will mostly be manned by 2 people (which is reasonable, since there are benefits to manning a comparably weak gun, but still superior to infantry weapons), will tanks' survivability be balanced around it being a 2-person or 1-person vehicle?
If it's the former, it's reasonable to expect higher survivability from tanks. If it's the latter, tanks will likely be as fragile as those in BFBC2.
I would prefer the former, even if it made my job as an AV trooper more difficult.
I'm hoping it's balanced as a 2 person vehicle. That is it has a high armor value so that they're not easy kills for Reavers or Bombers. I'd hate to be using a liberator by myself (without a secondary tailgunner) and make a single one-hit dive bomb on a tank. I'm more of a fan of focused fire to destroy tanks.

Then again I'm in the camp that likes high TTKs so vehicle combat should give players a lot of choices when getting attacked rather than just giving up. Even the BF2142 tanks had a momentary shield to give players more choices. I know PS2 isn't going to do this, but imagine if tanks had straight up upgrades to add canister smoke grenades like the one's on real tanks.
http://sirisian.com/pictures/tanksmoke.gif
That or stealth modules for momentary cloaking of large vehicles. Anything to increase the complexity of a battle.

[moosepoop]

since bad company 2 had tank smoke grenades, smedly prolly will want it added in.

[NapalmEnima]

If buggies were a vital part of the vehicle balance, they wouldn't "hopefully" make it in -they would be must-haves for the game.

This statement means...

1) Buggies are not in.
2) Buggies are not must-have for launch.


With you so far...


3) Buggies have functional replacements in the game.


...and there we part ways. The eventual balance they're going for isn't necessarily what we'll see at launch.

On the third part we know that at least 2 functions of buggies have been specifically named:

- Mortar for Tanks => Marauder Ground Pounder
- Flak gun for Tanks => Skyguard


Err, no. I must disagree. The ground pounder was a grenade launcher: direct fire small AOE weapons with a relatively high rate of fire. Mortars are indirect-fire Really Big Shells with a relatively slow rate of fire.

Not the same thing at all.

Not so sure I agree with the "skyguard/tank flak" thing either, though its not so cut and dried.

"secondary guns are no joke"

It' pretty obvious that buggies are not in, might not get in, and their weapon systems and role have functional replacements in-game in the form of upgradable tanks.

It sounds to me like just about every weapon platform in the game is going to have a variety of weapons it can take.

There is no skyguard. Instead you have a tank with an upgradable secondary weapon system that you can convert into a flak cannon.

There is no marauder. Instead you have a tank with an upgradable secondary weapon system that you can convert into a ground pounder.

The PS1 Marauder is empire specific. Arguing that it's Role is now filled elsewhere has a serious flaw in that this role didn't exist in 2 of the empires.

The skyguard is far from the only AA option in PS1. It's not even the only Flak gun, particularly now. There was always the TR AA Max, now there's a base turret upgrade and a deployable as well.

It's the only dedicated AA vehicle in PS1. Fine. Yes, there are other vehicles that will be AA capable in PS2.


I suspect there is also a weapon system that replaces the enforcer rocket and probably the thresher flux cannon also.

I would also suspect that via upgrades to your tank you could make it faster and more maneuverable, almost like a buggy, possibly even with armor tradeoffs.

Could be. We don't know that either. I suspect the customization won't be able to take a tank quite that far, but it remains to be seen.

As far as I can tell they basically have a single key ground vehicle that can be upgraded and converted to fit all main battlefield needs. The two notable exceptions would be transportation (Sundy), mobile spawn point (AMS), and fast personal transportation (ATV).

And where did you get the idea that the ATV was in. I haven't seen that anywhere either.

I also noticed you didn't give any sort of answer to my "where did you get the 'no lightning'" thing. If you just misread something, please say so. If you can cite something, please do.

[Goku]

:confused: Bags is female?

That would be news to me as well. Explains the ponies perhaps? lol

[NapalmEnima]

That would be news to me as well. Explains the ponies perhaps? lol

Not sure where I picked up that impression. Must be the ponies.

[Malorn]

Enima, if you don't see how a flak cannon on a tank is a functional role replacement of a skyguard I don't know what to tell you. I don't agree with your nitpicking and I'm not going to write long point-counter-point quote chains arguing it. I just don't care enough. I think I made my point and I'll let other readers be the judge on whether it is worth further discussion.

[FIREk]

I'm hoping it's balanced as a 2 person vehicle. That is it has a high armor value so that they're not easy kills for Reavers or Bombers. I'd hate to be using a liberator by myself (without a secondary tailgunner) and make a single one-hit dive bomb on a tank. I'm more of a fan of focused fire to destroy tanks.

Well, it all depends on how much skill is put into the dive bomb. ;) Back when I played BF1942, I was an epic-level fighter pilot (no idea where that air combat skill went over the years, though:p). While tanks normally needed to bombs to blow up, I could often one-shot (one-drop?) a Tiger/M10 with just one bomb.
I would dive in and, just as I pulled up, I would release the bomb so that it would fly at a relatively flat angle, practically flying sideways into the side or rear armor. Bam! :)
I think that, just as a skilled sniper will (hopefully!) be able to one-shot non-MAX infantry with a headshot, the game should also reward bomber pilots for making tricky dive bombing runs.

Then again I'm in the camp that likes high TTKs so vehicle combat should give players a lot of choices when getting attacked rather than just giving up.

I understand what you're getting at, however I'm in the camp that likes short TTKs, so vehicle combat, while giving players many choices, forces them to make those choices really, really fast. ;)

Also, smoke grenades are teh shit - I definitely want them to be in the game. :)

[ThGlump]

Even the BF2142 tanks had a momentary shield to give players more choices. I know PS2 isn't going to do this, but imagine if tanks had straight up upgrades to add canister smoke grenades like the one's on real tanks.
This is exactly what should have been tank upgrades operated by driver. Shield for tank battles, smoke for running, flamethrower for defense from close soldiers, minefield clearing. There can be plenty what could driver do. Just dont ruin the game by giving them main weapon, because some feel that certing tank means shooting from it. It was always support (like AMS, or gal) - support your empire and cooperate with others. Not one man army. BFRs ruined the game with this mindset. Now theyre there from start :(

Whats next? Galaxy pilot complaining that he cant shoot?

[DviddLeff]

I was initially really concerned about the driver using the main gun decision.

I am and always have been a Mag driver in PS, I am a damned good gunner on occasion, but most of the time I am driving. I do not mind driving at all, but I'm a team player at heart and I would much rather be letting someone else have fun than know I am having fun at their expense.

What I really want to see is for tank drivers to be have the option to switch controls with the passenger, so the driver controls the secondary gun while the passenger controls the main cannon; solves the problem without developing any more as long as the driver can ONLY switch when there is a passenger in the tank.

I fully support the ability for tanks to kit themselves out with different weapons.

The potential loss of buggies I do not mind; as a VS we've been stuck with the Thresher as an option for years; we may as well have not had one.

[FIREk]

The potential loss of buggies I do not mind; as a VS we've been stuck with the Thresher as an option for years; we may as well have not had one.

Whereas I, as a TR player, had always wanted to drive a Thresher. So much so that, for a very long while, jacking a Thresher has been my main goal in the game. ;)

[Draep]

Making tanks 1 man operable seems to be the future skyguard of PS2. Yes, at first maybe people will opt to train more specialized infantry skills but because this system does not seem to limit your possibilities in terms of what you may eventually do, certing a tank may be the easiest way from getting from base to base, where you may dismount and rekit for indoor fighting.

[ThGlump]

Yea thats another thing. They made classes so they get rid of soldiers that can do everything, and at the same time they add tanks that can do everything with 1 person in it. Where is consistence in it?

[Kurtz]

You really needed to enjoy driving to assist players. For me it was dull. I don't play an FPS game to assist a player for hours. I need to shoot a gun.

Well, from the sound of the changes they're making it seems that you are the target market for this game. Meaning that they are trying to appeal to players like you. So you should be happy despite the fact that in 5 months this game the servers will be empty - just like every other server based shooter.

The difference between a MMOFPS and a server based shooter, is community and something else to do besides shooting a weapon. It is that ability to have an alternative style of game play, teamwork and community that adds to a games longevity.

Vehicles are only one small variable in the equation that makes up PS2.

[FIREk]

Yea thats another thing. They made classes so they get rid of soldiers that can do everything, and at the same time they add tanks that can do everything with 1 person in it. Where is consistence in it?

In PS1 you've got a lot of soldiers that can do something against vehicles, but really not too much. In PS2 you will have an entire class whose sole purpose will be to destroy vehicles, tanks included. While there will be a limited number of these, they will surely be a powerful counter to tanks, plus we don't yet know how powerful the other counters (like Libs and Reavers) will be. Depending on how tough it will be to switch from main gun+driving to the secondary AA gun, a solo tank can end up being quite defenseless against air.

[Zulthus]

Confirmed no AMS or cloaking vehicles, no buggies, no artillery, and no lightnings.



Source, please! Must have missed that one.

[NapalmEnima]

And lets not forget the humble jammer grenade. If jammers make a come-back in PS2, most/all infantry classes will have access to them, though it may be a cert.

Pop that tank with a jammer, and your squad-mates can punisher-rocket them to death unless they GTFO. And they'd better do it driving backwards or they're going to get those rockets in their soft rear armor.

I really hope they keep jammers.

[Azren]

I fully agree with the OP of this topic.

I belive that taking ideas from BF games was a very bad choice from SOE. The reason is simple: BF games are not meant to last. They are only supposed to hold a number of players until the next big BF title rolls out. Those games are set up for a short term gaming experience, not many years to come.

On the other hand we have PS, which may be the oldest multiplayer FPS still being played, and they choose to scrap the key aspects of it (the aspects that made players want to keep playing it after such a long time) in favor for "I WANT TO SHOOOT DAMNIT, NO SUPPORT" mentality... I start to wonder if we will be able to repair the tanks at all, or are they only a one use exposable item now.

PS2 really needs to scrap the idea of driver controlled main gun, and AA secondary weapons for tanks (PS1 tanks have AA capabilty too, but only in large numbers, that is a balance that works).

[Sirisian]

What I really want to see is for tank drivers to be have the option to switch controls with the passenger, so the driver controls the secondary gun while the passenger controls the main cannon; solves the problem without developing any more as long as the driver can ONLY switch when there is a passenger in the tank.
As I mentioned before this can't work. The gunner position has equal (or more) firepower than the driver. You can't just let a driver access AV, AA, or AI weapons. Allowing the driver to release the main cannon to a driver if they wished without giving them anything else is a far more balanced option.

The difference between a MMOFPS and a server based shooter, is community and something else to do besides shooting a weapon. It is that ability to have an alternative style of game play, teamwork and community that adds to a games longevity.
Couldn't agree with you more. Can't wait to have a gunner in my liberator to protect me from the ES fighters and get escorted by friendly ES fighters.

[Brusi]

Source, please! Must have missed that one.

Yeah, thats a biggie! When did they release that info?!

[sylphaen]

Here is what I think: planetside 2 is meant to be an infantry game.

IMO, forget the PS1 style tanks dedicated support-minded driving because everything will be centered around troop fights.

To make an intense and enjoyable trooper fight, you do not want a vehicle to drive-by and wipe the floor. This would disrupt the flow. Vehicles like tanks also tend to cover a lot of area so you can pack less people in a zone if you fill it with vehicles vs. infantry. (Air vehicles are an exception because they dont crowd out the ground but rather move the fight to a 3rd dimension)

I also hope that you enjoy shelling !
As many mentionned before me:
low durability in close-quarters = tanks used from far as artillery platforms

And with enough "bad accuracy" built into the cannons, it will even be more fun for infantry ! Very intense battles ! Shells were landing all around me as I fought heroically to defend the objective!!!


In short, ground vehicles will be in to offer some entertaining variety in gameplay (temporary "power-up") but most essentially, their true role will be to play targets for air vehicles and engineers.



PS2 will not necessarily be a bad change compared to PS1; it's just a completely different game under a same artistic direction.


I was a dedicated driver in PS1 but that will probably change. I disliked vehicle in BF2142 and I loved the support class. A decade after both games came out:

1. I still played PS again this year. It's very much due to having met great people in the game and always enjoying socializing with them.
2. I never bothered trying to interact socially with anyone in BF2142 since it was all about the chat spam & frag count (and spamming support class weapons was just way too addictive). Oh, and I never played BF2142 again after 3 months of playing it even though I had some fun.


To conclude this post, PS2 will live long if the social side works. If it does not well... It will have some success anyways !
> free game with brand new graphics
> 24/7 2000 people fragfest
> leaderboards and stats

There may definitely be a shortage of support oriented players (relativily to solo inflated ego killwhores profiles) but no FPS player is truly 100% support, or we wouldn't be playing with fire.
:P



RANT: To everyone who comment about how ground vehicles should be weak while planning to play air vehicles anyways, I do sincerely hope that if tanks get 2-shot from engineers, your planes will get one-shot by homing missiles you won't see coming. Don't take it too personally ! I say it for the good of the engineer class which you are so keen to see own vehicles.

What goes around should come around !

(I lied, you can take it personally. 10 years of getting farmed by reavers can make someone bitter. ^^ )

[Missundaztood]

What we've all got to remember is SOE are trying to attract new players to the game, and the majority will most probably come from a BF2/COD backgrounds. These games are attractive to these people for a reason!

Unfortunaltey if they soley concentrated on the existing gamer base (whilst important to consider suggestions from them) PS2 would turn out a failure just as PS1 did.

[Azren]

> free game with brand new graphics
> 24/7 2000 people fragfest
> leaderboards and stats

> graphics will be on the low end compared to other recent games due to the large number of players it needs to render
> will get boring without the support roles real fast for most people
> don't care about those, I care about capturing territory

Grunt combat should dominate inside buildings and forests only. I do agree that vehicles should not be attainable by just anyone (much like it is now), or we will end up with tank zergs when enemy attacks with grunts, reaver zergs when enemy uses tanks and AA MAX zergs when enemy uses reavers. Silly concept. There should be some limit in jumping between roles (like you can select 2 of your unlocked roles at a given time, changing the selection would be on a 6 hour cooldown)

[Azren]

What we've all got to remember is SOE are trying to attract new players to the game, and the majority will most probably come from a BF2/COD backgrounds. These games are attractive to these people for a reason!

Unfortunaltey if they soley concentrated on the existing gamer base (whilst important to consider suggestions from them) PS2 would turn out a failure just as PS1 did.

If SOE offers the same or similar to what BF/COD offers, those very same players will leave the second a shiny new BF/COD hits the market. If SOE wants to be smart about this, it would offer anything, but BF/COD mechanics.

[Missundaztood]

If SOE offers the same or similar to what BF/COD offers, those very same players will leave the second a shiny new BF/COD hits the market. If SOE wants to be smart about this, it would offer anything, but BF/COD mechanics.

Not necceasrily, PS2 will have far more depth and longevity than any current BF2/COD setup has. Character progression is where its at these days! COD/BF2 offers this on a limited basis but no way near the level PS2 will be on. I think in the end these games will strive towards a similar Planetside model.

therefore....

I actually think SOE are being clever in that they are tapping into a market that has not yet reached its full potential. Why play COD/BF2 when you can play a game similar in some respects but can offer you so much more?

They really need to market it properly, sod everything else, game mecahnics etc if theres a poor marketing campaign PS2 will fall flat on its arse!

[Malorn]

I was incorrect in stating that the lightning was confirmed.

That is an assumption based on the obvious overlap between the lightning and a 1-man MBT. The MBT is better in every way other than having a 12mm gun, which seems like a minor loss next to more armor and a far stronger main gun. With tech no longer required to get a MBT and no resource cost (and no need since you aren't running a gunner), the Lightning is obsolete.

I'd be shocked if it was in the plan given the current design facts.

[Kurtz]

I agree that it is smart of SOE to incorporate elements of BF/COD game style in order to beat those franchises to the punch.

I am for most of the changes they have implemented, but am cautious that combined they may create another completely different experience. We are all hoping to recreate those memories from long ago.

I have been pointing the guys at DICE to this game for a long time and was actually really disappointed that BF3 wasn't an MMOFPS. But luckily there is PS2.

[Raymac]

I know BF and COD are the big kids on the block and the obvious target, but there are a crap ton of other current fps games out there right now and coming soon that have many similarities. It's a genre. That's how it works. PS2 is probably going to have some similarities to Castle Wolfenstein and Goldeneye. "OMFG PS2 is on another planet? Doom clone."

[Talek Krell]

Similarity may be inevitable but I haven't heard the devs say that they really love Doom and are trying to take a lot of design lessons from it.

[basti]

I know BF and COD are the big kids on the block and the obvious target, but there are a crap ton of other current fps games out there right now and coming soon that have many similarities. It's a genre. That's how it works. PS2 is probably going to have some similarities to Castle Wolfenstein and Goldeneye. "OMFG PS2 is on another planet? Doom clone."

We should make a silly list of silly things that could make PS2 a silly close of some other silly game, just for the heck of it.

Like "It got a skybox, OMG EVERYTHING CLONE!"
It has shields OMG HALO CLONE!
It has tanks OMG BF CLONE!
It has a continent named Searhus OMG PLANETSIDE CLONE!
Wait, what?

[Raymac]

Similarity may be inevitable but I haven't heard the devs say that they really love Doom and are trying to take a lot of design lessons from it.

Because the game is older than time. Can you imagine the conniption fit these forums would have if they referred to something as ancient as Doom? I was making a point that either went over your head (not likely, you're smart) or you're kinda trollin.

EDIT: And Basti, it's funny you say that because when the teaser was first released on youtube, the comments were all "pffft Halo clone". haha

[Talek Krell]

We should make a silly list of silly things that could make PS2 a silly close of some other silly game, just for the heck of it.These feet are clearly a knockoff of Beyond Good & Evil.

[NapalmEnima]

I was incorrect in stating that the lightning was confirmed.
I suspect you're incorrect about a great many things.

That is an assumption based on the obvious overlap between the lightning and a 1-man MBT.

They're not one man MBTs. They're two seaters. Bigger. Slower. More armor. Heavier weapons.

In order to deal with infantry (give some half-decent cover) and air-to-ground, they will REQUIRE a gunner.

You keep shrieking out that the sky is falling, but I don't even see an acorn.

The MBT is better in every way other than having a 12mm gun, which seems like a minor loss next to more armor and a far stronger main gun. With tech no longer required to get a MBT and no resource cost (and no need since you aren't running a gunner), the Lightning is obsolete.

I'd be shocked if it was in the plan given the current design facts.

You're ignoring several important points.

1) Probable unlock tree. Like PS1, the lightning will probably be required before you can have access to tanks. We don't know that, but it's not a big stretch.
2) Speed and maneuverability. Lightning > MBT. Potentially by a huge margin depending on how they're spec'ed out. One person who wants A-to-B transportation and wants some armor/weaponry wrapped around them will take a lightning over an MBT unless they know they're going to run into other MBTs.
3) Independence. A Lightning isn't Just Fucked when the air and infantry show up. Oh, they're probably fucked when a reaver shows up (given my repeated experience with PS1), but they can in fact fight back, and have a shot at victory, however unlikely it might be. MBT vs A2G-> Just Fucked.

4) Packs of lightnings are FUN. A lightning squad can do pretty well against anything it runs into, even MBTs with the right terrain.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many of the secondaries from the MBTs make appearances as the primaries on the lightning, though scaled down a bit.

[Baron]

I suspect you're incorrect about a great many things.

You're ignoring several important points.



Maybe use "perhaps you have over looked several important points" ? No need to be passive-aggressive man, we are just discussing.


1) Probable unlock tree. Like PS1, the lightning will probably be required before you can have access to tanks. We don't know that, but it's not a big stretch.
2) Speed and maneuverability. Lightning > MBT. Potentially by a huge margin depending on how they're spec'ed out. One person who wants A-to-B transportation and wants some armor/weaponry wrapped around them will take a lightning over an MBT unless they know they're going to run into other MBTs.
3) Independence. A Lightning isn't Just Fucked when the air and infantry show up. Oh, they're probably fucked when a reaver shows up (given my repeated experience with PS1), but they can in fact fight back, and have a shot at victory, however unlikely it might be. MBT vs A2G-> Just Fucked.

4) Packs of lightnings are FUN. A lightning squad can do pretty well against anything it runs into, even MBTs with the right terrain.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that many of the secondaries from the MBTs make appearances as the primaries on the lightning, though scaled down a bit.

Those points are valid and indeed very reasonable. However if you can control your own main weapon on a MBT, the lightning will become even less of a presence on the battlefield. It will be a quick stepping stone to the MBT cert and most likely never be used by that player again (unless there are base requirements or some special outfit event).

[Talek Krell]

I was making a point that either went over your head (not likely, you're smart) or you're kinda trollin.I think I just don't understand the complaint. Like you said BF and COD are current and well known so they're good references. The devs have stated that they're pulling a lot of inspiration from Battlefield, and many of the changes they've shown us lean heavily toward that style of gameplay. People could and have formed coherent arguments that they're leaning closer to it than they ought to, so the accusation of it being a "BF clone" seems logical enough, if a little alarmist.

[Raymac]

I think I just don't understand the complaint. Like you said BF and COD are current and well known so they're good references. The devs have stated that they're pulling a lot of inspiration from Battlefield, and many of the changes they've shown us lean heavily toward that style of gameplay. People could and have formed coherent arguments that they're leaning closer to it than they ought to, so the accusation of it being a "BF clone" seems logical enough, if a little alarmist.

I see what you are saying, and I actually think I understand your point of view alot better. I agree with what you said there to a point. I think part of the issue with the devs repeatedly referring to BF is that we are running into this "tastes like chicken" perception. Of course everything doesn't taste like chicken, but we all know what chicken tastes like so when you are describing something new that tastes similar to chicken, you'll say it tastes like chicken. That doesn't mean it tastes exactly like chicken, but we are limited by our frame of reference.

Most of us know how BF plays, so it's a good frame of reference, but PS2 will obviously have its own flavor.

Also, I extremely appreciate your tone. I was getting a little snippy and bitchy, and you took the high road and kept the tone civil, so thank you very much.

[Talek Krell]

Ok, I think I understand what you mean now and I can't really fault you for it. Speaking for myself, at least, I don't expect that Planetside 2 will ever degrade into an actual Battlefield ripoff. Even if the only thing they took from Planetside was the scale it would still be pretty unique. My only real worry is that they may change enough of the original flavor that game just doesn't taste the way I'd hoped.

[BorisBlade]

When BFR's first came out i was all for adding weapon slot customization to vehicles. But as I began to think about it, I realized that you end up with bland vehicles and gameplay. One vehicle can equip a weapon for any situation then you only see that vehicle.

I think its more fitting to allow for tweaks or upgrades to the current weapons/role of a vehicle but not changing its role such as allowing for a buggy to have AA, unless its a skyguard. Yes it can get a 15mm or whatever that does ok, but its no where near as good as flak. Same with a tank, it has its AV, and its AI sidegun. But it stays out of the heavy AA department and no grenade/mortal style guns. Just tweaks and upgrades to its given role. If you want AA, you get the skyguard, if you want AV/armor you get the tank. Buggies tho could have two versions, AI and AV, because they fill a different role than tanks, much less armor, but much faster and more maneuverable. This allow for the introduction of new vehicles to fit various niches or roles. If you can change up weapons too much like they talk about, you really dont need new stuff. And thats boring.

Having vehicles more limited also allows for much cooler stuff for specialization. Buggies with a turbo button to help with hit and run, maybe a salvo mode to hit hard then run. And so forth with all vehicles.

And again we gotta have pilots not be gunners unless its a small vehicle like a lightning. The gameplay should focus on teamwork. If we are gonna have 1500-2000 people, you should be focusing on gettin them to work together. PS1 had the best core vehicle design i ever saw in a game. It was awesome. (and btw no he didnt mention lettin us have ps1 style "pilot only" option, he said maybe you could pilot and use teh secondary gun with someone else on the main, still a bad idea but better) The devs must learn what really made PS memorable. You never hear stories about vehicle fights in BF and how you had a ton of fun with friends for hours. Those vehicles, much like the PS2 tank design, are just buffs for solo players. They dont feel like vehicles. You dont get that epic feel when you drive and gun and go all rambo style alone. You feel disconnected. I want to feel part of my empire, have my friends gunning away while i focus on my skills as a driver. These vehicles must be redesigned. Its central to the gameplay of PS and its epic feel and its community that it creates.

If you want to cater to casual friendless tards, then design a lightning for em, let em use a reaver, but give the rest of us who play a massively MULTIPLAYER game, actually play with our friends and work as a team. And maybe you can cater to those of us who want that, and who want to specialize in being a driver.

One reason they dont have buggies, the fail solo style vehicles dont work well with fast hit and run vehicles like buggies. You gotta have two people with one being a focused pilot only. But doin that makes you feel gimp next to rambo solo'n with his tank buff and you wonder why you even got the buggy in the first place.

I have been playing PS lately with some friends for several months, and 98% of the time outdoors im driving a vehicle, i rarely gun. I was excited as all hell to see i could upgrade and specialize my vehicles to support my crew. Finding out PS2 is all about being selfish turned me off to vehicles completely. And after speaking with friends this seems to be a huge deal to them, turned quite a few of em off to the game with that news. Lets rethink this and get it right. Its the teamwork that makes it different and fun, not the solo aspects, any game can do solo (and most do).

[sylphaen]

Finding out PS2 is all about being selfish turned me off to vehicles completely.

Quite well said, it echoes my sentiment that I tried to convey when I mention support mindset players. But you say it much better.
^^

[CutterJohn]

When BFR's first came out i was all for adding weapon slot customization to vehicles. But as I began to think about it, I realized that you end up with bland vehicles and gameplay. One vehicle can equip a weapon for any situation then you only see that vehicle.

Unless the vehicle chassis have different strengths and weaknesses.


"Oh god! Tanks will be the only vehicle because they can fit every weapon!"

No. They can't. They can fit different weapons. They can fit some AA, or some AI. This does not it will be the best AA or AI platform in all circumstances, or even most.

And they can still be balanced on performance. I can think of differences and roles that would make both a buggy class and a tank class useful. Why can noone else?

Lets try.

A buggy does not set off mines. Holy crap thats not useful at all. Nobody would ever drive them.

A buggy can go twice as fast as a tank and hence respond to threats quicker. USELESS!

A buggy has a jump pack to let it clear terrain obstacles and get to places tanks can't, or get there much quicker. Bleh.

Oh no! The buggy found itself a galaxy to cart it around! Why would anyone EVER want that?

Oh look! The buggy has a 2 minute respawn timer while the tanks is ten minutes!!!one!!11 Doesn't matter cause tanks never die or something.

Waaaa! Why do the buggies upgrades all cost 33% as much as the tanks?

Go. Play. Battlezone. A bunch of different vehicles with different levels of mobility, different uses. Some weapons are unique to certain vehicles. Some are not. They are all useful in their own way. Making nothing but the biggest, baddest tanks with the most firepower and slowest speed is a very quick way to lose.


Or not and just assume SOE is absolutely horrid at balance and will do the worst possible job.

[Sirisian]

Speaking of what CutterJohn wrote I'll explain how a tank SHOULD function (imo). All of them should use slow firing shells. If you're an infantry and there's a tank next to you then you should feel safe knowing it's not going after you with the main gun. That is if it fires at you from 100m then you can just sprint out of the way. It's not in the tank's best interest to go for long ranged kills on infantry. It will focus on fighting armor at that point which is how I feel a tank should be used with just a driver. With a gunner it should focus on using long ranged rockets or motors. This reserves things like machine guns to buggies and other vehicles.

This leaves buggies to fulfill other weapon choices.

[CutterJohn]

Speaking of what CutterJohn wrote I'll explain how a tank SHOULD function (imo). All of them should use slow firing shells. If you're an infantry and there's a tank next to you then you should feel safe knowing it's not going after you with the main gun. That is if it fires at you from 100m then you can just sprint out of the way. It's not in the tank's best interest to go for long ranged kills on infantry. It will focus on fighting armor at that point which is how I feel a tank should be used with just a driver. With a gunner it should focus on using long ranged rockets or motors. This reserves things like machine guns to buggies and other vehicles.

I don't really care how it should or should not be used. My only point was that the chassis and the weapons that chassis can carry can all be balanced so that its not the supreme being on the battlefield and the only viable choice. You can make something the best choice in particular circumstances without making it the best choice in all circumstances, or the only choice for that particular circumstance. Role overlap is perfectly fine.

[sylphaen]

More than anything, we would need to hear more about the gameplay vision of the devs. Knowing how they intend the game to be played will be more helpful than getting facts like "non-turret mag cannon" or "MAX can melee" (even though knowing something is better than nothing).

The interesting part is the design decision behind a choice to implement something. For example, knowing they are trying to achieve a faster gameplay is useful to understand the other design decisions like faster TTK.

Up until now, I don't think they have said anything about the role/purpose of vehicles or I missed it.

[cellinaire]

(... Well, some of you guys remember saying like "PS1 would die as soon as PS2 arrives. It's sad but true. And PS2 will be uber hehe can't wait" in one of the older threads in this forum? )

BTW, we still don't know if ALL vehicles in PS2 will let drivers also gun their own vehicles. Furthermore, I personally only don't agree with the specific notion that all players will only use vehicles in which drivers also can shoot projectiles. But don't get me wrong here, cause' .......
just think about situation where there're 3 magriders and 4 veteran players. Two of these players choose to drive&gun, while two remaining players decide to team up and use the single tank. In addition, the first two tanks which don't have dedicated gunners receive penalties like decreased shooting range/speed, decreased damage, decreased accuracy and decreased rotation speed/increased reload time, compared to the last tank which has dedicated gunner in it's position with no such penalties.

Lastly, let's suppose without separate dedicated gunner, few of the weapon/vehicle fuctionalities can't even be used. So what I'm trying to say here is that, without teamwork vehicles can't flex their muscles even 80%. The price one-manned vehicle has to pay should be huge. And of course I agree with the rest of your concerns here.



=)

(I have to say again that I don't like "drivers can also be gunners" idea myself.)

[Talek Krell]

More than anything, we would need to hear more about the gameplay vision of the devs. Knowing how they intend the game to be played will be more helpful than getting facts like "non-turret mag cannon" or "MAX can melee" (even though knowing something is better than nothing).Agreed. At this point we desperately need more pieces of the puzzle to begin forming a more accurate version of the larger picture. The devs stated in one of the more recent pieces that there were at least a few vehicles in the game that weren't in PS1 at all. Between those and the ones that we haven't heard about yet, like the lightning and the deli, there's a lot of important information that we may be missing.

[Malorn]

Unless the vehicle chassis have different strengths and weaknesses.

This is really important and part of the core concept of tradeoffs. Each chassis should have different strengths and weaknesses, and they should be significant.

I think buggies have some great potential for different advantages. Its one reason of many why I think they should not only be in the game, but part of the core balance right from the beginning. I don't want them to be an add-on accessory as a throw-back cookie for the vets.

Ideas for how Buggies can add diversity and the buggy chassis offer distinct advantage vs a tank would be a great topic all itself Cutter. I hope Higby and T-Ray and others are listening. I liked the vehicle diversity in PS1. I liked how buggies had distinct roles and purpose. I was quite disappointed when I read that buggies weren't in and would hopefully be added. It just screams that they aren't important to core vehicle gameplay. Its a shame they're going the direction they are with it.

More than anything, we would need to hear more about the gameplay vision of the devs.

I would very much like them to sit down and not just tell us how things are but explain the why behind the decisions and a more detailed vision for ground vehicle combat, teamwork dynamics, and balancing.

If anyone watched some of the sessions from the Microsoft BUILD conference that revealed Windows 8, there was one talk by the guy who designed the new UI where he walked through the principles of what the core UI principles were and more importantly why they made the design decisions that they did. I would like to see something like that from the PS2 devs with respect to some of these big changes.

[CutterJohn]

I was quite disappointed when I read that buggies weren't in and would hopefully be added. It just screams that they aren't important to core vehicle gameplay. Its a shame they're going the direction they are with it.

Wait what?!

No buggies? :mad:

When was this said? We can't just have tanks dammit..

[Malorn]

The interview last week. Its one of the reasons I made this thread...


Look at the PS2 info thread, the interview from 9/15. First and last items on the list are what is stirring up a lot of concern.


• Drivers gun their own vehicles too
• Buggies on list of things to put in, hopefully

Its the lack of certainty in the statement which gives the message that it isn't critical to the game but something they want to add. The "hopefully" part says to me that they can/will ship the game without if if they have to.

[2coolforu]

A simple solution would be to perhaps make 2 seperate cert trees for tanks, one can produce a tank that the driver guns himself and the other tree produces a tank that requires someone else to gun the main cannon. The one man tank would be similar to a lightning relative to the two man tank however that's the price that driver pays to put in zero effort to teamwork, the reward he gets is the most powerful one man frontline combat vehicle. The two man tank driver gets a far more powerful tank at the cost of requiring teamwork and sacrificing getting all the glory, obviously he would recieve a massive assist bonus and he would have the benefit of being 'that guy with the awesome tank' and everyone would want to hop in.

[Accuser]

A simple solution would be to perhaps make 2 seperate cert trees for tanks, one can produce a tank that the driver guns himself and the other tree produces a tank that requires someone else to gun the main cannon.

That is a phenomenally elegant solution. One-man-army solo players will have their jacked up lightning, and team players who are willing to drive without gunning can have a tank that is significantly more powerful than 2 one-man-army tanks.

[Sirisian]

Not sure why you want to enable that forced teamwork mentality of a driver relying on a gunner so much. It doesn't really add anything to the vehicle combat since it just removes weapons from a driver. I really don't think the game should reward people for giving up their own fun for others. Even if you don't see it that way it's true. I think the game can balance teamwork in other more enjoyable ways. I shouldn't have to give up the main driver AV cannon just so I can be on par with a player that decided they'd let someone else gun. If two people decide they want to kill some tanks faster they can just pull two tanks.

Also if you're not into combat in vehicles you might choose galaxy piloting. There's no gun there, but if you're going to use a primarily offensive vehicle be expected to have a weapon.

[BorisBlade]

I agree with Napalm's points. You're really reaching to make your arguments. Your assumptions about the role of vehicles in PS2 is mostly based on an argument that a vehicle used by one person isn't as a good as a system of mandatory teamwork.

You're also making assumptions about balance since you want this system to be like BF. Chances are it's not going to be exactly like that. I imagine it's still going to take a few passes from a Reaver/Bomber and a lot of hits from tank to kill another tank. (Picture long range battles on an open field where tanks are trading shells back and forth).

meh, the PS1 system was more Driver + Gunner = 1 AV Gun

New system is Driver + Gunner = 1 AV Gun + 1 AA/AI Gun.

The original system was the "bland gameplay". When you had 10 people you had 5ish tanks and 5 people gunning. You really needed to enjoy driving to assist players. For me it was dull. I don't play an FPS game to assist a player for hours. I need to shoot a gun. The new system has 10 people with either 5-10 tanks depending on the amount of AV needed. 10 AV only tanks is going to get destroyed by AV infantry, Reavers, and Bombers.

The goal will be to keep tanks to open areas fighting other tanks which is how I believe tanks should be used. If they roll into an infantry area with rocks they're silly AV cannon with what I can only imagine is a slower fire rate than before will leave them dead.

First of all you are wrong, second, give me the much better PS1 style tanks, and i'll drive then you can gun and you will do 10x better since you dont have to drive too. I dont wanna gun, i def dont wanna gun and drive at the same time, i wanna just drive. And since they wouldnt have to balance them as just solo buffs like the pilot=gunner idea would do, you would live alot longer and alow for more strategy and fun. If you want to solo they should let you have your reavers or lightnings, this is multiplayer with a zillion people and should focus on teamwork not solo. Socially oriented games keep players longer than ones that are solo oriented and are just hella more fun...yeah i just said hella.

[Sirisian]

give me the much better PS1 style tanks, and i'll drive then you can gun and you will do 10x better since you dont have to drive too.
That's why I'm a big proponent of letting drivers that aren't good at twitch based decision making release the AV gun to their gunner. However, you shouldn't penalize a skilled two person team that's using the weapons to their fullest. If someone is good at both driving and gunning at the same time it's going to show. Always cracked me up when I saw people using the lightning and they'd just spam rounds hoping for damage instead of practicing their shots and hit every round. This vehicle combat change is really going to be a wake-up call for players that can't multi-task.

Like I said before though I'm sure the game will allow some less combat intensive roles and classes.

To sum up your last few points though I feel the game shouldn't be balanced around the forced teamwork mechanic of "1 person doing nothing means the second person has 2x damage on their weapon". It isn't really necessary.

[Malorn]

A simple solution would be to perhaps make 2 seperate cert trees for tanks, one can produce a tank that the driver guns himself and the other tree produces a tank that requires someone else to gun the main cannon. The one man tank would be similar to a lightning relative to the two man tank however that's the price that driver pays to put in zero effort to teamwork, the reward he gets is the most powerful one man frontline combat vehicle. The two man tank driver gets a far more powerful tank at the cost of requiring teamwork and sacrificing getting all the glory, obviously he would recieve a massive assist bonus and he would have the benefit of being 'that guy with the awesome tank' and everyone would want to hop in.

I can see some sharing of certs since single-man and teamwork tanks are similar vehicles, but otherwise I like this idea.

From the PC gamer interview higby also mentions the empire-specific fighters have the same sort of characteristics as the tanks - one-size-fits-all, however they still retain the mosquito and reaver, which seems strange to me.

Fundamentally someone trains up a 2-man tank to be a strong team player. It's another support role. They seem to understand that a medic or engineer doesn't train up those things to help themselves - a tank driver, gal pilot, or bomber pilot is no different. A gun is not necessary, but like Planetside 1 there should be options for people who want that one-man army style. But they should also always be significantly weaker than the teamwork vehicles.

This is precisely what I see missing in PS2.

[Sifer2]

Yeah I think that comment about them basically making the BFR mistake over again is dead on. And they don't even realize what they are doing. They just get too carried away with the ideas of all these imaginary subs they will get if they just make this a little easier or that a bit more accessible. An then before you know it the whole thing is broken like it was with BFR's with solo pwn mobiles.

I'm kind of losing the faith already. SOE always does this it seems like. They want more money so they try changing this an that an ruin their games. Every time history just repeats itself. Too early to say for sure of course but its already pointing that way.

[moosepoop]

this is because sony is a monolithic , strictly hiearchal company. profit is number 1. where is other companies like valve, making a good game is number 1.

if you make an amazing game, it will sell itself. treat the playerbase like numbers on a histogram never works out well.