Solo play and Team play.

[nomotog]

This isn't about solo play Vs team play. Far as I care, team play is the way this game is meant to be played. But. Did anyone notice the change in outlook for PS2.

When I was following the development of PS1, it looked like the devs hated solo players. Not saying they personally hated the concept, but the systems they where implementing where all about forcing team play. It was like they wanted team play to be Required. That's required with a capital R.

Now PS2 comes around and I am noticing a different idea. They don't seem to be requiring team play as much. It's not that they don't want team play. It's more like they are making the game so that team play is easy rather then required. You can be a solo player and still help and work with other people.

Small changes seem to suggest this. Gal transports are empire based which means you don't gave to get in a squad to use one or to perform an air drop onto the battle field. You could be a solo gal pilot and still give a massive benefit to your empire.

What do you think? Do you think there is a change in thinking? Is this change a good thing?

[TheRagingGerbil]

If anything they are forcing us to be more team orientated. With the restrictions of the classes you are no longer going to be a one man army.

I suspect the gal spawning will work just as the AMS's did in PS1. Give the ability to lock to platoon or squad.

[moosepoop]

If anything they are forcing us to be more team orientated. With the restrictions of the classes you are no longer going to be a one man army.

I suspect the gal spawning will work just as the AMS's did in PS1. Give the ability to lock to platoon or squad.

the class system is one step forward. the solo tank concept is two steps back.

i suspect the intention of class system is not really to promote teamwork, but blindly imitating bad company 2.

[TheRagingGerbil]

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Am I upset that I won't be able to carry my sniper rifle and my jackhammer as well as a med gun and armor gun? Sure. But that is the one man kill whore in me. When playing with my outfit I would always specialize more because I knew there was someone there to support me. This system is going to make people seek out others to back them up. If they don't they will have a substantially short life expectancy.

[moosepoop]

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Am I upset that I won't be able to carry my sniper rifle and my jackhammer as well as a med gun and armor gun? Sure. But that is the one man kill whore in me.

and if tanks can be soloed, the killwhore in ME would wreak havoc. but for fairness and integrity i am firmly opposed to the idea.

[NapalmEnima]

the class system is one step forward. the solo tank concept is two steps back.

i suspect the intention of class system is not really to promote teamwork, but blindly imitating bad company 2.

You clearly don't think much of people who make their living at designing games, while a lot of yourself who clearly doesn't.

There have been MANY FPS games with classes. Tribes (class = pack), TF1-2, Sunday Night Firefight, All the CoDs (3, 4, MW2) I've played, ditto for the Battlefields (2 and 2142).

Picking one recent example out of the heard and saying they're blindly copying it seems to show your ignorance or your dislike of the devs. At least ignorance is curable.

I wholeheartedly agree that classes do a lot to promote team play. Your squad will NEED someone of class X if you're going to be able to handle situation Y... whatever X and Y happen to be.

I've vigorously flogged the 1-seat MBT > 2-seat in other threads, no need to rehash it here. Suffice it to say that I disagree.

[Raymac]

i suspect the intention of class system is not really to promote teamwork, but blindly imitating bad company 2.

Considering how they are making a brand new genre-defining game unlike any other, I don't think they are "blindly imitating" anything. Frankly, they'd be extremely foolish to not implement ideas that are successful in other games out there. All game developers do that because if they don't, you end up with some "wtf japan" type game like Catherine.

The devs have repeatedly said that PS2 will be team based, but it seems there will be varying degrees of that teamwork. We'll have highly organized outfits on 1 end of the spectrum and casual players following missions that just point their guns in the right direction on the other end of the spectrum.

Personally, I think that's a nice balance because sometimes you want to just jump into a game for 15-30 mins, but sometimes you want to have day-long marathon sessions with one organized raid after the other.

[Legion]

I second what Raymac says. Allows you to play whetever way you want. Play solo when there are no outfit members on and as a team when you have friends. Makes sense.

[Redshift]

the class system is one step forward. the solo tank concept is two steps back.

i suspect the intention of class system is not really to promote teamwork, but blindly imitating bad company 2.

seconded, the class system will force teamwork (although i'm still not convinced it's a good thing atm)

But the solo tank thing, well that completly annihilates teamwork, unless the secondary weapon is enough to outweigh the extra gun and double armour rolling two solo tanks would give you

[Legion]

Maybe we are looking at this all the wrong way with the single tank pilot/gunner situation. This way you and your friend can work as a team in two tanks. You will most definitely need to work as a team to tank down all the one manned tanks on the battlefield. In that respect, I think it promotes teamwork.

[Sirisian]

Maybe we are looking at this all the wrong way with the single tank pilot/gunner situation. This way you and your friend can work as a team in two tanks. You will most definitely need to work as a team to tank down all the one manned tanks on the battlefield. In that respect, I think it promotes teamwork.
Nah the people against the new design understand that. They prefer forced teamwork where one player relies on another.

I personally don't need that to enjoy the game and much prefer seeing vehicles working together in groups using combined fire so everyone is taking part in the combat. Much like when I pull a liberator teamwork to me isn't having someone bombing for me. It's having a mossy flying next to me to protect me. Different viewpoints.

[Raka Maru]

When I'm in something heavy like tank, bfr, etc... I tend to seek out teamwork. It just works better. But when I'm a cloaker and determined to do something, I don't need a team for most missions. Sometimes they come near to me and give away my position or I get hit by shells meant for the uncloaked.

There shouldn't need to be forced teamwork. Just let it happen by giving tools to promote it. Just like SEP came along one year and rewarded those who already loved doing that stuff.

[Captain B]

The problem is if people wanted teamwork you'd see more community in MMOs, and the sad fact is you don't. Teamwork has to be a necessity for many (dare I say most) for it to be used. We can discuss factoids until we're blue in the face, but there's a reason you see people running around solo in games like BF, racking up kills, and mass groups organizing armored columns in PS. Sure, the game is different, but one of those differences is a reliance on other people to do something specific; in this case, drive or even fly.

People aren't going to wait around or squad up if they can spawn a tank and drive off. Sure it isn't "as good" as having a second person (potentially), but getting some super duper uber noober as your gunner isn't much better, and many (dare I say again most) are going to think that very thing and speed off into battle.

Whether that's right or wrong is its own argument, but the second argument is, should that be the "norm" (solo MBTs, not Lightnings or anything), then tanks will be severely disappointing and paper-thin to account for it. This makes true treadheads very sad pandas.

[Sirisian]

The problem is if people wanted teamwork you'd see more community in MMOs, and the sad fact is you don't. Teamwork has to be a necessity for many (dare I say most) for it to be used. We can discuss factoids until we're blue in the face, but there's a reason you see people running around solo in games like BF, racking up kills, and mass groups organizing armored columns in PS. Sure, the game is different, but one of those differences is a reliance on other people to do something specific; in this case, drive or even fly.
You think that's the reason why BF plays the way it is? Why people go running off and jump into a plane in a 32 player game or take the tank and don't wait for people? The TTK has nothing to do with that? The fact that people just join a random game and play a few matches then leave has nothing to do with it?

Let's take PS and compare it. In PS2 let's assume 4 people grab 2 tanks and work as a team using voice comms in a squad. Now imagine instead you grab a tank and go rushing off with no one else. How can the game not reward that? I mean obviously that player has AV only. He'd either need to go for easy kills assuming AV is balanced to kill AI easily (I've explained numerous times that the shell needs to travel slowly so players can sprint out of the way of an AV round and see it coming). Or he needs to stick around people with AA and AI. Would that be teamwork? He's just using them to survive while he uses his AV cannon to kill things.

Meanwhile the 2 tanks that have gunners (one AA and one AI) are able to merrily kill things themselves. TTK is important in all of this. If a single tank can kill a buggy in 2 shots then it's a lot more likely to be used solo. If a buggy can just run away after getting hit 3 times then it's a lot less likely that tank would be used as a solo weapon. Especially if infantry can dodge the round and aren't an easy kill.

[Captain B]

I've read the arguments already.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of "math" being thrown about but no real common sense. If common sense among gamers was a little more apparent, games like WoW would have failed by Year Two if they had been developed at all. That is not the case, and so we have instances of 6 players in a genre called "massively multiplayer". Hell, I got more people playing Guardian Heroes on my Sega Saturn back in '95 than I roll with on "traditional MMOs" today!

I'm not saying you can't have teamwork with a mass of single-manned tanks (one argument in all of this), but if you do, tanks would have to be severely weakened to account for all the ass rolling around the continent (second argument of this revelation). If not they would be too powerful and severely limit the affect of infantry when everyone can drive around with extra armor and a big cannon to quickly and (relatively) safely get to where they need to go. In this case, they become little more than power ups or, on the other hand, nothing more than tracked BFRs.

I hated being a driver when I didn't know anyone. Sat around waiting a lot for a gunner. Same running up and jumping in a vehicle, waiting for the driver to go towards the explosions on the map interface. I get why people would like to do more as a driver, and with that, I agree (for the most part) with the direction of this premise. But giving a Vanguard driver the ability to fire his main cannon? Sorry, but you're throwing around some pretty small numbers with all these "take 2" and "compare 4".

Take forty and compare eighty. Throw in about two hundred and another four hundred for good measure. The difference in effect between fifty "two man tanks" and one hundred "solo tanks" is a staggering difference when it comes to force multiplication. Those fifty are screwed.

(There's an actual principle applied here, developed in WW2 I think, about this very thing. I forget what it's called, but it's basically that you aren't just fighting two enemies on your own, thus dividing fire [disadvantage], but that the enemy is able to focus fire without immediate regard for additional threats [advantage]. Somehow they are related issues, but separate, and so "stackable" when it comes to determining enemy strength and ability. Maybe I murdered the principle or completely misunderstood it, but that's what I got from it [not a real soldier!].)

Also, save the "what about air" arguments and secondary AA weapons. With entire outfits that can focus on air benefits, the skies could be favoring either side on that fact alone, or neither of them (be they empty or filled with dog-fighting aircraft) for that matter. Leave that factor out as it is far too much of a wild variable to even begin to consider, much like saying "there could be infantry with AA alongside the armor". Yes, there could be - on both sides.

Or even Vanu stepping in and mucking things up!

[Legion]

One glaring difference between the Battlefield games and the Planetside games is that in Battlefield there are a limited number of tanks that spawn and the number of tanks is capped per map. In Planetside there can be as many tanks are there are players and the game limits them by timers. We can all see how this could get out of hand if all you needed was one man to drive and shoot. The only limitation could be certificates to the number of people who could roll out a tank, but as it has been said all this hypothesizing will do us no good. Things will become more clear when we get our hands on the beta. Also, if there are so many of these solo tanks then they would prime opportunities for some reavers, and we can just take to the skies because I can fly and shoot a reaver by myself.

[Sirisian]

Unfortunately, there's a lot of "math" being thrown about but no real common sense.
Also, if there are so many of these solo tanks then they would prime opportunities for some reavers, and we can just take to the skies because I can fly and shoot a reaver by myself.
Speaking of math. We can go a bit further and bring in population control graphs. (Assuming everyone ditches infantry AV for some reason? (Hiding behind a tree and firing a rocket launcher at a dumb tank?) Anyway as tanks go up, Reavers, AV MAX, and infantry AV go up. As Reavers, AV, MAX, and Infantry AV go up then AI (maxes, AI vehicles) AA goes up (maxes, gunners in tanks).

Okay if you hated math in HS you'd hate me for saying this, but there is a pure mathematical model for simulating all of this. It begins with poisson processes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_process). It describes a closed system and entering and exiting rates in a system to find the total population at anyone time. Now we have one closed system, the continent. I'll skip the math. Use logic. If there are 200 people there cannot be 200 tanks. That would mean no one is dying. We also have Lotka-Veolterra's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equation) predator-prey equations with tons of dependent sets. If the developers have any math people (and game programmers are normally math people) they know these equations and are familiar with how to balance a system.

Common sense isn't going to help you with such a complex system.

(Totally off-topic, but this is the same math, poisson processes, along with other amazing statistics stuff that finds how many people might be on a cellular tower utilizing a feature to make sure they're not over demanded. Same idea can be applied to balance to control timers. Timers represent the minimum arrival rate in the poisson process thus totally changing how a system functions. Imagine if you can pull a tank every 5 minutes a reaver can be pulled every 2 minutes. What happens? Predator-prey explains that along with other math to tell you the total populations not just globally but per area! :love:).

// Edit, Bit more complicated also. Predator-prey doesn't try to calculate the probability of a bunch of deer killing a wolf which can happen in PS. :lol:

I'm not saying you can't have teamwork with a mass of single-manned tanks (one argument in all of this), but if you do, tanks would have to be severely weakened to account for all the ass rolling around the continent (second argument of this revelation).
Flawed argument. First for assuming there would be a lot of them. Second for assuming they need to be weak to keep population low. In fact if you scale the TTK uniformly everything can appear to be strong and hard to kill. So it might take 4 passes with a Reaver to kill a tank rather than 2. However the tank AA might take 3 of those pass to kill a Reaver.Doesn't change the outcome usually if you uniformly scale a system. Just changes the time. (A little more complex in a real-time game because the plane is making passes).

[Captain B]

One glaring difference between the Battlefield games and the Planetside games is that in Battlefield there are a limited number of tanks that spawn and the number of tanks is capped per map. In Planetside there can be as many tanks are there are players and the game limits them by timers. We can all see how this could get out of hand if all you needed was one man to drive and shoot. The only limitation could be certificates to the number of people who could roll out a tank, but as it has been said all this hypothesizing will do us no good. Things will become more clear when we get our hands on the beta. Also, if there are so many of these solo tanks then they would prime opportunities for some reavers, and we can just take to the skies because I can fly and shoot a reaver by myself.

I agree, Legion. I feel that in the end, the beta will sort this out. If it doesn't, it really wouldn't be a surprise to me judging by SOE's track record in the past (I do hope they pull this one off right!). But either way, I have faith in this team's efforts, and as T-Ray said, if it doesn't work in beta, it's out!

As a sidenote, I do plan on forming an air outfit, but I still feel strongly about the tank issue because it does suggest some perspectives about the game that don't quite line up with how I view PlanetSide the First's teamwork infrastructure. This could be nothing more than a speedbump or even a reevaluation, or it could be something dreadful - like pushing the game back to 2013! :cry:

[sylphaen]

[Disclaimer: I am the kind that prefers crew-play vehicles.]

@Sirisian:
I've explained numerous times that the shell needs to travel slowly so players can sprint out of the way of an AV round and see it coming

I'll be off-topic but I disagree very strongly with slow shells on tanks as a way to balance 1-man tanks.

If the shells are made slow enough that a soldier can sprint out of the way, how would it be even possible to hit other vehicles ?

Wouldn't it imply that tanks are slower than a soldier ? If tanks are slower than a soldier, wouldn't it then mean that they are an easy target for air vehicles and soldier AV ?
:huh:

If you believe Air and Infantry AV should have easy tank kills and that tanks should only be competitive vs. other tanks (snails pace flail-fight !), then I understand how it could seem rational to you.

However, in my opinion, this would make a terribly bad/boring gameplay for tanks. I will not go as far as to say that you hate ground vehicles play but we do have 2-very different visions.

In my view, imposing balance by nerfing the effectiveness of a gun/vehicle to nothingness will simply mean that vehicle/weapon will not be used.

I'm surprised you did not propose to nerf Rate-of-fire instead of nerfing the effectiveness of the weapon. If a nerf is to be given in order to protect infantry-side, it would sound more sensible to keep a powerful/effective main-gun but make it less frequently useable.

In such a way:
- AI secondary-gun would be useful because of large timelapse between main-gun shots (and not because main-gun shots are useless)
- it would not force a solo tank player to depend on the zerg for cover against a ridiculously small number of troops (picture 2 guys with AV guns who keep dodging your shells... You might as well bail and use your rifle instead of the tank), but you would still get blasted vs. large infantry packs because you can't fire enough times to clear them all before they get you.
- tanks wouldn't need to be as slow and it would make tank battles exciting
- tanks wouldn't need to be as slow and it would make aircav job more challenging
- tanks wouldn't need to be as slow and could cover more ground
etc...


In short, I think slow-shells is a terrible idea and would dumb down the game. As mentionned in the beginning, I am a proponent of crew controlled ground vehicles because that is the gameplay I prefer. However, as you can see above, I also think 1-man vehicles can be implemented in a fun way.

My kind (the crew-oriented vehicle players) are not space-aliens. We are first and foremost ground armor players. What we want is a fun ground vehicle gameplay that can also be shared with someone else. I would put my hand on fire that none of us is against 1-man tanks if it's a well done gameplay that benefits both the driver and the gunner fun-wise.

We want to have fun, we want our gunners to have fun, we want aircav to have fun, we want infantry to have fun, we want support players to have fun, we want killwhores to have fun, etc... And this is only possible in a game which offers very diverse and balanced gameplay.

A game where everyone enjoys his time is not only a truly well-balanced game, it is a successful game.


(Looking back at the thread title, I just realized I may not be so off-topic after all :groovy: )

[sylphaen]

Hell, I got more people playing Guardian Heroes on my Sega Saturn back in '95 than I roll with on "traditional MMOs" today!

Oh... The memories !!! Greatest Beat'Em Up I have ever played...
<3

Thank you, I really went back in time there ! Panzer Dragoon too... I wish I still had my Saturn.